Interacting with fiat institutions [such as the SEC], a guide

[jimmothy]

if dollars were not involved then it is not in the governments jurisdiction because bitcoin does not belong to them.

I have to fully disagree and so does the SEC.

Pirate40, charlie shrem, btct.co, bitfunder, and many more "companies" slammed by the SEC have made it clear that the excuse "I was using imaginary digital money so all existing laws don't apply to me" does not work out so well.

It's about time us bitcoiners learn that existing laws actually still apply to us

lets reword my point.
if i, an english person were to sell a house in spain using euro's to a guy in australia... which authority would be involved.... i certainly know the UK government cannot just jump in without showing they have jurisdiction on spanish property..

There is a huge difference between your example and the case with sdice/mpex.

Satoshi Dice is(was?) run by an american citizen, with nearly all american customers and thus falls within SEC jurisdiction.

Mpex is hosted in romania but products are denominated in USD and many if not a majority of mpex users are american.

Additionally the SEC co-op gives them jurisdiction even outside of the US.

Lastly both satoshidice and mpex are breaking laws within their own countries of operation. Both the UK and romania have strict security laws requiring registration of both exchanges and securities.

[1714641960]

1714641960

[1714641960]

1714641960

[1714641960]

1714641960

[1714641960]

1714641960

[1714641960]

1714641960

[1714641960]

1714641960

[jimmothy]

Why not run MPEX as a completely anonymous service, then the SEC can send their legal communications to the ether.

That is essentially my entire point.

But we can't do that today. Bitcoin does not have this capability.

It is trolling to want to make it possible to completely ignore the SEC and never hear from them? Come on seriouscoin, you are not serious.

Please do stop quoting my entire posts, in case I want to delete them all someday.

As dpr found out, anonymity only works for so long until you become a big enough problem for the feds.

My solution would be decentralized trading via colored coins or something similar.

[pontiacg5]

Dread Pirate Roberts, the manager of silk road, Ross Ulbricht, if you believe the government.

[ThickAsThieves]

Why not run MPEX as a completely anonymous service, then the SEC can send their legal communications to the ether.

MPEX is a perfect example, because it can be 100% anonymous as there is no storefront, no shipped goods, and no fiat accounts involved. It is a perfect example of the Knowledge Age economy I am writing about.

That is essentially my entire point over the past several months (as well as a few other points such as cpu-only mining to make decentralization work).

But we can't do that today. Bitcoin does not have this capability.

It is trolling to want to make it possible to completely ignore the SEC and never hear from them? Come on seriouscoin, you are not serious.

Please do stop quoting my entire posts, in case I want to delete them all someday.

If MPEx ran anonymously, it wouldn't be MPEx anymore, now would it?

How does nothingness build trust?

How does anonymity get a reputation and maintain it?

How does no one vet listings?

[jimmothy]

If MPEx ran anonymously, it wouldn't be MPEx anymore, now would it?

How does nothingness build trust?

How does anonymity get a reputation and maintain it?

How does no one vet listings?

Performance builds trust. The (digitally signed) name remains constant. Knowing who is providing the performance is irrelevant. I don't trust people any way. People are very unreliable, even your wife can be unreliable.

I trust math and code. They are reproducible and deterministic in so far as what has been proved and unit tested.

This is much more forgiving, because people can start again if they screw up one reputation, e.g. AnonyMint can be reborn as a nice guy.

I think what TaT is trying to say is that without a name to attach trust to, there is nobody to go after should the company decide to pull a fast one.

For example btc-e could shut down right now and run with all their users coins and nobody would know who to go after (besides the NSA of course).

[ThickAsThieves]

If MPEx ran anonymously, it wouldn't be MPEx anymore, now would it?

How does nothingness build trust?

How does anonymity get a reputation and maintain it?

How does no one vet listings?

Performance builds trust. The (digitally signed) name remains constant. Knowing who is providing the performance is irrelevant. I don't trust people any way. People are very unreliable, even your wife can be unreliable.

I trust math and code. They are reproducible and deterministic in so far as what has been proved and unit tested.

This is much more forgiving, because people can start again if they screw up one reputation, e.g. AnonyMint can be reborn as a nice guy.

My dream is to make all attorneys unemployed. I have always preferred paradigm shift over never-ending morass (especially the legal variety).

How is anonympex more trustworthy than the current one?

[jimmothy]

You want to get the government out of your money, then you ask them to get involved when there is theft. We can't have it both ways

I never said I want the government doing anything with my money. I simply want to know who I am giving my money to so that in the case it is stolen from me, I can attempt to find who is responsible and let others know.

One thing very prevalent in the bitcoin world is running a decent business for a certain amount of time and then simply disappearing with the money. Happens just about every few weeks in this community.

Proof-of-work was a way to have consensus without requiring trust. It was an algorithmic solution. I bet there is an algorithm for MPEX that can be verified, e.g. perhaps run it using Microsoft's Pinocchio.

It is not possible to prove trust mathematically. The point of bitcoin was to be trustless. We still need to trust who we are sending the coins to but we no longer have to trust the entities transferring the coins.

Exchanges can be eliminated with decentralized exchanges and third party escrow agents. Then at least the failures are per escrow agent in real-time, not the entire exchange monolithically failing over a long-term.

This is another idea I disagree with. As many have pointed out there are many thing about colored coins that would make them bad for exchanging including slow transfer times. We will still need centralized exchanges just like we have bitcoin exchanges but with colored coins implemented for security/standardization.

[jimmothy]

jimmothy, I am sorry but you've not understood my prior post. No offense intended.

I was tempted to respond point-by-point, but I've learned my lesson already in this forum, don't try to discuss something with someone who doesn't understand the basic tech points of it. Because invariably they accuse me of being a troll or a n00b, because they don't understand what I am explaining. Some things are just over the head of some levels of technical background.

Please do explain your idea point-by-point. Because I believe I am understanding you fully and it is you who is not understanding the concepts behind verifiable trust.

You cannot mathematically prove trust. Simple as that.

[jimmothy]

I wrote that analogous to how Satoshi eliminated the need to trust untrustable nodes (i.e. people) on the internet by employing an algorithm, we can also eliminate the need to trust to people and place our trust in algorithm which proves to us the business model is being followed.

And I never advocated offchain nor colored coins. I advocated everything to be onchain.

And it is too easy for you to pigeon-hole one of my statements as I try to unravel your multiple conflations. And if I say that you will get offended. So I wanted to just say nothing. But if I say nothing, you challenge me that I haven't made a point.

Sigh, now I understand it is better to code and shut up. And that is what I am going to do.

So you are telling me you currently attempting to write code that can replace the need for centralized exchanges with things like mpex along with anonymity and no need for trust.

You sir are talking shit.

Are you going to tell me next you are working on a functional warp drive and time machine?

Here is an example of why a hacker can't talk to a non-hacker, it is as if we are writing Klingon:

Talking shit confirmed.

[pontiacg5]

I still don't entirely understand just what it is Mint is advocating, but I don't think on-chain exchanges are too far-fetched.

There's really no reason we can't see the entire records of an exchange, so why is it crazy to think the algorithm driving the trades and accounts not be "provable" like a dice game. Imagine if gox had something like that set up, whatever happened would have come to light much sooner. Security should not be an issue, or we'd have bigger problems to worry about. 

The model doesn't sound too crazy to me, "mining" could be rewarded with shared exchange fees, or it could potentially ride along bitcoin, as a merge mined chain. 

The only thing I don't understand is getting dollars to an exchange like that, outside crypto/crypto trading I don't really see how it could ever work. If ATMs, local trades, and things like pre-loaded cards took off though...

[jimmothy]

I still don't entirely understand just what it is Mint is advocating, but I don't think on-chain exchanges are too far-fetched.

You don't understand what he is saying because he is talking shit.

There's really no reason we can't see the entire records of an exchange, so why is it crazy to think the algorithm driving the trades and accounts not be "provable" like a dice game. Imagine if gox had something like that set up, whatever happened would have come to light much sooner. Security should not be an issue, or we'd have bigger problems to worry about.

The model doesn't sound too crazy to me, "mining" could be rewarded with shared exchange fees, or it could potentially ride along bitcoin, as a merge mined chain. 

You perfectly described colored coins

The only thing I don't understand is getting dollars to an exchange like that, outside crypto/crypto trading I don't really see how it could ever work. If ATMs, local trades, and things like pre-loaded cards took off though...

This requires a centralized exchange or trusting an individual. Not fixable by an algorithm.

[chufchuf]

lets reword my point.
if i, an english person were to sell a house in spain using euro's to a guy in australia... which authority would be involved.... i certainly know the UK government cannot just jump in without showing they have jurisdiction on spanish property..

How is this even a debate. Just because a bunch of americans go into the thread and take it for granted the SEC has authority on a foreign exchange? It never made sense and yet the SEC gets away with foreign brokers not serving US citizens, just because the internet made it possible.

[chufchuf]

I still don't entirely understand just what it is Mint is advocating, but I don't think on-chain exchanges are too far-fetched.

You don't understand what he is saying because he is talking shit.

There's really no reason we can't see the entire records of an exchange, so why is it crazy to think the algorithm driving the trades and accounts not be "provable" like a dice game. Imagine if gox had something like that set up, whatever happened would have come to light much sooner. Security should not be an issue, or we'd have bigger problems to worry about.

The model doesn't sound too crazy to me, "mining" could be rewarded with shared exchange fees, or it could potentially ride along bitcoin, as a merge mined chain. 

You perfectly described colored coins

The only thing I don't understand is getting dollars to an exchange like that, outside crypto/crypto trading I don't really see how it could ever work. If ATMs, local trades, and things like pre-loaded cards took off though...

This requires a centralized exchange or trusting an individual. Not fixable by an algorithm.

It can't be that complicated to have a software as the decentralized exchange, surely. What will the SEC do then?

[jimmothy]

I still don't entirely understand just what it is Mint is advocating, but I don't think on-chain exchanges are too far-fetched.

You don't understand what he is saying because he is talking shit.

There's really no reason we can't see the entire records of an exchange, so why is it crazy to think the algorithm driving the trades and accounts not be "provable" like a dice game. Imagine if gox had something like that set up, whatever happened would have come to light much sooner. Security should not be an issue, or we'd have bigger problems to worry about.

The model doesn't sound too crazy to me, "mining" could be rewarded with shared exchange fees, or it could potentially ride along bitcoin, as a merge mined chain. 

You perfectly described colored coins

The only thing I don't understand is getting dollars to an exchange like that, outside crypto/crypto trading I don't really see how it could ever work. If ATMs, local trades, and things like pre-loaded cards took off though...

This requires a centralized exchange or trusting an individual. Not fixable by an algorithm.

It can't be that complicated to have a software as the decentralized exchange, surely. What will the SEC do then?

Reread my post. Colored coins is a decentralized exchange of ownership and they are even working on decentralized exchanges implemented within the wallet software.

However exchanging fiat to cryptocurrency is not possible through an algorithm. It requires trust.

There is no algorithm that would allow us to not need to trust exchange/security operators

[Bit_Happy]

The idea is to get them to do their job correctly, properly, legally, and well.

Indeed. It is right and proper to request the chains of authority that might (or might not) show the SEC to have a legitimate authority to either request (option) or demand (mandate) MPEx provide them with such information.

Seems to me the record shows that MP responded in a perfectly appropriate manner. He didn't roll over. He didn't refuse outright. He seems to be trying to get them to demonstrate they have such authority - or perhaps more properly, get them to realize for themselves that they have no such authority.

This ^^^
^^
Until authority finds a way to (re)establish their authority. (aka "The EU will be coming for you")
Entertaining post, disturbing future.

[jbreher]

Agreed franky1's comment was not specific enough.

But yours is more incomplete, because the authority must have the power to indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to, not just the law and jurisdiction from which that authority derives.

That is why the rest of my post flew right over your illogical head.

What authority needs to 'indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions'? You are turning the entire legal structure since the Magna Carta upside down. The 'authority' must demonstrate proper jurisdiction and venue in order to be any 'authority' in the matter whatsoever.

Thanks for the childish insult, jerk.

Can you stop quoting the troll for once? 90% members on this forum has ignored AnonyMint, but quoting him makes it useless.

AnonyMint is making a good point here.  I wouldn't say bitcoin throws the "entire legal structure since the Magna Carta upside down," but I would say that it forces some re-thinking, especially regarding regulation and authority.    

Bitcoin is global while regulations and the authority of certain power structures are local.  This will no doubt cause friction at times…

Sigh.... I wasn't saying that bitcoin turns the legal structure upon its head - I was saying that AnonyMint's assertion that "the authority must have the power to indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to" turns the legal structure upon its head.

AnonyMint seems to be asserting that any random 'authority' has proper jurisdiction and venue over anything they claim to, unless they themselves assert that they do not.

The very concept is absurd. It is the responsibility of whatever agency to demonstrate they they have proper chain of authority before any person need accede to any of their dictates.

Sorry, franky1 - I certainly did not to imply that I was disagreeing with you. I merely wanted to amplify your point.

And no, seriouscoin. It is not my responsibility to temper my discussions for your pleasure. While abrasive, and seemingly overly impressed with himself, AnonyMint often has an interesting perspective on things. I certainly don't always agree with him/her, but I occasionally glean a new insight from reading his/her (frequently tiresome) posts.

[jsgayo]

withheld

[jimmothy]

AnonyMint seems to be asserting that any random 'authority' has proper jurisdiction and venue over anything they claim to, unless they themselves assert that they do not.

What I wrote was the logical NAND (dual) of your misconstruction. But nevermind because it is useless for someone with highly developed logic skills to converse with people who don't.

This is why most people can't be excellent programmers.

And yes the internet and especially Bitcoin does turn authoritative jurisdiction legal structure inside-out, which is why I wrote it is a virus and the only cure is world government (global authoritative jurisdiction).

I won't explain. Those are smart enough get it, and the rest will get it some years from now when it becomes common knowledge.

Quoted before you delete.

[cryptoanarchist]

Seems like this thread is bringing out a lot of trolls - all I see is a bunch of ignored comments.

My guess is that these are some paid gov trolls. I guess in a world of 6 billion people, some of them are going to be totally worthless bags o' crap.

[jbreher]

Quoted before you delete.

Thanks, jimmothy

AnonyMint seems to be asserting that any random 'authority' has proper jurisdiction and venue over anything they claim to, unless they themselves assert that they do not.

What I wrote was the logical NAND (dual) of your misconstruction. But nevermind because it is useless for someone with highly developed logic skills to converse with people who don't.

Now you're thrashing. What you actually wrote was:

because the authority must have the power to indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to

There is no way the SEC can indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to, as MPOE is an entity within nexuses associated with laws and jurisdictions over which the SEC has no power whatsoever. This can be broadened by replacing SEC with 'any agency', as no such agency can indemnify against all other laws and jurisdictions. It is a tautological impossibility.

This is why most people can't be excellent programmers.

You have no effing idea to whom you are speaking.

You keep yapping about the logical design for a fully-anonymous value-exchange protocol you're going to bestow upon the world, as soon as you get to putting pen to paper. Yet you spend your life here on this forum, going all armchair internet warrior upon those of us you deem your intellectual inferiors. Why would you waste your time thusly, when you could be Saving The World?

I'm starting to surmise that you don't have a clue how to design such a protocol, and that all your bluster is just a smokescreen meant to hide your limitations from yourself.