Regarding the welcoming side of your comments I agree. This community needs to be more welcoming and demonstrate people are welcome here. Like it's been said before there is and should be no regulations in place preventing people and companies from using this technology. It comes down to the individual then to decide if they get involved on a case by case basis.
Hi Thom, I respect your input on this and I think we are largely in agreement.Regarding the welcoming side of your comments I agree. This community needs to be more welcoming and demonstrate people are welcome here. Like it's been said before there is and should be no regulations in place preventing people and companies from using this technology. It comes down to the individual then to decide if they get involved on a case by case basis.
I have no opinion one way or the other right now concerning banx.
I do however regarding the above. I agree people should be open minded and welcoming to those that align with the principles of financial freedom, non-violence and personal empowerment, in other words the core philosophy BitShares was built to promote. For those that don't share those ideals I say there's the door, go do your thing on some other playground.
Problem is that some in this community don't value those core beliefs as much as others. To further complicate things the platform itself provides tools that facilitate control by regulators and others that don't value those core beliefs or mistakenly believe that a highly regulated segment can coexist with an unregulated, so called "dark" segment.
I have my doubts about that, but hey - this is an experimental platform for technology as well as governance so I'm willing to see it through and to how it plays out. IMO it's a matter of time before the most powerful force, freedom lovers or regulators, become dominant and push the other group out.
So if anyone sees resistance to the foundational core beliefs that led to the invention of blockchain technology in general and BitShares specifically I say you better expect that here and grow a thicker skin. It shouldn't be personal; anyone that is perceived to assail or be contrary to the core principles that BitShares represents should expect some resistance. It's a matter of protecting the values that provide personal and financial freedom, and that benefits everyone that doesn't want to take advantage or exert control over others.
But alas, many don't understand or care about the core principles and are thus willing to accept regulatory interference under the false assumption it will make them safer and more secure. Others may understand the risks, but acquiesce to regulation to gain more widespread acceptance of BitShares, in hopes they can make big profits and come out ahead in a rigged game by doting their "I"s and crossing their "T"s to avoid the regulator's whims and their thirst for power to control others.
Choose the red pill or blue pill, it's up to you. Like Donald L. Kimball wrote in his book, The Choice, Freedom or Slavery, the choice is ours to make. Please choose wisely.
Hi Thom, I respect your input on this and I think we are largely in agreement.
1 -- Could you elaborate as to why you think coexistence is impossible?
2 -- Do you have a specific attack-vector in mind that would allow UIA compliance features to eventually spread to MPA's?
3 -- Or have you come to appreciate the extreme lengths the state will go to to retain control over others?
4 -- I can possibly envision a bts freedom-fork which may be needed to escape harsh measures from state on main-chain bts - but what measures could they be?
5 -- The Pirate party in Iceland seems to gave gained mass popularity very quickly, in my view due to the harsh restrictions placed on crypto in 2012. Crypto is still banned as far as I am aware.
6 -- Do you doubt the desire or ability of 'the people' to act in a similar way if bts was 'banned'.
7 -- I just don't see how they could ban it. Slow it down with slander, yeah - but control over information has been diminishing with the advent of the internet. Can not the same happen for finance?
I see this too.Hi Thom, I respect your input on this and I think we are largely in agreement.1 & 3 -- Sure. The two are incompatible and opposite in nature. I do appreciate the lengths the psychopaths and control freaks that put on the cloak of the label known as "government" will go to to retain control b/c I've studied history. It is the later that will drive them to push freedom loving individuals out of the ecosystem by labeling them "cyber-terrorists" and the like, eventually legislating them out of participation if they won't comply with all the tracking requirements that allow government to control, monitor and restrict what you can & can't do.
1 -- Could you elaborate as to why you think coexistence is impossible?
2 -- Do you have a specific attack-vector in mind that would allow UIA compliance features to eventually spread to MPA's?
3 -- Or have you come to appreciate the extreme lengths the state will go to to retain control over others?
4 -- I can possibly envision a bts freedom-fork which may be needed to escape harsh measures from state on main-chain bts - but what measures could they be?
5 -- The Pirate party in Iceland seems to gave gained mass popularity very quickly, in my view due to the harsh restrictions placed on crypto in 2012. Crypto is still banned as far as I am aware.
6 -- Do you doubt the desire or ability of 'the people' to act in a similar way if bts was 'banned'.
7 -- I just don't see how they could ban it. Slow it down with slander, yeah - but control over information has been diminishing with the advent of the internet. Can not the same happen for finance?
2 -- Not really, but if history is any indication (and it truly is) you can expect it to be a relatively slow process. They will use the media to adversely label people that don't want to submit, they will also use the people that won't think for themselves and just blindly do what they're told, reporting / spying on "dissidents" (get the slaves to police themselves).
4 -- If this plays out into the hands of the regulators and the masses adopt this platform, and they all conform to the KYC / AML regs, that will indeed put pressure on those that don't want to conform, and if that gets strong enough they would likely flee to where they can find less intrusion into their financial affairs. It might well lead to a fork and alternate chain (which might have to exist far underground if laws are passed against "uncertified / unofficial crypto chains) and the whole thing will start over again as the new chain strives to gain adoption. The cycle will repeat if we can't learn from our mistakes. I hate to be a pessimist but I do see this as a definite possibility. Do you think the Silk Road is really gone? I bet it continues, albeit as yet unknown and gaining more customers every day, like blackmarkets do.Everybody in the current financial system is already owned.
5 -- Don't know enough about Iceland to comment on what the driving forces at play there are. From what I've seen the people there seem much less tolerant of bureaucrats and control freaks, especially the ones in finance like banksters. Quite a bit different attitude in the USA, where the populace has been dumbed down and hand-fed a line of propaganda about money, finance & banking for 100 year or more.The US is not the only country in the world and it's people have not truly seen counter-examples to their way of life. I envision one trailblazing entity showing the way to everyone else.
6 -- Yes, I doubt the will of the people here to resist like they apparently do in Iceland. My greatest hope lies in the knowledge it does not take a majority of the population to desire a change for the minority to act to make it happen. That's why many of us are here.Yes.
7 --- I don't think they can succeed in banning crypto, but they will try. Power never willingly gives up control, at least not without a struggle. Remember, nothing can stop an idea who's time has come. Is it time yet? Will enough people wake up and be willing to invest in a better way of living than control and violence against their fellow humans? It remains to be seen, and I don't get a nice warm feeling in my gut.I believe it's time has come, for some.
...or mistakenly believe that a highly regulated segment can coexist with an unregulated, so called "dark" segment.and then when Permie asks you to back it up with some arguments it turns out you have none.
For those that don't share those ideals I say there's the door, go do your thing on some other playground.
Thom, you say this:+5% for positive rephrasing....or mistakenly believe that a highly regulated segment can coexist with an unregulated, so called "dark" segment.and then when Permie asks you to back it up with some arguments it turns out you have none.
And then you say this:For those that don't share those ideals I say there's the door, go do your thing on some other playground.
But maybe this would sound much better:
"Welcome to BTS - Kingdom of Freedom. You can choose whatever you want and that even includes being a slave - if that's what you think is good for you".
Freedom is about being able to choose. People should be able to choose to be KYC/AML compliant (for whatever reasons) or not to be compliant. Luckily their choice doesn't affect yours.
I believe BTS will be much stronger if we can guarantee both attitudes to be able to coexist on the same blockchain.
(I'll stop here as this thread is supposed to be about BANX and we've already managed to hijack it to a completely unrelated topic.)
Thom, you say this:Well, he just asked me to elaborate, not respond with a lengthy dissertation. As you point out I was already on my way to hijacking the thread so cutting my answer short was appropriate. Now that this discussion has been relocated (good call folks), I can provide a better answer....or mistakenly believe that a highly regulated segment can coexist with an unregulated, so called "dark" segment.and then when Permie asks you to back it up with some arguments it turns out you have none.
And then you say this:That is how I feel about it. Granted, it was a blunt response.For those that don't share those ideals I say there's the door, go do your thing on some other playground.
But maybe this would sound much better:
"Welcome to BTS - Kingdom of Freedom. You can choose whatever you want and that even includes being a slave - if that's what you think is good for you".
Freedom is about being able to choose. People should be able to choose to be KYC/AML compliant (for whatever reasons) or not to be compliant. Luckily their choice doesn't affect yours.
I believe BTS will be much stronger if we can guarantee both attitudes to be able to coexist on the same blockchain.
(I'll stop here as this thread is supposed to be about BANX and we've already managed to hijack it to a completely unrelated topic.)
For the sake of argument let's say that I am naive and that doom really is around the corner, what do we do?
1 - Should the compliance features of UIA's be removed?
If Thom was benevolent dictator (although nobody, particularly you I'm sure, would want that to happen), what would be your first actions?
I just want to do whatever I can to further the cause of long term freedom and empower the individual by encouraging personal growth and voluntary interactions without violence, fear and intimidation.
I don't think the 2nd attempt is the same animal (divergent principles) and it remains to be seen if it will be self sustaining.
Is that a "slippery slope" fallacy? It would be if I were not talking about historical fact, but since our "leaders" show they repeat this pattern it's not a fallacy but a warning, and I fear it will not be heeded.
Is that a "slippery slope" fallacy? It would be if I were not talking about historical fact, but since our "leaders" show they repeat this pattern it's not a fallacy but a warning, and I fear it will not be heeded.
We have one weapon you are not considering: the ability to adapt! We can fork and clone and sharedrop.
This is an arms race, with miles to go before we sleep. (Apologies to Robert Frost.)
We need to consider what stepping stones may be needed to achieve freedom.
Fork to the left: Provide a chain that banks and government lovers are more comfortable adopting. Net result is more people get trained in the advantages of crypto. But would any of us use it? Really? Not even to pay your cable bill?
Fork to the right: Provide a chain that has impregnable privacy to the point of total anonymity and ignores the current world order. But how will value trickle into such a chain?
BitShares 2.0: Run the play right up the middle where left and right can trade with each other. Government lovers (a pox be upon them) can first learn about crypto, then learn about freedom.
Keep in mind that voluntary identity is a powerful force for civilization. Why do you think small towns are more civilized than big cities? Because reputation is an unbelievably important asset that you city-slickers can only dream about."I didn't see that, I only heard
But just to be sociable, I'll take your word"When I See an Elephant Fly
From "Dumbo"
Music and lyrics by Oliver Wallace and Ned WashingtonSometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name.
Is that a "slippery slope" fallacy? It would be if I were not talking about historical fact, but since our "leaders" show they repeat this pattern it's not a fallacy but a warning, and I fear it will not be heeded.
We have one weapon you are not considering: the ability to adapt! We can fork and clone and sharedrop.
This is an arms race, with miles to go before we sleep. (Apologies to Robert Frost.)
We need to consider what stepping stones may be needed to achieve freedom.
Fork to the left: Provide a chain that banks and government lovers are more comfortable adopting. Net result is more people get trained in the advantages of crypto. But would any of us use it? Really? Not even to pay your cable bill?
Fork to the right: Provide a chain that has impregnable privacy to the point of total anonymity and ignores the current world order. But how will value trickle into such a chain?
BitShares 2.0: Run the play right up the middle where left and right can trade with each other. Government lovers (a pox be upon them) can first learn about crypto, then learn about freedom.
Keep in mind that voluntary identity is a powerful force for civilization. Why do you think small towns are more civilized than big cities? Because reputation is an unbelievably important asset that you city-slickers can only dream about."I didn't see that, I only heard
But just to be sociable, I'll take your word"When I See an Elephant Fly
From "Dumbo"
Music and lyrics by Oliver Wallace and Ned WashingtonSometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name.
I do hope you realize in the quote you used from me above, that the "leaders" I was referring to we're politicians, not you or Dan.
As for an analysis of "divergent principles", I will provide some of that tomorrow. I don't understand what you meant by the sentence in parenthesis after that.
Sometimes I feel like BitShares is a reality TV show with secret alliances and strategies that won't be revealed until after the show is over, but by then it doesn't matter anyway.
The issue is power. It's ok to have the bitshares network support regulatory compliance as long as those using the network have a choice and the principal of choice is unassailable.
Is that a "slippery slope" fallacy? It would be if I were not talking about historical fact, but since our "leaders" show they repeat this pattern it's not a fallacy but a warning, and I fear it will not be heeded.
We have one weapon you are not considering: the ability to adapt! We can fork and clone and sharedrop.
This is an arms race, with miles to go before we sleep. (Apologies to Robert Frost.)
We need to consider what stepping stones may be needed to achieve freedom.
Fork to the left: Provide a chain that banks and government lovers are more comfortable adopting. Net result is more people get trained in the advantages of crypto. But would any of us use it? Really? Not even to pay your cable bill?
Fork to the right: Provide a chain that has impregnable privacy to the point of total anonymity and ignores the current world order. But how will value trickle into such a chain?
BitShares 2.0: Run the play right up the middle where left and right can trade with each other. Government lovers (a pox be upon them) can first learn about crypto, then learn about freedom.
Keep in mind that voluntary identity is a powerful force for civilization. Why do you think small towns are more civilized than big cities? Because reputation is an unbelievably important asset that you city-slickers can only dream about."I didn't see that, I only heard
But just to be sociable, I'll take your word"When I See an Elephant Fly
From "Dumbo"
Music and lyrics by Oliver Wallace and Ned WashingtonSometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name.
The issue is power. It's ok to have the bitshares network support regulatory compliance as long as those using the network have a choice and the principal of choice is unassailable.
What individuals value changes over time depending on experience, incentive, education, propaganda, culture. Those who understand the need to decentralize the power of money naturally do not want to contaminate Bitshares by incorporating regulatory compliance functionality based on falsehoods and fear. However, whilst so many minds are captured, whilst the lie of security remains highly pervasive, we may deflect scrutiny and increase network effect in the short term by camouflaging the true power of our constitution by code. Hundreds of millions of people will soon wake up to the reality that you cannot trust any organisation that grants itself legitimacy through force. They may take an interest then in the solutions we are building and demand adherence to principals many of us hold dear.
Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16953.msg216856.html#msg216856).
The issue is power. It's ok to have the bitshares network support regulatory compliance as long as those using the network have a choice and the principal of choice is unassailable.
What individuals value changes over time depending on experience, incentive, education, propaganda, culture. Those who understand the need to decentralize the power of money naturally do not want to contaminate Bitshares by incorporating regulatory compliance functionality based on falsehoods and fear. However, whilst so many minds are captured, whilst the lie of security remains highly pervasive, we may deflect scrutiny and increase network effect in the short term by camouflaging the true power of our constitution by code. Hundreds of millions of people will soon wake up to the reality that you cannot trust any organisation that grants itself legitimacy through force. They may take an interest then in the solutions we are building and demand adherence to principals many of us hold dear.
I gain more respect for you every time you post Ben. Haven't seen a single post I'd take issue with.
Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16953.msg216856.html#msg216856).
I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).
A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.
People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?
Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16953.msg216856.html#msg216856).
I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).
A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.
People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?
Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16953.msg216856.html#msg216856).
I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).
A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.
People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?
If the "fork to the left" chain were totally separate from the "fork to the right" chain then it significantly reduces the opportunity for a rider to affect both chains. The communities each have their own values and their own delegates and any changes proposed must be acceptable to the delegates and shareholders to be adopted. All proposals of a "general applicability" should be met with a higher degree of scrutiny to to avoid any unwanted impact. Having separate chains provides protection from "riders" that way. That's not what is happening tho. I seriously doubt there are enough funds to support 2 completely separate chains right now.
However, if the regulators seriously threaten Cryptonomex with "implement this quietly or get locked in a cage" the community would be fucked, IF Cryptonomex acquiesced and "did as they're told". If the regulators want to force their will upon either chain they have the power to make it happen, IF people give them that power and buckle under their threats. And although it's much milder, I can see the point of view that providing tools for regulators to restrict free trade based on their legislative whims is a type of acquiescence to implied threats. Sure, you can spin it as "giving people a choice", but I don't think helping regulators is to gain market share is a good trade off. I see it as helping the enemy, an "ends justifies the means" position. "Would you kill 3 people to save 6?" a lifeboat scenario. That's why I said before I can't see coexistence working out, tho I doubt the coercion would be done in such a direct manor.
How well can the community possibly "vet" every new developer that Cryptonomex hires to make sure they're not a government infiltrator that sabotages the code or adds back doors. There are many possible attack vectors. Having separate chains is not a garantee of security but it would at least provide a clean dividing line and ability to separate issues that affect personal freedom.
I see BitShares as the mycelium (mushrooms) spreading throughout the financial-earth, connecting ecosystems together and exchanging resources and information.
Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16953.msg216856.html#msg216856).
I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).
A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.
People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?
If the "fork to the left" chain were totally separate from the "fork to the right" chain then it significantly reduces the opportunity for a rider to affect both chains. The communities each have their own values and their own delegates and any changes proposed must be acceptable to the delegates and shareholders to be adopted. All proposals of a "general applicability" should be met with a higher degree of scrutiny to to avoid any unwanted impact. Having separate chains provides protection from "riders" that way. That's not what is happening tho. I seriously doubt there are enough funds to support 2 completely separate chains right now.
However, if the regulators seriously threaten Cryptonomex with "implement this quietly or get locked in a cage" the community would be fucked, IF Cryptonomex acquiesced and "did as they're told". If the regulators want to force their will upon either chain they have the power to make it happen, IF people give them that power and buckle under their threats. And although it's much milder, I can see the point of view that providing tools for regulators to restrict free trade based on their legislative whims is a type of acquiescence to implied threats. Sure, you can spin it as "giving people a choice", but I don't think helping regulators is to gain market share is a good trade off. I see it as helping the enemy, an "ends justifies the means" position. "Would you kill 3 people to save 6?" a lifeboat scenario. That's why I said before I can't see coexistence working out, tho I doubt the coercion would be done in such a direct manor.
How well can the community possibly "vet" every new developer that Cryptonomex hires to make sure they're not a government infiltrator that sabotages the code or adds back doors. There are many possible attack vectors. Having separate chains is not a garantee of security but it would at least provide a clean dividing line and ability to separate issues that affect personal freedom.
Coexistence in our case simply means that we can, with some restrictions, trade against assets that otherwise would never be issued on our chain."I'd love to issue my ACME-IOU-USD on BitShares, but our compliance officer says we can't."
We say, give them the tools that they need to play in our sandbox. Then, anyone who wants to use that asset can decide if meeting its regulatory requirements is worth it.
The same options are out there right now - BitShares just connects them on one interoperable backbone.
The health (integrity of core principals) of our Bitshares constitution by code is contingent upon several factors;
The code being open
New code being continually peer reviewed
The implementation of changes being approved by majority consensus
Effective means of education & communication with the electorate
The composition of the electorate - knowledge, activity
Effective reputation system
Suitable means for delegation of responsibilities along with accountability
The ability to fork the code & sharedrop
Other factors...
We rely upon the assumption that individuals in a free system will act in their own interest and those interests will generally align with the interests of others. This represents the power of the people, the power of direct consensus. Everyone who participates within the Bitshares network knows the rules and that everyone must adhere to the same rules. Changing the rules is where the most risk to integrity comes so we must do everything we can to ensure those changes continue to be vetted at every level.
Riders are only possible currently because there is a lack of transparency and no direct accountability. Choice is again the most important factor. If the government is capable of compelling code changes, then we've failed at being decentralized. Having workers from multiple jurisdictions will help. The adoption of regulation compliance features is a choice, using those features is a choice, removal of those features would continue to be a choice.
I just want to do whatever I can to further the cause of long term freedom and empower the individual by encouraging personal growth and voluntary interactions without violence, fear and intimidation.
I just want to do whatever I can to further the cause of long term freedom and empower the individual by encouraging personal growth and voluntary interactions without violence, fear and intimidation.
Thom, I understand and share your feelings on emotional level.
Where I do not agree is the philosophical level.
My position is this: If I have true freedom I should be able to choose not to be free and still be part of the freedom community.
So for me freedom is big enough to include its opposite.
Imagine this situation:
I am a beggar and I ask you for money, you send me 100 bitUSD and I immediately burn it.
Now, if you are upset with me - it means you have not truly given me the money.
You thought you did and your intentions were good but in fact you did not part with your money (as you still had some expectations attached to it) so it was not a true act of giving.
For me the same thing applies to freedom.
Let's give people freedom and still include them in our community if they choose to not to use this freedom.
For me only this will be a true act of freedom-giving.
Removing the ability to provide compliance features would be an attempt to control market forces, IMO.
I respectfully disagree with all of this. The beggar analogy is flawed. It assumes the giver was upset based on an issue of ownership but in fact it could be his upset was due to wasting resources that could benefit someone. I'm sure the giver would have been willing to give for any other purpose than to disrespect the giver's efforts to earn the money or to selfishly burn it so NOBODY would benefit. It's practically a fraud what the beggar did. It was a very vindictive act that took advantage of the giver's generosity to accomplish nothing more than to deprive the giver of the gift and then destroy it, helping no one.
To permie I also disagree. It is a matter of principles. It is a contradiction on it's face. How can BitShares say it stands by it's principles and promotes freedom but also build in tools that destroy ownership? Admit it, this is a compromise for the sole purpose of gaining adoption by more people. It promotes forceful control of another's assets with a big stick of power by providing the big stick of power to anyone that wants one. You look at it as "Removing" a feature but I look at it as we are adding the ability for one entity to control the assets of another entity, to nullify the purchase, to offer something in place of true property ownership. It provides the tools of confiscation making it possible inside the BitShares ecosystem rather than barring them entry to prevent the ultimate corruption that will occur like it did in the mainstream financial ecosystem.
The claim that BitShares is all about freedom of choice may be true, but building bad choices into the system is essentially incentivizing bad choices. This could well become the Achilles heel of BitShares. Granted, it will likely lead to a boom in growth first, but those that are here and believe in the first principles BitShares was founded on will fade away as more of that big stick of power begins to permeate the ecosystem, and it will. Allowing regulation is the first crack in the dam.
I myself will not participate in buying any assets that don't provide me with exclusive ownership rights. That is not ownership it is a rental or lease. Those that want to enter into such arrangements are people who don't understand basic property rights or, are wiling to risk the loss of access or use of property. Those people don't have true ownership of the property, only the illusion of ownership. I will not buy into that. Unfortunately the illusion won't be realized until the big stick is used on the first poor bastard the controllers wish to make an example of.
Thom I wholeheartedly agree with your philosophy fundamentals and very much agree alot of your posts, but I think this issue isn't as clear cut as you think it is. The ability to enter voluntarily into a contractual agreement for someone to have control over your assets is a freedom like any other and important in certain use cases. I also think it is very important to allow for both scenarios and that the incentives aren't skewed either way by the blockchain whether its total freedom of your assets, or the abdication of ownership to play out and let the pieces fall where they may.+5%
My reasoning for this is that it provides a clear cut Apples to Apples comparison of exactly why freedom is so incredibly goddamn important!
I look at it as we are adding the ability for one entity to control the assets of another entity, to nullify the purchase, to offer something in place of true property ownershipThen that particular asset is not property, but a contract or agreement of some other kind. So what?
I don't think compliance UIAs help baddies, but they do allow users to experience holding both free and controlled assets and help them realize the benefits and pitfalls of each.