http://reut.rs/1EwgLtDFirst Bitcoin exchange to file for a banking license. I wondered who'd be first. Expecting Coinbase & Circle to follow.
|
|
|
|
what does that video really have to do with MIT students? Can you read? MIT graduates cannot power a light bulb with a battery. can you process? do you really think that headline is reflective or some indictment on MIT education?  my point is, that's a stupid video. so what if they dumbfounded a few MIT students about how to power a light bulb. we don't even know if they ARE MIT students. and if they are, they probably cherry picked those who couldn't to try and make a predetermined point. one wonders how many students they had to edit out who could light the bulb. iow, i wouldn't throw the whole institution under the bus just b/c of this video. it is strange to me you understand the truth of sound money yet do not grok the reality I apparently have to lead you to. it's like you only have one eye open. these guys are slowly trying to co-opt Bitcoin to the government and its establishments and you can't see it just look at the list of the Media Lab "sponsors" : https://www.media.mit.edu/sponsorship/sponsor-listBrian Forde, former White House senior advisor for mobile and data innovation, has joined the MIT Media Lab as director of digital currency.
https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/brian-forde-media-lab-director-digital-currency-0415Get a grip. I'm not saying this will kill Bitcoin but this is certainly no less "bad" than what the folks are Blockstream are privately funding, whether they are for profit or not is irrelevant really. |
|
|
|
what does that video really have to do with MIT students? Can you read? MIT graduates cannot power a light bulb with a battery. can you process? do you really think that headline is reflective or some indictment on MIT education? |
|
|
|
what does that video really have to do with MIT students? Can you read? MIT graduates cannot power a light bulb with a battery. |
|
|
|
as far as Gavin, Wlad, & Cory are concerned, they all were under the BF's roof all along before. they have just moved over to MIT now which in theory is not a for profit afaik and doesn't exist for political reasons. i'm only now getting a sense from some of you about concerns regarding MIT's past behaviors. all i know about Aaron Swartz is that they didn't support him in his gvt struggles, is that right? i think he was attacking/releasing some of their paywall informational archives, wasn't he? if that's the case, then it seems understandable that their would be some tension btwn them.
i read Joi Ito's statement on the Media Labs intention and so far we should give him the benefit of the doubt. of course, time will tell. i did read that article this morning about Forde. he's definitely someone worth keeping an eye on. i would not like it if he ends up trying to steer core dev direction to a significant degree away from our ideal goals that we've espoused ad nauseum here in this thread. one thing that did occur to me is that Gavin, et al won't be moving to MIT under the direct roof of the Media Lab, i'm sure. they will continue to work remotely which helps shield them to a degree. but yeah, accepting pay can be influential for sure. somehow though, from what i've seen of MIT's overall contributions to tech, they seem to have libertarian leanings supportive of the Bitcoin culture and open source. and the fact that it is a research institution is comforting. do you have any evidence that it is an NSA "antechamber"?
tl;dr: i don't see it as a problem right now; in fact, i see it as a positive that those 3 are going to continue to be paid. but yeah, we have to keep an eye out.
About Aaron Swartz see here. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58tl;dr not only did they not support him, they supported the gvt with evidences and complicity in the prosecution of a victimless crime. MIT may not "exist" for political reasons but like most every institutions in the united states are now rotten with government agents and politically captured by potato science "research" funding. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/08/leak_case_spotlights_an_mit_divide/I mean, what else could have caused this much damage to a once great institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ve23i5K334 |
|
|
|
|
Cypherdoc, seeing as you were so much against 3 core developers working under the same hood at Blockstream do you have any comments about Gavin & co. setting up shop in NSA's antechamber working under a previous White House senior advisor?
|
|
|
|
Aaron Swartz would like a word with you. |
|
|
|
thank god the internet is here so these idiots' opinions can be recorded for posterity |
|
|
|
Although there is room for other states to have different regulations for virtual currency firms, there is a need for at least some consistency, Lawsky said.
“We’re going to see how this all shakes out. I think there’s room for federalism, but at the same time if you have a whole series of different rules and it becomes a crazy quilt patchwork, that can get hard to comply with,” Lawsky said on the sidelines of an event hosted by Dow Jones.
“We’ll have to see what other states do and other countries do, and if things don’t make sense we will take the next step,” he added. Seems to me Lawsky is starting to cave in after the outright objection of his "revised" proposition by a coalition of industry heads. I predict the final version will be considerably less constraining for businesses and might even get rid of the unnecessary and duplicate AML/KYC compliances. If this happens it will justifiably be celebrated by the industry and you can expect this "change of attitude" to be well publicized in the media. he really is a dickhead after releasing his latest essentially non-revised version after having pandered to the community for over a year and wasting everyone's time. best to just ignore him and if possible route around NY. Best case scenario is that they admit their overly ambitious "licenses" and turn them into simple industry guidelines/best practices standards under existing AML/KYC regulations. |
|
|
|
Although there is room for other states to have different regulations for virtual currency firms, there is a need for at least some consistency, Lawsky said.
“We’re going to see how this all shakes out. I think there’s room for federalism, but at the same time if you have a whole series of different rules and it becomes a crazy quilt patchwork, that can get hard to comply with,” Lawsky said on the sidelines of an event hosted by Dow Jones.
“We’ll have to see what other states do and other countries do, and if things don’t make sense we will take the next step,” he added. Seems to me Lawsky is starting to cave in after the outright objection of his "revised" proposition by a coalition of industry heads. I predict the final version will be considerably less constraining for businesses and might even get rid of the unnecessary and duplicate AML/KYC compliances. If this happens it will justifiably be celebrated by the industry and you can expect this "change of attitude" to be well publicized in the media. |
|
|
|
that 1H dildo though  |
|
|
|
GBTC might start trading on monday, but I would think Gemini/Coin would want to comply with the final BitLicense before they launched.
As I understand, Gemini (the Winkles' exchange) depends only on ordinary bureaucratic licenses (MSB, MTB, whatever). If Coinbase can function, they should be able to function too (unless they are based in NY and have to wait for the BitLicense because of that). The COIN ETF is more complicated: it must be approved by the SEC, which is not just a bureaucratic formality. There is no way to tell how long the SEC will take to decide, or whather it will get approved at all. (In fact, I have read somewhere that, the longer the SEC takes to decide, the less likely is that it will be approved.) See this is the crux of what I'm sure is a tense debate behind the scenes between the industry and regulators. By all appearances Coinbase is fully compliant w/ all known existing regulations in most states they operate. AML/KYC/MSB/MTB you name it. Now statists and "lawmakers" being what they are they can't help but having to try and "regulate" anything new under the sun. In which case gov puppets like Lawsky assume they have authority to impose largely useless, wholly unnecessary and realistically impracticable regulations, the BitLicenses, under the false pretense of "consumer protection". The Winklevoss being they corporate shills they are they will sing the praise of such "initiatives". They will go as far as to claim other exchanges operating without being "licensed" could be considered "unregulated". Companies like Coinbase are satisfied enough with their legal status they feel comfortable operating under current state & federal laws. It will be interesting to find out what becomes of the BitLicenses after reading the industry's stance on the last revised version. They are evidently not having it. |
|
|
|
Look at what happened to bitcoin in USA since Fed/wall st. took an interest, it died.
yes, i think they are interfering in the Bitcoin price mkt thru derivatives. but i don't think it is sustainable and they most likely will get whiplashed to the tune of millions of losses when the mkt turns up. we all should be keeping a close eye out for the first derivatives exchange (here's looking at you BFX) that does a force majeure that forces settlement in USD as opposed to BTC from the lack of available BTC needed to be covered. if their algos keep a continually falling lid on prices and price perceptions such that the market never "turns up" materially, funded by unlimited supplies of fiat only, then it is an effective social/economic attack that will inevitably sideline bitcoin as a useful currency. The exchanges that facilitate manipulative pricing algorithms on their platforms are accomplices in this attack on bitcoin and imho should be treated as such. NB: this has nothing to do with my support for implementing 2-way pegs in the protocol. except that shorting requires borrowing existing BTC on the exchange of which there is only a theoretically limited supply. this is where naked shorting potentially enters the picture and any exchange who allows this should be black balled and reported to the authorities for illegal practices hopefully to be shut down. but of course, getting them to do anything is another story. and yes, i think you're allowing the bear mkt to influence your perception that Bitcoin isn't working in the US. Bitcoin cannot not work in an isolated geographical region imo. it will route around that area until it forces capitulation of affected area. I've been through at least 3 bitcoin bear markets (maybe 4?) so I don't think it is doom colouring my perception. Coinbase and Circle are nothing more than revamped PayPals built on top of bitcoin, not sure that BitPay is that much better. End user solutions that maximise the decentralisation benefits of bitcoin's digital cash are not even on the drawing board in USA because of absolute obsequiousness towards the Almighty State dictat there. There is Abra which is a considerable challenge to AML/KYC laws |
|
|
|
what are you talking about?
what does the fact that oil is sold in dollars has to do with the fact that the federal reserve prints money and distorts prices just so everything would be 2% more expensive?
money DOES NOT need to be stable, it NEEDS to reflect reality which means letting prices go both up and down according to supply and demand.
you want Janet Yellen to create a fantasy world for you where everything is stable but THATS NOT reality!
anyone who makes business plans based on this stability fantasy will eventually find out the whole economy was built on a house of cards.
You're just dumb as an ox, aren't you? The fed doesn't distort or regulate the prices of consumer products, the free market creates prices in our everyday life. The fed regulates that the availability of dollars would be in par with the availability of oil. Because oil is so important in the economy, it can set the overall tune of monetary value. For the economy to be effective, different parts of it have to be in tune with one another. There has to be similar understanding of value, to give it numerical form and to put it into equations. The central bank is like a conductor in a choir to keep different instruments in harmony. In spite my several efforts to explain to you that monetary value stability is necessary for even the simplest of financial deals, you are still unable to understand it. You just can't comprehend on why would people want to know what their salaries are worth the next month. Or how much weight does your investment have in the next month. You are just too dumb and fanatical to absorb this information. All you have, are your bags of bitcoin and your distorted view of virtues, that has been heavily influenced by personal ignorance and greed. If you would have ran your own business just once in your life, then you would already understand the importance of a stable currency. You would understand how it would be hell to do business in an environment, that has a currency with highly unstable value. I bet that you even only heard about the existence of FED after you saw couple of conspiracy videos from youtube. Anyway, you are a great example on why I despise the majority of bitcoiners. They are like the Bolsheviks were, eager for revolution but just too dumb to understand the causes and solutions for the current problems, so instead of helping the society, they created a whole set of new problems, that are even worse then before. alright then, enjoy watching the economy collapse (for the 3rd time in 15-16 years). how much more misery will you have to take until you realize your theory of stability engineering (also known as ignoring reality and real supply and demand) is causing you to starve? There's not much reasoning a person who believes we are currently living in a world where free market operates. |
|
|
|
Wow, I listened to his talk about the idea to scale bitcoin and that guy seems to really get it. Great addiction for the blockstream team! Do you have a link? |
|
|
|
that's not at all what is happening. BTC deposited on an exchange are parked in an address owned by the exchange. all the trading is just on its own internal DB. when an owner wants to withdraw from the exchange, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address. none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain.
BTC deposited on an sidechain are parked in an address owned by the sidechain, all the trading is just on its own public side-blockchain. when an owner wants to withdraw from the sidechain, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address. none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain. You're neglecting the friction I mentioned above. Also, when mtgox blows up, "someone" has those coin. When a SC blows, those coins will be gone. Let me also introduce another concept that represents my assessment of what will occur. Miners will not support SC's because ultimately SC's will be an unknown risk to their business model. They won't support that uncertainty. That's just my opinion. Every indication point to miners having already welcomes the concept and the potential additional revenue streams. As for Mt. Gox we have no indication that "someone" has those coins. What if they were not properly stored and their private key lost? SC's being open source code I'd like to think it is much less likely for them to "blow up". There's no point arguing about security models until a clear, detailed proof-of-concept is unveiled. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't surprise me if they end up acquiring BitPay |
|
|
|
that's not at all what is happening. BTC deposited on an exchange are parked in an address owned by the exchange. all the trading is just on its own internal DB. when an owner wants to withdraw from the exchange, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address. none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain. BTC "locked" into a sidechain also do not ever leave the blockchain. SC's present its own form of problematic deposit; the spvp. talk about friction; it will be necessary to have at minimum a 2d proof of locktime, probably more. and then in the federated server model according to Adam himself, a necessary bounty to prevent cheating by the centralized owners.
...
it is all pie in the sky and glosses over the potential for losing coins while stuck on the SC in case of an attack. these SC's will be attacked as they will be insecure by virtue of the fact they won't have 100% MM. and there is just no guarantee of one getting his coins back on the MC in that event as their simplistic SC sandbox in the Bitcoin Park diagram is suggesting. those miners who were once MM'ing to protect the SC can turn around and perform a 51% attack on the SC and refuse to mine the "proof of lock" thus disabling a return of those BTC all the while going short on the SC at an exchange. the slideshow presents as if nothing can go wrong.
There will be different security models for different use cases. Are there potential security threats? Of course, I think we've all come to an agreemeent that there are no such thing as a risk free extension of Bitcoin. Luckily there's a whole team of very smart people working to understand how these can be best mitigated. That said, your premise : "the next logical extension ... that sidechains make no sense", makes no sense and does not apply to the currently debated blockchain without bitcoin meme. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
