[IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings

[StarenseN]

It's not possible to have a completely decentralized exchange. At some point there will always be central hubs and these will be necessary.

[/quote]

It is and under developement, check mastercoin (http://www.mastercoin.org) project and the bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0

[1715386345]

1715386345

[1715386345]

1715386345

[Luckybit]

It's not possible to have a completely decentralized exchange. At some point there will always be central hubs and these will be necessary.

It is and under developement, check mastercoin (http://www.mastercoin.org) project and the bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0

It's not that simple.
Trust doesn't exist in anonymous exchanges. There is no way to audit a corporation or issuer. If someone claims a currency is backed how are you going to check their vaults to see that they have platinum or gold in them?

[Vedran Yoweri]

It's not possible to have a completely decentralized exchange. At some point there will always be central hubs and these will be necessary.

It is and under developement, check mastercoin (http://www.mastercoin.org) project and the bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0

It's not that simple.
Trust doesn't exist in anonymous exchanges.

You don't have to trust them (like you don't have to trust a miner)

There is no way to audit a corporation or issuer. If someone claims a currency is backed how are you going to check their vaults to see that they have platinum or gold in them?

Trusting the asset issuer has nothing to do with secure asset trading. Check the thread.

[Luckybit]

It's not possible to have a completely decentralized exchange. At some point there will always be central hubs and these will be necessary.

It is and under developement, check mastercoin (http://www.mastercoin.org) project and the bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0

It's not that simple.
Trust doesn't exist in anonymous exchanges.

You don't have to trust them (like you don't have to trust a miner)

There is no way to audit a corporation or issuer. If someone claims a currency is backed how are you going to check their vaults to see that they have platinum or gold in them?

Trusting the asset issuer has nothing to do with secure asset trading. Check the thread.

It has everything to do with investing. Just solving functional problems doesn't mean the software you create will be practically useful. If you want software which will only be used by scammers then go ahead and make it anonymous and issuers will be able to scam with impunity. Just look at Labcoin, there are people still wondering whether or not it's a scam even after evidence came out.

When you cannot audit a corporation you do not know what they are doing with your money. If you're talking about smart property and assets then you do need quite a bit more than just what Mastercoin offers. Are you going to background check every issuer? Are you going to solve some of the many risks involved with all this? What are some of your solutions so that we can have distributed regulation along with the exchange?

[Vedran Yoweri]

It's not possible to have a completely decentralized exchange. At some point there will always be central hubs and these will be necessary.

It is and under developement, check mastercoin (http://www.mastercoin.org) project and the bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0

It's not that simple.
Trust doesn't exist in anonymous exchanges.

You don't have to trust them (like you don't have to trust a miner)

There is no way to audit a corporation or issuer. If someone claims a currency is backed how are you going to check their vaults to see that they have platinum or gold in them?

Trusting the asset issuer has nothing to do with secure asset trading. Check the thread.

It has everything to do with investing. Just solving functional problems doesn't mean the software you create will be practically useful. If you want software which will only be used by scammers then go ahead and make it anonymous and issuers will be able to scam with impunity. Just look at Labcoin, there are people still wondering whether or not it's a scam even after evidence came out.

When you cannot audit a corporation you do not know what they are doing with your money. If you're talking about smart property and assets then you do need quite a bit more than just what Mastercoin offers. Are you going to background check every issuer? Are you going to solve some of the many risks involved with all this? What are some of your solutions so that we can have distributed regulation along with the exchange?

All valid points of concern, but this solves the trading part. We would be essentialy where we are now, but without centralized trading problems like btctc and bitfunder.
Someone else needs to work on the points you state, we agree.

[crumbs]

It's not possible to have a completely decentralized exchange. At some point there will always be central hubs and these will be necessary.

It is and under developement, check mastercoin (http://www.mastercoin.org) project and the bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0

It's not that simple.
Trust doesn't exist in anonymous exchanges.

You don't have to trust them (like you don't have to trust a miner)

There is no way to audit a corporation or issuer. If someone claims a currency is backed how are you going to check their vaults to see that they have platinum or gold in them?

Trusting the asset issuer has nothing to do with secure asset trading. Check the thread.

It has everything to do with investing. Just solving functional problems doesn't mean the software you create will be practically useful. If you want software which will only be used by scammers then go ahead and make it anonymous and issuers will be able to scam with impunity. Just look at Labcoin, there are people still wondering whether or not it's a scam even after evidence came out.

When you cannot audit a corporation you do not know what they are doing with your money. If you're talking about smart property and assets then you do need quite a bit more than just what Mastercoin offers. Are you going to background check every issuer? Are you going to solve some of the many risks involved with all this? What are some of your solutions so that we can have distributed regulation along with the exchange?

There was never any real auditing with centralized exchanges in place, why should p2p exchanges be any different?
Case in point: Labcoin.  A multimillion IPO, heavily traded without any of the "investors" asking if the corporate principals actually *existed*, forget auditing.  The stock is currently a homeless orphan, and the "investors" are still arguing if the mysterious Sam Noi is real, God bless them.

[KSV]

Look into the OTX protocol - Open Transactions. That might be a possible solution in the near future.

[bitcoin.newsfeed]

cryptocyprus & co. , not glad to say this, but it seems that NEOBEE didn't sell a single share from IPO stack for last 2 weeks? And Shares are trading 1/3 under IPO price, maybe its a good time for venture capital? What do you think? When you plan to sell remaining shares to them? You mentioned before, that you have a lot of offers, so why limiting yourself with only one branch when you can get VC for all 3 of them?

I'll leave it to Danny & Co. to respond regarding VC avenues, but the company has already reached the 9500BTC threshold to deem the IPVO successful.

Seems like they are busy to respond

[cryptocyprus]

I have only just returned to Cyprus following 4 days in the UK on business matters, so apologies for a lack of responses on my part.

I will only take the VC route once we have finished making our announcements that we believe will drive investment in NEOBEE. These announcements are not far away and following catching up with several parties today and tomorrow, I shall have further announcements to make in relation to the management of shares.

[Stelios]

So I have a simple question,

I hold a number of NEOBEE stocks at bitFunder, I DO NOT want to sell them, I want to keep them (since I see NEOBEE as a very promising, long time investment). My question is,  what should I do to ensure that this stocks do not disappear (given bitFunder situation and weexchange extremely-low speed)?

Based on this statement , "As of December 2, 2013, BitFunder will initiate a transfer from the BitFunder site to the respective issuer(s) of any remaining shares held by any users that BitFunder knows to be U.S. persons or who did not obtain "Verified" status by December 1, 2013, and will provide the issuer(s) with the public bitcoin address associated with the user account. After transfer, each user will need to work with the issuer(s) with respect to the future treatment of the shares", if weexchange does not speed up, the worst case scenario is that I'll have to speak with TAT (nothing gets lost, but some work has to be done).  Am I correct at this ?

BR
Stelios     

[mutex]

So I have a simple question,

I hold a number of NEOBEE stocks at bitFunder, I DO NOT want to sell them, I want to keep them (since I see NEOBEE as a very promising, long time investment). My question is,  what should I do to ensure that this stocks do not disappear (given bitFunder situation and weexchange extremely-low speed)?

You can transfer them to Havelock as TAT explained in an earlier post

[Stelios]

So I have a simple question,

I hold a number of NEOBEE stocks at bitFunder, I DO NOT want to sell them, I want to keep them (since I see NEOBEE as a very promising, long time investment). My question is,  what should I do to ensure that this stocks do not disappear (given bitFunder situation and weexchange extremely-low speed)?

You can transfer them to Havelock as TAT explained in an earlier post

Yes, but the question is do I have to ? Anyway sooner or later the same will happen to Havelock as well...

[hasher87]

received another neobee email regarding the share transfer from btct. I already sent them though to be transfer to bitfunder, do i have to do it again? considering the new email they only mentioned havelock but not bitfunder

[ThickAsThieves]

received another neobee email regarding the share transfer from btct. I already sent them though to be transfer to bitfunder, do i have to do it again? considering the new email they only mentioned havelock but not bitfunder

Do not submit your request more than once, it's just a reminder for those that haven't.

[ffssixtynine]

received another neobee email regarding the share transfer from btct. I already sent them though to be transfer to bitfunder, do i have to do it again? considering the new email they only mentioned havelock but not bitfunder

Do not submit your request more than once, it's just a reminder for those that haven't.

Forgive me if I missed this, but are the BTCT->Bitfunder transfers all being done in one batch or have most been done?

I did a quick scan of larger shareholders on Bitfunder and saw surprisingly few.

[Jere.Jones]

Forgive me if I missed this, but are the BTCT->Bitfunder transfers all being done in one batch or have most been done?

I did a quick scan of larger shareholders on Bitfunder and saw surprisingly few.

I think (hope?) at least some shares are in limbo.  My shares are no longer on BitFunder nor have they made it to Havelock.

I'm being patient for now as TAT must have a lot of work to do.

[ThickAsThieves]

None of the BTCT > BF migrations have been completed. We have been waiting on some assistance from BF to facilitate.

Havelock migrations are completed nearly every day.

[Skinnkavaj]

Are you going to background check every issuer? Are you going to solve some of the many risks involved with all this? What are some of your solutions so that we can have distributed regulation along with the exchange?

Please forgive me for my ignorance. But what makes it better with background check on every issuer?
People can still scam. Just like mtgox can any day possible say they got hacked and funds are gone.

What does it matter if you know the identity of the person?
I have not been following labcoin at all so I will not comment if they are a scam or not.
But what if they were not a scam and just a big screw up. If so, what would have helped if you had known their identity?

In the end you always have to trust the issuer, no matter what.

[canth]

Are you going to background check every issuer? Are you going to solve some of the many risks involved with all this? What are some of your solutions so that we can have distributed regulation along with the exchange?

Please forgive me for my ignorance. But what makes it better with background check on every issuer?
People can still scam. Just like mtgox can any day possible say they got hacked and funds are gone.

What does it matter if you know the identity of the person?
I have not been following labcoin at all so I will not comment if they are a scam or not.
But what if they were not a scam and just a big screw up. If so, what would have helped if you had known their identity?

In the end you always have to trust the issuer, no matter what.

Indeed, there is always counterparty risk whenever you are handing over your hard earned bitcoins, fiat currency or anything of value. However, if the counterparty can't be held accountable for investment performance or for criminal fraud/negligence then it creates a situation which is much more likely to hurt investors.

In short, confirmation of the identity of the issuer is a key component to accountability.

[Luckybit]

Please forgive me for my ignorance. But what makes it better with background check on every issuer?
People can still scam. Just like mtgox can any day possible say they got hacked and funds are gone.

It's harder to scam when you're under scrutiny by professionals trained to detect scams. Treat this like a Casino and look for people trying to cheat.

What does it matter if you know the identity of the person?

You know, legal accountability? Consequences? They can be blacklisted by the community and then prosecuted by the legal minds of the community. If the SEC has to be called in at that point then they can be called in. The problem isn't that the community doesn't have contacts in authority, it's that the community refuses to use the contacts they do have to solve problems everyone agrees on.

We don't all agree that Silk Road is bad, but we all agree that scams and fraud is bad. Can't we adopt a no scam and no fraud policy based on a web of trust protocol?

I have not been following labcoin at all so I will not comment if they are a scam or not.
But what if they were not a scam and just a big screw up. If so, what would have helped if you had known their identity?

In the end you always have to trust the issuer, no matter what.

If they are not a scam and just a big screw up then they still have to be documented and the people involved in that level of incompetence should still receive the reputation of being incompetent. Reputation is extremely important. It's too easy for people to start projects, ask for a million dollars, with absolutely no reputation at all and no web of trust? Issuers should at least be people known on Bitcointalk and have a reputation of some sort based on trades they've done, or people who are willing to sponsor or vouch for them.