that's actually pretty good. he's not tying BitShares to Ripple, but talking about IOU/UIA in this context. nothing negative.
Didnt we say months ago "Bitshares is decentralized ripple".for me: BitShares is decentralized ripple + counterparty risk-free bitassets
Regulation under the current system is entrapment via debt backed by force. It is beyond obvious that there is one set of rules for some and another for others. That is zero justice. So we live in a system that creates debt slavery out of everyone eventually, concentrates all resources into the hands of those least capable of deploying them in a constructive manner and destroys our finite environment in the process. F8cking brilliant.
So forget regulation. Completely. Kiss the idea goodbye. Forever.
FIAT is finished. BitGold & BItSilver are the future. People will wake up one day. If Bitshares is ready, if it has retained its integrity, then boom, job done, game over. Hello sovereignty at an individual level with cooperation and capital efficiently deployed to fix all our problems and a path to mass human enlightenment.
Absolutely fuzzy. I really hope that the stark words I use don't feel like a rebuke to anyone. Especially on this marvellous forum. I realise those of us that advocate for compromise or balance are being pragmatic and genuinely attempting to build network effect first. And you know what, maybe that is the right way to go for Bitshares. The fact is that if Bitshares is the stepping stone to the goal, that's fine. But we should acknowledge that any compromise we make will be forked away at some point. And that's fine too. Now we have crypto, it is impossible to prevent innovation that makes it better from asserting itself eventually, assuming we have at least a partially free internet. Loving Maidsafe by the way ;D
Great discussion, the heat feels very real, especially with some of the concerns raised on the latest mumble, dev hangout. Perhaps this will be the main discussion in 2015: how to balance regulation with decentralized freedom. Personally I hope existing infrastructure that wants to deal in IOUs will be fine with bitAssets existing on the same network, and again that regulators will be fine with this, which is an open question. Creating two chains might be what we will see, but then what will happen. There are a lot of things to think through in this area.
Great discussion, the heat feels very real, especially with some of the concerns raised on the latest mumble, dev hangout. Perhaps this will be the main discussion in 2015: how to balance regulation with decentralized freedom. Personally I hope existing infrastructure that wants to deal in IOUs will be fine with bitAssets existing on the same network, and again that regulators will be fine with this, which is an open question. Creating two chains might be what we will see, but then what will happen. There are a lot of things to think through in this area.(http://i.gyazo.com/b85a277cac4a9c06dfaa88740c03c795.png)
Banks are also susceptible to tragedy of the commons. Although all banks collectively don't want to trade on a bitAssets chain, it would make sense rationally for individual banks to do so. This means that it all comes down to regulatory risk for them. But there are banks all over the world, in different regulatory environments, large and small. For each new gateway, bitAssets gets stronger, while IOUs have the same dependence on centralized trust they always had.. Dance, dance, dance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EMnvqU7wyE&t=3m19s)...
Great discussion, the heat feels very real, especially with some of the concerns raised on the latest mumble, dev hangout. Perhaps this will be the main discussion in 2015: how to balance regulation with decentralized freedom. Personally I hope existing infrastructure that wants to deal in IOUs will be fine with bitAssets existing on the same network, and again that regulators will be fine with this, which is an open question. Creating two chains might be what we will see, but then what will happen. There are a lot of things to think through in this area.(http://i.gyazo.com/b85a277cac4a9c06dfaa88740c03c795.png)
Bytemaster and I pretty much agree. We should focus on making a self regulating blockchain as much as possible while preserving liberty for our base.
Institutional adoption requires an appeal to security and regulation features. People dealing with large amounts of money (millions, billions, and trillions) are most concerned with keeping their money safe, and keeping their legal risks low. Bitshares will have to develop features which make it safer than traditional means of securing wealth. At the same time it will need to develop features so that it's able to self regulate to the extent that external regulators don't have any excuse to mess with our community, the developers, or the technology.
The people who wish to use Bitshares in regulated mode should be able to use the same blockchain as the people who wish to use it in unregulated mode. I don't agree with the recent push by governments to outlaw cash but I am guessing that is coming about specifically because the liberty crowd behind technologies like Darkcoin and Slur have pushed things a bit too far.
My opinion is we should protect liberty as much as possible without sacrificing security or mainstream adoption. Very tough because mainstream adoption wants security primarily and then liberty while early adopters want liberty primarily and then security. The holy grail is to have both on the same chain and I think with Turing complete scripting you can do it on a single chain.
http://qz.com/399531/denmark-hopes-to-boost-its-economy-by-eliminating-cash/
Banks are also susceptible to tragedy of the commons. Although all banks collectively don't want to trade on a bitAssets chain, it would make sense rationally for individual banks to do so. This means that it all comes down to regulatory risk for them. But there are banks all over the world, in different regulatory environments, large and small. For each new gateway, bitAssets gets stronger, while IOUs have the same dependence on centralized trust they always had.. Dance, dance, dance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EMnvqU7wyE&t=3m19s)...
I want transparent ledgers....everywhere the eye can see. And I want privacy for individuals. If we get that, I think we win. It's pretty simple in my mind.
That means both institutions today should have these ledgers but fully decentralized ones should exist.
Thoughts?
Banks are also susceptible to tragedy of the commons. Although all banks collectively don't want to trade on a bitAssets chain, it would make sense rationally for individual banks to do so. This means that it all comes down to regulatory risk for them. But there are banks all over the world, in different regulatory environments, large and small. For each new gateway, bitAssets gets stronger, while IOUs have the same dependence on centralized trust they always had.. Dance, dance, dance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EMnvqU7wyE&t=3m19s)...
I want transparent ledgers....everywhere the eye can see. And I want privacy for individuals. If we get that, I think we win. It's pretty simple in my mind.
That means both institutions today should have these ledgers but fully decentralized ones should exist.
Thoughts?
Banks are also susceptible to tragedy of the commons. Although all banks collectively don't want to trade on a bitAssets chain, it would make sense rationally for individual banks to do so. This means that it all comes down to regulatory risk for them. But there are banks all over the world, in different regulatory environments, large and small. For each new gateway, bitAssets gets stronger, while IOUs have the same dependence on centralized trust they always had.. Dance, dance, dance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EMnvqU7wyE&t=3m19s)...
I want transparent ledgers....everywhere the eye can see. And I want privacy for individuals. If we get that, I think we win. It's pretty simple in my mind.
That means both institutions today should have these ledgers but fully decentralized ones should exist.
Thoughts?
Banks are also susceptible to tragedy of the commons. Although all banks collectively don't want to trade on a bitAssets chain, it would make sense rationally for individual banks to do so. This means that it all comes down to regulatory risk for them. But there are banks all over the world, in different regulatory environments, large and small. For each new gateway, bitAssets gets stronger, while IOUs have the same dependence on centralized trust they always had.. Dance, dance, dance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EMnvqU7wyE&t=3m19s)...
I want transparent ledgers....everywhere the eye can see. And I want privacy for individuals. If we get that, I think we win. It's pretty simple in my mind.
That means both institutions today should have these ledgers but fully decentralized ones should exist.
Thoughts?
So long as we focus on maximizing freedom for individuals, rather than favoring any particular ideology, our opponents will need to attack freedom itself to get to us. :)
The last two minutes, starting from 48:00 (https://soundcloud.com/mindtomatter/ltb-e211-the-slippery-slope#t=48:00) sound pretty negative to me. It sounded like they (not so much Adam) were slating BitShares and Ripple together. If I didn't already know about BitShares this would've seriously affected my opinion.
Earlier in the podcast (~32:00 as @yellowecho mentioned) freezing assets was mentioned in association with BitShares. At no point in the show was it made clear that this doesn't relate to BTS or BitAssets. Neither did they mention the important fact that User Issued Assets can have this ability to freeze (or whitelist) permanently disabled (or not enabled in the first place).
The last two minutes, starting from 48:00 (https://soundcloud.com/mindtomatter/ltb-e211-the-slippery-slope#t=48:00) sound pretty negative to me. It sounded like they (not so much Adam) were slating BitShares and Ripple together. If I didn't already know about BitShares this would've seriously affected my opinion.
Earlier in the podcast (~32:00 as @yellowecho mentioned) freezing assets was mentioned in association with BitShares. At no point in the show was it made clear that this doesn't relate to BTS or BitAssets. Neither did they mention the important fact that User Issued Assets can have this ability to freeze (or whitelist) permanently disabled (or not enabled in the first place).
It seems important to me that someone makes a reply video which corrects this misunderstanding and explains the differences between bitshares and ripple.
They have their facts wrong (like most media does).Arguable this is not too difficult with BitShares having a grown system and an out-dated wiki. This will hopefully change in near future with 'official' documentation published by the core devs!
They have their facts wrong (like most media does).Arguable this is not too difficult with BitShares having a grown system and an out-dated wiki. This will hopefully change in near future with 'official' documentation published by the core devs!
It's too much to ask people who aren't heavily involved with BitShares to see this.100% agreed except in this case. If he doesn't know all the details he shouldn't put us beside ripple. He has done this as a recurring theme nearly every chance he gets.
Perfect quip in the latest mumble after Fuzzy asks BM about the unfair situation of Adam comparing us with Ripple and BM straight away goes "I thought that was perfectly fair. They are comparing a feature of BitShares to the entirety of Ripple."
...
Always remember...the current, fraudulen system currently in place WANTs physical currency banned...and will continue surveillance of everything we do in addition (if we allow it) to all transactions. Both of these together=the ultimate destruction of freedom.
...
...
Always remember...the current, fraudulen system currently in place WANTs physical currency banned...and will continue surveillance of everything we do in addition (if we allow it) to all transactions. Both of these together=the ultimate destruction of freedom.
...
In case some people don't already know, In Greece soon there will be a law for the Greek islands that prohibits the use of cash in transactions greater than 70 euros, if everything goes according to their plan they stated that they will enforce this law in all Greece, if this happens guess what will be the next step...
Chryspano, do you know why they want to limit cash payments to 70 Euro?A stepping-stone to force people to use credit/debit cards so that their transactions can be spied on and to enforce capital controls so that the people cannot transfer their wealth outside of the country to avoid bail-ins and wealth confiscation.
Chryspano, do you know why they want to limit cash payments to 70 Euro?A stepping-stone to force people to use credit/debit cards so that their transactions can be spied on and to enforce capital controls so that the people cannot transfer their wealth outside of the country to avoid bail-ins and wealth confiscation.
If you're looking for the 'official' reason then it probably reads a little something like this:
'terror terror... bullshit bullshit... safety terror... terror... stand-together to protect our freedom against terror... by restricting freedom... terror terror, terror terror.... Terror4Cash 4eva... ban cash, ban terror!'
Chryspano, do you know why they want to limit cash payments to 70 Euro?A stepping-stone to force people to use credit/debit cards so that their transactions can be spied on and to enforce capital controls so that the people cannot transfer their wealth outside of the country to avoid bail-ins and wealth confiscation.
If you're looking for the 'official' reason then it probably reads a little something like this:
'terror terror... bullshit bullshit... safety terror... terror... stand-together to protect our freedom against terror... by restricting freedom... terror terror, terror terror.... Terror4Cash 4eva... ban cash, ban terror!'
They said that because there is lot of tax avoidance this measure will help (so that they can spy on everyone as Permie said ), there was another try to enforce credit/debit usage by enforcing people who would use cash to pay 3% higher VAT, this had some constitutional issues and so they abandoned it. Banks are in a desperate position, no more fools to trust them.
What is really interesting to me here is that it seems that it could genuinely go both ways