The future of Bitcoin is new types of businesses that have never exited before, not replicas of existing models.
Otherwise, what's the point of all these exotic transaction types?
It would be completely new, it's not an classic exchange, its just an interface to create it without centralisation. Decentralization steps is future of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
It's just to start the discussion.
At first I thought it wont work because because of no profits for developers, but..
Mechanism is there, there is just need to create web interface, so it would be for only way people will do it because its to complicated to do it without human friendly interface.
So I, or anyone who dare can make website which will let easy make trade with smart contracts making it bitcoin safe (transactions) and website could add to each contract an trade fee included to contract, then you could avoid fee by typing your contract manually which would be hard.
And with minimal fee you would be as GLBSE but, resistant to creators and makers, operators mistakes.
Wow, how brilliant I am. It is so obvious tech to write (code)
Who is with me (want to join and write it, and start it?)
I'm HPC admin and beginning software designer but I'm familiar with python nginx etc. Is there any programers who want to start with me.
|
|
|
|
|
We need smart contract based exchange instead GLBSE, with only a web interface, or multiple web and soft exchanges to operate on it.
Do you agree?
This is why the samrt contracts wear created to eliminate additional risk of exchange holders cheating etc.
|
|
|
|
Sorry... I know this has been answered, but I'm tired of searching all this technical stuff. I simply want to buy $200 worth of bitcoin and sock it away on a disc for a few years. I don't want it to be on my hard drive in case I get hacked or my comp crashes.
I am very non technical, what is the easiest way to do this? Thank you, Ann.
Very wise of you doing that.  I think it is common idea to do that for newbies that believe in bitcoin but do not want to wast time for it now. There is some need for some good tutorial on it or as much as it is possible automated way. One of my ideas if you asking the simplest way - if someone more keen on bitcoin get you into it (and you trust that person), ask him/her to do it for you with just letting you type passphrase. |
|
|
|
I'm not going to do anything based on your word, I want to see exactly what was said. The original agreement is very important when determining if the agreement was broken, I don't see how that is difficult to understand or why I have to explain it.
Actions Nefario has taken since he admitted to this should be clear enough. He stole my assets. That is black and white. Anyway Maged has been contacted. Did you ever agree to what Nefario offered ? You cant just ignore the offer and later say "we had a deal" when it wasnt one. As I see it, it wasn't an offer, it was an statement, or announce even. Ther wasn't question mark in the end anyway. |
|
|
|
Not that, the original quotes from the time it happened.
I'll look for it now, but how it is is it not enough that Nefario admitted that?! How's that? Why now you doubt it? |
|
|
|
An offer does not constitute a contract, and would require shareholder approval before it could go through. Nothing violated.
I'm afraid that's not true because in this case, there is detrimental reliance sufficient to create promissory estoppel. "A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires." -- Second Restatement of Contracts http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel"Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisor—one who makes a promise—makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise. A majority of courts apply the doctrine to any situation in which all of these elements are present." It appears in this case, a promise was made. The promise was relied upon to the detriment of those who relied on it. This reliance was foreseeable and should have been reasonably expected to increase the value of the outstanding shares. However, what the consequences of this should be is a closer question. Enforcing the promise would mean that the promisor would be liable for damages for breach of the promise. This is why if nothing else I feel tricked, used and stolen from. He thinks that by delisting all of my assets and destroying my GLBSE account he can just take my assets and BTC. That is just scammer... Signed contract or it didn't happen. Maged and I have both asked him for links/quotes, but he won't for some reason. I wonder what that reason is. Quoting my post since Goat seems to have missed it. What were the exact words he said when he made the listing "legitimate"?
I would have to look it up but there are many people who know Nefario said he would make them "legitimate". Nefario even admitted it in this thread. Humor us and post quotes/links. Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112071.20The problem we currently have was caused by how I dealt with this. Failing to reserve the asset name GLBSE I felt had enabled it to happen. And I announced that those assets that were sold would be honored, at the time I thought I had the power to make this decision.
|
|
|
|
Yes, well... I just asked because of Nefario - Goat problem: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112071.new;topicseen#newBut if Nefario is the only one that operates, then it's better than nothing. I was worried because Goat's bonds desperado disappeared today and his account is not available to him anymore due to Nefario vs. Goat conflict. But I will be much more calm if you will get that assurance, and confirm that. |
|
|
|
Goat: GLBSE is a startup and always when you start something new some mistakes are made. I take it you did even make a huge Profit (in %) trading these shares so on the contrary to the people who bought this shares from you, no financial damage was done to you. I don't here the people who where damaged by this scam complaining. Couldn't you just call this a mistake and leave it be? Must you really fight this to the bitter end? This whole thing has already escalated to much. Just think for a moment of the possible outcomes if you go through with this to the bitter end: - Nefario gives in --> You can keep you shares, but trading gets frozen and a warning added that this are not real GLBSE shares (so no naive noob buys them
- Nefario "wins" --> You loose you shares and get nothing
- You "win" --> Nefario gets a Scammer tag, you still get nothing, but you destroyed the most promising BTC Stock exchange
(I now I'm overdrawing a little) Or you just give in and walk out of this with a profit, whats the harm in that? You might not be up to date but Nefario delisted all of my assets, closed my GLBSE account, took my shares and has my BTC. That's what I meant when I said: "This whole thing has already escalated to much." I takes you both to deescalate this, but you have started this and I think its up to you to take the first step. This will only work out if both of you swallow their pride and work towards an agreement you could both live with. Of Nefario I got the impression that he would do so (I could be wrong of course). Just as Note: You have reached a compromise if both partys are unsatisfied with the solution. Why didn't you listed: - Nefario gives in --> You can keep you shares, he get other shareholders let him giv his shares in exchange to fake shares to make his words true
But what the hell haw could and why he closed Goat account? Now I'm afraid of my account to and my shares and BTC. Should I redeem that? |
|
|
|
Nefario on GLBSE took over an asset called "GLBSE" that he assumed was a scam. He then let this stock trade and said that they would become valid GLBSE stock. He let this stock trade over 10 BTC each. GLBSE profited form the sale of these stocks because of commissions collected.
Nefario has the option to trade his real valid GLBSE stock for the "fake" GLBSE stock he said he would make good but he is now going to do a force by back of the shares for .1 BTC. That is less than 1% for what they were trading for.
Could someone confirm that (upper quote?)? Especialy Nefario isn't above true? or there is sth. important missing? Because if it is true I have to agre with the other part: Anyone wouldn't? I bought and held GLBSE and invested my time in GLBSE because I was told that I was a part owner. I was tricked, cheated and more or less scammed.
Nefario could trade me his real stock but refuses to do so and will just steal my GLBSE assets with out my consent.
If you make good on your word and trade me real GLBSE stock you will keep your word. If you "force" me to sell you will be stealing my asset.
I am trying to understand what is going on with this but am having a difficult time deciphering the problem.
So there was to be a GLBSE asset that was going to be nefario's and people bought shares, but now it is being said that the GLBSE listing was actually fake?
Now nefario won't use his omnipotent powers of TOS rules or "vetting" to correct the situation, but is instead saying that he can't make changes because of voting? Is this for voting on the "fake" GLBSE or for the real one? Is there a "real" GLBSE listing? Is the "fake" listing still active?
No none of that is correct. GLBSE has never been publicly traded. Foolishly nefario never blocked the ticker symbol GLBSE. Another scammer, registered a contract under the ticker GLBSE and sold about 30 BTC worth of shares before it was delisted. At this point neither the fake listing nor the real GLBSE shares are available for trade. Anyone who had fake GLBSE shares at the point it was delisted has them in their accont. They can be transfered to another account. Goat has some (? number) of shares of the fake stock. He knew they were the fake stock when he bought them, he knows they are the fake stock now. He ripped off other users selling what he knew was fake stock for 10 BTC a share (a 10,000% profit for himself). Nefario has said the fake GLBSE shares will be removed from everyone's accounts and they will be given the IPO price (0.1 BTC). Goat (the only scammer in the thread) calls that a scam. You mised that than in the meantime Goat was told that fake shares will be real. And that makes you making mess here and trying to make mess. (...) Nefario has said the fake GLBSE shares will be removed from everyone's accounts and they will be given the IPO price (0.1 BTC). (...)
Personally, paying 0.1 is too much for them, it's like rewarding exploiters. Even after Nefario told those were fake shares, there are still individuals wanting to exploit his good-will for maximum profit. Incredible!Just human. There was some huge mistake and not by Goat but by Nefario, and now you are saying that using someones mistakes is what? I don't really understand where the debate is. Because Nefario doesn't have the authority to honor his word means that he is 'all good'?
My understanding:
He acknowledged the shares were fake, but agreed to 'honor' them, making them real GLBSE stock
Goat then buys it, thinking that it will become real stock
Nefario cannot make it stock, because he assumed he had more power than he did. Obviously, he could have known he cannot just 'make more stock'
Now to clean it all up, the fake, but then real, but now fake again stock is being bought back for the initial IPO listing price?
However, at the same time, I feel that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. It would be like going to a car dealership and being offered a price that is too low. Being told You are paying $$$$, but the contract says $$$$$. Would the dealership be a 'scammer'?
Obviously yes. +1 because of that Nefario didnt scam the people Goat sold the shares to for 10btc. Goat scammed them.
Did he lay anyone? So he didn't scam anyone. If someone laying and even do not try to come true his lays, than he is scamer. Nefario didnt scam the people Goat sold the shares to for 10btc. Goat scammed them.
This seems to be an unfounded accusation. Do you have some evidence that he acted in less than good faith? If Goat had inside information that the Nefario would not honor his word, but that information wasn't also available to the people he sold them to, I could see it. But your dislike of profit doesn't seem sufficient. It's about reasonable expectation. Goat knew damn well, there was never a reasonable expectation for the fake shares to be worth that. The fact he convinced others of that value changes nothing. And the damn GLBSE ticker shold ahve been fuggin frozen 7 months ago when this was first talked about... I will agree with that. It allowed Goat to take advantage of people. So can't you blame Goat that he used that. He used people according to rules. And rules are more important than someone losses.
Goat might be a douche for wanting Nefario to buy them for 10 BTC each, but that doesn't make him a scammer, and more than Nefario's mistaken statement about honoring them makes him a scammer.
Well said and true for me. The issue is a voluntary buyback doesn't resolve the issue of people like Goat committing fraud in the future trying to sell the worthless shares for 10, 100, 1,000 BTC, and then the people saying why didn't GLBSE prevent this. This all came up again when there was a thread where people were once again attempted to unload the worthless shares.
Meh. Just re-list them, with a big notice on the details page that they are only collectors items with no inherent value, and not actual shares in any company, certainly not in the exchange itself. Then when GLBSE goes public, they can take the ticker GLBSE2, as a history lesson, and a reminder that mistakes can have long lasting and far reaching consequences. Many of us that are involved with bitcoin are doing so because we find depriving people of their rightful property distasteful. GLBSE should consider very carefully what messages they want to send to their customers. Some of us are already uncomfortable that all shares are held in street name. Well, worse than street name, actually, since a single entity is acting as both brokerage and exchange. This is an opportunity to show that GLBSE respects the ownership of the properties that it is custodian of, even when it hurts. Also, love your loaded phrasing. Classic. You may not do anything legally wrong here.
But you proof again that it is very dangerous to do business with you.
You show that if business doesn't work out the way you expected you will search for every possible loophole to screw you business partner.
Showing this kind of behavior may be the deathblow to your already damaged reputation.
Brutal true - I would prefer to do business with Goat rather than with Nefario, because he is brutal, and do not lay. It,s just Nefario is the person who want to cheat because he want to take profit (by not giving his shares as the only honest solution exists now (including talking other shareholders to let him do that))
I didn't mean that Goat doesn't honor his contract. I mean the opposite. Goat takes contacts and even things said to a level where it just isn't reasonable by common sense anymore.
Just see this thread, or the thread where he tries to get shares on bitcoin magazine.
That's all I meant. I'm still confident that goat will honor all his contracts. I would be carefully if I deal directly with him, or if he would be shareholder of my business, though.
You should be carrefoul when you deal with anyone, rather than to behave as Nefario. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know if it is right place, but:
What if GLBSE will get closed by some circumstances (in example close by gov, or because default)?
Would I have still my shares?
Would it be possible to move to other Exchange operator without loosing our shares?
It seems possible for me, but I want to get your opinion GigaVPS?
It would be great if you could assure as that we are GLBSE-down-proof.
We would some no-GLBSE identification (private-public-key) between shareholders and you.
|
|
|
|
Thank you for robust answer. |
|
|
|
No I didn't personally, but I'm sure someone did. They weren't shy about the machines, they opened them up, people could check 'em out, they set them up to mine. They had a small FPGA single, the MINI-RIG FPGA and a prototype ASIC single/jalepeno. All working, all you could touch and play with. Very cool. The mini-rig is VERY NICE.
The coolest part? They did a raffel for the FPGA Single and auctioned off the Mini-RIG (sold for 1000 BTC) and auctioned off the ASIC. So, they aren't shy about the equipment. Josh was there answering all sorts of questions- indeed I wish this came out the week before- he was really open about the company and their plans.
Josh also mentioned that they will do a day when they test the new ASIC rigs out on the real Bitcoin Network, and all the BTC mined for that one day they will give out to the developers. Pretty cool if you ask me. So, yeah, I'm having trouble believing they are scam. I saw the equipment and they built it with care.
The prototype Single and Jalapeno they showed, were they hashing at 40GH/s and 3.5GH/s? You said they got auctioned off, who won the auction, and do they have a functioning ASIC now? I want to joint to this question. |
|
|
|
Imagine that it's Jan. 1, 2020, and you're an investor in an economy where the currency is deflating 10% a year. You're considering making an investment in a programmable widget-maker. The widget-maker costs 100 BTC (naturally everyone uses Bitcoins in 2020). To simplify things, assume that the widget maker is disposable and can only be used once, after which it has zero value. Also assume that all you have to do to use the widget maker is to input two choices, e.g. color and shape, and then wait exactly one year. Let's say that you know that you can make a green circle widget that will be worth 105 BTC in present 2020 BTC. So it sounds like a smart (and wealth-creating) investment, right? Except there's a problem. You also know that when you can actually sell the widget on Jan. 1, 2021, it will only sell for 94.5 BTC as a result of deflation. So you're better off just sitting on your 100 BTC, and you certainly won't borrow money to make the investment. Is that a bad result for society? I don't think so. First, it should be noted that if the widget maker were only capable of making green circle widgets, it wouldn't sell for 100 BTC because no one would pay that much (everyone else would make the same calculation you did). In that case, the price would be adjusted downwards until it made economic sense. But if it DOES sell for 100 BTC, what does that tell us? It tells us that there's someone else (who's presumably also aware of deflation) who knows that they can make, e.g., a yellow square widget worth at least 111.11 BTC in 2020 BTC (meaning it will sell for at least 100 BTC in 2021). So there's no problem. The asset goes to its most productive user and doesn't just sit on a shelf.
More generally, what does a 10% deflation rate tell us assuming a constant money supply? I'm perhaps oversimplifying, but basically it tells us that the economy is growing at around 11.11% a year (with 10% deflation, the purchasing power of every BTC increases 11.11% each year). So you now have the same amount of money chasing more goods. If the economy is growing that rapidly, that tells you that there must be lots of investment opportunities with a return of at least 11.11%. Basically, that's the number to beat. If you're looking at an investment opportunity with a measly 5% return, deflation is telling you not to waste your time because there are higher and better uses of that capital.
Krugman makes it sound like it's a bad thing that "just sitting on cash becomes an investment with a positive real yield." But I don't think that it is. And again, the only reason that sitting on cash can produce a positive real yield for some people is that many other people AREN'T just sitting on their cash. There MUST be even higher-return investments occurring. And it seems to me that "just sitting on cash" SHOULD return a positive real yield. Deferring consumption is not something people typically like to do. And people who do make that sacrifice ARE providing something of value to society by doing so. By sitting on their cash, that cash is temporarily not competing with other cash for goods and services, thus keeping prices low for everyone else, including investors.
Now let's look at an inflation scenario. Assume that it's Jan. 1, 2000 and the inflation rate is 10% (you're stuck using inflationary U.S. fiat because Bitcoin hasn't been invented). You're looking at a widget maker that costs 100 USD, but this widget maker is not programmable. It only makes orange triangle widgets and once again, it takes a year to do so. But these orange triangle widgets can only be sold for 95 bucks (in 2000 dollars). But that means that on Jan. 1, 2001, when you can actually sell the widget, you'll be able to get $104.50 for it. So buying the widget maker with your 100 bucks makes more sense than just sitting on the cash despite the fact that it's a wealth-destroying investment. That seems bad. Basically, it seems like inflation causes people to treat cash like a hot potato which will sometimes lead to economically-wasteful transactions. Wow! It's great explanation of what I was thinking even before I had touched with BTC or even before it was created. I have only one thing to add. Technology is making things easier and simpler so price should show that. Producing single loaf of bread is much cheaper now than 10 years ago, but wait a moment why price is increasing? Do you understand what I mean? |
|
|
|
I had a look at LinkedIn to check if the "lead engineer in Paris" happens to be a former student of mine, but I could not find anyone listing "Butterfly Labs" or "ButterflyLabs" as their company. Do they run by another name?
Who are you? Do you teach sth. about engineering of processors development in Paris? |
|
|
|
Wow great. I want to get this come true. But do you know that it is just divination? There is no proof that Eliot waves works (no real confirmation with numbers). It's just like humans ability to recognize faces in any shape and object. If you know what I mean - any shape could be read as Eliot wave as long as you do not set some mathematical frames to this shape. |
|
|
|
But it's still useful to show why that doesn't lead to "too little" investment from a market efficiency perspective. It's not possible to do that due to the economic calculation problem among other reasons. "Efficient" can't stand alone as an adjective here. It must be defined with regards to a goal. If the goal is anything other than a free market then it's likely Bitcoin isn't the most efficient tool. It's probably not the most efficient system if the goal is a centrally-planned economy that efficiently funnels wealth to the central planners and their cronies. This is why arguing about economic efficiency is a tar pit. Two people who don't agree on the destination will argue in circles forever about how to get there. Really? I get that people have to agree on definitions, and that sometimes what you really have is a normative disagreement over goals. But I'm not sure that we have that problem here (although I'm honestly not sure). It sounds like some people think that a deflationary currency limits the economy's ability to grow. I think that's wrong, and that it actually maximizes long-term growth. But why, could you explain? I believe it, in my opinion it is caused by long term stabilization by not forcing people to spend money. |
|
|
|
Once an action taken, most people tend to be in denial even facing hard facts.
Said but true. We are just stubborn animals. EDIT It's sad that only small amount of people even as an adults could hold themselves and do not eat that marshmallow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_gratification |
|
|
|
This is a good indicator. Once ASICs come out the FPGAs have much less value - so why would they want them back? Well, because if you get them back but ASICs never ship then you have a huge mining rig with excellent value as ASICs haven't yet pushed up the difficulty. So not only will you be smarting from not getting your ASICs but you'll have to put up with knowing that the bitcoins you're using are being mined by your very own rigs in the fraudsters hands. Which explains why they didn't mind shipping FPGAs in the first place as they knew they actually having you pay for their own super rig. Good point. Is there any good idea what to do with this amount of fpga rigs? Sell to some government for cracking passwords etc.? FPGA=Field Programmable Gate Array Bitcoins aren't the first or only thing they are used for. They have a great second life for a variety of uses including medical research. There is a much greater post Bitcoin resale value in FPGAs then ASICs which would essentially become useless. Yes, i know, but it's not so easy so sell such a amount of it with certain configuration (hardware) and without loosing money I think. But it's just a guess, do you have some background about non bitcoin FPGA market to state it is not like that?? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
