0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: bytemaster on December 18, 2014, 11:57:51 pmQuote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 08:04:07 pmQuoteDelegates may publish a feed, but that is just free speech and they are not required to publish a feed. Is there a mechanism for non-delegates to publish feeds?Yes, anyone registered as a delegate can publish a feed even if they are not in top 101.count these feeds? Count all feeds published from standby delegates if yes? Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D
Quote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 08:04:07 pmQuoteDelegates may publish a feed, but that is just free speech and they are not required to publish a feed. Is there a mechanism for non-delegates to publish feeds?Yes, anyone registered as a delegate can publish a feed even if they are not in top 101.
QuoteDelegates may publish a feed, but that is just free speech and they are not required to publish a feed. Is there a mechanism for non-delegates to publish feeds?
Delegates may publish a feed, but that is just free speech and they are not required to publish a feed.
Quote from: delulo on December 19, 2014, 04:59:31 pmQuote from: kisa on December 19, 2014, 02:51:32 pmQuote from: clout on December 19, 2014, 01:48:48 pmQuote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 08:08:26 pmQuoteBitUSD as currencyThe argument isn't is it a currency, which is clearly not. The argument is if it is a true CfD subject to CFTC regulation. Those that take place in facilitating the markets would be the people exposed to liability namely delegates.I don't think you can actually argue that bitUSD is a CFD. It is not a contract between buyer and seller and there is no date of settlement. It is not a derivative but rather it is its own asset just like BTS or BTC.If anything, viewed from the U.S., bitUSD can be called CFND = Contract For No Difference...I'd say BitUSD is a contract for difference but it is settled in BTS not in USD. Actually it is not really settled in BTS. Settling happens only virtually as the exchange rate of BTS and USD varies and BitUSD holders are exposed to the volatility of BTS but never get to own BTS since there is no expiration date.Yeah, but SEC doesn't care if people lose or make BTS, as long as their invested USD are safe...
Quote from: kisa on December 19, 2014, 02:51:32 pmQuote from: clout on December 19, 2014, 01:48:48 pmQuote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 08:08:26 pmQuoteBitUSD as currencyThe argument isn't is it a currency, which is clearly not. The argument is if it is a true CfD subject to CFTC regulation. Those that take place in facilitating the markets would be the people exposed to liability namely delegates.I don't think you can actually argue that bitUSD is a CFD. It is not a contract between buyer and seller and there is no date of settlement. It is not a derivative but rather it is its own asset just like BTS or BTC.If anything, viewed from the U.S., bitUSD can be called CFND = Contract For No Difference...I'd say BitUSD is a contract for difference but it is settled in BTS not in USD. Actually it is not really settled in BTS. Settling happens only virtually as the exchange rate of BTS and USD varies and BitUSD holders are exposed to the volatility of BTS but never get to own BTS since there is no expiration date.
Quote from: clout on December 19, 2014, 01:48:48 pmQuote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 08:08:26 pmQuoteBitUSD as currencyThe argument isn't is it a currency, which is clearly not. The argument is if it is a true CfD subject to CFTC regulation. Those that take place in facilitating the markets would be the people exposed to liability namely delegates.I don't think you can actually argue that bitUSD is a CFD. It is not a contract between buyer and seller and there is no date of settlement. It is not a derivative but rather it is its own asset just like BTS or BTC.If anything, viewed from the U.S., bitUSD can be called CFND = Contract For No Difference...
Quote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 08:08:26 pmQuoteBitUSD as currencyThe argument isn't is it a currency, which is clearly not. The argument is if it is a true CfD subject to CFTC regulation. Those that take place in facilitating the markets would be the people exposed to liability namely delegates.I don't think you can actually argue that bitUSD is a CFD. It is not a contract between buyer and seller and there is no date of settlement. It is not a derivative but rather it is its own asset just like BTS or BTC.
QuoteBitUSD as currencyThe argument isn't is it a currency, which is clearly not. The argument is if it is a true CfD subject to CFTC regulation. Those that take place in facilitating the markets would be the people exposed to liability namely delegates.
BitUSD as currency
You should see Harvard's law lab. They are doing some really interesting things in private, algorithmic law. http://lawlab.org/
The SEC can do all of this but it would seem like an utterly stupid waste of money, damaging to both their reputation and to the US economy. Why would the SEC want to crush innovation, hurt the people who have good intentions in the crypto-space? They can do it but a lot of different agencies have similar powers which they decide not to use. Why would the SEC go all out?
Wouldn't this also work for Bitcoin and all of it's Counterparty/Mastercoin type functionality? I don't see how a delegate is any different from a miner so if they did attack delegates then delegates would go anonymous. Why would they want to push the delegates underground? It's not going to kill the Bitshares protocol and all it would do is remove a level of transparency.
Bitcoin has scripting as well and permits all sorts of functions which aren't used. I would say we'll find out by how they treat Bitcoin but from what we know so far I don't see how being a delegate is a significantly higher risk for most people than being a miner in Bitcoin.
The SEC has a set of tests from the Howey test to the Hawaii Market Center test to judge whether something falls under the jurisdiction of the security exchange act of 1933 via the investment contract section. Generally speaking, vocabulary doesn't matter nor marketing material rather the substance of the transaction from which parties financially benefited, expectation of return, the medium upon which funds were solicited and the nature of the enterprise. It's a complex topic and generally is resolved by either a formal legal opinion (a more likely than not letter) or a no action letter directly from the SEC. The SEC cannot arrest people, nor can it pursue criminal conduct. This is done typically either at the state level or via the DOJ. Usually actions are multi-agency with the IRS and SEC examining one plank and state law enforcement examining another. Also they tend to bundle enforcement together with emerging industries. A great example would be the crackdown on online gambling back in the early 2000s. There is also the ability to pursue international enforcement via treaty. The SEC can reach into over 80 countries if there was provable American participation in the event in question. How enforcement could be done would be for the SEC to issue a ruling on ICOs and apply it retroactively giving them the mandate to pursue anyone within some window (up to ten years, usually five or so). Most will be given the option to settle for a fine and some restrictions. Others will become the poster child of the enforcement action.
In terms of personal liability for running a delegate, if the person was connected to invictus during or before the AGS event, then it could invite additional scrutiny from the relevant bodies. The bigger issue is if a bitasset is considered a derivative under US law and subject to CFTC regulation. Bitshares cannot work without delegates under the current design therefore the CFTC can argue that its under their jurisdiction and pursue enforcement against the delegates for operating the network.
The same could be said about mining perhaps; however, bitcoin does not permit complex financial derivatives or arbitrary code to be run. Also miners are not elected nor are paid a salary for providing a host of network services beyond block validation.
I think the community should strongly consider a delegate indemnity fund to cover legal costs associated with operating a delegate. It's an added layer of security and support for the role.
I actually call these events DCCMs to avoid this very issue: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xG1hkPbk0uuavjPc_gt_eWxEUbWM1SlsxNmhGdRIUtg/edit
People are practical and have to communicate complex concepts to others. It doesn't help much to add a layer of legal obfuscation as a CYA. I suppose it is necessary, however.
BM you mentioned in mumble weeks ago plans to dissolve I3, Is that still the plan?It would make it that much harder for any regulator body if their was no company to attack.
Quote from: kisa on December 18, 2014, 08:24:36 pmHowever, it should be possible to defend that bitUSD isn't CFD-like in the US where the value is measured in USD.Really? How?
However, it should be possible to defend that bitUSD isn't CFD-like in the US where the value is measured in USD.
This doesn't seem to be factually correct. Aren't delegates also responsible for price feeds? Won't bitusd fail to work properly without them?
Now comes the question of BitShares which could just as easily be Sparkle (or any number of alts). In my opinion Delegates are legally identical to miners or mining pool operators. They are mere employees serving a term and can be replaced at will by those who hold the BTS.
All of that said, I firmly believe the BTS community and other delegates will support any individual delegate which comes under attack out of the interest of defending the network and ensuring the network can retain high quality public delegates.
Their role is limited to processing transactions just like Bitcoin.
The other parties (DOJ, IRS) care about fraud and taxes. Fraud requires intent and actual harm and considering everyone who gave has received equal or greater value as a result it is kind of hard to argue fraud. Taxes are being done in full compliance with IRS codes with expectation of an audit. In this case Invictus is in the hot seat and given the extent to which we have gone to comply with the law, the corporation should shield Stan and I from liability.
As far as that lunch goes... bring extra salt.
QuoteThere is no evidence I've seen that the SEC views it like that but it is definitely within the range of possibility if they really were determined to make something of it. I don't think the SEC would start doing more than a fine because Burnside, Vorhees, and others all got a fine after a settlement. If you cooperate with the SEC then you get a fine so far.The SEC has a set of tests from the Howey test to the Hawaii Market Center test to judge whether something falls under the jurisdiction of the security exchange act of 1933 via the investment contract section. Generally speaking, vocabulary doesn't matter nor marketing material rather the substance of the transaction from which parties financially benefited, expectation of return, the medium upon which funds were solicited and the nature of the enterprise. It's a complex topic and generally is resolved by either a formal legal opinion (a more likely than not letter) or a no action letter directly from the SEC. The SEC cannot arrest people, nor can it pursue criminal conduct. This is done typically either at the state level or via the DOJ. Usually actions are multi-agency with the IRS and SEC examining one plank and state law enforcement examining another. Also they tend to bundle enforcement together with emerging industries. A great example would be the crackdown on online gambling back in the early 2000s. There is also the ability to pursue international enforcement via treaty. The SEC can reach into over 80 countries if there was provable American participation in the event in question. How enforcement could be done would be for the SEC to issue a ruling on ICOs and apply it retroactively giving them the mandate to pursue anyone within some window (up to ten years, usually five or so). Most will be given the option to settle for a fine and some restrictions. Others will become the poster child of the enforcement action. In terms of personal liability for running a delegate, if the person was connected to invictus during or before the AGS event, then it could invite additional scrutiny from the relevant bodies. The bigger issue is if a bitasset is considered a derivative under US law and subject to CFTC regulation. Bitshares cannot work without delegates under the current design therefore the CFTC can argue that its under their jurisdiction and pursue enforcement against the delegates for operating the network. The same could be said about mining perhaps; however, bitcoin does not permit complex financial derivatives or arbitrary code to be run. Also miners are not elected nor are paid a salary for providing a host of network services beyond block validation. I think the community should strongly consider a delegate indemnity fund to cover legal costs associated with operating a delegate. It's an added layer of security and support for the role. QuoteHowever, we don't know why he left so it might not be a matter of being able to "let go of the past". Unfortunately none of us will ever know because BM is a damned vault with these reasons. Charles just wants to eat lunch with you when you ask--though don't get me wrong, I'm sure a couple brewskies with him would be a good time!Let's have lunch.
There is no evidence I've seen that the SEC views it like that but it is definitely within the range of possibility if they really were determined to make something of it. I don't think the SEC would start doing more than a fine because Burnside, Vorhees, and others all got a fine after a settlement. If you cooperate with the SEC then you get a fine so far.
However, we don't know why he left so it might not be a matter of being able to "let go of the past". Unfortunately none of us will ever know because BM is a damned vault with these reasons. Charles just wants to eat lunch with you when you ask--though don't get me wrong, I'm sure a couple brewskies with him would be a good time!
And as the "architect" of the largest ICO in history, Charles, in your estimation, does Ethereum's bake sale pass the sniff test?
Why call it an ICO? That language seems like it would attract additional scrutiny. Why not call it a crowd sale or pre-mine?
I think you have a point about being under scrutiny. I just don't know why we as a community choose to use language which would bring scrutiny.
Quote from: fuzzy on December 18, 2014, 12:38:42 pmQuote from: Globally Distributed on December 18, 2014, 12:25:03 pmQuote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 05:04:06 amSuccinctly, I don't have any intentions to run a delegate for three reasons. First, the board of Invictus made a decision without debate or my input back in October of last year that my services were no longer required. I really don't think I can have an effective working relationship with the people who made that decision moving forward. I'd be happy to collaborate where it makes sense and I always promote good technology if it's open source, high quality and solves real problems. Relationships are like blockchains, to avoid forks one must upgrade or downgrade, then rescan.edit: It would obviously be great for this initiative if the olive branch were extended to youQuote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 05:04:06 amAs bitshares the technology gets further disintermediated from I3 the company, then I'd be happy to become more involved.Looking forward to the day you do.Hey Global. We are all adults here...why not just post under your real alias? You harm your cause posing as a nublet.I seek to tap the collective consciousness, better to clear everyone's minds when doing so.As many have brought up in this thread, any proposal would need to be vetted and voted on by the community. I think this is the most important thing. Anything less than excellence would not be accepted.
Quote from: Globally Distributed on December 18, 2014, 12:25:03 pmQuote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 05:04:06 amSuccinctly, I don't have any intentions to run a delegate for three reasons. First, the board of Invictus made a decision without debate or my input back in October of last year that my services were no longer required. I really don't think I can have an effective working relationship with the people who made that decision moving forward. I'd be happy to collaborate where it makes sense and I always promote good technology if it's open source, high quality and solves real problems. Relationships are like blockchains, to avoid forks one must upgrade or downgrade, then rescan.edit: It would obviously be great for this initiative if the olive branch were extended to youQuote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 05:04:06 amAs bitshares the technology gets further disintermediated from I3 the company, then I'd be happy to become more involved.Looking forward to the day you do.Hey Global. We are all adults here...why not just post under your real alias? You harm your cause posing as a nublet.
Quote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 05:04:06 amSuccinctly, I don't have any intentions to run a delegate for three reasons. First, the board of Invictus made a decision without debate or my input back in October of last year that my services were no longer required. I really don't think I can have an effective working relationship with the people who made that decision moving forward. I'd be happy to collaborate where it makes sense and I always promote good technology if it's open source, high quality and solves real problems. Relationships are like blockchains, to avoid forks one must upgrade or downgrade, then rescan.edit: It would obviously be great for this initiative if the olive branch were extended to youQuote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 05:04:06 amAs bitshares the technology gets further disintermediated from I3 the company, then I'd be happy to become more involved.Looking forward to the day you do.
Succinctly, I don't have any intentions to run a delegate for three reasons. First, the board of Invictus made a decision without debate or my input back in October of last year that my services were no longer required. I really don't think I can have an effective working relationship with the people who made that decision moving forward. I'd be happy to collaborate where it makes sense and I always promote good technology if it's open source, high quality and solves real problems.
As bitshares the technology gets further disintermediated from I3 the company, then I'd be happy to become more involved.
Quote from: Globally Distributed on December 18, 2014, 12:25:03 pmQuote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 05:04:06 amSuccinctly, I don't have any intentions to run a delegate for three reasons. First, the board of Invictus made a decision without debate or my input back in October of last year that my services were no longer required. I really don't think I can have an effective working relationship with the people who made that decision moving forward. I'd be happy to collaborate where it makes sense and I always promote good technology if it's open source, high quality and solves real problems. Relationships are like blockchains, to avoid forks one must upgrade or downgrade, then rescan.edit: It would obviously be great for this initiative if the olive branch were extended to youedit: Perhaps it should not matter.Quote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 05:04:06 amAs bitshares the technology gets further disintermediated from I3 the company, then I'd be happy to become more involved.Looking forward to the day you do.Hey Global. We are all adults here...why not just post under your real alias? You harm your cause posing as a nublet.
Quote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 05:04:06 amSuccinctly, I don't have any intentions to run a delegate for three reasons. First, the board of Invictus made a decision without debate or my input back in October of last year that my services were no longer required. I really don't think I can have an effective working relationship with the people who made that decision moving forward. I'd be happy to collaborate where it makes sense and I always promote good technology if it's open source, high quality and solves real problems. Relationships are like blockchains, to avoid forks one must upgrade or downgrade, then rescan.edit: It would obviously be great for this initiative if the olive branch were extended to youedit: Perhaps it should not matter.Quote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 05:04:06 amAs bitshares the technology gets further disintermediated from I3 the company, then I'd be happy to become more involved.Looking forward to the day you do.
Quote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 05:04:06 amWow this really does come as a surprise. First thank you global for taking the time to draft this thread. It does mean a lot that someone in the bitshares community thinks so highly of me. I didn't really think that was the case. Succinctly, I don't have any intentions to run a delegate for three reasons. First, the board of Invictus made a decision without debate or my input back in October of last year that my services were no longer required. I really don't think I can have an effective working relationship with the people who made that decision moving forward. I'd be happy to collaborate where it makes sense and I always promote good technology if it's open source, high quality and solves real problems. Thus I'd be happy to pitch Bitshares as it evolves just like I do Eris, Counterparty and other platforms. Second, I'm currently involved in several ventures as an adviser and I'm also starting an education venture in 2015 that requires some degree of objectivity. To avoid conflicts of interest, I can't really take a paid advocacy role.Third, after spending roughly $250,000 on US legal research via Pryor Cashman while at Ethereum, I've come to the opinion that ICOs like angelshares pass the Howey test and thus agents of the company are exposed to unnecessary legal liability. Delegates as fiduciaries are not immune to this liability and it isn't just a fine from the SEC. Furthermore, even if AGS is considered a donation, it seems to me to be a donation solicited with an implicit expectation of return, yet without any accountability from the solicitor (as evidenced by numerous examples, the most recent being the Brian Page audit thread). As I've written in my recent whitepaper, I feel these events are predatory and result in bad outcomes. As bitshares the technology gets further disintermediated from I3 the company, then I'd be happy to become more involved. This will no doubt happen over the coming months and years and I believe everyone is in this for the long haul anyway. Anyway, thanks again for the consideration.Don't be surprised Charles, the forum is the tip of the iceberg. What binds us all together is far deeper and more complicated than the forum allows our network to articulate effectively at times.With regards to your legal research (i have zero expertise,) do you not think the point here is that laws can and will be changed or ignored or enforced depending on the interest of those with the power? Decentralization of influence is the only reasonable protection as compliance seems to be an exercise in futility or tacit support of tyranny.If you wanted to, you could choose to let go of the past and work with BM and all the others surely You can see what they are trying to achieve. Is there any other project so close to delivering the freedom that Satoshi's invention seems to have intended? In campaigning to become a delegate, you will be actively helping to shape the character of the network.....after all the 101 delegates are the expression of the network's values. It is the perfect way to test and refine your ideas within the community.
Wow this really does come as a surprise. First thank you global for taking the time to draft this thread. It does mean a lot that someone in the bitshares community thinks so highly of me. I didn't really think that was the case. Succinctly, I don't have any intentions to run a delegate for three reasons. First, the board of Invictus made a decision without debate or my input back in October of last year that my services were no longer required. I really don't think I can have an effective working relationship with the people who made that decision moving forward. I'd be happy to collaborate where it makes sense and I always promote good technology if it's open source, high quality and solves real problems. Thus I'd be happy to pitch Bitshares as it evolves just like I do Eris, Counterparty and other platforms. Second, I'm currently involved in several ventures as an adviser and I'm also starting an education venture in 2015 that requires some degree of objectivity. To avoid conflicts of interest, I can't really take a paid advocacy role.Third, after spending roughly $250,000 on US legal research via Pryor Cashman while at Ethereum, I've come to the opinion that ICOs like angelshares pass the Howey test and thus agents of the company are exposed to unnecessary legal liability. Delegates as fiduciaries are not immune to this liability and it isn't just a fine from the SEC. Furthermore, even if AGS is considered a donation, it seems to me to be a donation solicited with an implicit expectation of return, yet without any accountability from the solicitor (as evidenced by numerous examples, the most recent being the Brian Page audit thread). As I've written in my recent whitepaper, I feel these events are predatory and result in bad outcomes. As bitshares the technology gets further disintermediated from I3 the company, then I'd be happy to become more involved. This will no doubt happen over the coming months and years and I believe everyone is in this for the long haul anyway. Anyway, thanks again for the consideration.
Quote from: charleshoskinson on December 18, 2014, 05:04:06 amSuccinctly, I don't have any intentions to run a delegate for three reasons. First, the board of Invictus made a decision without debate or my input back in October of last year that my services were no longer required. I really don't think I can have an effective working relationship with the people who made that decision moving forward. I'd be happy to collaborate where it makes sense and I always promote good technology if it's open source, high quality and solves real problems. Thus I'd be happy to pitch Bitshares as it evolves just like I do Eris, Counterparty and other platforms. Second, I'm currently involved in several ventures as an adviser and I'm also starting an education venture in 2015 that requires some degree of objectivity. To avoid conflicts of interest, I can't really take a paid advocacy role.Third, after spending roughly $250,000 on US legal research via Pryor Cashman while at Ethereum, I've come to the opinion that ICOs like angelshares pass the Howey test and thus agents of the company are exposed to unnecessary legal liability. Delegates as fiduciaries are not immune to this liability and it isn't just a fine from the SEC. Furthermore, even if AGS is considered a donation, it seems to me to be a donation solicited with an implicit expectation of return, yet without any accountability from the solicitor (as evidenced by numerous examples, the most recent being the Brian Page audit thread). As I've written in my recent whitepaper, I feel these events are predatory and result in bad outcomes. As bitshares the technology gets further disintermediated from I3 the company, then I'd be happy to become more involved. This will no doubt happen over the coming months and years and I believe everyone is in this for the long haul anyway. Anyway, thanks again for the consideration.Where can we find out more information? I would appreciate any pointers to it.
Succinctly, I don't have any intentions to run a delegate for three reasons. First, the board of Invictus made a decision without debate or my input back in October of last year that my services were no longer required. I really don't think I can have an effective working relationship with the people who made that decision moving forward. I'd be happy to collaborate where it makes sense and I always promote good technology if it's open source, high quality and solves real problems. Thus I'd be happy to pitch Bitshares as it evolves just like I do Eris, Counterparty and other platforms. Second, I'm currently involved in several ventures as an adviser and I'm also starting an education venture in 2015 that requires some degree of objectivity. To avoid conflicts of interest, I can't really take a paid advocacy role.Third, after spending roughly $250,000 on US legal research via Pryor Cashman while at Ethereum, I've come to the opinion that ICOs like angelshares pass the Howey test and thus agents of the company are exposed to unnecessary legal liability. Delegates as fiduciaries are not immune to this liability and it isn't just a fine from the SEC. Furthermore, even if AGS is considered a donation, it seems to me to be a donation solicited with an implicit expectation of return, yet without any accountability from the solicitor (as evidenced by numerous examples, the most recent being the Brian Page audit thread). As I've written in my recent whitepaper, I feel these events are predatory and result in bad outcomes. As bitshares the technology gets further disintermediated from I3 the company, then I'd be happy to become more involved. This will no doubt happen over the coming months and years and I believe everyone is in this for the long haul anyway. Anyway, thanks again for the consideration.
Probably not going to happen; however, given my situation as the co-founder of the company and also the architect of the largest ICO in history, I'm under a bit more scrutiny.
I would consider voting for him as well.
QuoteThe Dude Abides ...Have you ever met Bruno from bitcoin talk? You, bruno and me have to have lunch sometime.
The Dude Abides ...
There's the love I'm used to Thanks Fuzzy glad to have you around.
But since the proposal is coming from a "Newbie" who just signed up for a forum account today, I don't know what to think
and I want to show my support for him.