The supply and availability of BTC is not a factor in the effective operation of BitBTC because all trades are settled in BitShares... the only thing the participants get is a derivative asset who's return is highly correlated with the price movement of BTC. I'm not saying it is a ponzi, but such a derivative asset is not correlated with the price movement of BTC (in China) because you can't transfer BTC (the underlying asset) in and out of China. There is no point of making exchange rate arbitrage if there is price difference as there is no way you can pay your BTC loss in China by transferring BTC from the US and there is no way you can transfer your BTC profit out of China to use BTC in the US. There is no incentive for such a market. Don't forget that market will be about USD/BTC, not BTC/USD. Thus trading result will always be in BTC, not in USD and with no connection between the Chinese BTC and American BTC you can not ensure liquidity between those two markets at all. This is why they will be completely different asset classes! Prediction market is another name for gambling, or if you use the word derivative, for option market. In options (as well as in gambling) the buyer's loss is limited to the premium they pay when they purchase put or call option. There is always expiry date for every option after which all liabilities if any are settled. There is no expiry date for BitShares as a financial instrument as you didn't specify the cut-off date for dividend. If you want to continue down this path you have to introduce obligatory and enforceable settlement for BitShares in certain moments. Derivatives always have expiry date! On the expiry date they have to be marked-to-market and arising profit/loss for transacting parties settled. |
|
|
|
XBT ... WTF  what's letter X stand for ? why we should follow bloomberg's rules ? X means no country. Shows it is not govt fiat. X means it is not a currency. |
|
|
|
Why do you think it is a good news for Bitcoin? IMO good news would have been if BTC was accepted, not XBT. |
|
|
|
reposting hacked material that involves national security might piss someone off ...no?  Heh... Tell me just one thing that is not national security? |
|
|
|
Why aren't these supposed weaknesses being exploited right now? Why do you think they aren't? Why do big bitcoin accounts being robbed prefer to keep silent in public space? Why do Chinese prefer to keep their US treasuries even when Fed's printing press is running on 3 shifts? Because if they sell just 10% of their US debt the value of the rest 90% will immediately drop in half! So, like most of you they wait and hope that problem will self-correct, but it is getting worse instead. Eventually comes the time when you have to say "enough is enough" and this is the point where seismic shifts happen! Whether power can centralize in a given environment depends on "environmental factors," If power can not centralize it is not power! |
|
|
|
The same with all other vulnerabilities: the more rich bitcoiners are around, the more money will be spend on developing de-centralized solutions.
History proves you're wrong. The rich people of a certain guild will always form a club that will put every aspect of the source of their wealth under control and regulation. Control and regulation is just another name of centralization! |
|
|
|
I can't open this file. I used all major browsers and all they stop at different points of the download/import process giving irrelevant warnings. Any idea what might be the reason? |
|
|
|
Every problem in society and economy is self-correcting. Sometimes it takes 5 minutes and sometimes it takes 100 years.
Gmaxwell makes persuasive arguments here. I completely agree with gmaxwell here. One year ago when I warned on the forums he moderated that ASIC mining will cause centralization in mining and from there onto Bitcoin he was singing another tune. I'm glad to see now he is coming closer to my understanding. |
|
|
|
Self-correcting problem.
Evidence in the altcoins Zangelbert is right. centralization is not going to occur. Centralization is not a prediction, it is a fact! Every problem in society and economy is self-correcting. Sometimes it takes 5 minutes and sometimes it takes 100 years. Sometimes hardly anyone is noticing it and sometimes it is like a seismic shift. The point here is to avoid seismic shifts. The future of ASIC production is to make the ASIC chip like a Swiss army knife capable of switching between different POW algos as the need arises. Field of competition will be how this switches are optimized between different pairs of POW algos. It may sound absurd but professional investing in ASIC production is the first worrying signs of centralization. Risk must be too big for a professional investor to make a bet for a single POW algo optimized ASIC chip. Only then we can say that the danger of centralization is not there anymore. |
|
|
|
In any case, Bitcoin's proof-of-work algorithm isn't going to change due to the huge investment miners have made in SHA256; if the centralization of SHA256 ASICs becomes a problem it'll be an alt-coin that replaces Bitcoin that changes the proof-of-work.
If the crypto currency population move their interest from Bitcoin to an alt-coin, miners will be forced to support a change in Bitcoin's proof-of-work algorithm irrespectively of how huge investments they have in SHA-256. Better lose something than lose everything! Of course, prior to this forced change they will try to crash the rising competitor using all the computing power and financial leverage they have in hand. |
|
|
|
The dystopia that you are painting just doesn't fit the canvas. I see ASICs in the hands of many people. It is like saying Windows is a decentralized OS because I see Windows in the computers of many people. It is just funny. Apples to Oranges is a hilarious fallacy. The point of every single one of these threads is ... The point of THIS thread is obvious. It doesn't matter how many people are using ASICs. What really matters is how many people are producing them? For the purpose of decentralization it doesn't matter that millions are using Windows OS because all they have a back door in their machine by design. And this manufacturer will do whatever the government told them to do. They won't fight, they'll collaborate because all they want is a steady revenue stream. That all happens when there is no genuine competition on a production level. That, my friend, is a centralization in its worst. |
|
|
|
The dystopia that you are painting just doesn't fit the canvas. I see ASICs in the hands of many people. It is like saying Windows is a decentralized OS because I see Windows in the computers of many people. It is just funny. |
|
|
|
In my original "holy grail" post, our solution was to use issuers in combination with colored coins (and we will still probably support that) Please, do! Many people (including me) count on the integration of colored coins in OT. As we've been developing the concept, it's become apparent that we need to solve a more fundamental problem first: how to achieve contract recourse and dispute resolution in a decentralized environment. You probably can't. I'm afraid it isn't possible to have a truly decentralized full-fledged exchange for centralized assets like the dollar or the euro. You always end up with some sort of escrow agent with a distributed security like multisig rules to be the custodian for the "real" stuff. You can always use smart contracts but that suggests you'll use parallel investigative, judicial, and law enforcement private agencies. Nevertheless, I like your concept for the distributed Bank. This certainly has a future. I'm not sure if it is an alternative to Ripple gateway or is complementary. |
|
|
|
Still waiting for my BFL jalapeņo.. If I didn't pay in bitcoins I would of asked for a refund by now!
Unfortunately, BFL crooks have unequivocally showed us that Bitcoin is not the right currency for commerce. |
|
|
|
Open Enterprise is a great concept. Any idea why is bettermeans abandoned as a project?
The creators tried to develop the Bettermeans code as part of a freemium business model, and it didn't work out. I see no technological or business reason why it shouldn't work out. I suspect the team was dismantled and project sabotaged because the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement tried to use this platform to coordinate their activities. |
|
|
|
You ignore that the poster referred to using Bitcoin to bypass American sanctions imposed on Iran. That's just illegal. American sanctions are just American sanctions. The free world doesn't care about them. Maybe it's time for you to consider renouncing your US passport and move to live in some free country. Bitcoin is not a property of the US government. |
|
|
|
If you want to attach Bitcoin to Iran you are guaranteeing that the US will focus it's efforts at destroying Bitcoin, in everyway possible. My little boy, the whole question is not about Iran. It is about the US. Nobody will care about Bitcoin if the US government can destroy it at their will. If you do not think that is true, then you must be more deluded than I originally thought. Then be responsible and tell everyone that is currently paying $140 per 1 bitcoin that they are diluded! |
|
|
|
If you want to attach Bitcoin to Iran you are guaranteeing that the US will focus it's efforts at destroying Bitcoin, in everyway possible. My little boy, the whole question is not about Iran. It is about the US. Nobody will care about Bitcoin if the US government can destroy it at their will. |
|
|
|
It would make a lot of sense for a state with adversarial relations with the United States (Iran comes to mind) to embrace Bitcoin. It would be a great way to get around the economic sanctions, while posing more of a threat to Washington than it could ever do militarily.
If you want Bitcoin to die a quick death, then hope for that scenario. Really, could your suggestion be any dumber? Any arguments to back your statement? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
