p2p securities exchange. Now being developed (again)

[brendio]

How do you verify asset owners under a p2p securities exchange / share market ? I remember when glbse first started people would create scam assets so nefario introduced the verification process.

Honest question Goat 

Could you implement p2p verification? That's sort of what Goat did with GLBSE, Goat sent ID to Kluge and Kluge sent his to Nef.

You could do a similar thing decentralising the verification process and display that on the exchange. A is verified by B is verified by C. If D trusts C, then he has some trust in B's verification of A.

It's not infallible, but if you work in with the otc WOT, then you can bootstrap an existing trust network.

[1714163634]

1714163634

[Snapman]

FREE MARKET FTW!

Keep up the good work.

[Bitcoin Oz]

How do you verify asset owners under a p2p securities exchange / share market ? I remember when glbse first started people would create scam assets so nefario introduced the verification process.

Honest question Goat 

Could you implement p2p verification? That's sort of what Goat did with GLBSE, Goat sent ID to Kluge and Kluge sent his to Nef.

You could do a similar thing decentralising the verification process and display that on the exchange. A is verified by B is verified by C. If D trusts C, then he has some trust in B's verification of A.

It's not infallible, but if you work in with the otc WOT, then you can bootstrap an existing trust network.

bitcoin-otc wot would work. Its basically a p2p exchange already.

[MoneyIsDebt]

In open transactions you don't need to trust the server, and in fact you can have many servers, making it p2p in a fashion. You DO need to trust the issuer of the bond/share, but that is of course a fact no matter how you do it. So although the ppl behind "company" or project or whatever you invest in might still take the money and run, or default or go bankrupt or just stop doing business - the exchange or server won't be able to, as they can't change a users balance with OT.

[Bitcoin Oz]

In open transactions you don't need to trust the server, and in fact you can have many servers, making it p2p in a fashion. You DO need to trust the issuer of the bond/share, but that is of course a fact no matter how you do it. So although the ppl behind "company" or project or whatever you invest in might still take the money and run, or default or go bankrupt or just stop doing business - the exchange or server won't be able to, as they can't change a users balance with OT.

I thin glbse was going to look into OT to allow people to use their existing shares/bonds as collateral for loans etc. Therefore any stock exchange asset could be portable as long as there is a federation of servers using OT. I guess you could also issue your own currency backed by the shares you hold in glbse or any other exchange ?

[Sukrim]

How do you verify asset owners under a p2p securities exchange / share market ? I remember when glbse first started people would create scam assets so nefario introduced the verification process.

Honest question Goat 

Could you implement p2p verification? That's sort of what Goat did with GLBSE, Goat sent ID to Kluge and Kluge sent his to Nef.

You could do a similar thing decentralising the verification process and display that on the exchange. A is verified by B is verified by C. If D trusts C, then he has some trust in B's verification of A.

It's not infallible, but if you work in with the otc WOT, then you can bootstrap an existing trust network.

That's the same problem as with a GPG (or PGP? I always mix these up) web of trust.

I can trust a signature of a friend of mine to be actually from my friend. If I "trust" him however, it means I trust that his capability to verify OTHERS is as high as mine.

Yes, you could do a web of trust, like with bitcoin-otc, still a few certain elements of centralization would have some serious benefits. These don't even have to be offered by the exchange itself, something like "official verification agents" could also work. It would need some serious time and effort however to become a worldwide trusted verification agent in the bitcoin world I fear... atm I trust GLBSE more than someone in god-knows-where who runs a verification service next to his day job as pig farmer.

[EnergyVampire]

Does the newly implemented BIP 16 help with this project? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016

[BinaryMage]

Does the newly implemented BIP 16 help with this project? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016

Why would it?

[markm]

Maybe the blockchain is only really needed for proving which transfer of a given share is the most recent, and thus currently valid, one?

I could sign over a share ownership ceritificate to someone else, publish the hash of the new signed certificate, and wait for that hsh to be sufficiently deep in the blockchain. Any certificates purporting to sign over the same share to someone else would then be invalid, as the next one to be valid in the blockchain would have to be the one I just signed, signed over in turn by the person I signed it over to to someone else.

We could either have some kind of p2p protocol by which these actual certificates are published, or they could be published to a usenet group for a public record, and some backup harder to find to shut down means like maybe private/secret usenet networks, p2p filesharing networks (freenet for example) etc.

-MarkM-

[Bitcoin Oz]

Maybe the blockchain is only really needed for proving which transfer of a given share is the most recent, and thus currently valid, one?

I could sign over a share ownership ceritificate to someone else, publish the hash of the new signed certificate, and wait for that hsh to be sufficiently deep in the blockchain. Any certificates purporting to sign over the same share to someone else would then be invalid, as the next one to be valid in the blockchain would have to be the one I just signed, signed over in turn by the person I signed it over to to someone else.

We could either have some kind of p2p protocol by which these actual certificates are published, or they could be published to a usenet group for a public record, and some backup harder to find to shut down means like maybe private/secret usenet networks, p2p filesharing networks (freenet for example) etc.

-MarkM-

That is the direction we wanted to go but to be honestly this project got ignored due to other stuff. Right now I do not ahve the man power to make something like this but maybe one day. If anyone else wants to take the lead on this I'm all for it.

Bitcoin is basically 21 million "shares" and the network  monitors who owns what. Dont know how you would use it to pay dividends and other things though

[markm]

There is another idea that would go part-way toward p2p trading of shares, and that is to enable the blinded cash system - the mint - for assets whose type is shares.

Right now I have only created mints for the assets that are considered a type of currency rather than being shares.

However I believe that the only thing stopping people from withdrawing untraceable blinded cash form of shares is simply the fact I have not created mints for assets of that type.

Given blinded token form for shares, people can trade them person to person all they wish. When someone eventually deposits a share, the server cannot tell which share it was. This assumes some volume of course; obviously if only one person ever withdrew a share in cash form the share being deposited cannot be any other one than that one. But if lots of people withdraw them as cash tokens, there is no tellng when one is deposited whose withdrawal that deposit corresponds to.

Since shares have in any case to be centralised as to their issuer, this seems like it should work fine. The issuer runs an Open Transactions server, issues the shares as cash tokens, and people can p2p them all they want by person to person exchanging the cash tokens.

-MarkM-

[markm]

Bitcoin is basically 21 million "shares" and the network  monitors who owns what. Dont know how you would use it to pay dividends and other things though

I agree that blockchain currencies are pretty much shares, albeit highly divisible shares. This is leveraged in my system as a means of computing the worth of the coins, since it is feasible in the case of certain coins to add up the assets of the issuer and divide them by the number of coins to determine the value of the "coins aka shares". It is probably this, in fact, that accounts for the huge values such coins have achieved as compared to various coins that lack a specific "backer" / "issuer".

Voting and dividends are, again, centralised things. Votes go to the central issuer, dividends issue from the central issuer. So no problem doing those on the issuer's Open Transactions server. The dividends can even then be withdrawn as blinded cash tokens, though what those tokens would be backed by I do not know. More shares? Does it make sense to issue dividends in the form of more shares?

I am against dividends anyway myself. They let people monopolise while still getting passive income. I prefer that anyone who wants to extract money have to sell shares to do so, to help encourage liquidity instead of having all shares snapped up at IPO then never traded thereafter.

-MarkM-

[Bitcoin Oz]

Bitcoin is basically 21 million "shares" and the network  monitors who owns what. Dont know how you would use it to pay dividends and other things though

I agree that blockchain currencies are pretty much shares, albeit highly divisible shares. This is leveraged in my system as a means of computing the worth of the coins, since it is feasible in the case of certain coins to add up the assets of the issuer and divide them by 21,000,000 to determine the value of the "coins aka shares". It is probably this, in fact, that accounts for the huge values such coins have achieved as compared to various chains that lack a specific "backer" / "issuer".

Voting and dividends are, again, centralised things. Votes go to the central issuer, dividends issue from the central issuer. So no problem doing those on the issuer's Open Transactions server. The dividends can even then be withdrawn as blinded cash tokens, though what those tokens would be backed by I do not know. More shares? Does it make sense to issue dividends in the form of more shares?

I am against dividends anyway myself. They let people monopolise while still getting passive income. I prefer that anyone who wants to extract money have to sell shares to do so, to help encourage liquidity instead of having all shares snapped up at IPO then never traded thereafter.

-MarkM-

To IPO a company could create a genesis block specifying how many coinshares they are releasing. All of those coins might be in the first block which the company then sells off on any exchange or otc. Of course they need to be merge mineable with a master chain.

In this way you can move your shares wherever you want and arent restricted to one exchange.

[markm]

You already are not restricted to one exchange. You can issue on any servers that will let people issue assets. YOu can run umpteen servers yourself distributed all over the world. Shares inherently have centralisation in their issuer so there is no point using a blockchain except possibly in a case where you are timestamping documents by means of a blockchain. There are other timestamp services out there though so even for timestamps maybe a blockchain is not really important. You could put a classified ad in newspapers around the world for example with hash of change of ownership document of a share.

The only time when a blockchain makes sense for shares is in cases such as bitcoin, litecoin, devcoin and so on: cases where the "company" is itself a distributed entity and the "issuing" is also distributed, each miner being an issuer of shares. It is actualyl a miracle that such shares are worth anything considering most of those "issuers" are not actually intended to "back" the coins, merely to "dump" them for fiat...

-MarkM-