Pay Now or Pay Later!

[Sage]

How much have you lost -- either directly or indirectly -- because of the shenanigans, hacks, frozen accounts, and all out thievery of central exchanges?

Whether you were a direct victim or not, if you're holding any crypto currencies, you've paid.  You paid in the loss of value.  You paid in the loss of trust for merchant adoption.  You paid in the loss of utility value.

...You've paid dearly for the actions of a small few!

Time for the community to do something about it.  A trustless, P2P exchange the crypto ecosystem must have if we are going to ever hit mass adoption. This project is a big step in the right direction.

https://bitsquare.io/crowdfunding/

C'mon guys.  Step up.  2 days left in the funding cycle.  Lets insure they get the funding they need.  Send a message to the F$$%# power structures that are doing everything to take down central exchanges.

We pay now for these kind of projects, or we pay a heavy price later when the next central exchange gets knocked off.  

[ticoti]

I like the project,but if I understand this is not an investment but a not returnable money, isn't it?

[Sage]

I like the project,but if I understand this is not an investment but a not returnable money, isn't it?

It's an investment in the infrastructure that makes all your other cyrpto assets that much more valuable.  While you may not see a direct return, you're going to see a far greater indirect return.

[manselr]

How does one know that this isnt another scam within itself?

[cr1776]

Essentially they want a donation to pay themselves.  If it is a good idea, sell us shares, make it an investment in the company.  If they can't do that, I worry about the nature of their business.

Look at how many of the Bitcoin companies did it, e.g. Blockstream.  I agree with the poster above me, how do we know this isn't a scam within a scam.

[JeromeL]

Bitsquare is a great project and I truly hope they succeed.

But I prefer coinffeine's approach that seems smarter and more simple (no arbitrators).

[Sage]

Essentially they want a donation to pay themselves.  If it is a good idea, sell us shares, make it an investment in the company.  If they can't do that, I worry about the nature of their business.

Look at how many of the Bitcoin companies did it, e.g. Blockstream.  I agree with the poster above me, how do we know this isn't a scam within a scam.

That's an extremely uniformed, and frankly, narrow minded comment.

They have already put out some promising tech.  And they did all that on their own dime!

They are going with an iterative development model.

This is a project for the commons.  Keeping the greed out of it is a very wise move to actualize the project vision.

[Sage]

How does one know that this isnt another scam within itself?

What would be the scam?  Take the money and run?

They've been upfront with everything.

They've already put out some very promising tech.  The project is well along in the development cycle.

If that's a scam, then that's a lot of hard work for a 120 BTC payoff!

[LiteCoinGuy]

How much have you lost -- either directly or indirectly -- because of the shenanigans, hacks, frozen accounts, and all out thievery of central exchanges?

0

[DooMAD]

There are projects underway to solve the problem of decentralised exchange that don't require crowdfunding.  Seems odd that bitsquare need money to achieve the same thing.  People should support the innovative coins that are integrating AT instead.

[Sage]

How much have you lost -- either directly or indirectly -- because of the shenanigans, hacks, frozen accounts, and all out thievery of central exchanges?

0

RRIIIGGGHTTT... and the value of your LTC was never affected by central exchange hacks & thefts.

Sheesh... how can the community be so damn short-sighted?

[Sage]

There are projects underway to solve the problem of decentralised exchange that don't require crowdfunding.  Seems odd that bitsquare need money to achieve the same thing.  People should support the innovative coins that are integrating AT instead.

Every p2p solution requires on and off ramps.  Now do you want to show me some viable decentralized solutions for that?

...enlighten me!

We don't have them!  We desperately need them!  The more projects solving this problem the better.

[cr1776]

Essentially they want a donation to pay themselves.  If it is a good idea, sell us shares, make it an investment in the company.  If they can't do that, I worry about the nature of their business.

Look at how many of the Bitcoin companies did it, e.g. Blockstream.  I agree with the poster above me, how do we know this isn't a scam within a scam.

That's an extremely uniformed, and frankly, narrow minded comment.

They have already put out some promising tech.  And they did all that on their own dime!

They are going with an iterative development model.

This is a project for the commons.  Keeping the greed out of it is a very wise move to actualize the project vision.

I firmly believe in supporting people, but unless they are going to operate as a charity, I don't believe in supporting them like one.  They want handouts from other people so they can build something and then potentially profit from it or at minimum support themselves and their lifestyles from it.

What is an extremely uninformed and narrow minded comment is your's. 

[cr1776]

How much have you lost -- either directly or indirectly -- because of the shenanigans, hacks, frozen accounts, and all out thievery of central exchanges?

0

RRIIIGGGHTTT... and the value of your LTC was never affected by central exchange hacks & thefts.

Sheesh... how can the community be so damn short-sighted?

Perhaps it isn't the community that is "so damn short-sighted"? 

[Beliathon]

How much have you lost -- either directly or indirectly -- because of the shenanigans, hacks, frozen accounts, and all out thievery of central exchanges?

0.000000 btc

[cr1776]

Essentially they want a donation to pay themselves.  If it is a good idea, sell us shares, make it an investment in the company.  If they can't do that, I worry about the nature of their business.

Look at how many of the Bitcoin companies did it, e.g. Blockstream.  I agree with the poster above me, how do we know this isn't a scam within a scam.

That's an extremely uniformed, and frankly, narrow minded comment.

They have already put out some promising tech.  And they did all that on their own dime!

They are going with an iterative development model.

This is a project for the commons.  Keeping the greed out of it is a very wise move to actualize the project vision.

By the way, I don't think it is greedy for them to want to be paid for their work, but if you think keeping greed out of it is a wise move, then why are they asking for money?  (Or is it not greedy for them to want to be paid by someone else, but people who are paying them wanting a return on their money is greedy?)

And by the way, I've lost a lot more in fiat than in bitcoin, when you take into account the loss due to inflation.  I've lost nothing in bitcoin, I have exactly the same number of bitcoins I have had for a long time.

I have no problem with their project, nor the way they fund it, but telling people they are wrong because they don't agree with their method of financing it, IS wrong.  Decentralized exchanges, decentralized everything involved in bitcoin for that matter, is a good idea.

[Sage]

I'm curious if the views expressed here are indicative of this forum community in general, or if it is shills, trolls, and/or a few short-sighted, uninformed members.

If it's the general view, then members deserve what they get when the powers that be systematically take out all central points of attack on the crypto ecosystem.

https://bitsquare.io is a community commons project...

Projects like these are something that would benefit everyone either directly or indirectly.  Anyone who can't see why is simply uninformed, didn't take the time to think it through, or just plain too simpleminded to see the bigger picture.

Anyone who honestly believes they lost 0.000 BTC because of central exchange hacks or thievery is, well, either doesn't own any crypto currencies, is a government shill, or just too damn simpleminded to see the utter fallacy of that viewpoint.

The more options we have for decentralized on and off ramps into the P2P exchanges and/or into cryptos direct the more robust the ecosystem.

The more projects we have like this the better.

Anyone who can't see that, well, to be frank, is just plain simpleminded.

[hhanh00]

First of all, I've read their whitepaper and message board so I think I did my research. I'd like to have a global decentralized exchange too but unfortunately I don't think their approach will achieve this.
- The model is similar to `openbazaar`. It relies on arbitragers to mediate between parties in case of disagreement. For a trustless system, I think it's worse than an normal exchange.
- They say they want to by-pass the `KYC` requirement. To me, it's asking for trouble. Just because you are doing P2P doesn't mean you can circumvent the law.
- Technically speaking, they use a DHT (TomP2P). I doubt it will scale and will be fast enough for trading. Also, I don't see how they prevent spamming and malicious nodes flooding with fake orders
- They actually ask too little. They want 120 BTC and they are at 30 now. 120 is about 2 month-man and they need to do much more than that. Either look for a lot more or don't ask for anything. Asking for a bit makes it look unprofessional.

[Sage]

First of all, I've read their whitepaper and message board so I think I did my research. I'd like to have a global decentralized exchange too but unfortunately I don't think their approach will achieve this.
- The model is similar to `openbazaar`. It relies on arbitragers to mediate between parties in case of disagreement. For a trustless system, I think it's worse than an normal exchange.
- They say they want to by-pass the `KYC` requirement. To me, it's asking for trouble. Just because you are doing P2P doesn't mean you can circumvent the law.
- Technically speaking, they use a DHT (TomP2P). I doubt it will scale and will be fast enough for trading. Also, I don't see how they prevent spamming and malicious nodes flooding with fake orders
- They actually ask too little. They want 120 BTC and they are at 30 now. 120 is about 2 month-man and they need to do much more than that. Either look for a lot more or don't ask for anything. Asking for a bit makes it look unprofessional.

It won't be a real-time p2p exchange.  Projects like BitShares are better solutions for that.

What is will do is offer on & off ramps into the p2p exchanges in a decentralized way.  That is what the ecosystem desperately needs right now.

As for trying to comply with KYC?  

If you were in the iPod business, would you follow the dictates & mandates of those manufacturing eight tracks?  C'mon, we all know how that story would go.

No, we need robust systems in place that can operate independent of those power structures, regardless of what crazy rules they try to come up with to protect their power base.

As for asking for too little, they are doing an iterative funding model.  Meaning, they ask for enough to hit the next benchmarks, then hit the benchmarks, open sourcing the tech, then funding the next cycle.

This would allow for a collaborative ethos of any others who wanted to improve on that iteration.  Also delivering on benchmarks builds the trust for the next funding model, and put to rest the accusations of "scam" that we have so ignorantly seen displayed in this thread.

On a community commons project like this, that funding approach makes allota' sense to me.

[hhanh00]

KYC isn't something that banks want. On the contrary, they would love to deal with anyone and make profit. When they get caught, they have to pay massive [fines][1]. KYC is one of the most effective means to fight terrorism but let's not get into politics.

The bottom line is that the US government will not see it kindly. You could say that they say the same about copyright infringements but IMO, this is more serious. They already go after [`localbitcoins`][2]. They are isolated cases for sure. Still, I prefer to be safe than sorry.

> No, we need robust systems in place that can operate independent of those power structures, regardless of what crazy rules they try to come up with to protect their power base.

What structures are you talking about? Banks? Exchanges? Governments?

[1]: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/11/us-hsbc-probe-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211
[2]: http://www.coindesk.com/localbitcoins-users-criminal-charges-florida/