Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - bitsapphire

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 21
46
General Discussion / Re: Privatizing BitAssets
« on: April 18, 2015, 11:50:23 pm »
Quote from: Bitcoinfan on April 18, 2015, 09:07:38 pm
Quote from: jcrubino on April 18, 2015, 03:50:52 pm
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 18, 2015, 11:42:06 am
As for people complaining about Bitshares not behaving like a company, what do you expect? We don't view Bitshares as a DA-Company, but as a DA-Community.

I guess being new to Bitshares I got confused with the DAC metaphor in the publicity material.  "Corporation" is most often used to signify a business that acts as one unit.  Most business's internal market is for talent and operations focused groups that helps the business achieve it goals.  Other than that, privatized assets sounds like a fine plan.

Communities and companies are the same thing.  The best ones understand its just a group of people getting together to solve what they think is a fundamental problem in society.  At the end of the day each one can be viewed with the same lens.  Is Singapore herself a Corporation, Country or a Community?  Now the better question, was Singapore better served by understanding it should be run as a Corporation rather than a sovereign nation?   

I think the Bitshares community should have a better discussion how to enable privatized bitassets without diluting  or even outcompeting what is its core offering-- Bitusd.  You guys need to offer more ideas.  Stop passively accepting what consensus is saying (or Bytemaster).  This proposal even though it offers an answer, the answer itself should lead to many better questions.  Should it require a very very high initial fixed cost?  A yearly rental fee (I actually like this idea)?  Delegate only sponsorship?  What other ways can help reduce spam?

Markets exist because it is possible to arbitrate information asymmetry between players. without information asymmetry there cannot be arbitration. Communities which are able to keep information siloed off from the rest of the market can profit from that (e.g. Singapore elite), but open communities cannot. So far DACs can not keep secrets, hence no information asymmetry - no profit beyond technical utility value.

For any DAC to become a real company you need a board of directors which keeps information asymmetry up. I personally lean heavily towards using prediction markets for appointing a board of directors for DACs.

However, if you want the shareholders to decide on everything, then information asymmetry is practically impossible.

47
General Discussion / Re: Privatizing BitAssets
« on: April 18, 2015, 11:42:06 am »
Quote from: bytemaster on April 17, 2015, 06:18:19 pm
Quote from: MrJeans on April 17, 2015, 02:08:18 pm
Wouldnt we just be passing the potato.
It would be extremely expensive for a private party to market the bitAsset product.
And the profits they make from the trading fees would not justify the expenses (exactly what you said before).

The only way I see this working is if an established player in the financial services space offers the bitAsset as another service and leverages their user base.

But how many large established players are leveraging crypto?

Now you are catching on... the way we bootstrap is to give established players a profit incentive to bring us customers ;)

After talking to several companies which could offer Bitshares gateway services for fiat I've come to the conclusion that the regulatory requirement and the counterparty risk of becoming a fiat gateway are still too big for most startups.

However, the privatized bitAsset idea could circumvent that issue to some extend. I am looking more at this as bitUSD with private fee profits and legally compliant whitelisting. It's a middleground between gateway IOUs and true bitUSD. The more I think about it the more it seems that privatized bitAssets with whitelisting capability + gatways for stocks and bonds + synthetic order books should be V1.0.

As for people complaining about Bitshares not behaving like a company, what do you expect? We don't view Bitshares as a DA-Company, but as a DA-Community. Companies are islands of strict non-competition in markets. Think about it, if we are so much pro-market, why are companies command-and-controle structures without any internal markets? It's simple: For a social organization to be a company it needs to leverage information asymmetry, which it then bridges in the open market for profit. DACs don;t have information asymmetry, hence they cannot be companies. At most, they can be community/private utilities.

48
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] Moonstone.io development and crowdfunder diary
« on: April 16, 2015, 10:52:34 pm »
The crowdfunder bar in https://moonstone.io/ now updates in real time (after the first BTC confirmation), and also takes into account the BTS donations on the internal market.

You can also see more of the Moonstone wallet interface here https://marvelapp.com/a31d7h#3555223 (click around!).

Updates and a newsletter coming soon!

49
General Discussion / Re: Privatizing BitAssets
« on: April 16, 2015, 01:00:06 pm »
I think this is a bad idea.

The counterparty risk is too high and it has negative externalities onto people who have not opted into the particular private bitAsset.

A much better way to increase liquidity and collection of fees would be synthetic order books and Minimum Spanning Tree pathfinding between order books on the blockchain itself, similar to how Ripple does it. Arbitrage income could be turned into income for shareholders.

After all, BitShares is technically an advanced FIFO dealer, not an exchange in the traditional sense, we would a dealer want to leave potential arbitrage opportunities up for grabs for non-shareholders?

Edit:
After hearing bytemaster on mumble explain the concept in mode detail it seems that privatized bitAssets combined with synthetic order books and whitelisting would create market conditions for third party platforms and apps to integrate with Bitshares.

We at Bitsapphire would support such a system.

50
General Discussion / Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« on: April 15, 2015, 10:36:13 am »
Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on April 15, 2015, 06:49:08 am
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 14, 2015, 09:01:25 pm
We think the most elegant way is to add an ID field to each Pub.Key which can hold a certificate on-blockchain from a specific gateway or ID verification service. The certificate would be simply a tag in a way.
Something like this?
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Delegate/PublicData

Thanks for pointing me to that. That, combined with a standardized PGP signature from the certificate issuer, or a special relation through the bitshares Object Graph would work.

51
General Discussion / Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« on: April 14, 2015, 10:20:32 pm »
Quote from: fuzzy on April 14, 2015, 09:15:48 pm
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 14, 2015, 09:01:25 pm
I don;t know how they plan on implementing ID verification, but that's essentially our long-term business plan for Moonstone too. The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets. Gateways would issue these assets on Bitshares.

We think the most elegant way is to add an ID field to each Pub.Key which can hold a certificate on-blockchain from a specific gateway or ID verification service. The certificate would be simply a tag in a way.

If we had this capability and wallet infrastructure now, we would have issued stock for Moonstone instead. We know several other businesses who are also interested in issuing stock legally on Bitshares.

That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.

Isn't there a way to ensure anonymity AND unique identifiability?   

I can only think of SNARKS but that is way above my head. http://eprint.iacr.org/2013/507.pdf
TBH I don't know anybody who understands it really, but it could be really cool.

52
General Discussion / Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« on: April 14, 2015, 10:16:37 pm »
Quote from: fuzzy on April 14, 2015, 10:00:54 pm
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 14, 2015, 09:53:50 pm
Quote from: davidpbrown on April 14, 2015, 09:22:51 pm
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 14, 2015, 09:01:25 pm
..The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets.

Why 'need'; and what qualification is required by 'can'?.. Surely, properly all that is needed is a confidence by the buyer that they own that real world asset in a way they can use. I know nothing of the requirements relative to owning bonds and stocks but imagine there is more complexity than there needs to be. Is there an expectation that companies know who they are owned by perhaps?.. Is that necessarily I wonder. A fluid market without restrictions might be better overall??

Companies are contracts (state machines) within the broader contract/state machine of the state. A company that does not operate within a broader contract (such as an enforceable legal system) cannot enforce it's own contract or get into contractual relationships with others without enforcing them itself. So for a company to operate outside the legal system it needs to be able to enforce contracts without a legal system, which is pretty much the definition of a mafia or crime syndicate.

This means that when you buy stock or bonds, you buy a claim onto a contract (e.g. a company) but you by definition also by into the broader contract (the state) making the company contract possible in the first place. So in order for anybody to own any stock or bond in any company, you holding that stock or bond also needs to b possible within the broader contract of the state. This is why gateways are so important as they make it possible to be effective bridges.

However, you can always simply trust the other person or company to uphold any promise (as Invictus did with Protoshares and Angelshares), though the risk/return cost-benefit analysis would look very different.

Rather than have mafia-style contract enforcement (I'd argue that most Governments of today use a thinly veiled version of this too), can't companies and users have trust levels that are logged in the blockchain along with a unique identifier (that is not connected with real world identity)?

Then there would naturally be a market for trust.  So people who are well known and well trusted would receive incentives in the form of discounts (for instance in the case of someone buying from a Amazon, for instance) on purchases because the company itself recognizes that this account has always paid appropriately for the services rendered. 

In this way we bring it to more of a voluntaristic model where trust is not needed, but rewarded nonetheless.

That is possible, as it would effectively lower the information asymmetry among contractors. The questions remains how do you create those trust scores.

In Pactum we are solving that through prediction markets, but not for people but rather for state machines (could be other blockchains, servers, companies, governments, etc). Creating strong enough trust scores for individuals might be too granular and in my opinion not practical. The counterparty risk of individuals is simply always much greater than that of a large, and heterogeneous pool of people. That's why the bigger the insurance pool, the lower your insurance contribution (at least in theory).

53
General Discussion / Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« on: April 14, 2015, 09:53:50 pm »
Quote from: davidpbrown on April 14, 2015, 09:22:51 pm
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 14, 2015, 09:01:25 pm
..The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets.

Why 'need'; and what qualification is required by 'can'?.. Surely, properly all that is needed is a confidence by the buyer that they own that real world asset in a way they can use. I know nothing of the requirements relative to owning bonds and stocks but imagine there is more complexity than there needs to be. Is there an expectation that companies know who they are owned by perhaps?.. Is that necessarily I wonder. A fluid market without restrictions might be better overall??

Companies are contracts (state machines) within the broader contract/state machine of the state. A company that does not operate within a broader contract (such as an enforceable legal system) cannot enforce it's own contract or get into contractual relationships with others without enforcing them itself. So for a company to operate outside the legal system it needs to be able to enforce contracts without a legal system, which is pretty much the definition of a mafia or crime syndicate.

This means that when you buy stock or bonds, you buy a claim onto a contract (e.g. a company) but you by definition also by into the broader contract (the state) making the company contract possible in the first place. So in order for anybody to own any stock or bond in any company, you holding that stock or bond also needs to b possible within the broader contract of the state. This is why gateways are so important as they make it possible to be effective bridges.

However, you can always simply trust the other person or company to uphold any promise (as Invictus did with Protoshares and Angelshares), though the risk/return cost-benefit analysis would look very different.

54
General Discussion / Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« on: April 14, 2015, 09:15:18 pm »
Quote from: Carpet Ride on April 14, 2015, 09:05:18 pm
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 14, 2015, 09:01:25 pm
That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.

Does Ripple have a decentralized exchange?

Yes, that's pretty much the point of ripple. Though no bitAssets. They also have synthetic combined order books and the nodes do the cross-order boo routing. That's probably their biggest innovation so far.

I hope the Bitshares will be able to deliver that too in the not so distant future, could bring in a damn lot of fees for Bitshares holders as the less efficient the market, the larger the spreads, and the more Bitshares could be burned.

55
General Discussion / Re: [FYI] Just get e-mail from Ripple
« on: April 14, 2015, 09:01:25 pm »
I don;t know how they plan on implementing ID verification, but that's essentially our long-term business plan for Moonstone too. The idea is that if you want to trade stocks and bonds and other financial assets on the blockchain you need to be able to white-list IDs which can hold and trade these assets. Gateways would issue these assets on Bitshares.

We think the most elegant way is to add an ID field to each Pub.Key which can hold a certificate on-blockchain from a specific gateway or ID verification service. The certificate would be simply a tag in a way.

If we had this capability and wallet infrastructure now, we would have issued stock for Moonstone instead. We know several other businesses who are also interested in issuing stock legally on Bitshares.

That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.

56
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] Moonstone.io development and crowdfunder diary
« on: April 14, 2015, 10:47:44 am »
Update

We just released the update to our fundraiser site https://moonstone.io/. You can now donate to our fundraiser again through our site.

We have also added an FAQ section based on the community's feedback so far here https://moonstone.io/faq.php. We will continue to update the FAQ as things progress.

You can now also buy MOONFUND tokens directly at the full 15% discount from the internal exchange. As of this writing 500k BTS have already been donated. We will update our crowdfunder script accordingly today to reflect the funds collected in terms of BTS too (it currently only reflects BTC collected).

Soon we will put up a Q&A thread on the forum. These questons will then become part of the FAQ on the website and we'll record a video answering all questions.

Thanks everybody for the support! We are on good track!

57
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] Moonstone.io development and crowdfunder diary
« on: April 12, 2015, 12:00:49 pm »
Based on everybody's feedback so far we've put together e redesign of our website and upgraded the donation flow.

To make sure everything is working correctly we'll pause the donation drive for a few hours.

In other good news, we'll put up MOONFUND tokens at 0.9 to BTS on the internal exchange today (Sunday).

Thanks everybody for your great feedback! Keep an eye out for some good news!

58
General Discussion / Re: Research Help
« on: April 11, 2015, 09:58:29 pm »
Quote from: robrigo on April 11, 2015, 09:34:29 pm
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 11, 2015, 09:32:16 pm
Quote from: robrigo on April 11, 2015, 08:35:22 pm
This thread is a rabbit hole of whitepapers. Awesome!!

Read this report on a flight today. The report dicusses different ways to classify projects using blockchain ledgers in centralized and decentralized manners. BitShares was mentioned once (in reference to Pactum). Use cases in the financial system are described as well. Good job Tim.

http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf
We're the guys behind Pactum btw.

The report says it is tokenless but also uses DPOS. Can you talk about what mechanism you use to vote for delegates in a tokenless DPOS?

For DPOS to work you need shares (a percentage of ownership which everybody agrees on). This percentage can be dynamic and the result of a contract rather than fixed tokens. In Pactum's case it represents the a specific ratio of past reimbursement of IOUs towards all other players in the game.

Pactum's goal is to assign in a distributed and P2P trustless manner counterparty risk coefficients to any state machines (blockchains, servers, smart contracts, governments, companies, legal systems, etc). These coefficients can then be for risk hedging between state machines. The side-effect is that it organically creates a global unit of account, by definition stable and independent of any governments. This unit of account can be used by any bitAsset or stable-coin system as the ultimate price feed.

We believe that without such a risk determining and hedging mechanism you can't have "an internet of blockchains" nor true globalization of commerce.

59
General Discussion / Re: Research Help
« on: April 11, 2015, 09:32:16 pm »
Quote from: robrigo on April 11, 2015, 08:35:22 pm
This thread is a rabbit hole of whitepapers. Awesome!!

Read this report on a flight today. The report dicusses different ways to classify projects using blockchain ledgers in centralized and decentralized manners. BitShares was mentioned once (in reference to Pactum). Use cases in the financial system are described as well. Good job Tim.

http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf
We're the guys behind Pactum btw.

60
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] Moonstone.io development and crowdfunder diary
« on: April 10, 2015, 10:04:15 pm »
Quote from: rgcrypto on April 10, 2015, 09:52:11 pm
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 10, 2015, 09:48:56 pm
It seems that there is such a strong interest to donate BTS rather than BTC our crowdfunder that some people are thinking about buying MOONFUND tokens on the internal exchange straight with BTS. (See this thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15663.0/topicseen.html)

We're opening therefore a poll to see whether enough people are interested in us putting a sell order of Moonstones at about 0.9-0.92 BTS on the internal exchange. This way almost everybody should be able to participate (though at a slightly lower potential return rate, as we still need to cash out to fiat for operations). We would then also need to update the funds collected on the website manually a few times a day.

Please let us know what you think, and please vote in the poll!

Where is the poll?

At the top of this thread!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 21

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 20 queries.