I had tons of issues. I ended up transferring my wallet to a different pc because it would not work at all on the original pc. Even then, I had to rebuild the database every time I wanted to make trades or do anything.

The most resent releases have been good to me though!

Quote from: wesphily on February 04, 2015, 09:53:55 pm

Quote from: Rune on February 04, 2015, 09:48:44 pm

Quote from: wesphily on February 04, 2015, 09:35:34 pm

"(since most people understand that a coin does not confer any legal rights or responsibilities)."

This is not a true statement. Crypto currency is considered property. People have the right of ownership which is a legal right It is also a tax liability which is a responsibility
You also need to be very careful with the words you use. If ownership of a coin is supposed to represent ownership in a company similar to a share/security then it will be treated legally that way implicitly. Doesn't matter if there is a document or not. Really, it is worse if you don't have documents because a malicisous person could utilize this fact to black mail you.

All of this is assuming that CFS is a legal entity. (LLC/s-corp/c-corp/ect...) If it only exists in crypto technology and not on a document then I'm not sure how it will be treated since it isn't a legal company. I got road blocked on this when trying to utilize bitshares for Real Estate. A crypto company does not have the ability to own real property. (real property = real estate) There is too much red tape for a small timer like me to use bitshares for a legal company that can own real property.

I'm glad to get some input on this.

Cryptohedge is a DAC and will only ever exist on the bitshares blockchain and owning CFSCOIN does not give you anything other than owning CFSCOIN. For now, CFSCOIN is backed purely by the reputation of Riverhead and me (i.e. it will have value to people who believe we are going to do with it what we have said we plan to do with it).

My vision for how it will end up in its final decentralized "true DAC state" is where the only way it can interface with the real world is through contract-free compensation of employees (delegate style), and reputation based custodianship of client funds. The idea is to create a web of trust that starts out with me and riverhead and expands to include more employees, and could eventually potentially include trusted anonymous employees (trustable, yet untargetable by LE). The DAC should ultimately be 100% controlled by voting done by CFSCOIN holders, and the counterparty exposure that CFSGOLD and other assets get should be moved from Riverhead and me onto the CFSCOIN voters as a whole (through voting controlled smart contracts somehow ).

You are safe for now. If bitshares fulfills what it says it wants to then this will change. You'll have to adapt. I would not be surprised if the SEC considered the act of holding shares and having decision making power makes the property a security and the investors limited partners. Although it would not be a documented company it could be seen legally as acting like one which would put it in SEC court.

Again, you are probably safe for now, BUT I would advise that you save back for a good lawyer.

Yeah, I agree that it's pretty certain that I, personally, will be targeted for illegal fundraising eventually, no matter how much I insist on it being "contract free" or "just a coin". But that will only happen if BTS gets big enough to get noticed and in that case I should be able to afford whatever fine I'm given

The most important thing is that people who buy our UIA's should not be at any risk of getting their funds seized if me or someone else gets targeted.

It'd be more than a fine. Do you have a good lawyer already?

"(since most people understand that a coin does not confer any legal rights or responsibilities)."

This is not a true statement. Crypto currency is considered property. People have the right of ownership which is a legal right It is also a tax liability which is a responsibility
You also need to be very careful with the words you use. If ownership of a coin is supposed to represent ownership in a company similar to a share/security then it will be treated legally that way implicitly. Doesn't matter if there is a document or not. Really, it is worse if you don't have documents because a malicisous person could utilize this fact to black mail you.

All of this is assuming that CFS is a legal entity. (LLC/s-corp/c-corp/ect...) If it only exists in crypto technology and not on a document then I'm not sure how it will be treated since it isn't a legal company. I got road blocked on this when trying to utilize bitshares for Real Estate. A crypto company does not have the ability to own real property. (real property = real estate) There is too much red tape for a small timer like me to use bitshares for a legal company that can own real property.

Quote from: wesphily on January 29, 2015, 03:21:52 pm

What you are seeing is the power of a lot of money. It isn't about who has the best technology. It is about who has the most money to show it.

Bitshares will never get mentioned unless somebody with a lot of money helps out. Good luck getting a person with lots of money to spend it on something that he/she can't own a percentage in directly. Sure he could by bitshares and get a return if the price goes up. He could do the same thing in INTC and have ownership rights.

EDIT: Bitshares doesn't need a marketing company/person. It needs a business man that can help other businesses understand the power of bitshares/UIAs. Bitshares will be nothing until real companies start issuing UIAs that have the same legal ownership rights as a traditional security/share. (i.e. shares in apple/google/intc)

I think we can sell it, but you're right that it would be much, much easier if there was someone with some real money who stood to profit from this. We can grow it, but I'd love to have someone who could honestly put together those types of business relationships with banks, etc.

The weakness of a decentralized model. Real money wont buy into it because they can't control it. I hope somebody can find a way to convince a big pocket otherwise. I'm not sure how to do it.

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 26, 2015, 11:58:51 pm

Quote from: arhag on January 26, 2015, 11:52:13 pm

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 26, 2015, 11:10:02 pm

Increasing BitAssets in circulation and having daily turnover ticking over is important.

I'd definitely like to explore any ideas that help kickstart BitAssets.

Also I didn't want to subsidise yield but if BitAssets aren't gaining traction I would consider it.

No subsidizing yield! 1x addition in BitAsset circulation does not necessarily lead to 3x addition to the BTS market cap. People could either put their money into BTS or BitAssets and the effect to BTS market cap should be similar. BitAssets are there for people who want to be exposed to the underlying asset's price and nothing more. We shouldn't have to incentivize them to hold it.

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 26, 2015, 11:10:02 pm

If a delegate put $2000 towards BitGold yield a month for 3 months we'd probably get a $100 000 BitGold CAP this week. So 3 delegates for 3 months as a promotion for BitBTC, BitSilver and BitGold & you'd have 5 BitAssets in the top 100 on CMC. (It can be justified if it's just a promotion to launch a BitAsset.)

Now if your argument is increasing the BitAsset supply numbers as free advertising on CMC, that is a different story. But I still do not support BTS dilution subsidizing that. Instead people holding large amounts of BTS should just short to themselves in markets where the BitAsset sell orders are not below (in BTS/BitAsset price) the price feed and there are virtually no short sell orders at the price feed. Their exposure to BTS remains the same, they can cover their short at any time, and all they need to do is keep track of the price to not get margin called and to cover their short (and ideally reopen a new short) before 30 days.

It is still "fake" numbers, but hey, it's advertising...

Yes. But BitAssets have been running for 6 months and people haven't done this shorting to themselves much.

I know subsidising yield doesn't get offset by the 3x BitAssets. The idea is that it's a promotion to kickstart the market. I believe a large part of our valuation is driven by the perception of how well we're doing at getting BitAsset adoption going - Gateways, Merchants, BitAsset CAP & turnover.

If our BitAssets still have no CAP in a month or two when BitGold & BitSilver by BitReserve comes out it will look very bad for us. If BitUSD rises above NuBits CAP it will look very good for us. So it's advertising and perception. BitAssets are a product, having a promotion to launch a product is pretty standard.

We need someone to organize this "promotion" before it's too late. There are still plenty of bitshares believers hanging on here at.

Another chicken and egg situation is putting BTS listed on a mainstream exchange ASAP. I know the centralized exchange is bad, but at the time being we don't have a choice. Please at least think about this move.

What bitshares needs is somebody who is passionate about bitshares and has the ability to make uneducated people equally passionate. Then that person needs to talk to rich people with connections.

Till then, we will be the most innovative thing never used.

Quote from: bytemaster on January 27, 2015, 01:20:54 am

Quote from: fuzzy on January 26, 2015, 11:51:29 pm

I have received a W2 from Invictus showing a receipt of approximately $2138 (I don't have it in front of me atm) for my work with the BitShares Community last year. 

However, I have paid nearly all of that to others who have helped (I think I kept approximately 10PTS=50(ish) dollars at the time). 

I also have received 100,000BTS from Invictus but will be putting the majority of that into getting the Legal Delegate set up so we can protect our community members in those places with the most dangerously strict cryptocurrency laws.  So my question is...how do I put this into my taxes?  If I have to pay taxes on the 100,000BTS regardless, I might have to just make sure to take the initial fees to make up for what I put up...not sure exactly what to do here. 

Will I have to pay taxes on what I already paid others (since I did not send THEM a W2) or will I have to show payment in some other way?  Or will this be tax exempt for me because I have given it all away? How, exactly, does this work?

Fuzzy.. I am fairly certain you did not get a W2 but a 1099.  Anyway, if you have questions regarding taxes please feel free to contact Stan.

Maybe we can keep it open? I want as much opinion on how to move forward as possible. I would like to also keep it open so others in similar positions can know how to move forward.  If this is ok.

Also, I would be interested in someone else working with me and cube in the legal delegate so we can get the best jurisdiction for funds.  I would ultimately prefer a way wherein I am not in control of those funds...but it is left to the community to use as it sees necessary.

Thanks for responding so quickly.

It greatly depends on how invictus formed the company. I would advise that you follow bytemaster's advice and contact Stan. There are things that he'll know that we wont know which will prevent us from helping you.

Met with my mentor. He believes that the only way to do this is through a REIT. Unfortunately, REITs cost a lot of money. They are created for multi million dollar deals. I'm not prepared to take on that expense. C-corp is also possible, but that is also more complicated then I want to go.

It is possible to integrate bitshares, but I can't make it trustless or even close to it. This means that most crypto enthusiasts would not be interested.

Sorry for the bad news.

Good News: I plan to post a solution to all this later today.