Quote from: starspirit on May 12, 2015, 11:08:30 PM
OK, I said up-front that the BTC IOUs are subject to counter-party risk. That does not make their intrinsic value zero, any more than money in the bank is worth zero. UIAs are shares in something, just like any other share.

With a UIA:

*) The issuer can dilute the supply at any point, at no cost and almost limitlessly
*) The issuer can revoke rights to trade or transfer the asset

Neither of these are possible with an MPA. However, these is nothing stopping you from creating your own MPA version of BTC - the trick is getting the delegates to publish feeds.

edit: but then you're back to the supply problem and inventory risk of being a bridge into that currency

In 30 years or so "Very smart oracles" will be able to move your BTC to the BTS chain in completely trustless manner.

What is more exiting (or not?) other smart oracle will be able to combine your genes residing on the BTS blockchain (being there completely secure of course, secured with ultra private key) with the genes of other human being residing on the XYZ blockchain and present all the traits of the future baby 'of yours' for inspection. If you like it, you can pay in bitSuperBaby coins or BTS if you like...then other even smarter oracles will make this baby become real (as in from flash and bone), as well as record his DNA on the blockchain of your choice.....

If you can get BTC onto your chain to use as collateral (like as a sidechain or delegate multisig), then that BTC representation is strictly better than bitBTC! Why would you want to create an asset that is exactly equivalent in every way except that it has strictly more failure modes?

edit:  That BTC representation would probably be the best collateral out of all, better than BTS or bitUSD. Of course diverse collateral types is best.

 +5%

OK, I said up-front that the BTC IOUs are subject to counter-party risk. That does not make their intrinsic value zero, any more than money in the bank is worth zero. UIAs are shares in something, just like any other share.

The key point is can it be done in such a way, and risks minimised, that the market is comfortable with any residual counter-party risk. Nubits is subject to the custodial risk. They have 5 times what we have in bitUSD. bitReserve is subject to the risk of a completely unknown entity. They have  10 times what we have in bitUSD.

We have the dream of a perfect ideal. But the free market is under no obligation to fund our dream for as long as it takes. If funding dries up, the vision dies. If we want to be truly self-funding, we need to create value in the current market-place on the way to achieving our bigger vision. All I'm suggesting is we use the energy and brainpower in this community to meet current demands in the best way we can, and to lead the market toward something bigger.

[I'm not saying this is the idea to do that, I'm still just exploring it. I'm only saying I would not reject it on the basis of not meeting an ideal such as "must have zero counter-party risk".]

We should Upgrade UIA's  issue pattern 。 :D  UIA's 2.0

Quote from: starspirit on May 12, 2015, 12:12:05 PM
Can you elaborate? I would have thought that bitAssets could in practice be collateralised by any suitable on-chain token. Here we are talking about collateralising with a reserve-backed token as a specially designed collateral token, rather than the native ownership token (BTS) of the system.

UIAs have no intrinsic value, so cannot be used as backing for MPAs.

Quote from: DataSecurityNode on May 12, 2015, 01:30:00 PM

Quote from: ebit on May 12, 2015, 12:51:36 PM
starBTC should  be multi-signature addressed , and one delegate to pay insurance.

That is still susceptible to colluding I would think vs. the MIA that is on the decentralized trustless system.

The optimization of answer：the starBTC  issuer is legitimate company。

Quote from: ebit on May 12, 2015, 12:51:36 PM
starBTC should  be multi-signature addressed , and one delegate to pay insurance.

That is still susceptible to colluding I would think vs. the MIA that is on the decentralized trustless system.

 starBTC should  be multi-signature addressed , and one delegate to pay insurance.

Quote from: starspirit on May 12, 2015, 12:12:05 PM

Quote from: betax on May 12, 2015, 10:27:02 AM

Quote from: monsterer on May 12, 2015, 10:17:48 AM

Quote from: starspirit on May 12, 2015, 10:00:07 AM
The entity that maintains the reserve would issue all the bitBTC as receipts for BTC deposits made. And it would destroy bitBTC received in exchange for returning those BTC deposits back to users. In both cases it would enforce an exchange of 1:1. So there is no balance sheet risk. It always holds as much BTC as it owes.

This works fine as long as the entity can create bitBTC out of thin air. However, this is not the case :)

It does not have to be bitBTC it can be an user asset.

Yes, that's more or less what I had in mind. I may have confused things (especially with monsterer) by labelling it bitBTC - its not actually a bitAsset itself. Let's call it UIABTC.

Quote from: monsterer on May 12, 2015, 10:43:50 AM
You can't have a pegged bitAsset be backed by a UIA for obvious reasons.

Can you elaborate? I would have thought that bitAssets could in practice be collateralised by any suitable on-chain token. Here we are talking about collateralising with a reserve-backed token as a specially designed collateral token, rather than the native ownership token (BTS) of the system.

I maybe wrong.. but yuo can only do that collterization with Market Issued Assets (MIA). A UIA requires no backing whatsoever and is completely dependent on the issuer how it works.

Take your starBTC example.. I pay you 5 BTC for 5 starBTC. one has backing.. the starBTC has none.

Quote from: betax on May 12, 2015, 10:27:02 AM

Quote from: monsterer on May 12, 2015, 10:17:48 AM

Quote from: starspirit on May 12, 2015, 10:00:07 AM
The entity that maintains the reserve would issue all the bitBTC as receipts for BTC deposits made. And it would destroy bitBTC received in exchange for returning those BTC deposits back to users. In both cases it would enforce an exchange of 1:1. So there is no balance sheet risk. It always holds as much BTC as it owes.

This works fine as long as the entity can create bitBTC out of thin air. However, this is not the case :)

It does not have to be bitBTC it can be an user asset.

Yes, that's more or less what I had in mind. I may have confused things (especially with monsterer) by labelling it bitBTC - its not actually a bitAsset itself. Let's call it UIABTC.

Quote from: monsterer on May 12, 2015, 10:43:50 AM
You can't have a pegged bitAsset be backed by a UIA for obvious reasons.

Can you elaborate? I would have thought that bitAssets could in practice be collateralised by any suitable on-chain token. Here we are talking about collateralising with a reserve-backed token as a specially designed collateral token, rather than the native ownership token (BTS) of the system.

Quote from: betax on May 12, 2015, 10:27:02 AM
It does not have to be bitBTC it can be an user asset.

You can't have a pegged bitAsset be backed by a UIA for obvious reasons.

Quote from: monsterer on May 12, 2015, 10:17:48 AM

Quote from: starspirit on May 12, 2015, 10:00:07 AM
The entity that maintains the reserve would issue all the bitBTC as receipts for BTC deposits made. And it would destroy bitBTC received in exchange for returning those BTC deposits back to users. In both cases it would enforce an exchange of 1:1. So there is no balance sheet risk. It always holds as much BTC as it owes.

This works fine as long as the entity can create bitBTC out of thin air. However, this is not the case :)

It does not have to be bitBTC it can be an user asset.

Quote from: starspirit on May 12, 2015, 10:00:07 AM
The entity that maintains the reserve would issue all the bitBTC as receipts for BTC deposits made. And it would destroy bitBTC received in exchange for returning those BTC deposits back to users. In both cases it would enforce an exchange of 1:1. So there is no balance sheet risk. It always holds as much BTC as it owes.

This works fine as long as the entity can create bitBTC out of thin air. However, this is not the case :)