Nefario

[Shadow383]

So, someone needs to start a total anonymous identityless exchange.

People can't even get their funds back from exchange owners whose identities are known.  What makes you think that anyone who sets up a totally anonymous exchange is going to be trustworthy?

because it would be trustable over time?

You mean, as the pot of funds waiting to be stolen gets slowly larger? 

[1714855875]

1714855875

[Bitcoin Oz]

Perhaps calling out the other two supporters in public so we can know for certain who is supporting this abortion of a way to wrap up a company and who is on the side of the victims?

If there are no coins forthcoming by the end of the week Im considering it.

[Bitinvestor]

So, someone needs to start a total anonymous identityless exchange.

Great idea! I'm sure the same guys who "invested" in DMC would be all over it.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Perhaps calling out the other two supporters in public so we can know for certain who is supporting this abortion of a way to wrap up a company and who is on the side of the victims?

If there are no coins forthcoming by the end of the week Im considering it.

Please do.. their reputation seriously needs to be out there.

[ShireSilver]

So, someone needs to start a total anonymous identityless exchange.

People can't even get their funds back from exchange owners whose identities are known.  What makes you think that anyone who sets up a totally anonymous exchange is going to be trustworthy?

because it would be trustable over time?

You mean, as the pot of funds waiting to be stolen gets slowly larger? 

If done right, there wouldn't be any funds to steal. Just like with bitcoins themselves, a properly set up distributed exchange shouldn't have a central entity that can grab them.

[LazyOtto]

a properly set up distributed exchange shouldn't have a central entity that can grab them.

I agree.

Seems to me that, in theory, a completely distributed system based within the block-chain should be doable. Perhaps with an overhead cost, per-trade cost, being whatever the going rate is for a BTC transaction of equivalent value.

This would create, perhaps, an incentive for an application, beyond bitcoin-qt and its equivalents, which enables tracking and performing trades of assets which are tracked/verified/validated by 'transactions' embedded in the chain. (And possibly opportunities for a web site(s) which support this for those who don't want to 'pay' the overhead of running a full bitcoind and its giga-bytes of data. Which, of course, would be entitled to a, small, additional percentage cut per trade.)

Hmmm, probably still needs 'exchange' sites where buy/sell bids can be submitted/moderated to allow for 'market' establisment/fluctuation. But with such a 'chain-embedded' tracking of assets the current issue of divorcing issues from validated holders of shares would never again occur. And since up to date ownership of shares is never in doubt, they could readily be traded at *any* existent exchange. Hence creating motivation for exchanges to compete by the services offered and fees charged with no risk that an 'exchange' can abscond with the assets. (There would always be risk to any transient BTC held by an exchange, but the assets themselves would be safe.)

I think some work has already begun on something like this but it is immature to date. If anyone else recalls such please reply with a link. I might be interested in personally putting some software dev man-hours towards such a solution.

[Bogart]

...srsly, why have they not yet been sent?

[SebastianJu]

So, someone needs to start a total anonymous identityless exchange.

People can't even get their funds back from exchange owners whose identities are known.  What makes you think that anyone who sets up a totally anonymous exchange is going to be trustworthy?

An anonymous echange alone wouldnt help. That would be worse than now because now we know the owner. A new exchange only can be without a central. P2P-like. The orderbook stored on all the nodes taking part and the transactions in a similar way like with bitcoins. If its created, open source and some guys who know code checked its safe i would trust that network way more than a new centralized stock exchange.

[Bitcoin Oz]

So, someone needs to start a total anonymous identityless exchange.

People can't even get their funds back from exchange owners whose identities are known.  What makes you think that anyone who sets up a totally anonymous exchange is going to be trustworthy?

because it would be trustable over time?

You mean, as the pot of funds waiting to be stolen gets slowly larger? 

If done right, there wouldn't be any funds to steal. Just like with bitcoins themselves, a properly set up distributed exchange shouldn't have a central entity that can grab them.

Its probably helpful to have multisig so if the operator goes rogue he cant steal your coins.

[novusordo]

So, someone needs to start a total anonymous identityless exchange.

Great idea! I'm sure the same guys who "invested" in DMC would be all over it.

Diablo's identity is more trivial to find than the identities of most other asset issuers... I'm failing to see why DMC investors would be more interested in an anonymous exchange.

[Garr255]

Jesus H. Christ, this thread is still going? The BTC Guild mining thread has been going since like Oct-Nov of 2011 and its only 56 pages last time I checked!

Nefario has become quite the celebrity!

[Nite69]

So, someone needs to start a total anonymous identityless exchange.

People can't even get their funds back from exchange owners whose identities are known.  What makes you think that anyone who sets up a totally anonymous exchange is going to be trustworthy?

Another distributed blockchain that holds the information about shares and there would be no need to trust anyone. The exchange pages would hold no BTC or shares, only information about prices and sell/buy orders, which it would have extracted from the blockchain. Actually, the whole trade could be made without any central exchange. Just a client (like bitcoin-qt) which would do everything and store the information on a blockchain.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115712.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=116991.0

[Bitinvestor]

So, someone needs to start a total anonymous identityless exchange.

Great idea! I'm sure the same guys who "invested" in DMC would be all over it.

Diablo's identity is more trivial to find than the identities of most other asset issuers... I'm failing to see why DMC investors would be more interested in an anonymous exchange.

Because anybody who was stupid enough to "invest" in DMC is also stupid enough to "invest" in an anonymous exchange.

[SebastianJu]

So, someone needs to start a total anonymous identityless exchange.

Great idea! I'm sure the same guys who "invested" in DMC would be all over it.

Diablo's identity is more trivial to find than the identities of most other asset issuers... I'm failing to see why DMC investors would be more interested in an anonymous exchange.

Because anybody who was stupid enough to "invest" in DMC is also stupid enough to "invest" in an anonymous exchange.

O come on... as if the ipo-investors should have know how diablo will handle dmc. at ipo everything looked fine. Diablo was a distributor to the community with his miner and everyone trusted him.

If you spoke about pirate invests... then i could say ok... but diablo not.

[Bitinvestor]

O come on... as if the ipo-investors should have know how diablo will handle dmc. at ipo everything looked fine. Diablo was a distributor to the community with his miner and everyone trusted him.

If you spoke about pirate invests... then i could say ok... but diablo not.

It may have looked fine to you but it certainly didn't to me. I do investments for a living and I can assure you that I lost lots of money in companies that had far, far better business plans than DMC.

DMC was truly ridiculous.

[SebastianJu]

I dont know, because i wasnt here at ipo. But i trusted diablo because of his reputation. That this doesnt mean for business quality i had to learn. The plan was to create a mining rig. He didnt do that. I dont see whats so bad with the plan like it was presented from the start.

[Bitinvestor]

I dont know, because i wasnt here at ipo. But i trusted diablo because of his reputation. That this doesnt mean for business quality i had to learn. The plan was to create a mining rig. He didnt do that. I dont see whats so bad with the plan like it was presented from the start.

Please read the DMC thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77469.0

Every possible concern with Diablo's conduct and "business plan" was pointed out within it.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

So, someone needs to start a total anonymous identityless exchange.

People can't even get their funds back from exchange owners whose identities are known.  What makes you think that anyone who sets up a totally anonymous exchange is going to be trustworthy?

The idea is not depending on them being.

Multisig + nLockTime transactions could do the job. First, we guarantee that the service operator is not able of running away with the money. With nLockTime we guarantee that, even if the operator disappears, the money shall come back to its rightful owners in, say, one month. I guess similar things could be implemented in OT to give the same guarantees concerning the assets.
Obviously, there's a long road to get there. nLockTime is currently not fully supported by the network. AFAIK BitcoinJS doesn't do multisig, and I know no other javascript client that could be easily embedded in a browser. I don't know if OT currently supports multisignature either, nor if there is a javascript OT client. Being honest, multisig isn't really essential. But multisig may also protect the user against a malware in their own computer. I find this important.

There's still an important trust issue that remains unsolved: the asset issuers. Established companies might not dare openly selling their shares in a black market. Actually, I wonder if any non-anonymous company would. And as we know already, trusting an anonymous issuer is a serious issue. There might be ways to overcome this problem too, but it won't be simple.

[SebastianJu]

But a centralized market could be attacked by government. They only need to find the server and catch them. Then nLockTime and so on cant help am i right?

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

It'd be in the darknet, of course. Like Silk Road.