I was excited about this since at first glance Halsey Minor seemed to have a stellar reputation, but then I found this (see "Business projects" and "Legal complications"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsey_MinorIt seems that he doesn't have much of a reputation to protect at this point. |
|
|
|
NXT
How much of an interface has been built into or on top of NXT for crowdfunding? |
|
|
|
|
How about US-based crowdfunding?
|
|
|
|
|
I may have missed a previous answer to this question, but can anyone tell me if my 12 word Koinify phrase will still provide access to my Factoids once I've imported my Factoids to a Factom wallet address? If so, what do I need to do to prevent that from happening? I don't want those 12 words to provide access to the Factoids in my wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
When does POS kick in and what will the inflation/emission rate be at that point?
|
|
|
|
|
Which are the best crypto crowdfunding platforms?
|
|
|
|
|
It trends up all the time and then eventually reverses down again.
|
|
|
|
|
As people expected and were talking about for a long time between the Ethereum crowdsale and the release, miners are mining and dumping a lot of ETH which is driving the price down. The problem is, it does seem to be a promising project and I'd like to buy in. At what point should the mining "problem" reach an equilibrium?
|
|
|
|
|
What has me puzzled is that alts are going down at the same time BTC has been going up lately.
|
|
|
|
|
Which major alts are headed up since BTC started rising?
|
|
|
|
|
I was around for BTC's big run up to $1100+ and I remember the alts of the day (LTC, NMC, PPC, etc) actually increasing in price (*/BTC) at the same time. With BTC's current run, today's alts seem to be dropping in price (*/BTC). Has anyone else noticed this change in price behavior? Altcoins certainly operate within a BTC economy with everything priced in BTC so I'm surprised to see them moving in opposite directions. If you hold MAID for example, why would you trade it for BTC when the BTC/USD price increases?
Could this be due to people pulling money out of alts in order to buy into leveraged BTC positions which were not available during the last big BTC run-up? If so, should we expect the price of alts to "normalize" once BTC levels off?
|
|
|
|
|
I've been able to get two older couples to buy and hold BTC in their Coinbase wallet. Now I'd like to get them to trade some of that BTC for some key altcoins. Shapeshift would be ideal for acquiring the alts but then they need a way to store them. I don't trust their computer security practices so I don't think their coins should be kept in a wallet on their computer. Is Poloniex the best way to go?
|
|
|
|
......For now we are focusing on blockchain only card issuance. When it will come to large public purchase AppStore, a lead could be to allow people to store their purchase off-chain only. After certain time allowing people to convert their asset into a digital asset.
Another lead is to partnership with a bitcoin transmitter company (cicle, coinbase...) to directly offer Bitcoin or BCY purchase in the game without using the store system
But still this is still open to discussion in any case we are going to have this open and transparent.
Just to point that, SoG team know the issue. The key is After certain time allowing people to convert their asset into a digital asset., "certain time" probably will be when is impossible or very difficult to obtain a charge back. In my opinion, it is still possible to make people who want convert digital asset in blockchain non reversible asset sign an agreement were they give up for any charge back. What if the card was used fraudulently? Then the cardholder didn't sign anything. |
|
|
|
An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.
Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement? None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders. This is really interesting. So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them? That's the thing: such a system is not really "decentralized". The bitcoin would have been essentially held with a 3rd party until the trade completed. Multisig, etc. might be able to be employed, but if you want to remove the need for the user on the BTC side of the trade to "be there" to complete it, then someone else would have to do it for them. This service would just sit on top of the decentralized exchange protocol built into Counterparty, and take the BTC side of the trade for the user offering BTC, removing the responsibility of them having to sticking around to complete the trade. Which 3rd party would have held the BTC? Counterparty can not be made to escrow the funds autonomously? |
|
|
|
An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.
Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement? None of that has anything to do with Symbiont (and all of this transpired before Symbiont even existed). In this case, when I say "us", I was talking about "us" as the Counterparty co-founders. This is really interesting. So according to your research or the advice you received, simply programming an autonomous and decentralized mechanism such as this makes the programmer a custodian of the funds or at least liable for what happens to them? |
|
|
|
An alternative implementation we investigated would have the bitcoin escrowed by the Counterwallet system (or an associated 3rd party system), which would remove the need for users to stay logged into the wallet. However, in our case, this could entail us becoming an "exchange" from a legal perspective, or minimally taking on the risk to store users' BTC, both of which we could not do.
Symbiont would technically take custodianship of the BTC in such an arrangement? |
|
|
|
if you operate a while you know how many transactions are going back.
There are probably some statistics online for the Appstores etc.
The stuff currently available on Appstores can't be resold effectively. SoG cards can. There is no comparison. I think a simple solution would be to set the paid price higher then when you are selling the same card against BCY.
This is one of the major advantages Blockchain transactions have and will maybe lead more people to go into Crypto.
Say you have to pay with a BCY transaction for 1 card 10 USD and for the same card you pay 15 USD on the Appstore (fees for Apple/Google, and chargebacks) .
If the purchaser issues a chargeback, the price paid is 0 USD. |
|
|
|
Rather brilliant move really, and a useful service.
But what does it meant to buy REP "through" Gatecoin? I thought Rep was bought through the Augur site.
The REP bought at gatecoin is an asset linked to Augur REP. So when the real REP is released you will be able to exchange it for REP So Gatecoin bought a bunch of REP and then re-sold it in the form of asset tokens? If so, under which asset platform, or are the tokens centralized? think they just issued the asset themselves and are holding the accounts with the REP that backs it. It's a centralized asset? |
|
|
|
Rather brilliant move really, and a useful service.
But what does it meant to buy REP "through" Gatecoin? I thought Rep was bought through the Augur site.
The REP bought at gatecoin is an asset linked to Augur REP. So when the real REP is released you will be able to exchange it for REP So Gatecoin bought a bunch of REP and then re-sold it in the form of asset tokens? If so, under which asset platform, or are the tokens centralized? |
|
|
|
the uncertainty of whether things like data feeds will remain as part of the core XCP protocol, and or whether integration of ETH VM will occur and the former will get deprecated is stopping me from mentioning this technology to some cool projects.
just an FYI
Things like data feeds will remain part of the core XCP protocol. I have never heard anything contrary to that. ok but some stuff did get deprecated in the past like the btc-xcp function right? I'm just trying to cover my ass before I tell these people and then bam! 6 months later there's an End of Life announcement It's fun to hear about this kind of real world implementation drama. Please keep it coming. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
