As I said before, Bitcoin is useful. This is because (to repeat it yet again): a blockchain is required to store value.
To disagree, you need to propose a blockchain service that would "be economically profitable" but would not "store value". The comments you made referencing Bitcoin are therefore irrelevant.
Just because no one specifically labeled an account "Bitcoin dev fund" and announced that to the world, doesn't mean that the development of Bitcoin didn't consume scare time and energy. Voorhees estimated that the establishment of Bitcoin cost at least 1 billion dollars.
Delegates can go to jail.
Yes, but ownership of shares of a company is an example of storing value on a blockchain. The advantages have already been listed privacy, tax, freedom from confiscation and seizures. There are also no legal costs & compliance issues as well as approval delays for DAC's vs. Firms. This makes DAC's as an ownership model 'economically profitable' to shareholders.
I think your main rebuttal to this so far, has been your SilkRoad response.
DACs also provide tax, confiscation & privacy benefits & have the advantage of being border/'jurisdiction-less'
Wrong again. SilkRoad was a firm, not a DAC.
I never said SilkRoad was a DAC? If you're under the illusion firms offer the same advantages, maybe you missed the part where SilkRoad was shut down and the owner arrested?
You missed the part where dozens of replacement firms appeared near-instantly. There is still no SilkRoad DAC. If DACs are so good, where are they?
So what if dozens of firms replaced them near-instantly? The owner of the original is in jail.
That is what proves the point that firms don't offer owners & shareholders the same advantages DAC's do.
In your latest response you've mentioned twice that delegates can be arrested. But again the delegates are not necessarily the owners, therefore it doesn't negate any of the advantages of choosing a DAC as an ownership model over a firm.
If Company ownership can be stored on a blockchain which it can, and the advantages of privacy, tax, freedom and confiscation and seizure are economically beneficial to shareholders, which they are, then it is likely we'll see new businesses and even existing firms transition to the DAC ownership model.
The capitalisation of the worlds stock markets is circa $70 trillion, so the potential of any existing or new businesses switching over to a DAC base is obviously a huge market. Currency & Commodity trading is also a multi trillion dollar market which DAC's can vastly undercut in terms of trading and other fees. Banking, Lotteries, .p2p, Music, Insurance and Lending as well as a decentralised market place are all examples of potential industries where accounting trust, no central point of failure and the ability to store value will be an advantage to the customer too.
Its been shown in theory and in practice, that if the accounting isn't transparent, the shareholders actually benefit. It is the business which suffers, as it cannot prove it's legitimacy, and must fund-raise under great suspicion. Shareholders always have the option to sell, or not-buy. This effect sometimes bundled with the famous "Market for Lemons" Nobel paper.
Interesting. I see no evidence there that shareholders would choose a company with lesser/perceived lesser accounting transparency though. So the theory would simply say that over time traditional businesses would outperform DAC's because of their lower accounting transparency. OK. Even if it were true, it would have to be partly offset by the savings in outright fraud/ embezzlement/theft a DAC would enjoy. (As I stated in my original example I doubt shareholders holding the bag when Lehmans/Madoff collapsed benefitted from lack of transparency.)
Edit: - Added on below
If DACs are so good, where are they?
That's like popping up in 1993 and saying - 'If impersonal 'online stores' are so good. Where are they?'
It's easy to just say "new paradigm". Much harder to use logic to back up that claim. Many things were fads in the 90's, like Beanie Babies. What sorts a paradigm-shift from a fad are the economic fundamentals.
Yes but either way, whether they turn out to be a fad or a 'new paradigm', asking 'where are they' now, is like doing the same in 1993, as the technology and the ideas surrounding DACs are still in their nascency