Quote from: Riverhead on December 02, 2014, 05:02:51 AM

Quote
4) Issuers can now optionally retain complete control over all balances in their asset. (Freeze accounts, etc) Needed for legal compliance.

Can you give us a comfort level that this won't apply to bitUSD, bitGOLD, or bitSILVER?

Quote
4) Issuers can now optionally retain complete control over all balances in their asset. (Freeze accounts, etc) Needed for legal compliance.

Quote from: bytemaster on December 01, 2014, 10:45:44 PM
4) Issuers can now optionally retain complete control over all balances in their asset. (Freeze accounts, etc) Needed for legal compliance.
5) Issuers can now optionally white list public keys that may own/trade the issued asset.

Quote from: bytemaster on December 01, 2014, 11:24:41 PM

Quote from: delulo on December 01, 2014, 11:21:31 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on December 01, 2014, 10:45:44 PM
1) You can now specify a required transaction fee (payable in user issued asset) once per transaction that withdraws that asset type.
2) You can now have multi-sig issuers/control over an asset
3) You can now have child asset symbols like child accounts to facilitate trust in a common issuer of related assets.
4) Issuers can now optionally retain complete control over all balances in their asset. (Freeze accounts, etc) Needed for legal compliance.
5) Issuers can now optionally white list public keys that may own/trade the issued asset.

With these powers Gateways can comply with all regulations just like with Ripple.  Companies can issue shares while remaining in full compliance with the law.

Is the traceability of tokens required for legal compliance in some way?

Quote4) Issuers can now optionally retain complete control over all balances in their asset. (Freeze accounts, etc) Needed for legal compliance.

Would that be so that the user knows in advance whether the issuer has this capability or can any issuer gain that capability after having issued the assets?

Assets can become less restrictive but not more restrictive.

Traceability is required for compliance with SEC for issuing shares in companies and KYC for depositors.    Laws vary by state/country/etc but with what we have implemented the issuer/users has freedom to comply as little or as much as they want.

Quote from: emski on December 02, 2014, 12:26:44 AM
Can you still create user issued asset that is completely decentralized?
Meaning issuer doesn't have any control over it (except initial distribution)?

Quote from: delulo on December 01, 2014, 11:21:31 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on December 01, 2014, 10:45:44 PM
1) You can now specify a required transaction fee (payable in user issued asset) once per transaction that withdraws that asset type.
2) You can now have multi-sig issuers/control over an asset
3) You can now have child asset symbols like child accounts to facilitate trust in a common issuer of related assets.
4) Issuers can now optionally retain complete control over all balances in their asset. (Freeze accounts, etc) Needed for legal compliance.
5) Issuers can now optionally white list public keys that may own/trade the issued asset.

With these powers Gateways can comply with all regulations just like with Ripple.  Companies can issue shares while remaining in full compliance with the law.

Is the traceability of tokens required for legal compliance in some way?

Quote4) Issuers can now optionally retain complete control over all balances in their asset. (Freeze accounts, etc) Needed for legal compliance.

Would that be so that the user knows in advance whether the issuer has this capability or can any issuer gain that capability after having issued the assets?