Unobtanium In-House Exchange

[IanRidgwell]

I can't remember what the deal was with Gold Bullion and DVC's.

Long term I've been considering setting my kids up as TT's and DVC's so I can shift coin around for them as pocket money.

It's coins they cant use at the shops but can be absolutely used for important stuff.

As a side question.

I once joked that to keep miners happy with under performing mining returns we should find a way of providing them with hookers and blow. With that said it occurred to me that ignoring the second I haven't heard of any brothels taking crypto (adult shops seem to be into it) and yet it seems a likely scenario. Does anyone have a link or even an anecdote.

I.

*EDIT* My kids will have to earn their TT status like everybody else. I'm just considering a path into the arena for them.

[1713583797]

1713583797

[1713583797]

1713583797

[1713583797]

1713583797

[1713583797]

1713583797

[1713583797]

1713583797

[IMZ]

Hey, Ian! DVC's 'marker' is the price of two ounces of silver; but if you show for Verification an amount of gold that is equivalent to that, okay.

m

[IMZ]

@ SgtMoth: yes. Please tell me frankly: would 20 Uno for .25 Btc be fair?

[BitcoinCharlie]

Hey, Ian! DVC's 'marker' is the price of two ounces of silver; but if you show for Verification an amount of gold that is equivalent to that, okay.

m

I'm learning

Is the amount of gold necessary to be the marker a sliding scale then? What I mean is that in fiat AG has been shellacked and is about 1/72 the price of gold. If a bull market in AG occurs, that spread could easily be closed as historically it is never that disparate.

Not trying to split hairs, since it is such a small amount, but as this is an experiment, IMO should we not be careful about allowing substitutions of markers as a precedent? (not that AU is a bad sub at all)

[IMZ]

"should we not be careful about allowing substitutions of markers as a precedent?"

Hey, B.C.! Yes. Yes, we should.

I checked the 20-y charts on gold and silver in the first place. There doesn't seem to have been a significant discrepancy there at any point.

Don’t forget that we have 10 oz. of silver as ‘pure depth’: it’s in the vault but no coin has been issued upon it.

‘Redundancy’ is the term, the exact opposite of the fiat banks: significantly more assets than we have issued coins to ‘represent.’ Rest assured that our goal is knock-it-out-of-the-ball-park redundancy.

Suppose then that the practice be:

If you put up gold instead of bullion, it must be clearly worth 100% more than the 2 or 4 oz of silver it is standing in for.

Both Edgar and I did this.

And . . . when it comes to equity DVC or other, the same rule applies: serious redundancy.

I'd be as pleased as Punch if you would be our Adviser in this matter.

[SgtMoth]

@ SgtMoth: yes. Please tell me frankly: would 20 Uno for .25 Btc be fair?

20 sold, 20 replaced

[Benefactor]

I can't remember what the deal was with Gold Bullion and DVC's.

Long term I've been considering setting my kids up as TT's and DVC's so I can shift coin around for them as pocket money.

It's coins they cant use at the shops but can be absolutely used for important stuff.

It's Distributed Vault Coin (DVC), so as a courtesy, you guys should at least do the photo proof with 3 different species of PM, unless the full 12 oz silver or gold equivalent is shown in each photo - that's probably fine for a family of 6 DVC, IMO.  Additionally, it kind-of bugs me that this gets you around the 2 DVC max, while the rest of us, like me and edgar are sitting on PM hoards.  Then again, the more the much merrier, and we are all free to sign our families up, then, I guess.  How do we know it's a real family?  (I mean, in this case, I trust you, Ian, but what is our policy?)  How do we validate them if a stranger shows up with 5 "kids" and 8 sock puppets (extra forum usernames) all lined up for DVC?  It also isn't really trust building if they can 'kill' a "kid" off halfway through a transaction; it's a systemic risk.

Maybe the solution is to have each member earn their own trust status, but hold the whole family accountable for the transactions of each, with all of their TT status at risk?  I think this is a fair solution, while it isn't perfect at all.  Definitely should apply to any merchant accounts, too, and of course, any sock puppets, obviously.

What's really a bummer is that Ian has made these connections voluntarily, unfair to him.  A bad guy probably wouldn't even tell us.  Are there ways we can help ourselves to identifying sock puppets, etc.?  IP addresses, etc.?

[IMZ]

IMHO: no 'family accounts'! Nothing that is a 'chink' in our reputational armour.

How about:

Ian remains Bursar (NXT-5KWA-8T48-3MGL-CML63) , and that account remains a non-trading account.

Another Nxt wallet is set up, and 'Ian-as-ordinary-TT' goes through all the normal processes of Verification; gets his 2 DVC; and trades. If his kids want to watch over his shoulder, fine; but Ian remains the TT, the DVC holder, the sole person responsible.

Note, B., that over time the combination of bullion (which is the 'marker' of DVC's value but is harder to verify) and equity DVC (which aren't bullion but are easier to verify) will work nicely. Further down the track, we can consider other truly-fool-proof ways of Verify assets for the distributed vault.

But to make my personal position clear: Benefactor's analysis is correct.

[IMZ]

'Cadet' status? Watch this space.

[cragv]

I have nothing to immediately contribute here but wanted to share my delight at the latest conversation around DVC distribution, PMs, family/other entity holdings, etc. It's fascinating. Keep up the great discussion!

[IanRidgwell]

I can't remember what the deal was with Gold Bullion and DVC's.

Long term I've been considering setting my kids up as TT's and DVC's so I can shift coin around for them as pocket money.

It's coins they cant use at the shops but can be absolutely used for important stuff.

It's Distributed Vault Coin (DVC), so as a courtesy, you guys should at least do the photo proof with 3 different species of PM, unless the full 12 oz silver or gold equivalent is shown in each photo - that's probably fine for a family of 6 DVC, IMO.  Additionally, it kind-of bugs me that this gets you around the 2 DVC max, while the rest of us, like me and edgar are sitting on PM hoards.  Then again, the more the much merrier, and we are all free to sign our families up, then, I guess.  How do we know it's a real family?  (I mean, in this case, I trust you, Ian, but what is our policy?)  How do we validate them if a stranger shows up with 5 "kids" and 8 sock puppets (extra forum usernames) all lined up for DVC?  It also isn't really trust building if they can 'kill' a "kid" off halfway through a transaction; it's a systemic risk.

Maybe the solution is to have each member earn their own trust status, but hold the whole family accountable for the transactions of each, with all of their TT status at risk?  I think this is a fair solution, while it isn't perfect at all.  Definitely should apply to any merchant accounts, too, and of course, any sock puppets, obviously.

What's really a bummer is that Ian has made these connections voluntarily, unfair to him.  A bad guy probably wouldn't even tell us.  Are there ways we can help ourselves to identifying sock puppets, etc.?  IP addresses, etc.?

THe difficulty for me is I don't own or hold any DVC as I am the Bursar and it would be a clear conflict of interest for me to personally hold them. I'm sure this technical hurdle will be overcome eventually.

A side note though, anyone with considerable effort could scam an extra 2 DVC but... why?

Personally I think adding family members to the DVC community is great. It creates rings of concentric trust and brings more people into the trust network limiting the chance of any single point of failure. Unless the 'Smith' family suddenly has like 12 kids and gets them all verified within a short span of time it seems an elaborate and unworthwhile scheme to work up trusted trades verify bullion and then run off with.. a few hundred bucks?

[IMZ]

Posted above:

"How about:

Ian remains Bursar (NXT-5KWA-8T48-3MGL-CML63) , and that account remains a non-trading account.

Another Nxt wallet is set up, and 'Ian-as-ordinary-TT' goes through all the normal processes of Verification; gets his 2 DVC; and trades. If his kids want to watch over his shoulder, fine; but Ian remains the TT, the DVC holder, the sole person responsible."

And: 'Cadet' status:

"How about, though, a minor may frequent Un-Ex; have her questions answered; and trade on an always-sends-first basis with anyone who cares to trust her -- in this case, at least Ian and I. The minor is Lauren, his wickedly clever daughter.

Thinking from a wider social perspective, and assuming that one doesn't belong to the money-is-simply-evil faction, Un-Ex is an acceptable Internet environment. It is not characterised by foul language or particularly lewd posts. It would be a superlative home-base for a young crypto trader."

The problem I see, Ian, is one of perceptions. The crypto realm is a wild-west madhouse of lies and deception. We know each other well enough, but we hope to extend the distributed vault to 50 or 100 TTs. They don't know us.

How about the Cadet status idea?

m

[Benefactor]

I don't have a counterpoint at all if the Ian family, if the bursar's family, gets 2 DVC to be distributed as they see fit to non-bursar family members.  Still a conflict of interest?  I think it's very fair.  They should still show the 4 oz of silver or PM equivalent.

[Benefactor]

A side note though, anyone with considerable effort could scam an extra 2 DVC but... why?

I could see it happening, yet without adding much more, I value UNO at future prices, not so much today's.

[FallingKnife]

Offering to buy 1 DVC at 18 Uno.

[IMZ]

Okay. The gist of Posts 1164 and 1165 are up for seconding as policy:

one family may have one account, Verified as usual (and in Ian's case, he will need a second Nxt wallet).

And having gotten the DVC-issue policy issue in hand, let's recall our tech-support commitment. If anyone turns up here to trade, certainly younger people who could be doing far far worse stuff, let's fall over ourselves to welcome them.

m

[IMZ]

@ Falling Knife:

'Offering to buy one DVC at 18 Uno' is up on the trade-tracker.

Here

[Benefactor]

Okay. The gist of Posts 1164 and 1165 are up for seconding as policy:

one family may have one account, Verified as usual (and in Ian's case, he will need a second Nxt wallet).

And having gotten the DVC-issue policy issue in hand, let's recall our tech-support commitment. If anyone turns up here to trade, certainly younger people who could be doing far far worse stuff, let's fall over ourselves to welcome them.

m

I second this policy.

In the future, we should definitely revisit the family policy, because I see families as being one of the best ways to rapid expansion of many projects.  I also think the family angle would actually be more effective in the earlier stages of crypto advancements, so we shouldn't wait too long.  Probably not even 6 months, or even 4, before we bring this up, again, JIMHO.

I don't mind if Ian earns 2 DVC.  I'd almost give him a freebie for being bursar, but due to the limited issue of discreet DVC's, this would be an assymetrically excessive payment.

Maybe we should wait a few days for more people to see this, and even get this policy thirded from someone, please, before taking any action on the new policy.

[IMZ]

Okay. The gist of Posts 1164 and 1165 are up for seconding as policy:

one family may have one account, Verified as usual (and in Ian's case, he will need a second Nxt wallet).

And having gotten the DVC-issue policy issue in hand, let's recall our tech-support commitment. If anyone turns up here to trade, certainly younger people who could be doing far far worse stuff, let's fall over ourselves to welcome them.

m

I second this policy.

In the future, we should definitely revisit the family policy, because I see families as being one of the best ways to rapid expansion of many projects.  I also think the family angle would actually be more effective in the earlier stages of crypto advancements, so we shouldn't wait too long.  Probably not even 6 months, or even 4, before we bring this up, again, JIMHO.

I don't mind if Ian earns 2 DVC.  I'd almost give him a freebie for being bursar, but due to the limited issue of discreet DVC's, this would be an assymetrically excessive payment.

Maybe we should wait a few days for more people to see this, and even get this policy thirded from someone, please, before taking any action on the new policy.

+1

[IMZ]

Un-Ex 24/1/2015 [Western Australia – a half a day ahead of the U.S.]

Here is the trade-tracker

Unobtanium 'solid': .00109/.00100

https://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/133
https://bittrex.com/Market/Index?MarketName=BTC-UNO
https://bleutrade.com/exchange/UNO/BTC
https://coinbroker.io/trade/?symbol=UNO.BTC;

Trusted Traders:

http://indiamikezulu.com.au/454/list-of-trusted-traders/

DVC: 15.34 Uno

Liquidity Pledges:

Australia:

cragv, $100
(March) IMZ Mark: $AU 250

U.S.:

Bitcoin Charlie, $500