Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 08:30:19 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 [707] 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 21, 2014, 02:24:00 PM
 #14121

gold breaking up with first challenge @1305:

1513413019
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513413019

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513413019
Reply with quote  #2

1513413019
Report to moderator
1513413019
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513413019

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513413019
Reply with quote  #2

1513413019
Report to moderator
1513413019
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513413019

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513413019
Reply with quote  #2

1513413019
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
October 21, 2014, 02:24:24 PM
 #14122

On a side note: Big Banks Start Charging Clients for Euro Deposits
http://online.wsj.com/articles/big-banks-start-charging-clients-for-euro-deposits-1413569321

Cheesy
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 21, 2014, 02:26:16 PM
 #14123

On a side note: Big Banks Start Charging Clients for Euro Deposits
http://online.wsj.com/articles/big-banks-start-charging-clients-for-euro-deposits-1413569321

Cheesy

lol, what a freak show.

Bitcoin to the Moon.
Cortex7
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238


View Profile
October 21, 2014, 02:40:36 PM
 #14124

Hey Cypherdoc,

I know Benjamin Fulford is not considered a reliable source by many, but nonetheless this makes for fascinating fiction if nothing else:

http://benjaminfulford.net/2014/10/20/did-the-dragon-family-take-control-of-the-federal-reserve-board/

If it were true then I think bitcoin (and gold) would go ballistic as folk leapt to a safe stepping stone during the transition, or do you think most would just buy yuan (if that were actually possible).

There are so many possibilities as to what may happen fairly soonish, most of them will send safety net securities to the moon if they happen.
kehtolo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 707


View Profile
October 21, 2014, 02:53:41 PM
 #14125

Hey Cypherdoc,

I know Benjamin Fulford is not considered a reliable source by many, but nonetheless this makes for fascinating fiction if nothing else:

http://benjaminfulford.net/2014/10/20/did-the-dragon-family-take-control-of-the-federal-reserve-board/

If it were true then I think bitcoin (and gold) would go ballistic as folk leapt to a safe stepping stone during the transition, or do you think most would just buy yuan (if that were actually possible).

There are so many possibilities as to what may happen fairly soonish, most of them will send safety net securities to the moon if they happen.

Wow!

All i have to say to that is... "That's a bit mad!"

There does not seem to be much substance to it, it is all unnamed sources, heresay etc. But definitely one of the more 'out there' things I've read today.

The next 24 hours are critical!
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 21, 2014, 02:55:26 PM
 #14126

All i have to say to that is... "That's a bit mad!"
Benjamin Fulford is not "a bit" mad...
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
October 21, 2014, 03:18:41 PM
 #14127

...
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.

In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.

This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.

File your S1s, kids.

They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized.

Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure.


There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.


Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


View Profile
October 21, 2014, 03:47:17 PM
 #14128

...
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.

In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.

This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.

File your S1s, kids.

They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized.

Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure.


There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.



Maybe... im not part of the team so I'm just trying to be logical... #1 may or may not be certain.. since again it is not a money transmitter and so I think a new law would have to be put in place for it to happen (not likely in short or medium term).. #2 sure he gets thrown in jail, there are plenty of devs ready to step up... it doesn't stop the system. The hard work is pretty much done anyway.

BTW entities that issue shares (that can be anyone) so you mean EVERYONE who uses it must comply with SEC regs.. yea good luck with that!

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 21, 2014, 03:50:09 PM
 #14129

...
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.

In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.

This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.

File your S1s, kids.

They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized.

Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure.


There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.



there's something to be learned from GLBSE and Nefario, the first intended global stock trading system first implemented in 2011.  it got shut down after 2 attempts, the last being by the UK regulators.
kehtolo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 707


View Profile
October 21, 2014, 03:50:29 PM
 #14130

All i have to say to that is... "That's a bit mad!"
Benjamin Fulford is not "a bit" mad...

Hehe.. ok, I didn't know him. Fully certifiably mad then, if he's like that all the time.

The next 24 hours are critical!
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
October 21, 2014, 04:01:51 PM
 #14131

...
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.

In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.

This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.

File your S1s, kids.

They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized.

Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure.


There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.



Maybe... im not part of the team so I'm just trying to be logical... #1 may or may not be certain.. since again it is not a money transmitter and so I think a new law would have to be put in place for it to happen (not likely in short or medium term).. #2 sure he gets thrown in jail, there are plenty of devs ready to step up... it doesn't stop the system. The hard work is pretty much done anyway.

BTW entities that issue shares (that can be anyone) so you mean EVERYONE who uses it must comply with SEC regs.. yea good luck with that!


You are confused about #1. Money Transmission regulation is distinct from SEC securities-offering regulation.

I'm not saying any of this 100% takes down bitshares or similar systems. Jurisdictional arbitrage will happen, of course. But at the same time, it's naive to think that the SEC and similar bodies in the world's largest markets, will not apply their broadly-written body of regulation to these new platforms. Again, Erik Voorhees experience is a good example. That was a tiny, niche, esoteric offering and the SEC still took enforcement action (~2 years later).



Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


View Profile
October 21, 2014, 05:01:19 PM
 #14132

...
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.

In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.

This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.

File your S1s, kids.

They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized.

Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure.


There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.



Maybe... im not part of the team so I'm just trying to be logical... #1 may or may not be certain.. since again it is not a money transmitter and so I think a new law would have to be put in place for it to happen (not likely in short or medium term).. #2 sure he gets thrown in jail, there are plenty of devs ready to step up... it doesn't stop the system. The hard work is pretty much done anyway.

BTW entities that issue shares (that can be anyone) so you mean EVERYONE who uses it must comply with SEC regs.. yea good luck with that!


You are confused about #1. Money Transmission regulation is distinct from SEC securities-offering regulation.

I'm not saying any of this 100% takes down bitshares or similar systems. Jurisdictional arbitrage will happen, of course. But at the same time, it's naive to think that the SEC and similar bodies in the world's largest markets, will not apply their broadly-written body of regulation to these new platforms. Again, Erik Voorhees experience is a good example. That was a tiny, niche, esoteric offering and the SEC still took enforcement action (~2 years later).



OK so in these cases, they fine Daniel for $50k/$100k for coming up with this software (IDK why this would be the case) or throw him in jail worsed case both of which don't really affect the project itself in the grand scheme of things.

There is noone to go after... it is up to the buyer... the law he was charged(Securities Act of 1933) under states:

Often referred to as the "truth in securities" law, the Securities Act of 1933 has two basic objectives:

1) require that investors receive financial and other significant information concerning securities being offered for public sale; and

2) prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities.

Who is supposed to give them information? Invictus? OK they fine Invictus and tell them that all profits must be surrendered, what profits? Its a self serving ecosystem... they take away their pts/ags/btsx, thats fine....

#2 doesn't apply.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
October 21, 2014, 05:14:54 PM
 #14133

...
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.

In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.

This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.

File your S1s, kids.

They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized.

Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure.


There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.



Maybe... im not part of the team so I'm just trying to be logical... #1 may or may not be certain.. since again it is not a money transmitter and so I think a new law would have to be put in place for it to happen (not likely in short or medium term).. #2 sure he gets thrown in jail, there are plenty of devs ready to step up... it doesn't stop the system. The hard work is pretty much done anyway.

BTW entities that issue shares (that can be anyone) so you mean EVERYONE who uses it must comply with SEC regs.. yea good luck with that!


You are confused about #1. Money Transmission regulation is distinct from SEC securities-offering regulation.

I'm not saying any of this 100% takes down bitshares or similar systems. Jurisdictional arbitrage will happen, of course. But at the same time, it's naive to think that the SEC and similar bodies in the world's largest markets, will not apply their broadly-written body of regulation to these new platforms. Again, Erik Voorhees experience is a good example. That was a tiny, niche, esoteric offering and the SEC still took enforcement action (~2 years later).




...

#2 doesn't apply. I don't think #2 from your post applies, and I'm going to naively assume that all judges will agree with me.


FTFY

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


View Profile
October 21, 2014, 05:52:10 PM
 #14134

...
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.

In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.

This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.

File your S1s, kids.

They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized.

Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure.


There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.



Maybe... im not part of the team so I'm just trying to be logical... #1 may or may not be certain.. since again it is not a money transmitter and so I think a new law would have to be put in place for it to happen (not likely in short or medium term).. #2 sure he gets thrown in jail, there are plenty of devs ready to step up... it doesn't stop the system. The hard work is pretty much done anyway.

BTW entities that issue shares (that can be anyone) so you mean EVERYONE who uses it must comply with SEC regs.. yea good luck with that!


You are confused about #1. Money Transmission regulation is distinct from SEC securities-offering regulation.

I'm not saying any of this 100% takes down bitshares or similar systems. Jurisdictional arbitrage will happen, of course. But at the same time, it's naive to think that the SEC and similar bodies in the world's largest markets, will not apply their broadly-written body of regulation to these new platforms. Again, Erik Voorhees experience is a good example. That was a tiny, niche, esoteric offering and the SEC still took enforcement action (~2 years later).




...

#2 doesn't apply. I don't think #2 from your post applies, and I'm going to naively assume that all judges will agree with me.


FTFY

I've already built the case that it doesn't apply thus I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Sorry I misjudged your ability to infer information.

BTW im not mr bitshares.. I jsut think it may not even be the one.... but something like it might be... something that creates more of an ecosystem. If they continue to make good decisions than I have hope for them.. it is to be seen on the recent drastic change they are proposing on how it will turn out... Chinese sold off earlier this week at the hint of dilution however the proposal is to infuse capital to raise funds (based on consensus voting using their voting technology) for new DACs which is a novel idea... however again it is to be seen on how it will look in hindsight... based on past performance I think it will be fine but I have other ideas on what an ecosystem looks like although other technical ideas are good in bitshares.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436



View Profile
October 21, 2014, 06:03:10 PM
 #14135

There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.

You could ask nefario (glbse) about #2.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
October 21, 2014, 06:12:12 PM
 #14136


There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.


Maybe... im not part of the team so I'm just trying to be logical... #1 may or may not be certain.. since again it is not a money transmitter and so I think a new law would have to be put in place for it to happen (not likely in short or medium term).. #2 sure he gets thrown in jail, there are plenty of devs ready to step up... it doesn't stop the system. The hard work is pretty much done anyway.

BTW entities that issue shares (that can be anyone) so you mean EVERYONE who uses it must comply with SEC regs.. yea good luck with that!


You are confused about #1. Money Transmission regulation is distinct from SEC securities-offering regulation.

I'm not saying any of this 100% takes down bitshares or similar systems. Jurisdictional arbitrage will happen, of course. But at the same time, it's naive to think that the SEC and similar bodies in the world's largest markets, will not apply their broadly-written body of regulation to these new platforms. Again, Erik Voorhees experience is a good example. That was a tiny, niche, esoteric offering and the SEC still took enforcement action (~2 years later).




...

#2 doesn't apply. I don't think #2 from your post applies, and I'm going to naively assume that all judges will agree with me.


FTFY

I've already built the case that it doesn't apply thus I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Sorry I misjudged your ability to infer information.

...


Reading comp... I said #2 was untested, and that it's naive to jump to conclusions. Put more clearly: your cute interpretation of 80 years worth of SEC regulation doesn't matter. The interpretations of courts and judges matters.


Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


View Profile
October 21, 2014, 06:27:07 PM
 #14137


There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.


Maybe... im not part of the team so I'm just trying to be logical... #1 may or may not be certain.. since again it is not a money transmitter and so I think a new law would have to be put in place for it to happen (not likely in short or medium term).. #2 sure he gets thrown in jail, there are plenty of devs ready to step up... it doesn't stop the system. The hard work is pretty much done anyway.

BTW entities that issue shares (that can be anyone) so you mean EVERYONE who uses it must comply with SEC regs.. yea good luck with that!


You are confused about #1. Money Transmission regulation is distinct from SEC securities-offering regulation.

I'm not saying any of this 100% takes down bitshares or similar systems. Jurisdictional arbitrage will happen, of course. But at the same time, it's naive to think that the SEC and similar bodies in the world's largest markets, will not apply their broadly-written body of regulation to these new platforms. Again, Erik Voorhees experience is a good example. That was a tiny, niche, esoteric offering and the SEC still took enforcement action (~2 years later).




...

#2 doesn't apply. I don't think #2 from your post applies, and I'm going to naively assume that all judges will agree with me.


FTFY

I've already built the case that it doesn't apply thus I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Sorry I misjudged your ability to infer information.

...


Reading comp... I said #2 was untested, and that it's naive to jump to conclusions. Put more clearly: your cute interpretation of 80 years worth of SEC regulation doesn't matter. The interpretations of courts and judges matters.



Sure lets entertain #2 as being valid... what is your assumption? The project fails? I don't see where you are going with this.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
October 21, 2014, 06:38:47 PM
 #14138

Like Melbustus said, the main obstacle to much of the "2.0" stuff is regulatory as opposed to technological.  The useful "2.0" features will be implemented on top of bitcoin when the regulatory picture is more clear, the ecosystem has matured, and there's actual demand for these products (as opposed to what IMO is speculative demand designed to pump an alternative blockchain). 

...
1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
...

Yes, absolutely.  I find debates about the legality of 2.0 tech fascinating: many people have strong opinions, but few seem interested in digging into the actual laws as they are presently written

For example, perusing the BC Corporations Act (which applies where I live) it becomes clear that a company can't have anonymous shareholders.  Shareholder name and addresses must be logged in the company's share registry.



This makes perfect sense given current tax/corporate laws: for example, the company needs to determine % foreign ownership for tax purposes, it needs to know how many shareholders it has as that affects certain reporting requirements, etc, etc. 

So no anonymous shareholders, which complicates the use of blockchain-based share certificates.  "Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. 

This is just one example.  I suspect anonymous asset-backed tokens are unlawful as well (and is probably the reason we haven't seen Brock Pierce's "real coins").  Download the applicable laws in any relevant jurisdiction, and the difficulty in navigating them should become clear.

-----
I spent one evening going through the BC Corporations Act and made notes here about ways I thought one could issue blockchain-based share certificates and adhere to the existing laws, if anyone's interested.


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


View Profile
October 21, 2014, 06:43:09 PM
 #14139

Like Melbustus said, the main obstacle to much of the "2.0" stuff is regulatory as opposed to technological.  The useful "2.0" features will be implemented on top of bitcoin when the regulatory picture is more clear, the ecosystem has matured, and there's actual demand for these products (as opposed to what IMO is speculative demand designed to pump an alternative blockchain).  

...
1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
...

Yes, absolutely.  I find debates about the legality of 2.0 tech fascinating: many people have strong opinions, but few seem interested in digging into the actual laws as they are presently written.  

For example, perusing the BC Corporations Act (which applies where I live) it becomes clear that a company can't have anonymous shareholders.  Shareholder name and addresses must be logged in the company's share registry.



This makes perfect sense given current tax/corporate laws: for example, the company needs to determine % foreign ownership for tax purposes, it needs to know how many shareholders it has as that affects certain reporting requirements, etc, etc.  

So no anonymous shareholders, which complicates the use of blockchain-based share certificates.  "Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.  

This is just one example.  I suspect anonymous asset-backed tokens are unlawful as well (and is probably the reason we haven't seen Brock Pierce's "real coins").  Download the applicable laws in any relevant jurisdiction, and the difficulty in navigating them should become clear.

-----
I spent one evening going through the BC Corporations Act and made notes here about ways I thought one could issue blockchain-based share certificates and adhere to the existing laws, if anyone's interested.



That's great Peter, these laws apply to where I live too however it's talking about a Company issuing shares because the company seeks to make profit (that profit is the incentive) thus many malpractices exist to issue shares which may infact be ponzi schemes or to sway people out of their money.. and in these "ecosystems" its not the company which issues shares but gives the ability to issue shares which is yet another grey area, yet not susceptible to any type of applicable laws in any democratic jurisdiction I believe.

The company that creates the system has no vested interest in trying to issue shares for profit or for business... I don't see the correlation.

I do think you bring up a good point though... and name/address pairs are needed to validate who owns or issues shares... I think if a company uses the system to issue shares such as overstock they need to be registered and legally comply which they are... the system itself does not need registration as far as I can see. The system or company needs a way to track the individuals the shares are given to... so overstock needs a registration process to track the address inside of the decentralized marketplace to the physical identity of the person with shares.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1694



View Profile
October 21, 2014, 07:00:05 PM
 #14140

"Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

Hmm, bearer shares are quite common. Of course, at certain moments the company learns who it's shareholders are at that time. What do you think listed shares are?

         ▄███████████████▄
       ▄██▀             ▀██▄
    ▄▄██▀                 ▀██▄▄
█████▀▀       ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄    ▀▀█████
██          ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▀█▄▄      ██
▐█▌       ▄▀ ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▄▀▀▀███   ▐█▌
 ██      ▄▀▄▀▄▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀█ ▄█▀   ██
 ▐█▌    █▄▀▄▀▄█▀▀▀ ▀█▀ ▄▀▄▀█   ▐█▌
  ██    █▄▀▄▀▄▄█▀ ▄▀ ▄▀▄▀▄▀█   ██
  ▐█▌ ▀▄█████▀▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀█  ▐█▌
   ██▌▀████▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█▀ ▐██
    ██▌▀█▀▀█▄▀▀▄▀▀▄▄▀▄█▄▄█▀ ▐██
     ██▌ ▀  ▀███▄▄▄█████▀  ▐██
      ██▄      ▀▀▀▀▀      ▄██
       ▀██▄             ▄██▀
         ▀██▄         ▄██▀
           ▀██▄     ▄██▀
             ▀███▄███▀
               ▀███▀
.DeepOnion.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★  .❱❱❱ JOIN AIRDROP NOW!.
TOR INTEGRATED & SECURED
★  Your Anonymity Guaranteed
★  Your Assets Secured by TOR
★  Guard Your Privacy!
|Bitcointalk
Reddit
Telegram
|                        ▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▀▀
                    ▄▄██▀█▀▄▀▀▀
                  ▄██▄█▄██▀
                ▄██████▀
              ▄██████▀
  ▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
██████▀▀▀▀▀██████▀
 ▀█████  ▄███████
  ████████████▀██
  ██▀███████▀  ██
  ██ ▀████▀    ██
  ██   ▀▀      ██
  ▀█████████████▀
Pages: « 1 ... 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 [707] 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!