Quote from: cryptosig on March 29, 2014, 09:17:41 am

Quote from: luckybit on March 29, 2014, 09:06:48 am

Quote from: cryptosig on March 29, 2014, 07:15:13 am

I don't think centralization is a good idea.

The cryptocurrency grave yard is littered with centralized schemes. Make no mistake that there is enough pressure already IMO on I3 to be indicted for securities violations, whether that is the case will be up to a court to decide. You have taken steps to stop the regulators from stopping your work, but they can arrest you and accuse you at any time. They know they have a better than 80% chance to get a conviction at trial, just because of the psychology of an authority saying you did something wrong. I can deal with that element of centralization, but just barely.

I think that any trustee that reveals their identity and lives in a country with strong financial regulations, such as the US, will go to jail for operating with out a license, selling securities with out a license, conspiracy to commit security fraud, money transmission without a licence, running a money services business without a license, the litany of charges will go on forever in some cases.

This will basically only leave trustees in countries where regulations are lax to operate the trustee scheme. This type of system will ensure that wall street and most of main street will not participate. This is bad for my and others' investment in PTS,AGS, and BTS. I will not participate in such a scheme, I believe the only reason that Bitcoin is any different than any prior is because of the blockchain decentralization invention. You are literally taking the greatest invention of the century and throwing it out the window for centralized control. Make no mistake you are taking a step backward.

If you are serious about this thing you have created, you would spend the time to do it right. Satoshi took years crafting his system, you can't take a few extra months?

This is something which could happen but how likely is it to happen? Bitshares aren't securities anymore than objects in WoW are securities. That isn't to say there wont be regulation, but if they were to target that it would be seen as petty. It's similar to gambling sites.

From wiki:
A security is a tradable asset of any kind.[1] Securities are broadly categorized into:
debt securities (such as banknotes, bonds and debentures),
equity securities, e.g., common stocks; and,
derivative contracts, such as forwards, futures, options and swaps.
The company or other entity issuing the security is called the issuer.

Your selling a derivative, your calling it bitUSD, bitEUR, bitBTC, it's a security to the SEC. The SEC will try to enforce this, they have no desire to see this project come to pass. The more decentralized the better. It is in the best interest of the project to consider the issue. The only reason that the SEC has not cracked down on Bitcoin is because it stands by it self in a category not classified here.

Bitshares on the other hand, is using "marketing terms" such as the word "shares" and "Exchange" which imply a security, its trading consists of elements directly in conflict with the above definition, that being debt security in the form of bitUSD and it sells derivative contracts on those debt securities.

The best way to deal with the SEC is to assume they will take the least favorable side you can imagine. They often do.

BitUSD isn't an actual derivative. It's not any more a derivative than a poker chip is a derivative. How is it that poker chips are consider poker chips but BitUSD is considered a derivative? And if both are digital, and no contracts are used to guarantee it, I don't see where the SEC or the law has any say in something which is entirely virtual.

If a legal contract is written or if someone tries to redeem BitUSD for real USD then you might have a point. BitUSD isn't USD in anything other than name though. It's not an actual contract.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just giving my interpretation.

"The SEC will try to enforce this, they have no desire to see this project come to pass."

If Bitcoin is not a currency, and if Bitcoin is not a stock, what gives the SEC any authority over it? It's digital property from what the IRS says. If Bitshares isn't an actual stock backed by an actual company then what business does the SEC have in this space?

Is the SEC going after Second Life next? How much authority do they have? Will they go after people using poker chips and monopoly money too? I'm not saying they cannot interpret the law in a way to try and stretch their power, I'm making a point that it's wrong for them to do it.

They are the securities and exchange commission while Bitshares is more like a gambling program that people run to bet on stuff. It's not real money and the only way I could see them making it into something real would be if it centralized around Invictus. Invictus actually was a corporation so that is one area they might try to use.

You've highlighted a legitimate problem with the trustee scheme though. It will make regulators want to find the trustee and go after whoever is in that position and that is why I said it was a risk to be the trustee.

If there must be a trustee in my opinion the best way to do it is to put a public face on Bitshares and let someone be a public trustee. No anonymous trustee, no hiding, no trying to be sneaky, all of that will attract regulators like a magnet. If the trustee is public and willing to go to jail or court to defend Bitshares that actually would look better politically.

I don't think people in the United States would like to see innocent people being put in jail for inventing new technologies. If the United States is willing to do that then it may change the culture of Silicon Valley.

More information is needed about this https://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370539730583
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-132.pdf
Did they call it securities or not?

Quote from: cryptosig on March 29, 2014, 07:15:13 am

I don't think centralization is a good idea.

The cryptocurrency grave yard is littered with centralized schemes. Make no mistake that there is enough pressure already IMO on I3 to be indicted for securities violations, whether that is the case will be up to a court to decide. You have taken steps to stop the regulators from stopping your work, but they can arrest you and accuse you at any time. They know they have a better than 80% chance to get a conviction at trial, just because of the psychology of an authority saying you did something wrong. I can deal with that element of centralization, but just barely.

I think that any trustee that reveals their identity and lives in a country with strong financial regulations, such as the US, will go to jail for operating with out a license, selling securities with out a license, conspiracy to commit security fraud, money transmission without a licence, running a money services business without a license, the litany of charges will go on forever in some cases.

This will basically only leave trustees in countries where regulations are lax to operate the trustee scheme. This type of system will ensure that wall street and most of main street will not participate. This is bad for my and others' investment in PTS,AGS, and BTS. I will not participate in such a scheme, I believe the only reason that Bitcoin is any different than any prior is because of the blockchain decentralization invention. You are literally taking the greatest invention of the century and throwing it out the window for centralized control. Make no mistake you are taking a step backward.

If you are serious about this thing you have created, you would spend the time to do it right. Satoshi took years crafting his system, you can't take a few extra months?

This is something which could happen but how likely is it to happen? Bitshares aren't securities anymore than objects in WoW are securities. That isn't to say there wont be regulation, but if they were to target that it would be seen as petty. It's similar to gambling sites.