I worked on a lot of issues along these lines when i began laying ground work for some of my ideas, and i was always told that it seemed as though the authorities would be making an exception, which they never like to do.

So, i have been working on a crafting the Articles of Decentralization, similar to Articles of Association which are used to define and govern how companies operate, If we have such a document then we have begun laying the foundation that Legalizes DACs.

If we have Bitshares on Board as well as 3 other DACs based in different parts of the world we can then support the "international" part of it. We will then set out to create frameworks similar to how authorities regulate normal companies, but ours will keep in mind the decentralization and privacy parts.

All this gives us a conversation point when we try to pitch our businesses to authorities and even when a bank does their KYC, we'll have structures recognizable for them to interact with. Some lucky guys in less restrictive countries will get ahead first and thier fame will help our cause in restrictive territories.

Individuals might be able to violate it if they are willing to ignore the law, but businesses cannot.

Considering the money and support behind PTS most individuals that have at least a basic understanding of the crypto-world will jump at the chance of having a ready user/customer base.

Even a copy-paste idiot will see the immeasurable advantage, we can now deploy pools, explorers and we are working on new tech that is based of the PTS code. Why take an unnecessary risk of going it alone, when they have all that at their disposal for free?

Personal computer platforms (such as Linux, OS X, and Windows) are traditionally financially more accessible to independent game developers than video game consoles. Aside from basic development costs, console game developers are required to pay fees to license the required Software Development Kits (SDKs) from the console maker. Manufacturers often impose a strict approval process and take a percentage of the game's net profit in addition to yearly developer fees. To develop for Nintendo Wii, Xbox 360, or PlayStation 3 requires an SDK license fee of between US$2,000 and $10,000, in addition to yearly developer fees and profit cuts, although development for Xbox Live Indie Games only requires a $99/year Creators Club membership and Microsoft takes 30% of sales.

wow much comment!!! very word!! lol

It's great to see that people are showing more interest in this document. I'd like to start by asking, do you understand what AGS is, not only the name but what it represents? A lot of people have made some donations and taken some risks to form a collective that shall be the Genesis of Decentralized Autonomous Companies. Just like Bitcoin changed how people think of money in a way, DACs are a revolutionary idea for how to conduct eCommerce.

I hope you are not offended but your speech has deep roots in anarchism, which frankly does not work for any business model. Note, i say BUSINESS. This community is not actively seeking to circumvent traditional systems, we have a vision, that of decentralized enterprises that function completely virtually and benefit us. We intend to at some point interact with businesses that operate in the physical world and as a result wee must take that into account. The idea of decentralization and anonymity may have relevance to anarchism, but that is another conversation.

Digital currency is not illegal, it is just unregulated tender. In the event that it's acceptance becomes wider, as you say the Big Boys will want in. We are not blocking them, we are saying, let them bring their ideas, money and join the collective so that we all benefit. Should such an entity exist and wish to use our ideas and software, which as you said come from nothing, they should not have a problem giving us 10% of nothing.

DACs are not a snub at other organizations, They are business and as such the property should be treated thus. I have invested a certain amount and so have many others, and we would like to protect our investment, not by completely making our product inaccessible, but by making it accessible to those who wish to create value with us. That is what copyfarleft is about. It benefits the community, and not on an obscene scale.

Another things is, should one of the "Big boys" want in, they can easily go make their own, even as far as making it from scratch, they benefit nothing except possible litigation by coming here. You seem very interested in the workings of large companies, i work for one, and i can tell you that if they become interested in PTS 50 million is an amount they would easily shell out to buy all the shares out there. Hell, they would just post a standing offer that would entice all holders to sell without a noticeable dent in their account.

My point is, we want to protect the investments of time money and labour, an just as it states in the license, if you wanna use the software 10% is a pittance if your business model is good. And along with that 10% comes a large amount of free marketing, experienced programmers to consult, infrastructure and the added caveat that the PTS you hold will entitle you to a % of other DACs.

The only person loosing out here is copy-paste profiteers and those who would take the ideas out of the community without paying royalties. So no, i do not believe your idea is applicable on investors funds and ideas.

Quote from: luckybit on January 05, 2014, 05:29:00 pm

Quote from: AdamBLevine on January 01, 2014, 05:56:02 pm

Appendix A - Consensus Realities can be modified or re-written by the Consensus “The Merlin Requirement”

Is this a dangerous idea?

Is consensus reality the same as alternate reality? I'm not familiar with the term. Some good ideas though.

That thought came out of a conversation with an acquaintance who has quite a few bitcoins.  He knows I've been working on alternative cryptocurrency theory recently and know people building new coins.  He wants a coin that has essentially a voting mechanism that would let people who are the victims of crime and lose their bitcoins illegitimately to have the consensus be able to reverse or cancel transactions.   

This is very possible, but the problem is who gets to decide what is a good reason?  He wanted a "council of 12" or something, who would approve claims to be voted on by the coin holders but no matter how you do it you create a situation where because the rules can be broken for a good enough reason, the people who judge the reasons become the holders of a lot of power.

Thats the issue, otherwise I think its a great idea.

Quote from: toast on January 10, 2014, 03:40:10 am

Ok two more questions:

What's the new "short name" the thing Dan is currently working on? BEX?

As per my previous post, where do you draw the line between crypto-equity that counts as bitshares? BitShares Litecoin is crypto-equity in the litecoin currency DAC!

Again, my proposed criteria: honoring pts/ags, and cross-chain trading with other bitshares (base case being BEX)

Those two criteria certainly make a good start! 
It also has to be endorsable, i.e. compatible with our core principles. 
I don't think BitShares SlaveTrader would fly...   

Quote from: luckybit on January 09, 2014, 11:58:38 am

Quote from: Stan on January 08, 2014, 10:00:22 pm

The BitShares^TM Brand

Now that our momentum is building and we have an active marketing arm, it’s time to think seriously about branding.  We need an umbrella brand in which to invest our marketing efforts so that we don’t water them down with too many sub-brands.  Given the number of DACs we envision, that could certainly happen if we start advertising ProtoShares and AngelShares and BitShares and DomainShares and LuckyShares and, um, DogeShares etc.

We need to market all these products under one brand that everyone recognizes.  Like Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Windows, etc.

Our Invictus brand is focused on our role as a trustworthy partner known as a behind-the-scenes innovator and even-handed community developer.  But we need a more highly visible brand for our whole crypto-equity ecosystem.  A brand not for who we are but for what we are building. A brand with Satoshi-like immunity from the risks of association with a flesh and blood company. One Brand to find them all with a single Google search.

We have decided to dedicate our established BitShares^TM brand to the cause.  It is already getting a lot of attention and it has a nice parallelism with Bitcoin, which in the public mind has become virtually synonymous with the crypto-currency ecosystem, including all its altcoins.  We hope that BitShares will serve a similar function for the crypto-equity domain.

What does this mean for our existing projects?  Well, BitShares already applies to a whole family of our exchange DACs.  Now it applies to them all.  For example.

•   BitShares PTS is our brand of proto shares honoring industry miners.
•   BitShares AGS is our brand of angel shares honoring industry patrons.
•   BitShares BEX is our flagship brand for our first Bank and EXchange DAC.
•   BitShares CEX is our brand for our first Commodities EXchange.
•   BitShares LKS is our brand for LuckyShares – robotically honest gaming.
•   BitShares DMS is our brand for DomainShares – an IP address registry.

Keyhotee is not a crypto-equity and therefore has its own privacy-oriented brand.

We could use everyone’s help in starting to use these new names in all our dialogs, documents, graphics, and web sites. 
 

Why not use the 3I brand? It markets everything 3I creates.

Bitshares is just a protocol.

BitShares is a brand.
BitShares has a protocol.

Invictus is a company bootstrapping an industry of manned and unmanned companies.
BitShares is a product line spanning that industry.

BitShares helps all our companies inherit a common recognition and increases our market footprint.
It causes all our unmanned companies to appear together in any alphabetized list of crypto-equities.
It lets you find them all with one Googled word.  Search for one, find all the rest.
 

The BitShares^TM Brand

Now that our momentum is building and we have an active marketing arm, it’s time to think seriously about branding.  We need an umbrella brand in which to invest our marketing efforts so that we don’t water them down with too many sub-brands.  Given the number of DACs we envision, that could certainly happen if we start advertising ProtoShares and AngelShares and BitShares and DomainShares and LuckyShares and, um, DogeShares etc.

We need to market all these products under one brand that everyone recognizes.  Like Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Windows, etc.

Our Invictus brand is focused on our role as a trustworthy partner known as a behind-the-scenes innovator and even-handed community developer.  But we need a more highly visible brand for our whole crypto-equity ecosystem.  A brand not for who we are but for what we are building. A brand with Satoshi-like immunity from the risks of association with a flesh and blood company. One Brand to find them all with a single Google search.

We have decided to dedicate our established BitShares^TM brand to the cause.  It is already getting a lot of attention and it has a nice parallelism with Bitcoin, which in the public mind has become virtually synonymous with the crypto-currency ecosystem, including all its altcoins.  We hope that BitShares will serve a similar function for the crypto-equity domain.

What does this mean for our existing projects?  Well, BitShares already applies to a whole family of our exchange DACs.  Now it applies to them all.  For example.

•   BitShares PTS is our brand of proto shares honoring industry miners.
•   BitShares AGS is our brand of angel shares honoring industry patrons.
•   BitShares BEX is our flagship brand for our first Bank and EXchange DAC.
•   BitShares CEX is our brand for our first Commodities EXchange.
•   BitShares LKS is our brand for LuckyShares – robotically honest gaming.
•   BitShares DMS is our brand for DomainShares – an IP address registry.

Keyhotee is not a crypto-equity and therefore has its own privacy-oriented brand.

We could use everyone’s help in starting to use these new names in all our dialogs, documents, graphics, and web sites. 
 

Quote from: bytemaster on December 31, 2013, 01:13:44 am

OpenTransactions is a system of federated servers that manage IOUs in a way that you can prove your balance with the server.  If I had to state the single biggest flaw with OT it would be its dependence on the legal system to 'punish' cheaters as it does not prevent cheating, it only makes it hard to do so without getting caught.

IMO it's a mistake to think of Open-Transactions as being in competition with any chain-based system. OT is more likely to be used with BitShares, rather than as some form of competition against them, as should be obvious to anyone who views the videos that were posted in this thread.

That said, I feel it necessary to point out a few things about OT to make it clear that OT is dependent on cryptographic protocols, not on the legal system.

First, OT is unable to forge your receipts. This is because the client-side forms the receipts, and the server only counter-signs them. Furthermore, the current account balance is on the receipt. Therefore the client will never have to worry about a changed balance, or falsified receipt, because the server does not have the client's private key.

Second, any blockchain-based currencies used in OT, such as Bitcoin, will be stored in multi-sig voting pools on the blockchain, which makes it impossible for any OT server to steal any Bitcoins that users are transacting on that server.

So right there, the OT server cannot forge your transactions, cannot change your balance, and cannot steal your coins. This is without any need of legal intervention, since it's based on public-key cryptography.

The only possible crime left would be inflation. However, the voting pools protocol fixes this as well, because all OT servers in a given voting pool perform real-time audits on the receipts from the other OT servers in that pool. (They have an incentive to do this because users have the power to move their funds between the servers in the pool, and to withdraw their funds from the pool even without the permission of the server being used.)

Therefore OT is not built based on some legal dependency.

There is still one vulnerability left: If, say, 18 out of 20 servers in the pool collude, they can steal all the coins in the pool. We do not deceive ourselves that we can completely eliminate risk -- OT's philosophy is more based on the effective distribution of risk. Even Bitcoin itself does not eliminate risk entirely, but merely distributes it effectively so as to make it secure for all practical purposes. Since OT is client-centric, the next level is to distribute funds across multiple pools, at the client level.

In sum, to those who think of OT as some form of competition to BitShares, understand they are completely different technologies and likely will be used together -- neither will replace the other. And to those who believe that OT is based on the legal system, I assure you it is not. OT aims to eliminate the need for any legal system by replacing it with cryptographic protocols.