If you are a US citizen you basically can go F yourself! BTCT, Bitfunder, Dwolla

[Luckybit]

Bitshares or Mastercoin or Colored coins all seem to have more promise. You can also just wait for the US crowdfunding legislation to take effect.

 Your kidding right?  I have been waiting for the SEC to publish their crowdfunding rules.  They were supposed to have them done January 2013.  Nothing like meeting your 'legal' obligations on time.  

The new crowdfunding rules are already in effect. The Twitter and SecondMarket Bitcoin ETF IPOs are using them.

The sad news is that the rules don't do what you think they do. They basically make it easier for rich people to invest in start-ups, while excluding everyone else.

There is another part of that law set to phase in which will allow unaccredited investors to invest but I agree the law is set up poorly. It does allow anyone to invest eventually though.

While I understand the desire to have decentralized everythings, particularly in the wake of recent developments, it's simply not the way of the world. The concept of centralization is bigger than finance, or bitcoin, or technology.

Forces condense over time and then are torn apart in a repeating cycle.

Centralization happens all on its own, and for good reason.

I disagree entirely. You cannot expect to have liberty, human rights, or fair systems of governance if it's too centralized. Decentralization is the result of the erosion of trust in large centralized institutions who have abused their power. Decentralized governance, finance, and markets are the answer if the goal is to limit corruption and produce opportunities for innovation and success.

I think you're just plain wrong. But I understand it's in your economic self interest to say that.

[1713553012]

1713553012

[1713553012]

1713553012

[1713553012]

1713553012

[1713553012]

1713553012

[freedomno1]

While I understand the desire to have decentralized everythings, particularly in the wake of recent developments, it's simply not the way of the world. The concept of centralization is bigger than finance, or bitcoin, or technology.

Forces condense over time and then are torn apart in a repeating cycle.

Centralization happens all on its own, and for good reason.

You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette

[ThickAsThieves]

Bitshares or Mastercoin or Colored coins all seem to have more promise. You can also just wait for the US crowdfunding legislation to take effect.

 Your kidding right?  I have been waiting for the SEC to publish their crowdfunding rules.  They were supposed to have them done January 2013.  Nothing like meeting your 'legal' obligations on time.  

The new crowdfunding rules are already in effect. The Twitter and SecondMarket Bitcoin ETF IPOs are using them.

The sad news is that the rules don't do what you think they do. They basically make it easier for rich people to invest in start-ups, while excluding everyone else.

There is another part of that law set to phase in which will allow unaccredited investors to invest but I agree the law is set up poorly. It does allow anyone to invest eventually though.

While I understand the desire to have decentralized everythings, particularly in the wake of recent developments, it's simply not the way of the world. The concept of centralization is bigger than finance, or bitcoin, or technology.

Forces condense over time and then are torn apart in a repeating cycle.

Centralization happens all on its own, and for good reason.

I disagree entirely. You cannot expect to have liberty, human rights, or fair systems of governance if it's too centralized. Decentralization is the result of the erosion of trust in large centralized institutions who have abused their power. Decentralized governance, finance, and markets are the answer if the goal is to limit corruption and produce opportunities for innovation and success.

I think you're just plain wrong. But I understand it's in your economic self interest to say that.

It's not my concern what you think of my own opinion, and this does not come from self-interests. It is factual observation.

Centralization happens for many good reasons, including, convenience, trust, and profitability for all parties.  Decentralization doesn't compensate for those values, it merely breaks them into smaller pieces.

Look at the hip-hop music industry. The centralized powers have the attention, power, and efficiency to make money distributing entertainment in various forms. However, the abilities for independent artists to produce and create professional music, book their own tours, print their own merchandise, etc, are all there. This feels like decentralization, yet now they are competing with the entire amateur industry. Those artists buy there hardware from known reputable (centralized) sources, they use centralized website services to get the word out, etc. Without centralized power and convenience none of it would be possible.

Decentralization will always tend toward centralization of powers. Always. It's the only way to get anything done, and have any confidence it will get done sufficiently.

I'm not saying a decentralized exchange method won't be created, I'm just saying it will simply produce new centralized forces around facilitating its existence, which will eventually lead us back to where we started. The pursuit is admirable, and maybe even one worth constantly attempting, but I simply do not believe it can compete with the natural forces of reality.

[p2pbucks]

This is why i care so much about Bitshares alike project

[Severian]

Decentralization will always tend toward centralization of powers. Always. It's the only way to get anything done, and have any confidence it will get done sufficiently.

I'd put this another way: there are always opportunists with a penchant for being control freaks seeking to consolidate their own wealth/power at the expense of everyone else. These personalities have their uses but they're also generally the most dangerous people in society and always have been historically.

I think the trend in decentralization over the next few generations will finally be allow us to fence these personalities in to some degree and make it more difficult for them to seize control of networks, projects and governments. Bitcoin is the first step in this direction and we can already see centralizing influences in Bitcoin looking to weaken the decentralized model. It won't work in the longrun, imo.

[ThickAsThieves]

Decentralization will always tend toward centralization of powers. Always. It's the only way to get anything done, and have any confidence it will get done sufficiently.

I'd put this another way: there are always opportunists with a penchant for being control freaks seeking to consolidate their own wealth/power at the expense of everyone else. These personalities have their uses but they're also generally the most dangerous people in society and always have been historically.

I think the trend in decentralization over the next few generations will finally be allow us to fence these personalities in to some degree and make it more difficult for them to seize control of networks, projects and governments. Bitcoin is the first step in this direction and we can already see centralizing influences in Bitcoin looking to weaken the decentralized model. It won't work in the longrun, imo.

I think that simplifies it too much. While there may be some forces that act in the way you describe, the concept is more abstract and powerful than greed or control freaks.

[Severian]

I think that simplifies it too much. While there may be some forces that act in the way you describe, the concept is more abstract and powerful than greed or control freaks.

Greed and control freaks are the fuel behind centralization and always have been. It's a human process driven by human behavior.

[Luckybit]

It's not my concern what you think of my own opinion, and this does not come from self-interests. It is factual observation.

Centralization in terms of information security also means introducing a point of failure. Too big to fail is the result of centralized banking. That is a factual observation as well.

Centralization happens for many good reasons, including, convenience, trust, and profitability for all parties.  Decentralization doesn't compensate for those values, it merely breaks them into smaller pieces.

Why not put your money in Bank of America? It's a nice centralized bank. Sometimes you're correct that centralization has some security advantages when trying to protect the gold in Fort Knox but even that is debatable because centralized storage only presents an easy target for bankers. At the end of the day the more centralized it is the bigger the target it becomes for those who want control of it. This is as much of a factual and historical statement as it is a technological design observation. Bitcoin and Bittorrent are designed to be decentralized because there isn't anyone who should be trusted (not the same as saying there isn't anyone who can be trusted). And to rely on trust when you don't have to is to introduce a point of failure into a system which doesn't have to have one.

On centralized exchanges, if we don't have to rely on Burnside, on Ukyo, on anybody like that, then we reduce our level of risk in participating in the system should we choose to put our Bitcoins at stake. There is no reason why you should choose a trust based system when you can choose a trustless system to do the same thing. Human beings are the main weakness in any system.

Look at the hip-hop music industry. The centralized powers have the attention, power, and efficiency to make money distributing entertainment in various forms. However, the abilities for independent artists to produce and create professional music, book their own tours, print their own merchandise, etc, are all there.

A lot of people want to do away with that centralized power system as well. Not everyone supports the star system, centralized RIAA distributed system. That system is basically obsolete and only exists because of lawsuits, political lobbyists having dinner with politicians and the President to protect the jobs of middlemen who don't really make the art or go on tour. It should be obvious that I'm on the side of the independent artist and while there may be room for centralized systems, those systems should compete with decentralized systems to prove their worth. They should not rely on politics and legalese to try to protect their obsolete jobs.

This feels like decentralization, yet now they are competing with the entire amateur industry. Those artists buy there hardware from known reputable (centralized) sources, they use centralized website services to get the word out, etc. Without centralized power and convenience none of it would be possible.

I agree that competition is a good thing. If anyone would like to make a centralized regulated exchange such as SecondMarket I'd definitely use it for the reason that it is regulated and it is in some ways considered more legitimate at this point in time. But the current exchanges dealing with Bitcoin are all illegitimate, unregulated, and if that is the case there is no moral argument that can be made for a person to choose to use Bitfunder over Mastercoin, Colored coin or whatever other technological solution that can come along and reduce the risk of nationalist lock-out policies, politics, and emotions of whoever is in the center of the centralized market. The attitude should be that we should not design any centralized markets in the first place as that is the main source of the problem with Paypal.

Look at what happens with Paypal or with banks when they decide for political reasons to block certain transactions and not allow certain people to do certain things without explaining their actions. That is the same situation we see with BTCT and Bitfunder. It is part of the reason many people switched out of the big banks and into Bitcoin in the first place.

Decentralization will always tend toward centralization of powers. Always. It's the only way to get anything done, and have any confidence it will get done sufficiently.

And I'm not disputing that disorder tends toward order. The difference is in scales.

Decentralized systems can remain compartmentalized, can remain isolated, can trend toward centralization of information and services without trending toward centralization of control. What I mean is the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent and transparency means centralization of the transaction information such that anyone can access it. This is a good thing because we need that kind of centralization. We also need Bitcointalk to provide a central forum where everyone can access certain information, we need charts, we need indexes, we need information to be accessible from a single point but we do not need that information to originate from a single point.

Distributed sources can combine data into a single point for convenience and I completely agree with you here. But I believe the sources should stay decentralized and I don't think that should become centralized because if all mining and all information comes from one source then according to the math of things you would have to trust that source absolutely. We don't want to trust any source absolutely in any system.

I'm not saying a decentralized exchange method won't be created, I'm just saying it will simply produce new centralized forces around facilitating its existence, which will eventually lead us back to where we started. The pursuit is admirable, and maybe even one worth constantly attempting, but I simply do not believe it can compete with the natural forces of reality.

I don't think it's inevitable. For instance if you look at Bittorrent it is less centralized than Napster. But we also accept that Pirate Bay was a popular central website where people could find the torrents. Google is a central website where people can search for stuff. This isn't going to change. What can change is that power can be decentralized to such a degree that the risk landscape and opportunity landscape changes.

In Bitcoin there will be some players who will have perhaps too much power and money. In a democratic decentralized landscape then we are free to use Litecoins instead as a way to hedge our bets against that. The point here is that the technology can produce an optimal environment, and that means an environment where the user benefits the most, where the system attempts to remain trustless, where it at least starts off decentralized, and always with the ability to shake it up again should centralization become too great.

In the case of Bitcoin if any entity within Bitcoin starts to centralize things to the detriment of Bitcoin then the community should have the capability to decentralize itself or if it cannot then there is Litecoin and that is why so many altcoins exist.

[Luckybit]

I think that simplifies it too much. While there may be some forces that act in the way you describe, the concept is more abstract and powerful than greed or control freaks.

Greed and control freaks are the fuel behind centralization and always have been. It's a human process driven by human behavior.

It's not just greed and control freaks. Information starts as disordered data and over time it becomes structured and ordered as it interacts with human minds. The human mind naturally puts information into a certain order and centralization of some sort is necessary to allow particular information to reach all parties in the optimal amount of time.

What I mean is, we still benefit from having just one website url to memorize rather than having to memorize a random string of characters. This reduces the domain name to being a single point of failure but we accept this as a necessary convenience to allow people to locate and access information.

But that isn't at stake with centralized vs decentralized exchanges. Yes to a certain degree there will still be a need for websites to host certain information but the blockchain is the most central source of information and we don't really need anything more centralized than that. Anything which we need to be centralized in my opinion should be centralized into the blockchain where no one can own or control it and where no trust is needed to manage it. It becomes one with the ultimate source. The price of different shares or bonds will be representened as transactions on the blockchain and then there is no reason to pay transaction fees to centralauthority.com which could decide to do a region lock.

This isn't the first instance of religion locking. Gaming companies like Nintendo and Blizzard are notorious for region locking players for no apparent reason. If Nintendo or Blizzard were distributed and decentralized corporations registered into the Bitcoin blockchain itself, with shares built into the blockchain itself, and everyone working for it paid in their coins which represent stock which can be traded, this would change how we do business.

You could start your own corporation called YourCorp, you could issue YourCorp stock on the Bitcoin blockchain and call it YourCorp coin or YourCorp stock. People could work for YourCorp coin and get paid in that. It would be like each corporation has it's own ability to issue its own alt-coin, it's own stock, each with it's own unique features.

YourCorp could sell video games and say only people who have those coins can buy their games. Suddenly there is massive demand for their coins and everyone who was an employee who got paid in it can sell the coins for Bitcoins.

Yeah there are people who will say "but what about regulations?" but regulations shouldn't get in the way of innovation. Innovate first and figure out how to regulate it second. If you regulate first then regulation will destroy the US economy and keep the world in a recession.

[freedomno1]

Mumbles no one appreciates a Good Stalinist quote   

In order to achieve something, it is inevitable and necessary that something be destroyed.

What I was saying in the simple Omelette quote is that in order for centralization to be destroyed something must be there to replace it.
While I do not argue it is the opposite decentralization, I do propose an alternative system that combines more than one element around its infrastructure as being a possibility.

But onto another topic the music industry is a bad example, we all know that they are dinosaurs who refuse to adapt and are getting punished for it, but I guess teaching an old dog needs new tricks is quite the challenge. I argue that to stay in the competition a new industry will develop that makes the older ones obsolete but we will see in time. I guess to an extent youtube is a fair example of a decentralized central force, as it allows artists to create content and distribute it to a wide audience with their content creator program while acting as a hub for users to interact with creators.

But for now I am on the sidelines, one could argue though that the idea of 24 hour stock exchanges instead of opening and closing bells is fairly revolutionary ignoring after-hours market trading.

Satoshi said in the bitcoin whitepaper, that we are replacing trust in a system banking etc and replacing it with mathematical algorithms, if we evaluate it from another view we are filtering Big Data and giving it purpose to solve modern problems. Bitcoin took the power of crunching algorithms to create a fixed supply and growth based economic system that has spiraled to its current state and can be proven reliable to an extent. The same possibilities do exist for what we see as a traditional stock exchange albeit not the methods of how it is applied.

For now a tangible observation is where I stand as the status quo is dynamic and does change now and then, and the options unlocked with digitization and encryption based mathematical systems, when applied to stock exchanges may change the traditional way we trade stocks.

[viboracecata]

haha, F*ck yourself, not that terrible.

[vm1990]

id feel sorry but your American so...HAHA... really the way your people screw over everyone else in the world... the main ones BP, but theres others.... the people are ok well except the retards with the guns who think its a god given right to run around with them...

[bybitcoin]

If any of US fellows would like to continue keeping and handling his portfolio through a third party, I will do it for 1% of the stake (shares+dividends)
PM me if you are interested

Update: I asked a lawyer friend about this situation and if acting on behalf of a person and managing his/her security shares in such a context is legally OK and risk-free. He told me that he doesn't advise such undertaking since it may bring unexpected legal difficulties for both parties of such a deal. Therefore here to inform that I resign my offer.

[TTBit]

DividendRippler.com has turned ripple into a decentralized stock exchange. The accounting for shares and dividends is decentralized in ripple itself.

[HowlingMad]

id feel sorry but your American so...HAHA... really the way your people screw over everyone else in the world... the main ones BP, but theres others.... the people are ok well except the retards with the guns who think its a god given right to run around with them...

My apologies but my reasons for writing this post was to vent my frustrations and see if someone had any idea on a workaround.  I can bash my own government as I live here and have voted for these idiots. 

In your case, you are just a troll with no obvious ideas of merit.  So poof you are now ignored.

PS>  I am one of those gun-toting idiots as you so eloquently put it.  Try earning the skills to destroy an orange at 400 meters as I can.  I will be able to feed myself no matter what happens politically, while you will get a hernia merely walking to the grocery store, if it still exists!

[HowlingMad]

Well, add Dwolla to the list also:
Dear Dwolla Account Holder,

As you know, Dwolla does not sell, accept, mine, value, take possession of, or hold Bitcoin or any other virtual currency product, and none of Dwolla’s users transact business with Dwolla using Bitcoin or any other virtual currency product. However, recent interest involving virtual currency and its exchanges has created uncertainty and confusion around virtual currency, and Dwolla's relationship with a small number of its exchanges. This has forced Dwolla to reassign resources, funds, and services.

As Dwolla gears up for a new stage of growth, we recognize that we can no longer sustain this merchant base (.1 percent of Dwolla merchants) and its unique needs, and that attempting to do so jeopardizes both of our communities' starkly different, but similarly ambitious, vision for improving payments.

Effective October 28, 2013 at 4pm CT, Dwolla will be withdrawing its service offerings to virtual currency exchanges and virtual currency related services.

What does this mean?
•   Your account, and its functionality, will remain unaffected. However, you can deactivate your account from within your Dwolla dashboard, if you so choose.
•   Dwolla aims to provide its users and the few affected merchants with the guidance necessary to ensure a smooth transition. To do that, we encourage users to over-communicate with our support team, report any suspicious activity, and revisit our terms of service to ensure uninterrupted services.
What is the timeline of events?
1.   October 10: Only existing users with a 30-day history with Dwolla will be able to send funds to merchants affected by this change.
2.   October 15: Affected merchants will be limited to sending money only, and will no longer be able to receive funds from customers. They will be able to issue refunds to customers at this time.
3.   October 28: Affected merchants’ accounts will be suspended. No further activity will be provided.
4.   October 29: Provided no security or fraud concerns, Dwolla will transfer any of the remaining funds inside the affected merchant's Dwolla account to its linked bank account.
The decision to remove anyone from the network -- no matter the circumstances -- is not something Dwolla takes lightly. We are grateful for the opportunity to service and learn from these users. We wish the community and its pioneers the best.

Sincerely,
Dwolla Support

[freedomno1]

They should just use Cavirtex but sucks to be in the USA

https://www.cavirtex.com/news

Oct. 9, 2013, 3:05 p.m. - **Debit cards have arrived as a new withdrawal option! (In Beta)

In the interest of releasing this to the public quickly, we are proud to announce our Beta launch of Debit Cards that will work with ATM or POS terminals in Canada and even some internationally! For faster withdrawals you can now sell Bitcoins for CAD and then take out the cash at ATM's! There is a one-time fee of $10 to have the card mailed to you, once you have the card there is a low administration fee of $1.50 to add funds to the card. You must have VirtEx CAD to withdraw to this card and you must be cash or online verified but no bank account is required. Loads are performed once per business day at 5PM(MST) starting tomorrow.

The first step is to make sure your contact information has your correct address, this is where your card will be mailed by regular mail, next go to Withdraw CAD and choose an amount to withdraw A debit card (with PIN) will then be mailed to you but the amount will not be loaded until you have confirmed receipt of the card by submitting a ticket under the new category: ”Prepaid Debit”. You will then receive a confirmation e-mail when your first amount is loaded. More details will follow with the release of a full fee schedule for card use shortly. When Beta ends in approximately 1-2months we will enable live 24/7 loading of these cards the moment you press withdraw CAD! We will also allow for Canada express post rush card delivery shortly!

[bybitcoin]

If any of US fellows would like to continue keeping and handling his portfolio through a third party, I will do it for 1% of the stake (shares+dividends)
PM me if you are interested

Update: I asked a lawyer friend about this situation and if acting on behalf of a person and managing his/her security shares in such a context is legally OK and risk-free. He told me that he doesn't advise such undertaking since it may bring unexpected legal difficulties for both parties of such a deal. Therefore here to inform that I resign my offer.

That's interesting advice from a lawyer -- "I advise you not to do that because you may have to hire me if you do."

Dude, the lawyer is a friend, we know each other from high school, and he doesn't look at me as another target for making more money

[prophetx]

If any of US fellows would like to continue keeping and handling his portfolio through a third party, I will do it for 1% of the stake (shares+dividends)
PM me if you are interested

Update: I asked a lawyer friend about this situation and if acting on behalf of a person and managing his/her security shares in such a context is legally OK and risk-free. He told me that he doesn't advise such undertaking since it may bring unexpected legal difficulties for both parties of such a deal. Therefore here to inform that I resign my offer.

That's interesting advice from a lawyer -- "I advise you not to do that because you may have to hire me if you do."

Dude, the lawyer is a friend, we know each other from high school, and he doesn't look at me as another target for making more money

yea well anyway... i'm glad i am a dual citizen and saw all this shit coming down a few years ago ... luckily the EU countries (I know it sounds crazy to even say this) are more friendly to financial innovation... US govt is getting too big and squashing entrepreneurial culture that made America great... revenge of the bureaucrats...

[bybitcoin]

If any of US fellows would like to continue keeping and handling his portfolio through a third party, I will do it for 1% of the stake (shares+dividends)
PM me if you are interested

Update: I asked a lawyer friend about this situation and if acting on behalf of a person and managing his/her security shares in such a context is legally OK and risk-free. He told me that he doesn't advise such undertaking since it may bring unexpected legal difficulties for both parties of such a deal. Therefore here to inform that I resign my offer.

That's interesting advice from a lawyer -- "I advise you not to do that because you may have to hire me if you do."

Dude, the lawyer is a friend, we know each other from high school, and he doesn't look at me as another target for making more money

yea well anyway... i'm glad i am a dual citizen and saw all this shit coming down a few years ago ... luckily the EU countries (I know it sounds crazy to even say this) are more friendly to financial innovation... US govt is getting too big and squashing entrepreneurial culture that made America great... revenge of the bureaucrats...

Hope you American bitcoin investors find a way out of this shitty situation, to restore your portfolio somewhere or someway. I would have been more than happy to help, but unfortunately it's too risky and not suitable for an academic person like me.