Author Topic: Goliath spotted David / JPMorgan Chase Building Bitcoin-Killer  (Read 3581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline devilfish

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Goliath spotted David / JPMorgan Chase Building Bitcoin-Killer
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2013, 11:13:21 am »
lol that's awesome!
BTC: 1MqCxQ2qD7ZuS3ELFY43wfaBTbA2XkYwDP
PTS: PiuFEJHz6zScALgPWzcu2SDKtWJW4cnUFi
XPM: Af5qzgsEwWaHZdGUq8dUoHkhmH4XBmnGW9

Offline MrJeans

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: mrjeans
Re: Goliath spotted David / JPMorgan Chase Building Bitcoin-Killer
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2013, 09:52:55 am »
If JP Morgan launched a new open source crypto currency (JP coins) I would be all for it. But its is offensive that JP Morgan would try to patent their version of what is open-source software. They obviously don't get it. 

Having said that, i believe that the masses would much rather make use of JP Morgan's system rather than alt currencies. The masses do not understand the concepts of trustless, open source, decentralized, not for profit systems (I've lost count of the number of heated debates I've had with people about them thinking Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. Don't get me started on how they react when I explain DACs haha). The masses would prefer a trust based system in which they would select which company/brand they trust the most.

For the long term, Stan's words sum this all up rather nicely:
"The biggest, insurmountable, competitive advantage that Bitcoin has is that it is not JP Morgan."


JP Morgan's currency may suffer for the following reasons:

  • They are a for profit company and the overall fees of using the service would likely be higher than that of bit coin.

    If they keep their fees too low, won't this cannibalize their current market and reduce profitability?

    I foresee high levels of regulation here, thus lots of administration, which again… will be paid for by their users.

    If accounts get hacked/funds get stolen it may reflect badly on the whole company. Is JP Morgan willing to take this risk?

    Can the JP Morgan developers keep up with all the open source developers and new innovations coming freely to market?

    They just don't get it.

They may do well because the masses trust them.

Can people see other reasons why they might do well or do badly?

Now please excuse me while I go and patent Ubuntu OS.

There is another reason for patenting something we often forget about: 

...to keep anyone from using it at all.

Perhaps there should be a version of the BitShare white paper that has a patent style of writing. For example have a section that states a list of new and innovative features (in the way a patent would state its claims). Thus making it harder for a company to try and write a patent for their version of BitShares.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2906
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: Goliath spotted David / JPMorgan Chase Building Bitcoin-Killer
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2013, 02:33:51 pm »
If JP Morgan launched a new open source crypto currency (JP coins) I would be all for it. But its is offensive that JP Morgan would try to patent their version of what is open-source software. They obviously don't get it. 

Having said that, i believe that the masses would much rather make use of JP Morgan's system rather than alt currencies. The masses do not understand the concepts of trustless, open source, decentralized, not for profit systems (I've lost count of the number of heated debates I've had with people about them thinking Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. Don't get me started on how they react when I explain DACs haha). The masses would prefer a trust based system in which they would select which company/brand they trust the most.

For the long term, Stan's words sum this all up rather nicely:
"The biggest, insurmountable, competitive advantage that Bitcoin has is that it is not JP Morgan."


JP Morgan's currency may suffer for the following reasons:

  • They are a for profit company and the overall fees of using the service would likely be higher than that of bit coin.

    If they keep their fees too low, won't this cannibalize their current market and reduce profitability?

    I foresee high levels of regulation here, thus lots of administration, which again… will be paid for by their users.

    If accounts get hacked/funds get stolen it may reflect badly on the whole company. Is JP Morgan willing to take this risk?

    Can the JP Morgan developers keep up with all the open source developers and new innovations coming freely to market?

    They just don't get it.

They may do well because the masses trust them.

Can people see other reasons why they might do well or do badly?

Now please excuse me while I go and patent Ubuntu OS.

There is another reason for patenting something we often forget about: 

...to keep anyone from using it at all.

Perhaps there should be a version of the BitShare white paper that has a patent style of writing. For example have a section that states a list of new and innovative features (in the way a patent would state its claims). Thus making it harder for a company to try and write a patent for their version of BitShares.

I'd be interested in seeing such a write-up for a variety of reasons, but its against our principles to patent anything ourselves.  Patents may become necessary to defend free space from fiat space, but we would much rather spend our resources on open technology that renders the whole idea of a patent moot.



Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline MrJeans

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: mrjeans
Re: Goliath spotted David / JPMorgan Chase Building Bitcoin-Killer
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2013, 04:24:44 pm »
If JP Morgan launched a new open source crypto currency (JP coins) I would be all for it. But its is offensive that JP Morgan would try to patent their version of what is open-source software. They obviously don't get it. 

Having said that, i believe that the masses would much rather make use of JP Morgan's system rather than alt currencies. The masses do not understand the concepts of trustless, open source, decentralized, not for profit systems (I've lost count of the number of heated debates I've had with people about them thinking Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. Don't get me started on how they react when I explain DACs haha). The masses would prefer a trust based system in which they would select which company/brand they trust the most.

For the long term, Stan's words sum this all up rather nicely:
"The biggest, insurmountable, competitive advantage that Bitcoin has is that it is not JP Morgan."


JP Morgan's currency may suffer for the following reasons:

  • They are a for profit company and the overall fees of using the service would likely be higher than that of bit coin.

    If they keep their fees too low, won't this cannibalize their current market and reduce profitability?

    I foresee high levels of regulation here, thus lots of administration, which again… will be paid for by their users.

    If accounts get hacked/funds get stolen it may reflect badly on the whole company. Is JP Morgan willing to take this risk?

    Can the JP Morgan developers keep up with all the open source developers and new innovations coming freely to market?

    They just don't get it.

They may do well because the masses trust them.

Can people see other reasons why they might do well or do badly?

Now please excuse me while I go and patent Ubuntu OS.

There is another reason for patenting something we often forget about: 

...to keep anyone from using it at all.

Perhaps there should be a version of the BitShare white paper that has a patent style of writing. For example have a section that states a list of new and innovative features (in the way a patent would state its claims). Thus making it harder for a company to try and write a patent for their version of BitShares.

I'd be interested in seeing such a write-up for a variety of reasons, but its against our principles to patent anything ourselves.  Patents may become necessary to defend free space from fiat space, but we would much rather spend our resources on open technology that renders the whole idea of a patent moot.
For sure, free space tromps patents any day in my books.

But perhaps it would be useful to have a patent attorney look at the white paper and add some phrasing to cover your tracks.
I'm not saying patent the technology by any means. But just make sure that others cant come along and tweak something (eg. instead of using a block chain, they would use a centralized server and manage the info) and then patent that.

And I know what you are going to say: decentralization beats centralization.

The only problem is that you, me and bytemaster know this but how many years will it take before the rest of the market catches on. In the mean time the rest of the market will love a Barclays BitShares.

The science is great, but we need to make sure we dont forget the other stuff, like legal, customer development, marketing etc.

(apologies if I offended anyone by speaking of a traditional bank in my text)