Bitcoin Forum

How much have you lost -- either directly or indirectly -- because of the shenanigans, hacks, frozen accounts, and all out thievery of central exchanges?

Whether you were a direct victim or not, if you're holding any crypto currencies, you've paid.  You paid in the loss of value.  You paid in the loss of trust for merchant adoption.  You paid in the loss of utility value.

...You've paid dearly for the actions of a small few!

Time for the community to do something about it.  A trustless, P2P exchange the crypto ecosystem must have if we are going to ever hit mass adoption. This project is a big step in the right direction.

https://bitsquare.io/crowdfunding/

C'mon guys.  Step up.  2 days left in the funding cycle.  Lets insure they get the funding they need.  Send a message to the F$$%# power structures that are doing everything to take down central exchanges.

We pay now for these kind of projects, or we pay a heavy price later when the next central exchange gets knocked off.  

I like the project,but if I understand this is not an investment but a not returnable money, isn't it?

It's an investment in the infrastructure that makes all your other cyrpto assets that much more valuable.  While you may not see a direct return, you're going to see a far greater indirect return.

How does one know that this isnt another scam within itself?

Essentially they want a donation to pay themselves.  If it is a good idea, sell us shares, make it an investment in the company.  If they can't do that, I worry about the nature of their business.

Look at how many of the Bitcoin companies did it, e.g. Blockstream.  I agree with the poster above me, how do we know this isn't a scam within a scam.

Bitsquare is a great project and I truly hope they succeed.

But I prefer coinffeine's approach that seems smarter and more simple (no arbitrators).

That's an extremely uniformed, and frankly, narrow minded comment.

They have already put out some promising tech.  And they did all that on their own dime!

They are going with an iterative development model.

This is a project for the commons.  Keeping the greed out of it is a very wise move to actualize the project vision.

What would be the scam?  Take the money and run?

They've been upfront with everything.

They've already put out some very promising tech.  The project is well along in the development cycle.

If that's a scam, then that's a lot of hard work for a 120 BTC payoff!

0

There are projects underway (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822100.0) to solve the problem of decentralised exchange that don't require crowdfunding.  Seems odd that bitsquare need money to achieve the same thing.  People should support the innovative coins that are integrating AT instead.

RRIIIGGGHTTT... and the value of your LTC was never affected by central exchange hacks & thefts.

Sheesh... how can the community be so damn short-sighted?

Every p2p solution requires on and off ramps.  Now do you want to show me some viable decentralized solutions for that?

...enlighten me!

We don't have them!  We desperately need them!  The more projects solving this problem the better.

I firmly believe in supporting people, but unless they are going to operate as a charity, I don't believe in supporting them like one.  They want handouts from other people so they can build something and then potentially profit from it or at minimum support themselves and their lifestyles from it.

What is an extremely uninformed and narrow minded comment is your's. 

Perhaps it isn't the community that is "so damn short-sighted"? 

0.000000 btc

By the way, I don't think it is greedy for them to want to be paid for their work, but if you think keeping greed out of it is a wise move, then why are they asking for money?  (Or is it not greedy for them to want to be paid by someone else, but people who are paying them wanting a return on their money is greedy?)

And by the way, I've lost a lot more in fiat than in bitcoin, when you take into account the loss due to inflation.  I've lost nothing in bitcoin, I have exactly the same number of bitcoins I have had for a long time.

I have no problem with their project, nor the way they fund it, but telling people they are wrong because they don't agree with their method of financing it, IS wrong.  Decentralized exchanges, decentralized everything involved in bitcoin for that matter, is a good idea.

I'm curious if the views expressed here are indicative of this forum community in general, or if it is shills, trolls, and/or a few short-sighted, uninformed members.

If it's the general view, then members deserve what they get when the powers that be systematically take out all central points of attack on the crypto ecosystem.

https://bitsquare.io is a community commons project...

Projects like these are something that would benefit everyone either directly or indirectly.  Anyone who can't see why is simply uninformed, didn't take the time to think it through, or just plain too simpleminded to see the bigger picture.

Anyone who honestly believes they lost 0.000 BTC because of central exchange hacks or thievery is, well, either doesn't own any crypto currencies, is a government shill, or just too damn simpleminded to see the utter fallacy of that viewpoint.

The more options we have for decentralized on and off ramps into the P2P exchanges and/or into cryptos direct the more robust the ecosystem.

The more projects we have like this the better.

Anyone who can't see that, well, to be frank, is just plain simpleminded.

First of all, I've read their whitepaper and message board so I think I did my research. I'd like to have a global decentralized exchange too but unfortunately I don't think their approach will achieve this.
- The model is similar to `openbazaar`. It relies on arbitragers to mediate between parties in case of disagreement. For a trustless system, I think it's worse than an normal exchange.
- They say they want to by-pass the `KYC` requirement. To me, it's asking for trouble. Just because you are doing P2P doesn't mean you can circumvent the law.
- Technically speaking, they use a DHT (TomP2P). I doubt it will scale and will be fast enough for trading. Also, I don't see how they prevent spamming and malicious nodes flooding with fake orders
- They actually ask too little. They want 120 BTC and they are at 30 now. 120 is about 2 month-man and they need to do much more than that. Either look for a lot more or don't ask for anything. Asking for a bit makes it look unprofessional.

It won't be a real-time p2p exchange.  Projects like BitShares are better solutions for that.

What is will do is offer on & off ramps into the p2p exchanges in a decentralized way.  That is what the ecosystem desperately needs right now.

As for trying to comply with KYC?  

If you were in the iPod business, would you follow the dictates & mandates of those manufacturing eight tracks?  C'mon, we all know how that story would go.

No, we need robust systems in place that can operate independent of those power structures, regardless of what crazy rules they try to come up with to protect their power base.

As for asking for too little, they are doing an iterative funding model.  Meaning, they ask for enough to hit the next benchmarks, then hit the benchmarks, open sourcing the tech, then funding the next cycle.

This would allow for a collaborative ethos of any others who wanted to improve on that iteration.  Also delivering on benchmarks builds the trust for the next funding model, and put to rest the accusations of "scam" that we have so ignorantly seen displayed in this thread.

On a community commons project like this, that funding approach makes allota' sense to me.

KYC isn't something that banks want. On the contrary, they would love to deal with anyone and make profit. When they get caught, they have to pay massive [fines][1]. KYC is one of the most effective means to fight terrorism but let's not get into politics.

The bottom line is that the US government will not see it kindly. You could say that they say the same about copyright infringements but IMO, this is more serious. They already go after [`localbitcoins`][2]. They are isolated cases for sure. Still, I prefer to be safe than sorry.

> No, we need robust systems in place that can operate independent of those power structures, regardless of what crazy rules they try to come up with to protect their power base.

What structures are you talking about? Banks? Exchanges? Governments?

[1]: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/11/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211
[2]: http://www.coindesk.com/localbitcoins-users-criminal-charges-florida/

That's an interesting perspective on KYC.  Who do you think banks are bowing to?  And do your really think those same powers are interested in "fighting terrorism"?  No, they use "terrorists" to further their political agendas.

KYC is simply used to control you and me.

Power structures... namely central banks that control the governments.  Anything that threatens their cartels they will use any means at their disposal to destroy.

To think otherwise is just plain wishful thinking.

We need robust systems that would be very hard to single out and shut down.  Decentralized on & off ramps into cryptos & into the p2p exchanges are a critical piece to the crypto ecosystem.

The more options we have the better.  Bitsquare is a big step in the right direction.

Independently from what KYC is for, it will be strongly enforced. At the end of the day, I don't think a system whose goal is to circumvent it will work like I don't think saying that my body is mine and I should be allowed to use drugs is an acceptable reason.

But back to bitsquare, the funding scheme doesn't work for me. I'd be funding a stage of the project without knowing if the final product would be delivered.
It's better for me to pay for a product that exists. Give a demo or something. Instead, they have a YouTube video and a whitepaper that is more marketing than tech.

I'm not saying it's a scam - I actually believe they work hard on it. The mailing list has a lot of activity. But it seems a bit disorganized and optimistic thinking. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I prefer to pay when I use it. For instance, they could have an app-purchase kinda thing where the product would be free but an API would require a premium.

You seem to be nearly ideological when it comes to decentralized exchanges. Most of us don't share your views. I don't care about whether it's centralized or not. Furthermore, I believe a decentralized exchange will have even more scams. Coinfeine looks like a better choice at this moment.

One thing I think everyone can agree upon, if you give central banks a lever to shut down or co-opt crypto currencies, they sure as hell are going to use it.

To try to appease them by complying with KYC requirements is giving them that lever.

Go ahead, comply with KYC if you feel it's the ethical & moral thing to do.  But know that lever is going to be used against you sooner or later.

The powers that be behind those rules have already proven they are anything but ethical & cannot be trusted.

It's wasted energy to try to appease their ever changing rules.

Doing the ethical thing more often then not means breaking the rules.  And in this case, I would argue it's the only practical approach to take.  We all know how the alternative approach will end.

Lastly, they've already given you a demo.  They have a working product right now.  Go download it.  Demo it to your hearts content.

To make it practical, arbitration needs to be added.  And that's the whole point of the next iteration this funding cycle will enable.

I haven't said anything about ethics. No idea where this comes from. I said that I comply with KYC because I don't want to be fined or end in jail.

The demo is useless as it is. You know it too. It's a token of good faith. It says: "We are working on it". Cool. But I want to know if it offers a better price than going to my local exchange. If not, I won't use it. Would you?

Forgive me for being so direct here... but frankly.... it's rather ignorant not to see that the more options for buying/selling crypto currencies will eventuate in lower spreads.

Whether you use the system or not you'd benefit in that regard.

The more options we have the better. 

The "demo" is just that, a demo.  And to make it useful they need the funding.  Nobody can work for free forever. 

Out of interest, how do you get fiat into a p2p exchange?

Honestly, I only replied to this thread because you were calling people who disagree with you ignorant. I wanted to tell you that other people can have reasons to not believe into bitsquare. Resorting to name calling doesn't change it.

> More options lowers spreads
Yes, if the market is efficient *and* if these options are equivalent. Localbitcoin is more expensive but the premium is acceptable because it targets people who deal in cash. I don't see where `bitsquare` wants to position themselves. Their video doesn't explain that. It focuses on being decentralized but never covers the advantages. For instance, Bitcoin is decentralized: A government cannot emit more bitcoins or take them away from you.

They could work on an app-purchase model or on a commission.

Don't get me wrong, it'd be great if they succeed.

Right now the options are limited.  

But if we have more solutions like Bitsquare, & they enabled altcoins like BitUSD, we could simply buy BitUSD for fiat through sellers on the system.

Then use the BitUSD to trade on the P2P exchanges.

Currently there are few on & off ramps into these exchanges.  And that's why we need to be supporting projects like Bitsquare.  

You go through a payment processor like "OKPay". But they take a commission and enforce KYC. If you are bold, you do a wire transfer to the recipient. But then the receiver can never send you the BTC.
It's why the arbitration system is a critical component of `bitsquare`.

Coinfeine works differently. You can only use OKPay and you must have a small amount of BTC as deposit.

An "app purchase model" would not be conducive to the ethos of a commons project.

Yes, they could do a lot of things.  Even get VC funding.  

Have a look at VC funded projects.  They haven't exactly been altruistic.

The last thing we need is VCs or equity holders co-opting the project.

 

The more options we have the better.  We can argue all day which is the best approach.  Let's get them into the ecosystem, and let the market prove or disprove the approach.

Okay... gloves off... this is just getting rather ridiculous at this point!

Anyone who shares kazuki49 view has not studied the history of central crypto exchanges.

Anyone else share this view?

Bring it on! 

A trusted P2P exchange would be nice but it needs massive and recurrent auditing + known and disclosed owners.

A distributed p2p exchange has no owners & by its very nature requires no trust or auditing. That's kinda the point!

Hmmm ... I'm gonna write an app. Decentralized and P2P through a gossip protocol. Just a list of advertisements to put buyers and sellers in touch. The rest is up to them.

As far as I know, there isnt a single p2p exchange fully operative yet.