Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on February 17, 2015, 05:06:05 PM
Btw .. noone can prevent anyone from doing business with bitshares. ... :D

Also, with bitshares there is no "official" ..

Exactly. Free speech is still legal for the time being. What others choose to do with the technology is entirely up to them. And all of that aside, if given the option between anonymous street drugs created from who knows what and online merchants who have a reputation to maintain, I'd pick the latter. :)

Btw .. noone can prevent anyone from doing business with bitshares. ... :D

Also, with bitshares there is no "official" ..

Quote from: OldMan on February 17, 2015, 04:22:57 PM

Quote from: onceuponatime on February 17, 2015, 05:53:45 AM

Quote from: OldMan on February 17, 2015, 05:32:22 AM
Careful what you wish for.

I think Nurse Mary J would be good place to start...

Yes, very low hanging, lucrative fruit upon which to feed for the growth we require to become big and strong enough to tackle bigger things.

Seeking to openly support illegal commerce in controlled substances is perhaps not the most well-considered strategy for a fledgling technology.

However, the use case for drugs, porn and gambling is undeniable.

So why not go after the legal drug market in Colorado etc., where they are openly seeking banking solutions, and strike out into porn and gambling?

Seems to be a lot of low fruit before we need to knock boots with the dark side.

I understand what you're saying but what is your practical strategy for achieving this? It's one thing to say "go after marijuana dispensaries" and another thing entirely to lay out a blueprint that will make it happen. There are certain prerequisites needing fulfillment before we can effectively move to larger markets. For example, bitUSD liquidity is a BIG obstacle holding back functionality. We have to be realistic about where our technology is currently useful vs. where it will be useful in the future. Building momentum and network effect means starting small and probably in areas most would consider politically incorrect. Bitcoin would have died in obscurity if it weren't for the original Silk Road; indeed dark markets remain Bitcoins primary use case outside speculative investing.

From darkness cometh light.

Quote from: onceuponatime on February 17, 2015, 05:53:45 AM

Quote from: OldMan on February 17, 2015, 05:32:22 AM
Careful what you wish for.

I think Nurse Mary J would be good place to start...

Yes, very low hanging, lucrative fruit upon which to feed for the growth we require to become big and strong enough to tackle bigger things.

Seeking to openly support illegal commerce in controlled substances is perhaps not the most well-considered strategy for a fledgling technology.

However, the use case for drugs, porn and gambling is undeniable.

So why not go after the legal drug market in Colorado etc., where they are openly seeking banking solutions, and strike out into porn and gambling?

Seems to be a lot of low fruit before we need to knock boots with the dark side.

 +5%  Do we have a contact at openbazaar.org?

Quote from: OldMan on February 17, 2015, 05:32:22 AM
Careful what you wish for.

I think Nurse Mary J would be good place to start...

Yes, very low hanging, lucrative fruit upon which to feed for the growth we require to become big and strong enough to tackle bigger things.

Careful what you wish for.

I think Nurse Mary J would be good place to start...

Quote from: Method-X on February 16, 2015, 09:57:04 PM

Quote from: hadrian on February 16, 2015, 05:10:40 PM
If a customer pays in BTC and then gets a refund after their money was held in escrow as BitUSD, they could get less BTC back than they expect. How would this problem be resolved?

I don't understand your logic. The customer will always get the USD equivalent.

It's not a problem that the customer will get the USD equivalent, so long as they're fully aware of that when they pay for something with BTC.

If they pay for something in BTC without it being made very clear beforehand that any refund will be USD equivalent, they can reasonably expect to get the full amount of BTC back.

I suppose the simplest answer is for things to be priced in USD in the first place, rather than BTC? Then if they pay using BTC it's just a matter of a price conversion to get the USD amount.
It all depends on how each exchange / market is set up, but my intention was to point out a possible scenario where the customer could feel ripped-off.

Anyway, sorry to cause a diversion over such a trivial thing. Carry on with the good work. Thanks!

Quote from: hadrian on February 16, 2015, 05:10:40 PM
If a customer pays in BTC and then gets a refund after their money was held in escrow as BitUSD, they could get less BTC back than they expect. How would this problem be resolved?

I don't understand your logic. The customer will always get the USD equivalent.

Quote from: hadrian on February 16, 2015, 05:10:40 PM
Wouldn't it be so much easier if our dreams came true and everyone just used BitAssets? :)

One step at a time. If an exchange started accepting bitUSD only, nobody would pay with it because they can't easily get it.

maybe also reach for unSystem since they're developing Dark Leaks and Dark Market?

https://forum.unsystem.net/categories
http://www.coindesk.com/meet-darkleaks-bitcoin-powered-black-market-secrets/
http://www.coindesk.com/airbitz-wins-toronto-bitcoin-expo-hackathon-darkmarket/

I've always liked the idea of Bitshares and unSystem working together

fully supported

Quote from: Akado on February 16, 2015, 06:36:12 PM
Love it. I've been always of the idea darmarkets would be the place where real bitAsset adoption would start.

+5%

Love it. I've been always of the idea darmarkets would be the place where real bitAsset adoption would start.

edit:

could make some posts here too:

http://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets
http://www.reddit.com/r/AgMarketplace
https://www.reddit.com/r/EvolutionMarket/
http://www.reddit.com/r/SilkRoad/

Quote from: hpenvy2 on February 16, 2015, 05:25:37 PM

Quote from: hadrian on February 16, 2015, 05:10:40 PM
If a customer pays in BTC and then gets a refund after their money was held in escrow as BitUSD, they could get less BTC back than they expect. How would this problem be resolved?

Wouldn't it be so much easier if our dreams came true and everyone just used BitAssets? :)

It's not the value of BTC that matters to the vendor, it's the price in equivalent USD. If someone paid 300 dollars and I received less BTC but still at 300, it's a benefit.

I'm talking about the buyer's perspective, i.e. they could stand to get back less BTC than they put in (where refunds occur). There are ways around this (rgcrypto suggested one), but it needs bearing in mind...

Quote from: hadrian on February 16, 2015, 05:10:40 PM
If a customer pays in BTC and then gets a refund after their money was held in escrow as BitUSD, they could get less BTC back than they expect. How would this problem be resolved?

Wouldn't it be so much easier if our dreams came true and everyone just used BitAssets? :)

It's not the value of BTC that matters to the vendor, it's the price in equivalent USD. If someone paid 300 dollars and I received less BTC but still at 300, it's a benefit.