|
jimmothy
|
 |
February 04, 2014, 02:26:35 AM |
|
AM does not need to do so himself. Any big trusted shareholder can issue AM assets with Counterparty.
This is true. It would be awesome to see an Asicminer-direct-share-backed asset issued on Counterparty. Maybe ThickasThieves would be up for the task? This would be the first "Bitcoin blue chip" asset on a decentralized exchange. One small step for TAT, one giant leap for Bitcoin securities. In case any of you missed it in my old rants, I don't actually believe decentralized exchanges are a good thing. Even AM's own exchange, which they began creating last year, has many inconveniences, and, is ultimately centralized anyway. I don't even believe decentralized exchanges are sustainable in any way that provides valuable purpose. Most amount to moving trust from one place to another, or breaking trust into a few parts. Trust is always required, efficiency is always required, resources are always required. These things all converge as order in chaos. That order is centralization. I'm not a part of the "decentralize everything!" parade, but I do believe in the concept of "empires to ashes". Eventually a thing becomes so central and powerful it collapses, whether it be by its own lack of agility, or by a paradigm shift. For many people, Bitcoin is the first time they experienced a paradigm shift in a very long time. It's exciting to have your world rocked, but Bitcoin is not a casting call for paradigm-shifters. Way too many people think we now have the power to break apart anything we can get our hands on, and turn into little pieces that somehow work better. Decentralization is not your hammer, and stock exchanges are not your nail. I can appreciate people trying new things, but an economy is more than protocol, sorry. I'm not saying the theory of a Colored Coin exchange is impossible, I'm saying the usefulness of it is. Any fruits of Colored Coin, Master Coin, etc, will do nothing more than appear decentralized in concept, and behave centralized in practice. Even Bitcoin itself only thrives through where it is efficiently "centralized": mining pools, exchanges, venture capital, this forum, etc, etc, etc. Having to trust 3 people instead of 1 is not decentralization. Having to trust that system instead of this one, is not decentralization. Do you REALLY want every business under the sun "IPO"ing? Is every random business truly qualified to run its own security? So what if you can trust the decentralized exchange, none of the issuers will be easy to trust, now will they? How do you trust what you are buying and whom you buy it from? If you really want to mitigate trust issues in this world, why aren't you all fighting to get people to use a/the Web of Trust ( http://bitcoin-otc.com/trust.php)? Why are people finding ways to pervert bitcoin with burns, when they should be making a decentralized web of trust that is more friendly and easy to use? Doesn't anyone realize how big "digital identity" will be going forward? We don't need more tinkering with reinventing Bitcoin, we need an agile identity/trust service. Think about it. Sure we have the current WoT, sure we have +Trust in this forum. But the WoT is not easy to use for beginners, nor is it a convenient means of auth/trust for online services. And, the forum's +Trust feature is much too centralized, weak, and narrow in focus. Finally, everyone, please don't be an idiot and go "burning" coins, or locking them into some silly meta protocol forever. Anyone that's been around for more than a couple months should know by now to just hold onto your damn bitcoins. That's all you have to do.I agree that for trading purposes something like colored coins would be a huge hassle and require escrow. But it would be extremely useful if we could send shares to and from an exchange with ease just like withdrawing bitcoins. Nobody cares about your opinion. You have proven to be not to be taken seriously many times. Please leave this thread for the adults, kiddo. Lol what are you so butthurt about? Your comment says something about who really needs to grow up. I am here to have a serious discussion about this topic and if you cant handle someone having an opinion you don't agree with be you shouldn't be on a discussion board. Do you disagree with my opinion that colored coins would make it extremely convenient to move shares to and from an exchange? I would love to hear your opinion as you are clearly a much more intellectual and mature "adult" |
|
|
|
|
|
ThickAsThieves
|
|
February 04, 2014, 02:48:23 AM |
|
Even AM's own exchange, which they began creating last year, has many inconveniences, and, is ultimately centralized anyway.
I have yet to see any details on any AM exchange system. Although you feel it would not work, what is it that FC has in the works? Is this board member information? It is blockchain-based, therefore it comes with inconveniences not present in an off-chain exchange. I do not know the current status of the project, nor whether it is active. |
|
|
|
|
DaFockBro
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 126
Merit: 0
|
|
February 04, 2014, 05:25:54 AM |
|
AM does not need to do so himself. Any big trusted shareholder can issue AM assets with Counterparty.
This is true. It would be awesome to see an Asicminer-direct-share-backed asset issued on Counterparty. Maybe ThickasThieves would be up for the task? This would be the first "Bitcoin blue chip" asset on a decentralized exchange. One small step for TAT, one giant leap for Bitcoin securities. In case any of you missed it in my old rants, I don't actually believe decentralized exchanges are a good thing. Even AM's own exchange, which they began creating last year, has many inconveniences, and, is ultimately centralized anyway. I don't even believe decentralized exchanges are sustainable in any way that provides valuable purpose. Most amount to moving trust from one place to another, or breaking trust into a few parts. Trust is always required, efficiency is always required, resources are always required. These things all converge as order in chaos. That order is centralization. I'm not a part of the "decentralize everything!" parade, but I do believe in the concept of "empires to ashes". Eventually a thing becomes so central and powerful it collapses, whether it be by its own lack of agility, or by a paradigm shift. For many people, Bitcoin is the first time they experienced a paradigm shift in a very long time. It's exciting to have your world rocked, but Bitcoin is not a casting call for paradigm-shifters. Way too many people think we now have the power to break apart anything we can get our hands on, and turn into little pieces that somehow work better. Decentralization is not your hammer, and stock exchanges are not your nail. I can appreciate people trying new things, but an economy is more than protocol, sorry. I'm not saying the theory of a Colored Coin exchange is impossible, I'm saying the usefulness of it is. Any fruits of Colored Coin, Master Coin, etc, will do nothing more than appear decentralized in concept, and behave centralized in practice. Even Bitcoin itself only thrives through where it is efficiently "centralized": mining pools, exchanges, venture capital, this forum, etc, etc, etc. Having to trust 3 people instead of 1 is not decentralization. Having to trust that system instead of this one, is not decentralization. Do you REALLY want every business under the sun "IPO"ing? Is every random business truly qualified to run its own security? So what if you can trust the decentralized exchange, none of the issuers will be easy to trust, now will they? How do you trust what you are buying and whom you buy it from? If you really want to mitigate trust issues in this world, why aren't you all fighting to get people to use a/the Web of Trust ( http://bitcoin-otc.com/trust.php)? Why are people finding ways to pervert bitcoin with burns, when they should be making a decentralized web of trust that is more friendly and easy to use? Doesn't anyone realize how big "digital identity" will be going forward? We don't need more tinkering with reinventing Bitcoin, we need an agile identity/trust service. Think about it. Sure we have the current WoT, sure we have +Trust in this forum. But the WoT is not easy to use for beginners, nor is it a convenient means of auth/trust for online services. And, the forum's +Trust feature is much too centralized, weak, and narrow in focus. Finally, everyone, please don't be an idiot and go "burning" coins, or locking them into some silly meta protocol forever. Anyone that's been around for more than a couple months should know by now to just hold onto your damn bitcoins. That's all you have to do.Your reasons (if any) seem not so convincing to me. Let's put general case aside, and just focus on AM shares. If AM is listed on a decentralized exchange such as Counterparty, is it helpful? 1) trust. We just need to trust a) the issurer (of course we trust) b) the protocol and the client (it's open source). No need to trust any buyer/seller or operator. The trades and dividends are all guaranteed by the protocol. There's no one running the exchange. The system is there as long as everyone has the client and BTC blockchain is there. 2) convenience. The issurer just issue an asset and put an initial order with IPO price, then sending dividend is just one command. For existing stocks like AM, just transfer shares to existing holders with a simple script. No need to keep all the holder list, it's embedded in the blockchain and will never be lost. 3) latency. Yes, you may need 10 minutes to match an order and waiting longer to confirm. That's acceptable to most investors, even day traders. How many people flip more than once per hour? At last, as a main fund manager, telling others to just hold bitcoins seems interesting. If everyone just holds the bitcoin, there will be no stocks, funds, and bonds. What's the difference between burning some bitcoin to get some shares of a decentralized exchange and sending some BTC to you to get some shares of certain stocks? +1 The current setup for a lot of investors is: Asicminer -> TAT (centralized, requires trust) -> Havelock (centralized, requires trust) -> Investor With Counterparty the setup would look like this: Asicminer -> Counterparty (de-centralized, trustless, open-source) -> Investor TAT really does sound like he's afraid Asicminer will list on a decentralized exchange like Counterparty and eliminate the middle-men (TAT, Havelock) https://i.imgur.com/W8Go0ko.pngWhy not just embrace the newer, better system? Centralized exchanges have been a massive problem for Crypto securities. |
|
|
|
|
|
willBTC
|
|
February 04, 2014, 06:25:18 AM |
|
Is there anybody do some simple mathematics about total dividend we can expect in 2014 ?
|
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
ASICMINERTUBE The Best $/Gh Bitcoin Miner So Far Discover now!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
|
Anotheranonlol
|
|
February 04, 2014, 06:30:00 AM |
|
The current setup for a lot of investors is: Asicminer -> TAT (centralized, requires trust) -> Havelock (centralized, requires trust) -> Investor With Counterparty the setup would look like this: Asicminer -> Counterparty (de-centralized, trustless, open-source) -> Investor TAT really does sound like he's afraid Asicminer will list on a decentralized exchange like Counterparty and eliminate the middle-men (TAT, Havelock)  Why not just embrace the newer, better system? Centralized exchanges have been a massive problem for Crypto securities. look like it was already under consideration https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg4418750#msg4418750http://www.blockscan.com/assetInfo.aspx?q=SICMINER  |
|
|
|
|
jimmothy
|
|
February 04, 2014, 06:32:20 AM |
|
Is there anybody do some simple mathematics about total dividend we can expect in 2014 ?
Just based off last years profit maybe another 200k btc |
|
|
|
|
|
empoweoqwj
|
|
February 04, 2014, 09:33:06 AM |
|
Great care needs to be taken in evaluating options for what to do with shares.
Counterparty, Mastercoin, Colored Coins, and I'm sure other systems could all probably serve the needs of AM, but it is important to thoroughly evaluate the pros and cons of each solution.
I am inclined to think that AM is serious enough of a company that they should sit back for a nice long while (in bitcoin time) and let other people take on the risk of adopting these systems. After the market has spoken and there is a clear winner(s), then AM can safely adopt such a system.
Don't forget Ethereum. Feels to me like that one is gonna swoop out of nowhere and surprise everyone. Ethereum is not built on top of the bitcoin blockchain. It is a new blockchain. Its a private company, with I believe 50% pre-mined coins and goldman sachs employees in its ranks. Don't touch it. |
|
|
|
|
|
empoweoqwj
|
|
February 04, 2014, 09:36:50 AM |
|
Even AM's own exchange, which they began creating last year, has many inconveniences, and, is ultimately centralized anyway.
Wait a second... besides announcing that he was working on one, I have yet to see any details on any AM exchange system. Although you feel it would not work, what is it that FC has in the works? Is this board member information? Or did I miss a post somewhere... Also.. to ignore jimmothy, simply ignore him. Stop quoting his posts, it gives him visibility to those who already have him on ignore like myself. According to the leaked info (it they are true) in chinese forum, AM's exchange, although based on blockchain, is centralized and has severe flaws in the design. For example, all the assets have to be assigned a buying address and a selling address, and these addresses are assigned by the central authority. Moreover, if you want to sell some shares at 100 BTC, you need to send 100+ BTC to the selling address and trust that address will send them back immediately. It also means you have to own 100 BTC first before you can sell you shares for 100 BTC. Oh yeah, I remember that from .... ages back. And then the discussion went away. Not sure it was properly explained anyway. May have got lost in translation. There didn't seem any logic in the proposed idea, totally unworkable. Something like counterparty would be much more appropriate, once it has matured a bit. |
|
|
|
|
BitThink
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 882
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 04, 2014, 09:43:38 AM |
|
Even AM's own exchange, which they began creating last year, has many inconveniences, and, is ultimately centralized anyway.
Wait a second... besides announcing that he was working on one, I have yet to see any details on any AM exchange system. Although you feel it would not work, what is it that FC has in the works? Is this board member information? Or did I miss a post somewhere... Also.. to ignore jimmothy, simply ignore him. Stop quoting his posts, it gives him visibility to those who already have him on ignore like myself. According to the leaked info (it they are true) in chinese forum, AM's exchange, although based on blockchain, is centralized and has severe flaws in the design. For example, all the assets have to be assigned a buying address and a selling address, and these addresses are assigned by the central authority. Moreover, if you want to sell some shares at 100 BTC, you need to send 100+ BTC to the selling address and trust that address will send them back immediately. It also means you have to own 100 BTC first before you can sell you shares for 100 BTC. Oh yeah, I remember that from .... ages back. And then the discussion went away. Not sure it was properly explained anyway. May have got lost in translation. There didn't seem any logic in the proposed idea, totally unworkable. Something like counterparty would be much more appropriate, once it has matured a bit. I confirm my translation complies with the Chinese original text, but cannot know whether the leaked text is really from AM or just faked by someone. |
|
|
|
|
|
empoweoqwj
|
|
February 04, 2014, 09:59:56 AM |
|
Even AM's own exchange, which they began creating last year, has many inconveniences, and, is ultimately centralized anyway.
Wait a second... besides announcing that he was working on one, I have yet to see any details on any AM exchange system. Although you feel it would not work, what is it that FC has in the works? Is this board member information? Or did I miss a post somewhere... Also.. to ignore jimmothy, simply ignore him. Stop quoting his posts, it gives him visibility to those who already have him on ignore like myself. According to the leaked info (it they are true) in chinese forum, AM's exchange, although based on blockchain, is centralized and has severe flaws in the design. For example, all the assets have to be assigned a buying address and a selling address, and these addresses are assigned by the central authority. Moreover, if you want to sell some shares at 100 BTC, you need to send 100+ BTC to the selling address and trust that address will send them back immediately. It also means you have to own 100 BTC first before you can sell you shares for 100 BTC. Oh yeah, I remember that from .... ages back. And then the discussion went away. Not sure it was properly explained anyway. May have got lost in translation. There didn't seem any logic in the proposed idea, totally unworkable. Something like counterparty would be much more appropriate, once it has matured a bit. I confirm my translation complies with the Chinese original text, but cannot know whether the leaked text is really from AM or just faked by someone. lol. Typical AM communication. A complete muddle. I hope it was faked because it was unworkable and essentially stupid. |
|
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
February 04, 2014, 02:43:04 PM |
|
For many people, Bitcoin is the first time they experienced a paradigm shift in a very long time. It's exciting to have your world rocked, but Bitcoin is not a casting call for paradigm-shifters. Way too many people think we now have the power to break apart anything we can get our hands on, and turn into little pieces that somehow work better. Decentralization is not your hammer, and stock exchanges are not your nail.
Amen brother. |
|
|
|
DaFockBro
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 126
Merit: 0
|
|
February 04, 2014, 06:38:20 PM |
|
For many people, Bitcoin is the first time they experienced a paradigm shift in a very long time. It's exciting to have your world rocked, but Bitcoin is not a casting call for paradigm-shifters. Way too many people think we now have the power to break apart anything we can get our hands on, and turn into little pieces that somehow work better. Decentralization is not your hammer, and stock exchanges are not your nail.
Amen brother. The only people who think switching over to decentralized exchanges is a bad idea are people who are heavily invested in centralized exchanges. Think about all the hassle and headaches that have been caused by centralized exchanges: glbse btct.co bitfunder - ddos attacks - relatively high fees for trading, withdrawing money - long delays on withdraws - exchanges asking for driver's license scans and other identifying information - government intervention The market will move towards decentralized exchanges, it is inevitable. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lohoris
|
|
February 04, 2014, 06:41:48 PM |
|
For many people, Bitcoin is the first time they experienced a paradigm shift in a very long time. It's exciting to have your world rocked, but Bitcoin is not a casting call for paradigm-shifters. Way too many people think we now have the power to break apart anything we can get our hands on, and turn into little pieces that somehow work better. Decentralization is not your hammer, and stock exchanges are not your nail.
Amen brother. The only people who think switching over to decentralized exchanges is a bad idea are people who are heavily invested in centralized exchanges. Much true. While I agree it won't be easy nor simple, it is obviously the way to go. |
|
|
|
_mr_e
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 817
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 04, 2014, 06:43:06 PM |
|
Yup, all AM will have to do is create a new "currency" on top of Ethereum and suddenly shares are freely tradeable and dividends easily payable. I have no idea what you are going on about TaT but that is most certainly the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ThickAsThieves
|
|
February 04, 2014, 06:58:20 PM |
|
For many people, Bitcoin is the first time they experienced a paradigm shift in a very long time. It's exciting to have your world rocked, but Bitcoin is not a casting call for paradigm-shifters. Way too many people think we now have the power to break apart anything we can get our hands on, and turn into little pieces that somehow work better. Decentralization is not your hammer, and stock exchanges are not your nail.
Amen brother. The only people who think switching over to decentralized exchanges is a bad idea are people who are heavily invested in centralized exchanges. Think about all the hassle and headaches that have been caused by centralized exchanges: glbse btct.co bitfunder - ddos attacks - relatively high fees for trading, withdrawing money - long delays on withdraws - exchanges asking for driver's license scans and other identifying information - government intervention The market will move towards decentralized exchanges, it is inevitable. Go ahead and make as many exchanges and ASICMINER securities as your attention span will allow. Nothing was stopping people from doing so yesterday, nothing will stop people tomorrow. BTW, how on earth do you guys even discern who to trust anymore? You've been swimming with shills so long that you aren't comfortable unless someone is only saying things you want to hear? The life a man leads is punishment enough, I guess... |
|
|
|
|
_mr_e
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 817
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 04, 2014, 07:12:08 PM |
|
- ddos attacks
- relatively high fees for trading, withdrawing money Fees will *have* to be present in decentralized exchanges, to prevent… DDoS attacks. long delays on withdraws Okay. - exchanges asking for driver's license scans and other identifying information
- government intervention
It will be simply asked to issuer instead. That's the thing; you have to trust the issuer in the end, and if an issuer can stay clear from governments, then so can the exchange. If it isn't utterly incompetent. Maybe decentralized exchanges will happen, but it will not happen with the current scams that ask for your money first without a working product. The biggest issue is that they are all blockchain-based, and it means that creating, cancelling, executing orders will have to wait for confirmations. They will also require proper validation by miners or become a developer nightmare. Don't drool over things that do not exist. There are unresolved technical challenges and I haven't seen any sound proposal as of yet. Here's a proposal: http://www.ethereum.org/ethereum.html. Alpha client is already out btw. |
|
|
|
|
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 04, 2014, 08:02:02 PM |
|
There are various things which are hard to implement on a decentralized exchange, e.g.:
1) price discovery
2) trade settlement/escrow
3) liquidity (facilitated by derivate contracts on top of the underlying assets, e.g. options/futures).
The case for a decentralized exchange is mainly a convenience argument for the asset issuer and maybe a security argument for the asset holder.
So far the hybrid approach of centralized exchanges and company managed asset holdings as shown to be a viable model, thus I don't see why there is such an outcry for a complete move to a decentralized model.
The more urgent issue with AM is transparency and accountability. But this is an issue with most bitcoin related securities these days...
|
|
|
|
DaFockBro
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 126
Merit: 0
|
|
February 04, 2014, 08:20:50 PM |
|
There are various things which are hard to implement on a decentralized exchange, e.g.:
1) price discovery
2) trade settlement/escrow
3) liquidity (facilitated by derivate contracts on top of the underlying assets, e.g. options/futures).
The case for a decentralized exchange is mainly a convenience argument for the asset issuer and maybe a security argument for the asset holder.
So far the hybrid approach of centralized exchanges and company managed asset holdings as shown to be a viable model, thus I don't see why there is such an outcry for a complete move to a decentralized model.
The more urgent issue with AM is transparency and accountability. But this is an issue with most bitcoin related securities these days...
It's massively more convenient for the issuer. AM would no longer have to manually manage each direct share transfer. The information about which address owns shares and gets dividends would all be managed by the blockchain. If we don't want banks and governments handling our money. Why would we want centralized exchanges and passthrough operators handling our assets? Maybe decentralized exchanges will happen, but it will not happen with the current scams that ask for your money first without a working product.
The biggest issue is that they are all blockchain-based, and it means that creating, cancelling, executing orders will have to wait for confirmations. They will also require proper validation by miners or become a developer nightmare.
Don't drool over things that do not exist. There are unresolved technical challenges and I haven't seen any sound proposal as of yet.
Decentralized exchanges are happening right now. Counterparty is the first functioning decentralized exchange. It supports dividend payments, purchasing assets with bitcoins, transferring assets, betting (successful bet on the super bowl already took place) You can explore the Counterparty assets, orders, transactions, etc here: http://blockscan.com/ |
|
|
|
|
romerun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
Bitcoin is new, makes sense to hodl.
|
|
February 04, 2014, 08:43:45 PM |
|
the way it should work for AM is,
FC picks a DEx to use as settlement,
TAT or whatever passthru continues to trade on centralize exchanges to gain the benefit of speed and more broader market,
when user withdraws from passthru, passthru can just execute the change of ownership on the DEx,
no more FC pm/email,
FC uses information on DEx to distribute dividend,
Of course, ppl can also trade directly on DEx, maybe arbitraging across DEx and centralize ones.
|
|
|
|
|
romerun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
Bitcoin is new, makes sense to hodl.
|
|
February 04, 2014, 08:52:41 PM |
|
I would add that, centralize exchanges will be at less risk if they trade only passthru, and IPOs are only done in decentralized exchanges where assumably gov can't shut it down.
In the past IPOs were done in glbse,bitfunder,btct.co making them be on the crosshair of sec , maybe if they traded only passthus, they would still exist
|
|
|
|
|
|
