I think you have under estimated US's reach. they have jurisdiction on the internet regardless of where a site/delegate is located.. aslong as US citizens are involved.
Prove it! Show some evidence of this from any legal case or example.
I call FUD on this myth. I've seen this myth touted over and over yet the SEC has never gone out of it's jurisdiction. So now I'm supposed to believe the SEC would call in help from the NSA to stop some BitAsset? If they were going to do that they'd use their reach to ban Bitcoin.
Also if it's true that the US government has "jurisdiction on the Internet regardless of where a site/delegate is located" then couldn't the exact same excuse be used by every other government on the earth? That would mean Iran, China and Russia would have jurisdiction over Bitshares X and the delegates as long as they can prove Chinese , Russian and Iranian citizens are involved? Do you realize what your statement means and what precedent it will set?
Or do these special rules only apply to the United States? Once again show me precedent where the United States has done this otherwise it's a myth. I've never seen the SEC even approach that kind of power and it's much more likely the IRS would try that than the SEC.
When the SEC attempted to investigate Satoshi Dice did they have extrajudicial powers? They couldn't reach overseas in that instance yet you think they can for Bitshares X? If the SEC can do that then those same special powers apply to the European Commission to investigate US citizens right? Unless US citizens cooperate with their investigation then it's not going to work, and unless foreign citizens cooperate with the SEC then the SEC cannot do what you say it can.
How is XCP "locked" to the bitcoin blockchain in a way that BTS isn't? I'm sure if locking is an issue they can use the viacoin blockchain to achieve the results they want and use clearing house instead.
Right now they are using Bitcoin. The longer they use Bitcoin the harder it will be to move to something else.
What I meant was that they may not be on our side per se as in giving an explicit nod of approval but at least make some headway and use XCP to our advantage.. we are pretty much ready to create these assets any time.. so picking and marketing at the right moment is crucial to achieve the network affect... once we get out of the stratosphere we can release new products to reach space and beyond.
Opportunity cost. You can do something at any time so why do it now? Because of opportunity cost. The same reasoning Bytemaster is using for the urgency of this merger/dilution proposal.
Anyways stock exchange indexes aren't meant to be part of the I3 block chain as per original design, a third party is to integrate this on a seperate blockchain, so you can create it if you so desire.
Neither is dilution. None of your arguments make any sense. You're basically arguing that the SEC is the all powerful and can arrest foreign delegates in pursuit of victimless crimes. All of this assuming that foreign delegates in China or somewhere would cooperate with the SEC? Would a US delegate cooperate with the CSRC? The next argument you made is that stock index "aren't meant" to be part of the I3 blockchain as per original design? We aren't on the original design anymore.
At this point we are willing to entertain dilution and combine the VOTE DAC into Bitshares X yet there is fear of the SEC targeting not just US delegates but foreign delegates in order to fine them for launching BitAssets? Yet there is no concern about how a crypto-merger might upset the FTC?
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/mergers-and-competition/merger-reviewMy opinion is that perhaps some of the money raised during dilution should go to a legal fund. In addition perhaps there are too many US delegates. If the SEC is willing to go into China or Russia to destroy Bitshares then China and Russia would also have to go into the USA to destroy Bitshares. In either of these cases I doubt either government is ever going to appreciate what Bitshares can do because the very existence of this technology is disruptive.
I think if it's obviously illegal then that is one thing but the SEC hasn't given any indication that any of this is illegal. If it's not illegal then launch the BitAssets. If you're an American then at least I could understand being cautious but I thought Bitsharex X was global and decentralized? Why are US specific politics holding so much influence?
I'd be interested in this too, maybe we could track Vanguard ETFs like VOO/VTI:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0970&FundIntExt=INT
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0968&FundIntExt=INT
I don't invest in these because of French tax laws, it's far more profitable for me to invest in european stocks using a tax-free account, but those accounts can't be used for American stocks (only European stocks accepted).
Might wanna wait with this though until we have more traction on bitUSD and other major assets.
That is what I'd like to see. I think at this point with all the talk about mergers, VOTE DACs and everything but the actual BitAsset functionality we seem to forget the whole point of the project. In order to attract users there has to be a lot of desirable BitAssets.
Some excuses which might make sense is that perhaps there isn't enough users yet which means a chicken and egg problem. On the one hand you can't get new users if you don't add bitStocks and bitIndexes but then without a critical mass of users it will not generate much revenue.
I think the focus on BitUSD competing with Bitcoin at this time just isn't as compelling as being able to trade stocks. If we could get our price feeds up and running we could do things that no other technology could do.
Topic: Let's peg stock market indices: S&P, Dow, Nasdaq (Read 13019 times)
