0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 14, 2015, 09:01:25 pmWe 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
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.
1) A known known. For delegates.2) As social systems grow in importance, individuals are very much forced to participate as dictated - in order to survive.3) Moonstone. Tying your account with a authority.4) Bitshares. A new way to issue stocks, exactly like the old way.5) see 2)
Quote from: blahblah7up on April 15, 2015, 07:19:57 amMoonstone. Building the tools for monetary surveillance.1) I wrote that wiki article2) no one can force you to publish your data3) the current concept from moonstone is to hand out a certificate that ties your account with a authority4) in order to comply with regulations for stocks you need to be able to 'survey' shareholders of your company5) no one will force you to either issue or buy any stock in bitshares
Moonstone. Building the tools for monetary surveillance.
If history tells us anything is that all "radical / highly disrupting" ideas, have always been spinned against it by the controlling powers (read companies interests, not proper goverments) using the media. BitShares has the potential to decentralized many aspects of our lives hopefully for the best (if truly decentralised). Regulation is always going to be necessary, like taxes are necessary to provide the services we need. Branding is important, together with the message. An example OpenBaazar vs DarkMarket, both will do potentially the same thing, but the message is different with a much bigger user base.
Quote from: fuzzy on April 15, 2015, 03:25:26 amSuch deep and telling points...And what if most of the population knows nothing of technology but still relies on the television to tell them what to fear?And what if the "terrorists" attack the technology that most people rely on but do not understand and people like us are caught in the crosshairs in making decisions to "keep everyone safe" ...or, like George Bush Jr said "you are either with us, or you're with the terrorists"? Which side do we choose when confronted by temporary wealth and power...or true freedom for all and Guantanamo?I wish I could say this is a choice we will never have to make. Something in my gut tells me otherwise....Are you saying that bitshares has the power to shut down Guantanamo?
Such deep and telling points...And what if most of the population knows nothing of technology but still relies on the television to tell them what to fear?And what if the "terrorists" attack the technology that most people rely on but do not understand and people like us are caught in the crosshairs in making decisions to "keep everyone safe" ...or, like George Bush Jr said "you are either with us, or you're with the terrorists"? Which side do we choose when confronted by temporary wealth and power...or true freedom for all and Guantanamo?I wish I could say this is a choice we will never have to make. Something in my gut tells me otherwise....
Quote from: Globally Distributed on April 15, 2015, 02:45:28 amThat said I am fascinated by how the technology supports libertarianism now more than ever and I suspect we are on the forefront of a peaceful revolution.It feels that way now but it seems to me like that could end in an instant.2 people get killed and it's justification for c-51? Could you imagine if Zehaf-Bibeau had even $0.10 of bitUSD? There's no free speech laws in Canada to protect open source software, and judging from initial poll numbers on c-51, we're a people who tend to over react in the greatest of fashions.
That said I am fascinated by how the technology supports libertarianism now more than ever and I suspect we are on the forefront of a peaceful revolution.
It does us a GREAT disservice to dismiss the obvious corruption that brought us all to crypto in the first place as "tinfoil hat" stuff.
You missed American Airlines and the other airline involved.James Rickards claims that an insider(s) knew about the attack and shorted some stocks, people saw the movement and figured somebody knew something they didn't, so they jumped on the bandwagon. I don't see the proof of false flag there.There is very little to gain from arguing about 9/11 being a false flag, I feel. It's like arguing religion. Not really helping to get your point across, you're not going to change anyone's mind, and chances are you are going to alienate some people.Personally, I'm an agnostic on 9/11.Yes I think whitelists are a mark of the beast. It's like we've come full circle right back to where satoshi started - though I always figured it was where we would end up.
Quote from: fuzzy on April 15, 2015, 01:53:22 amP.S. what we build here today is going to be impossible for any man or even team of men to defeat. the final political frontieralso, it reminds me of terminator... and robots
P.S. what we build here today is going to be impossible for any man or even team of men to defeat.
Quote from: onceuponatime on April 15, 2015, 01:33:16 amQuote from: leroyJenkins on April 15, 2015, 01:08:23 amQuote from: fuzzy on April 14, 2015, 09:15:48 pmLet us not forget that most of these really strict know your customer laws came into effect after the False Flag 9/11 attack started the "war on terror" (otherwise known as the war of terror). So if we are talking about "terrorism" being the main reason for the necessity of "whitelists" and "blacklists", we are talking about changing privacy for all sovereigns based on a threat that is far less likely to threaten the population than, say, getting struck by lightning or dying from falling in the shower. I don't feel this is the right place to call 9/11 a false flag attack.Some people may have a hard time taking you seriously after such a comment.I am as disgusted as the next guy by the excesses of the war on terror, but I would hate for bitshares to be associated with tinfoil hats.Not many tin foil hats here. Mostly lots of open minds. The testimony from American Architects and Engineers regarding the impossibility of the official 911 story is overwhelming.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7JCqlF24pIBe that as it may, I hope you joined our forum today to discuss or learn about BitShares.Welcome.p.s. The creation of BitShares is, in itself, a pretty strong political statement for the security of life, liberty and property.I have been lurking here for ages. I am not looking to argue about building 7 or anything of the like. It's just a very controversial topic that is going to alienate some people needlessly. Convincing me that 9/11 was a false flag isn't going to remove the requirement for kyc.
Quote from: leroyJenkins on April 15, 2015, 01:08:23 amQuote from: fuzzy on April 14, 2015, 09:15:48 pmLet us not forget that most of these really strict know your customer laws came into effect after the False Flag 9/11 attack started the "war on terror" (otherwise known as the war of terror). So if we are talking about "terrorism" being the main reason for the necessity of "whitelists" and "blacklists", we are talking about changing privacy for all sovereigns based on a threat that is far less likely to threaten the population than, say, getting struck by lightning or dying from falling in the shower. I don't feel this is the right place to call 9/11 a false flag attack.Some people may have a hard time taking you seriously after such a comment.I am as disgusted as the next guy by the excesses of the war on terror, but I would hate for bitshares to be associated with tinfoil hats.Not many tin foil hats here. Mostly lots of open minds. The testimony from American Architects and Engineers regarding the impossibility of the official 911 story is overwhelming.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7JCqlF24pIBe that as it may, I hope you joined our forum today to discuss or learn about BitShares.Welcome.p.s. The creation of BitShares is, in itself, a pretty strong political statement for the security of life, liberty and property.
Quote from: fuzzy on April 14, 2015, 09:15:48 pmLet us not forget that most of these really strict know your customer laws came into effect after the False Flag 9/11 attack started the "war on terror" (otherwise known as the war of terror). So if we are talking about "terrorism" being the main reason for the necessity of "whitelists" and "blacklists", we are talking about changing privacy for all sovereigns based on a threat that is far less likely to threaten the population than, say, getting struck by lightning or dying from falling in the shower. I don't feel this is the right place to call 9/11 a false flag attack.Some people may have a hard time taking you seriously after such a comment.I am as disgusted as the next guy by the excesses of the war on terror, but I would hate for bitshares to be associated with tinfoil hats.
Let us not forget that most of these really strict know your customer laws came into effect after the False Flag 9/11 attack started the "war on terror" (otherwise known as the war of terror). So if we are talking about "terrorism" being the main reason for the necessity of "whitelists" and "blacklists", we are talking about changing privacy for all sovereigns based on a threat that is far less likely to threaten the population than, say, getting struck by lightning or dying from falling in the shower.
p.s. The creation of BitShares is, in itself, a pretty strong political statement for the security of life, liberty and property.
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 14, 2015, 09:01:25 pmI 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 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.
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 14, 2015, 09:53:50 pmQuote from: davidpbrown on April 14, 2015, 09:22:51 pmQuote 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.
Quote from: davidpbrown on April 14, 2015, 09:22:51 pmQuote 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.
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??
..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.
Quote from: bitsapphire on April 14, 2015, 09:01:25 pmThat 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?
That said, I have the distinct feeling that Ripple is going to go a vastly more restrictive route than our proposal.
Quote from: hadrian on April 14, 2015, 07:21:03 pmInteresting... I guess the aim is to enable Ripple to become even more mainstream and 'industrial'.I'd like to know exactly who will hold all this information about the users?And they want to kill anonymity, so good luck to them
Interesting... I guess the aim is to enable Ripple to become even more mainstream and 'industrial'.I'd like to know exactly who will hold all this information about the users?
Later this year, Ripple Labs will enhance identity requirements for Ripple Trade wallets by establishing additional account creation and verification procedures in support of a compliant Ripple network. This will include the collection of additional identifiable information. An ecosystem that supports regulatory compliance builds confidence and encourages new participants to use Ripple and contribute volume to the network. To learn more about how Ripple Labs is developing an identity solution for Ripple Trade and the overall ecosystem, read our previous communication. We will be in touch with more information soon. Thank you for using Ripple Trade, and please don’t hesitate to email support@ripple.com with any questions or concerns.