Quote from: bytemaster on May 12, 2015, 01:16:45 PM
They have their facts wrong (like most media does).

Arguable this is not too difficult with BitShares having a grown system and an out-dated wiki. This will hopefully change in near future with 'official' documentation published by the core devs!

They have their facts wrong (like most media does).   

Quote from: Ander on May 11, 2015, 10:23:46 PM

Quote from: hadrian on May 11, 2015, 06:56:41 PM
The last two minutes, starting from 48:00 sound pretty negative to me. It sounded like they (not so much Adam) were slating BitShares and Ripple together. If I didn't already know about BitShares this would've seriously affected my opinion.

Earlier in the podcast (~32:00 as @yellowecho mentioned) freezing assets was mentioned in association with BitShares. At no point in the show was it made clear that this doesn't relate to BTS or BitAssets. Neither did they mention the important fact that User Issued Assets can have this ability to freeze (or whitelist) permanently disabled (or not enabled in the first place).

It seems important to me that someone makes a reply video which corrects this misunderstanding and explains the differences between bitshares and ripple.

Agreed, the way they were speaking they made it sound like bitshares had done exactly what ripple has just done... did this actually happen or have they got their facts wrong?

Quote from: hadrian on May 11, 2015, 06:56:41 PM
The last two minutes, starting from 48:00 sound pretty negative to me. It sounded like they (not so much Adam) were slating BitShares and Ripple together. If I didn't already know about BitShares this would've seriously affected my opinion.

Earlier in the podcast (~32:00 as @yellowecho mentioned) freezing assets was mentioned in association with BitShares. At no point in the show was it made clear that this doesn't relate to BTS or BitAssets. Neither did they mention the important fact that User Issued Assets can have this ability to freeze (or whitelist) permanently disabled (or not enabled in the first place).

It seems important to me that someone makes a reply video which corrects this misunderstanding and explains the differences between bitshares and ripple.

Quote from: CLains on May 11, 2015, 07:33:10 PM

Quote from: fuzzy on May 11, 2015, 12:06:50 AM

Quote from: CLains on May 10, 2015, 10:56:26 PM
Banks are also susceptible to tragedy of the commons. Although all banks collectively don't want to trade on a bitAssets chain, it would make sense rationally for individual banks to do so. This means that it all comes down to regulatory risk for them. But there are banks all over the world, in different regulatory environments, large and small. For each new gateway, bitAssets gets stronger, while IOUs have the same dependence on centralized trust they always had.. Dance, dance, dance...

I want transparent ledgers....everywhere the eye can see.  And I want privacy for individuals.  If we get that, I think we win.  It's pretty simple in my mind.

That means both institutions today should have these ledgers but fully decentralized ones should exist.

Thoughts?

So long as we focus on maximizing freedom for individuals, rather than favoring any particular ideology, our opponents will need to attack freedom itself to get to us.  :)

Exactly. 

Quote from: fuzzy on May 11, 2015, 12:06:50 AM

Quote from: CLains on May 10, 2015, 10:56:26 PM
Banks are also susceptible to tragedy of the commons. Although all banks collectively don't want to trade on a bitAssets chain, it would make sense rationally for individual banks to do so. This means that it all comes down to regulatory risk for them. But there are banks all over the world, in different regulatory environments, large and small. For each new gateway, bitAssets gets stronger, while IOUs have the same dependence on centralized trust they always had.. Dance, dance, dance...

I want transparent ledgers....everywhere the eye can see.  And I want privacy for individuals.  If we get that, I think we win.  It's pretty simple in my mind.

That means both institutions today should have these ledgers but fully decentralized ones should exist.

Thoughts?

So long as we focus on maximizing freedom for individuals, rather than favoring any particular ideology, our opponents will need to attack freedom itself to get to us.  :)

The last two minutes, starting from 48:00 sound pretty negative to me. It sounded like they (not so much Adam) were slating BitShares and Ripple together. If I didn't already know about BitShares this would've seriously affected my opinion.

Earlier in the podcast (~32:00 as @yellowecho mentioned) freezing assets was mentioned in association with BitShares. At no point in the show was it made clear that this doesn't relate to BTS or BitAssets. Neither did they mention the important fact that User Issued Assets can have this ability to freeze (or whitelist) permanently disabled (or not enabled in the first place).

Quote from: fuzzy on May 11, 2015, 12:06:50 AM

Quote from: CLains on May 10, 2015, 10:56:26 PM
Banks are also susceptible to tragedy of the commons. Although all banks collectively don't want to trade on a bitAssets chain, it would make sense rationally for individual banks to do so. This means that it all comes down to regulatory risk for them. But there are banks all over the world, in different regulatory environments, large and small. For each new gateway, bitAssets gets stronger, while IOUs have the same dependence on centralized trust they always had.. Dance, dance, dance...

I want transparent ledgers....everywhere the eye can see.  And I want privacy for individuals.  If we get that, I think we win.  It's pretty simple in my mind.

That means both institutions today should have these ledgers but fully decentralized ones should exist.

Thoughts?

+5%

Quote from: fuzzy on May 11, 2015, 12:06:50 AM

Quote from: CLains on May 10, 2015, 10:56:26 PM
Banks are also susceptible to tragedy of the commons. Although all banks collectively don't want to trade on a bitAssets chain, it would make sense rationally for individual banks to do so. This means that it all comes down to regulatory risk for them. But there are banks all over the world, in different regulatory environments, large and small. For each new gateway, bitAssets gets stronger, while IOUs have the same dependence on centralized trust they always had.. Dance, dance, dance...

I want transparent ledgers....everywhere the eye can see.  And I want privacy for individuals.  If we get that, I think we win.  It's pretty simple in my mind.

That means both institutions today should have these ledgers but fully decentralized ones should exist.

Thoughts?

Nailed it for me fuzzy

Quote from: luckybit on May 10, 2015, 11:24:18 PM

Quote from: Stan on May 10, 2015, 10:42:16 PM

Quote from: CLains on May 10, 2015, 06:49:21 PM
Great discussion, the heat feels very real, especially with some of the concerns raised on the latest mumble, dev hangout. Perhaps this will be the main discussion in 2015: how to balance regulation with decentralized freedom. Personally I hope existing infrastructure that wants to deal in IOUs will be fine with bitAssets existing on the same network, and again that regulators will be fine with this, which is an open question. Creating two chains might be what we will see, but then what will happen. There are a lot of things to think through in this area.

Bytemaster and I pretty much agree. We should focus on making a self regulating blockchain as much as possible while preserving liberty for our base.

Institutional adoption requires an appeal to security and regulation features. People dealing with large amounts of money (millions, billions, and trillions) are most concerned with keeping their money safe, and keeping their legal risks low. Bitshares will have to develop features which make it safer than traditional means of securing wealth. At the same time it will need to develop features so that it's able to self regulate to the extent that external regulators don't have any excuse to mess with our community, the developers, or the technology.

The people who wish to use Bitshares in regulated mode should be able to use the same blockchain as the people who wish to use it in unregulated mode. I don't agree with the recent push by governments to outlaw cash but I am guessing that is coming about specifically because the liberty crowd behind technologies like Darkcoin and Slur have pushed things a bit too far.

My opinion is we should protect liberty as much as possible without sacrificing security or mainstream adoption. Very tough because mainstream adoption wants security primarily and then liberty while early adopters want liberty primarily and then security. The holy grail is to have both on the same chain and I think with Turing complete scripting you can do it on a single chain.

http://qz.com/399531/denmark-hopes-to-boost-its-economy-by-eliminating-cash/

Don't you think security is enhanced by Liberty? Encryption, privacy, autonomy, these are good for security. Also, this system is for the people, the majority of which are very poor. They need sovereignty over their capital more than a millionaire, billionaire or trillionaire. The institutional adoption can come after the people's. An institution's desire for regulation is simply the result of the system as it is....either the custodians are corrupt, the institution benefits or they are too much of a target and need to mitigate the level of theft.

Quote from: CLains on May 10, 2015, 10:56:26 PM
Banks are also susceptible to tragedy of the commons. Although all banks collectively don't want to trade on a bitAssets chain, it would make sense rationally for individual banks to do so. This means that it all comes down to regulatory risk for them. But there are banks all over the world, in different regulatory environments, large and small. For each new gateway, bitAssets gets stronger, while IOUs have the same dependence on centralized trust they always had.. Dance, dance, dance...

I want transparent ledgers....everywhere the eye can see.  And I want privacy for individuals.  If we get that, I think we win.  It's pretty simple in my mind.

That means both institutions today should have these ledgers but fully decentralized ones should exist.

Thoughts?

Quote from: Stan on May 10, 2015, 10:42:16 PM

Quote from: CLains on May 10, 2015, 06:49:21 PM
Great discussion, the heat feels very real, especially with some of the concerns raised on the latest mumble, dev hangout. Perhaps this will be the main discussion in 2015: how to balance regulation with decentralized freedom. Personally I hope existing infrastructure that wants to deal in IOUs will be fine with bitAssets existing on the same network, and again that regulators will be fine with this, which is an open question. Creating two chains might be what we will see, but then what will happen. There are a lot of things to think through in this area.

Bytemaster and I pretty much agree. We should focus on making a self regulating blockchain as much as possible while preserving liberty for our base.

Institutional adoption requires an appeal to security and regulation features. People dealing with large amounts of money (millions, billions, and trillions) are most concerned with keeping their money safe, and keeping their legal risks low. Bitshares will have to develop features which make it safer than traditional means of securing wealth. At the same time it will need to develop features so that it's able to self regulate to the extent that external regulators don't have any excuse to mess with our community, the developers, or the technology.

The people who wish to use Bitshares in regulated mode should be able to use the same blockchain as the people who wish to use it in unregulated mode. I don't agree with the recent push by governments to outlaw cash but I am guessing that is coming about specifically because the liberty crowd behind technologies like Darkcoin and Slur have pushed things a bit too far.

My opinion is we should protect liberty as much as possible without sacrificing security or mainstream adoption. Very tough because mainstream adoption wants security primarily and then liberty while early adopters want liberty primarily and then security. The holy grail is to have both on the same chain and I think with Turing complete scripting you can do it on a single chain.

http://qz.com/399531/denmark-hopes-to-boost-its-economy-by-eliminating-cash/

Banks are also susceptible to tragedy of the commons. Although all banks collectively don't want to trade on a bitAssets chain, it would make sense rationally for individual banks to do so. This means that it all comes down to regulatory risk for them. But there are banks all over the world, in different regulatory environments, large and small. For each new gateway, bitAssets gets stronger, while IOUs have the same dependence on centralized trust they always had.. Dance, dance, dance...

Quote from: CLains on May 10, 2015, 06:49:21 PM
Great discussion, the heat feels very real, especially with some of the concerns raised on the latest mumble, dev hangout. Perhaps this will be the main discussion in 2015: how to balance regulation with decentralized freedom. Personally I hope existing infrastructure that wants to deal in IOUs will be fine with bitAssets existing on the same network, and again that regulators will be fine with this, which is an open question. Creating two chains might be what we will see, but then what will happen. There are a lot of things to think through in this area.

You are the heart & soul fuzzy.