0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
When you put money to the bank you actually lend it to the bank. If bank fail to repay you then, you took the risk and lent money into risky bank, so who is suppose to take a hit? We love free market, don't we?
I just read about bail-in because I had never heard the term before. Holy crap . If bank is doing well customers get 0% or 0.1% interest and the shareholders get rich. If the bank starts to fail the customers are forced to buy the nearly worthless shares at market value and the very people that caused the failure get the cash.I suppose this saves the bankers the hassle of physically robbing their own bank with ski masks and guns.
Quote from: theFu.. on October 08, 2014, 01:49:11 pmQuote from: fussyhands on October 08, 2014, 01:31:22 pmQuote from: xeroc on October 07, 2014, 02:53:36 pmQuote from: luckybit on October 07, 2014, 02:37:52 pmE-Gold 2.0? The SEC will shut it down just like MtGox was shut down and Litecoinglobal.There is a reason why everyone pushed to create decentralized exchanges. Newbies typically don't learn from history and have to experience it for themselves.That's why scammers always gonna scam .. unfortunately ..Ha! I'm not a newbie. And I'm sure I learned a more painful lesson with MtGox than you did. Nevertheless MtGox is not the equivalent of Coinbase or Circle, and nothing at all like a big regulated US bank (which in will also offer such services in a few years). When is the last time a big US bank failed and lost all its clients funds? Regulation (e.g. FDIC) keeps you much safer than a brand new cryptocurrency which could have bugs, NSA encryption backdoors, or simply not be used *perfectly* which is how you need to use cryptocurrency for it to be safe (and with the recent announcement that there is an unfixable hole in the USB specification, it's not even clear that it's *possible* to use perfectly). Even the MF Global victims mostly got their money back...Centralization is not inherently more risky than decentralization. Even after 5 years of development time, I bet more people will lose their BitUSD than lose their CircleUSD.But libertarian cryptonerds only know how to hate the government and banks... so what is the point of even having the conversation? I don't know.All across the world legislation is being passed and very real discussions being had with specific regard to "Bail-Ins". I'll tell you right now that as soon as investment "banks" start backing legislation to legalize this theft, the demographic to which decentralized currencies and services appeal grow far larger than "libertarian cryptonerds" and the occasional "tin-foil-hat" crowd. BitAsset Catalyst incoming(Though I feel sorry for the people that will lose very much in the bail-ins.)
Quote from: fussyhands on October 08, 2014, 01:31:22 pmQuote from: xeroc on October 07, 2014, 02:53:36 pmQuote from: luckybit on October 07, 2014, 02:37:52 pmE-Gold 2.0? The SEC will shut it down just like MtGox was shut down and Litecoinglobal.There is a reason why everyone pushed to create decentralized exchanges. Newbies typically don't learn from history and have to experience it for themselves.That's why scammers always gonna scam .. unfortunately ..Ha! I'm not a newbie. And I'm sure I learned a more painful lesson with MtGox than you did. Nevertheless MtGox is not the equivalent of Coinbase or Circle, and nothing at all like a big regulated US bank (which in will also offer such services in a few years). When is the last time a big US bank failed and lost all its clients funds? Regulation (e.g. FDIC) keeps you much safer than a brand new cryptocurrency which could have bugs, NSA encryption backdoors, or simply not be used *perfectly* which is how you need to use cryptocurrency for it to be safe (and with the recent announcement that there is an unfixable hole in the USB specification, it's not even clear that it's *possible* to use perfectly). Even the MF Global victims mostly got their money back...Centralization is not inherently more risky than decentralization. Even after 5 years of development time, I bet more people will lose their BitUSD than lose their CircleUSD.But libertarian cryptonerds only know how to hate the government and banks... so what is the point of even having the conversation? I don't know.All across the world legislation is being passed and very real discussions being had with specific regard to "Bail-Ins". I'll tell you right now that as soon as investment "banks" start backing legislation to legalize this theft, the demographic to which decentralized currencies and services appeal grow far larger than "libertarian cryptonerds" and the occasional "tin-foil-hat" crowd.
Quote from: xeroc on October 07, 2014, 02:53:36 pmQuote from: luckybit on October 07, 2014, 02:37:52 pmE-Gold 2.0? The SEC will shut it down just like MtGox was shut down and Litecoinglobal.There is a reason why everyone pushed to create decentralized exchanges. Newbies typically don't learn from history and have to experience it for themselves.That's why scammers always gonna scam .. unfortunately ..Ha! I'm not a newbie. And I'm sure I learned a more painful lesson with MtGox than you did. Nevertheless MtGox is not the equivalent of Coinbase or Circle, and nothing at all like a big regulated US bank (which in will also offer such services in a few years). When is the last time a big US bank failed and lost all its clients funds? Regulation (e.g. FDIC) keeps you much safer than a brand new cryptocurrency which could have bugs, NSA encryption backdoors, or simply not be used *perfectly* which is how you need to use cryptocurrency for it to be safe (and with the recent announcement that there is an unfixable hole in the USB specification, it's not even clear that it's *possible* to use perfectly). Even the MF Global victims mostly got their money back...Centralization is not inherently more risky than decentralization. Even after 5 years of development time, I bet more people will lose their BitUSD than lose their CircleUSD.But libertarian cryptonerds only know how to hate the government and banks... so what is the point of even having the conversation? I don't know.
Quote from: luckybit on October 07, 2014, 02:37:52 pmE-Gold 2.0? The SEC will shut it down just like MtGox was shut down and Litecoinglobal.There is a reason why everyone pushed to create decentralized exchanges. Newbies typically don't learn from history and have to experience it for themselves.That's why scammers always gonna scam .. unfortunately ..
E-Gold 2.0? The SEC will shut it down just like MtGox was shut down and Litecoinglobal.There is a reason why everyone pushed to create decentralized exchanges. Newbies typically don't learn from history and have to experience it for themselves.
Quote from: Rune on October 07, 2014, 03:32:52 pmStocks and the like have an advantage being centralized since they can pay dividends anyway. The "killer app" feature of bitAssets is bitUSD. It's cryptocurrency without the volatility downside and it is secure in a verifiable way (and not a ponzi like nubits). BitAssets also provide an incredibly convenient way for local cryptocurrency trade, localbitcoins style (spread/fee will be a lot more transparent for even a noob user) The OP is basically arguing against crypto as a concept. The reason Bitcoin became so massive is because we all see a financial shitstorm brewing on the horizon. When that happens, crypto will be there to step in and take over.
Stocks and the like have an advantage being centralized since they can pay dividends anyway. The "killer app" feature of bitAssets is bitUSD. It's cryptocurrency without the volatility downside and it is secure in a verifiable way (and not a ponzi like nubits). BitAssets also provide an incredibly convenient way for local cryptocurrency trade, localbitcoins style (spread/fee will be a lot more transparent for even a noob user)
In the mean time, we still have massive utility for BitUSD.Interest on BitUSDBlackmarketRemittancesMoney launderingAnything Bitcoin can do, BitUSD can do better.
None taken. I'm just saying that's probably what will happen in the short-term whether we like it or not. Bitcoins best usecases so far have been drugs and day trading. Not saying I like that, but it's the reality of the situation.
Quote from: bytemaster on October 07, 2014, 02:24:38 pmYou cannot arb yield difference. That is like claiming the interest rate at two banks will be arb away.You can arbitrage yield. You have money and face with two possibilities. You can park it in bank or in bitusd. If bank and bitusd have same risk you choose bitusd as long as it gives better yield. Every time such decision is made bitusd supply is increased until yields are equal. Better yet, you can actually borrow new usd and park it bitusd and bank yield difference.Of course this is unlikely that bitusd risk would be treated equal to usd in bank, but you get the idea.Any extra yield earned by bitusd will be compensation for additional risk of holding bitusd over usd.
You cannot arb yield difference. That is like claiming the interest rate at two banks will be arb away.
Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 07, 2014, 05:06:08 pmQuote from: Thom on October 07, 2014, 04:57:51 pmTotally agreed. xeroc also thought similarly as I see it. No disrespect to MeTHoDx, but we MUST stick to the underlying principles and not go off half cocked chasing market share anywhere we see money or interest. So many people don't seem to get WHY crypto has value; so many are preoccupied with convenience.None taken. I'm just saying that's probably what will happen in the short-term whether we like it or not. Bitcoins best usecases so far have been drugs and day trading. Not saying I like that, but it's the reality of the situation.I hear you. Spoken with a truly rational tongue. MeTHoDx, I find your posts to be excellent. I don't have many marketing skills, but I find myself agreeing with your posts 9 times out of 10.
Quote from: Thom on October 07, 2014, 04:57:51 pmTotally agreed. xeroc also thought similarly as I see it. No disrespect to MeTHoDx, but we MUST stick to the underlying principles and not go off half cocked chasing market share anywhere we see money or interest. So many people don't seem to get WHY crypto has value; so many are preoccupied with convenience.None taken. I'm just saying that's probably what will happen in the short-term whether we like it or not. Bitcoins best usecases so far have been drugs and day trading. Not saying I like that, but it's the reality of the situation.
Totally agreed. xeroc also thought similarly as I see it. No disrespect to MeTHoDx, but we MUST stick to the underlying principles and not go off half cocked chasing market share anywhere we see money or interest. So many people don't seem to get WHY crypto has value; so many are preoccupied with convenience.
I hear you. Spoken with a truly rational tongue. MeTHoDx, I find your posts to be excellent. I don't have many marketing skills, but I find myself agreeing with your posts 9 times out of 10.
Quote from: Ander on October 07, 2014, 04:29:14 pmQuote from: MeTHoDx on October 07, 2014, 04:24:19 pm The OP is basically arguing against crypto as a concept. Yes this. Fiat currencies are an easy to use, centralized system. If that is what you want, no need for crypto at all, of any form.Totally agreed. xeroc also thought similarly as I see it. No disrespect to MeTHoDx, but we MUST stick to the underlying principles and not go off half cocked chasing market share anywhere we see money or interest. So many people don't seem to get WHY crypto has value; so many are preoccupied with convenience.If we build a quality system that solves real problems based on sound principles of freedom and free trade people WILL come DESPITE what the establishment decrees. Granted, we want to capitalize on where the herd is stampeding but let's not forsake long term financial freedom for short term gains. If I start seeing that attitude become more widespread I'll go somewhere else.I don't think that's gonna happen as long as Larimer has a voice. So far he's not only been steadfast in his "decentralization is our prime directive" montra, but he is also one top notch programmer and spokesman.
Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 07, 2014, 04:24:19 pm The OP is basically arguing against crypto as a concept. Yes this. Fiat currencies are an easy to use, centralized system. If that is what you want, no need for crypto at all, of any form.
The OP is basically arguing against crypto as a concept.
everything said in this threads just translate to: costumers are different and depending on their use-case need to be marketed differently.or am I wrong here? What's the contribution here?
In the broader market people think, care, and understand less about the problems caused by centralization.
Most countries allow REGULATED trading.of derivatives. This service will last until the day it doesn't. That day will be the day that whatever jurisdiction is applicable to this website shuts it down and likely confiscates/ties up the funds in a lengthy court process. Also.. there is counterparty risk involved with trusted third parties in that you need to trust this service to not steal your money or misuse customer funds (for instance commingling them with operating funds or some sort of quasi ponzi scheme.)BitsharesX is a better solution for derivatives as each derivative is collateralized by 300% of the derivatives value by the BTSX token. Furthermore, it is a decentralized autonomous company so you do not have to worry about trusting a third party and the counterparty risk that comes with that, nor do you have to worry about a government shutting it down as it exists fully on a peer to peer network powered by a block chain and a decentralized exchange.
Quote from: delulo on October 07, 2014, 02:22:16 pmQuote from: James212 on October 07, 2014, 02:05:09 pmI hate to break it to you but the greater market does not care about centralized vs decentralized. They will go to whomever has the best utility and user experience. It is right that people don't care as long as it works but: There are two valuable attributes of blockchain technology: a) Holding the private keys (you can do this with USD on Ripple (or am I wrong here?)) = funds can't be seized even with a centralized issuer except if they are seized for all (lack of collateral or state intervention). b) No (direct) counterparty risk. This can not be done with ripple or any other system where a centralized issuer is backing the value of the token. And this is where the value of BitUSD comes from. Having a counterparty risk is highly costly: Any institution that holds funds for customers has high regulatory costs. Centralized solutions are therefore not per se cheaper for the customer. I guess that customers would either trust a relatively young and unkown company that does audits (costly) and has a 100% reserve or big known banks that offer this service. The latter case it would likely be backed by a fractional reserve which is unlikely to be sustainable either individually (for a specific bank) or systemically.So BitUSD has unique characteristics and will be very useful besides these centralized options. you and davepbrown have good points regarding decentralization and I agree with you. However, my point is that to be successful BTSX needs to attract the broader market, not just elements of the crypto-market. In the broader market people think, care, and understand less about the problems caused by centralization. Maybe just 1% of the market cares (I'm thinking the US market. In places like Argentina maybe more).. To them centralization is a given. They have no idea about its drawbacks and don't care about alternatives. They will only be educated when the looming crisis finally hits the preverbal brick will. Currently, they do not care. Therefore my argument is that this feature can not be listed as one that will give us much a leg up on the competitors like the one mentioned above. At least not in the current environment. That said, I'm sure that with the current crypto crowd this feature is indispensable, but the way I see it we are seeking to expand that demographic considerably.
Quote from: James212 on October 07, 2014, 02:05:09 pmI hate to break it to you but the greater market does not care about centralized vs decentralized. They will go to whomever has the best utility and user experience. It is right that people don't care as long as it works but: There are two valuable attributes of blockchain technology: a) Holding the private keys (you can do this with USD on Ripple (or am I wrong here?)) = funds can't be seized even with a centralized issuer except if they are seized for all (lack of collateral or state intervention). b) No (direct) counterparty risk. This can not be done with ripple or any other system where a centralized issuer is backing the value of the token. And this is where the value of BitUSD comes from. Having a counterparty risk is highly costly: Any institution that holds funds for customers has high regulatory costs. Centralized solutions are therefore not per se cheaper for the customer. I guess that customers would either trust a relatively young and unkown company that does audits (costly) and has a 100% reserve or big known banks that offer this service. The latter case it would likely be backed by a fractional reserve which is unlikely to be sustainable either individually (for a specific bank) or systemically.So BitUSD has unique characteristics and will be very useful besides these centralized options.
I hate to break it to you but the greater market does not care about centralized vs decentralized. They will go to whomever has the best utility and user experience.
Therefore my argument is that this feature can not be listed as one that will give us much a leg up on the competitors like the one mentioned above.
Take a look at this news:http://www.coindesk.com/new-fund-gives-traders-blue-chip-stock-exposure-bitcoin/As I've said in previous threads: BitAssets are just not a killer feature of BitShares.Centralized versions, like the one in the article above, will be just as easy to use, and the truth is that the vast majority of people do not care about their accounts being decentralized. That's only really important to libertarian cryptonerds, who are a tiny fraction of the population.To make progress Bitshares needs a killer app. BitAssets are not it. They are a massive distraction.
Quote from: Gonzo on October 07, 2014, 01:02:07 pmI don't think you're considering the 5 to 15% returns that BitAssets get in a mature system?There is no way that asset will yield this much if btsx matures. For example if bitUSD is mature and one can freely convert USD<>bitUSD any yield difference between USD and bitUSD will be arbitraged away.
I don't think you're considering the 5 to 15% returns that BitAssets get in a mature system?
,[\quote] decentralised is one step forward from centralized services
BitShares has a good foot forward where others haven't even woken up to the opportunity
IOUs != bitAssets .. period!