Shortline: how would
not using the blockchain be more secure in case of a cyber-war?
Karmicads: Can't you explain yourself... in less words?
Yes, the share is at the same time valued as the Bitcoin on which it stands.
Today, if a company loose too much money, the
paper on which the share is printed can also be worth more.
It is, of course, in the advantage of the issuer to use a small number of Bitcoins, just as it is to not print on thin gold leaf.
I still don't like the idea of diluting one's shares. It isn't a question of value, but rather of vote power. Even if my share are worth the same on the market, if my vote is only a tenth of what it was before, I've lost something.
You haven't lost the power to influence any descisions in proportion to equity of your holdings. It's a percentage-wise game.
I never said I lost proportion wise, I lost in absolute!
I have a dish with a kg of fish.
Later someone comes along and says he replaced it with a proportion equal fish/dish size ratio, then gives me 1g of a fish. I don't care if the proportion is maintained, I'm hungry!
The other share holders who bought in to the company at the same time as you are also reduced in their voting power against (or with) you. Meanwhile, the shareholders who are coming on-board in the more recent offering, are entitled to their share of the vote, as they have paid good money towards the equity of the whole company (including your share), and increased the net value with their own hard earned dollars.
Sure, the total value has increased, but not the value of my share. I immediately loose vote power for a
maybe more successful company later.
Well that would not be possible by any legitimate legal ownership arrangement that I know of in the real world... would it?
That's exactly my point. Thanks for bringing it to the front scene.
Imagine you are 50% owner of a building with a friend. If he sells 40% of the entire property (not only his part, but yours too) to buy new furniture, new paint, renovate the bathroom, I would consider you have been screwed -even if your share is worth the same thing on the market.
(...)Secondly, "40% of the entire property" is still only 40% of the property (there's nothing entire about 40% of something)
Er... I don't even know where to begin.
I said: 40%
of the entire property. You replied: there's nothing entire about 40% of something.
Well no... that's why I wrote "
of"!
(...)and by selling that 40% he then forgoes 40% of the decision making power. He now only retains 10% of the ownership
No no no, that's exactly why I specified 40% of the entire property. He sells "new share" in your ownership and reduce your
absolute proportion.
I have no idea what this so called "Master Bitcoin" is supposed to represent. For starters, the blockchain doesn't represent or record any particular discrete values of bitcoin ownership. If you decide to send some bitcoin, the amount is arbitrary, but it's divisible down to the base unit (the satoshi) that is 8 orders of magnitude smaller than the whole bitcoin. What the blockchain records is not specific 'values' of bitcoin, but transactions of ANY value IN bitcoin. So it records who has done the trasaction and what the value of that trasaction is. How then are you going to 'anchor' the value of this "Master Bitcoin" to a particular share value, or to the total equity value of the company you want to have floating (presumeably with it's own value) in the free market?
Every transaction is recorded in the blockchain. To check if someone has a part of a particular bitcoin (previous transaction), simply look at the blockchain.
There is in many country (not everywhere- this is the internet) laws against insider tradings.
Nevertheless, I don't see anything wrong with the fact of acting on information others might not have. I do it everyday. My whole career is based on the fact that I have knowledge others don't (engineering).
Presumably what you call 'knowledge' is a free market asset (although I fail to see how). Nevertheless it doesn't give you the power to literly 'cheat' in any system where that asset of any salable value.
It's not an asset, what I know is part of who I am.
I don't "cheat" if I act on what I know. It's called life.
In an idealised free market, your 'knowledge' for want of a better expresion should give you no better advantage than anybody vested with the same opportunities to gain that knowledge or use their own alternative knowledge.
Well if they have the same "opportunity", why bother? If it's exactly the same knowledge, we both gain equally. If they don't grab the opportunity, what's the problem?
(..)What can your knowledge of engeneering do to give you an 'unfair' advantage in trading on an idealisticly level playing field?
Why do you say unfair? What is the "playing field"?
I can do what I do while others don't, because they don't have the same knowledge as I do.
If someone works in a company and learn something, why would it be unjust for him to act on this information?
Show Posts
