ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[BitThink]

What can I do beside saying this for the third time?

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.

The issuer will be shut down like the exchange will be shut down. It's the damn same problem. You are not solving ANYTHING.

Then why BTCT is closed but AM is still here?

[jimmothy]

It's much easier to shut down an issuer than an exchange, which can stay mostly hidden.

Not a very good argument. The thing about a blockchain based system is that it literally cannot be shut down. That means I can send shares to whoever I want, whenever I want, without anyones permission.

I can see you making the same arguments you are making now against torrents and bitcoin as they share the same concept of decentralizing and universalizing the transfer of information.

[jimmothy]

Not a very good argument. The thing about a blockchain based system is that it literally cannot be shut down. That means I can send shares to whoever I want, whenever I want, without anyones permission.

What a retard.

I'm talking about the issuer. You can trade shares of a business that doesn't exist anymore because it has been shut down, how does that fix anything?

But the rest of us are talking about the exchanges. You are looking for the answer to a separate question which indeed will not be fixed by decentralized exchanges.

You cant ignore all the benefits simply because it doesn't solve a problem it wasn't meant to.

We just want to move our damn shares from place a to place b without having to ask guy a and exchange b for permission.

The argument you are using is akin to saying bitcoin cannot work because it doesn't solve the problem that scammers will use it.

[jimmothy]

You're not solving anything.
Simple. State the problems you want to solve, explain how "decentralized exchanges" fix it.

If it is "I want to move shares from exchange a to exchange b", then yes, it solves something.
If it is "I want to be governments proof", then it doesn't.

Thank you for agreeing with something I said

But if is even slightly more government proof then that is a benefit.

So you admit that your original statement that it solves nothing was incorrect?

[aahzmundus]

Speaking on transparency and information... did we ever get clarification on if a board meeting did indeed happen?  Seems we got one update from FC and then dropped the topic and now we are getting distracted.

I for one would love a simple update from FC every Wednesday or Thursday... even something as simple as "Divs paid out .00012765, all shares moved, other operations on schedule" something.

[Whtwabbit]

Speaking on transparency and information... did we ever get clarification on if a board meeting did indeed happen?  Seems we got one update from FC and then dropped the topic and now we are getting distracted.

I for one would love a simple update from FC every Wednesday or Thursday... even something as simple as "Divs paid out .00012765, all shares moved, other operations on schedule" something.

I would like it better if he said "Divs paid out .012765000"

[Jutarul]

Speaking on transparency and information... did we ever get clarification on if a board meeting did indeed happen?  Seems we got one update from FC and then dropped the topic and now we are getting distracted.

I for one would love a simple update from FC every Wednesday or Thursday... even something as simple as "Divs paid out .00012765, all shares moved, other operations on schedule" something.

No meeting took place.

[Kouye]

No meeting took place.

When it had to.
So there has to be a reason.
Which you have to be aware of, because you, of course got some sort of communication about this meeting cancelling.

Care to share more, please?

[Bitye West]

Not a very good argument. The thing about a blockchain based system is that it literally cannot be shut down. That means I can send shares to whoever I want, whenever I want, without anyones permission.

What a retard.

I'm talking about the issuer. You can trade shares of a business that doesn't exist anymore because it has been shut down, how does that fix anything?

We all understand that you would still have to trust the issuer with a decentralized exchange.

Current system:
Trust Issuer
Trust Passthrough Operator
Trust Centralized Exchange

Decentralized System:
Trust Issuer

Either way you still have to trust the issuer.  The decentralized system eliminates the need to trust third parties between you and the issuer.  These third parties are extra attack vectors for governments as well.

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.

This ^^ is an awesome idea and what I was trying to recommend to TAT.  Why not innovate and embrace the new technology.

Where's the downside to TAT issuing Passthrough shares on a decentralized exchange like Counterparty?

How is this different from issuing passthroughs on multiple centralized exchanges.  Why not make passthroughs available on decentralized exchanges as a temporary fix until Friedcat transfers all the shares over to a decentralized solution?

This way we only have to trust the issuer and the passthrough operator. Eliminates having to trust a centralized exchange like Havelock.

[Blockhead]

Sorry to break-up this little exchange with an unrelated issue, but does anyone know of a reliable way to contact friedcat?  I owned a small number of shares of ASICminer through burnside that were transferred over to direct shares with the friedcat.  Everything is working fine for me now as far as dividends coming in, but in the future I may want to sell some shares or change the address or who knows what.  I needed to contact him a while back and tried to message him through the forum and he never responded, but I figured it out on my own.  I dropped it because I know he is busy (I hope he is busy!)  I don't even know how I claim ownership of the shares.  Is it my wallet address?  I would prefer to have my shares linked to my e-mail address.  Has anyone done this?

I guess this is a long-winded way of saying I miss BTC-TC and the convenience.  Thanks for any help!

Blockhead.

[DaFockBro]

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.

no more FC pm/email

This would be epic.  Imagine direct share transfers taking a mere 10 minutes vs. days

[kdrop22]

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.

+1
This would be a big step for step for Bitcoin based financial instruments.

[memvola]

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.

Forgive me, but this is alphabet soup disguised as philosophy.

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 humbly reject the notion that people's intellectual depth is at the level of "Bitcoin is good, it decentralize, decentralize good, everything decentralize".

I'm pretty sure there are people here who have been anticipating Bitcoin for a long time. It's not a "decentralize everything" "parade"! It's about generating solutions to problems that exist. Centralized stock exchanges in the Bitcoin realm have been problematic from the very beginning. And that was a given before any of them even existed in the first place.

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.

Isn't this all a straw man argument? No, it's not a "decentralize everything parade". With a decentralized exchange, you have a lower number of single points of failure. No other explanation should be necessary.

Having to trust 3 people instead of 1 is not decentralization. Having to trust that system instead of this one, is not decentralization.

Yes it is.

You are basically saying that, since graphs have nodes, and nodes are central points, we can't call any graph a decentralized graph. I hope you don't get offended if I call it childish.

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?

Sorry but we both know that the vetting and auditing process has nothing to do with on what system the shares are traded. People can still use institutions for this.

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?

Maybe because we still don't know how to efficiently implement WoT in a decentralized manner? It has to be done, but it will be a long while before we get there.

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.

Agreed, though in my experience, people seem to be having some difficulty with the concept. Maybe it needs to be integrated in a system that minimally exposes the intricacies of how it functions, rather than a generic WoT tool. I think a central place for trading "everything" will help solve most of our issues, and this place necessarily needs to be decentralized. All of the current attempts are baby steps, but they need to be developed in order for progress to happen. We need to use decentralized solutions, discover their weaknesses and build better ones until we have a sufficiently good one.

[Lohoris]

It's much easier to shut down an issuer than an exchange, which can stay mostly hidden.

there are more issuers than exchanges, so shutting down a single exchange is easier than shutting down every single issuer.
That should be quite... obvious?

btw please stop feeding the troll, just ignore jimmothy. I don't want to read replies to his posts, nobody should.

[Lohoris]

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.

This ^^ is an awesome idea and what I was trying to recommend to TAT.  Why not innovate and embrace the new technology.

Where's the downside to TAT issuing Passthrough shares on a decentralized exchange like Counterparty?

How is this different from issuing passthroughs on multiple centralized exchanges.  Why not make passthroughs available on decentralized exchanges as a temporary fix until Friedcat transfers all the shares over to a decentralized solution?

This way we only have to trust the issuer and the passthrough operator. Eliminates having to trust a centralized exchange like Havelock.

Brilliant!
I guess PT operators will try to oppose it anyway, since they'll lose some liquidity and users, but they would still be in business.

[BldSwtTrs]

About the fact that we still have to trust the issuer with a DEX, can we imagine that the issuer puts BTC somewhere the blockchain as collateral and if he default the BTC would be redeem to the creditors?

[jimmothy]

It's much easier to shut down an issuer than an exchange, which can stay mostly hidden.

there are more issuers than exchanges, so shutting down a single exchange is easier than shutting down every single issuer.
That should be quite... obvious?

btw please stop feeding the troll, just ignore jimmothy. I don't want to read replies to his posts, nobody should.

Are you seriously calling me the troll while simultaneously agreeing with me?

Its hilarious that you think I'm a troll because I said havelock wasn't a scam and you thought it was. And now you are using havelock and giving them your money. A bit hypocritical don't you think?

[BitThink]

About the fact that we still have to trust the issuer with a DEX, can we imagine that the issuer puts BTC somewhere the blockchain as collateral and if he default the BTC would be redeem to the creditors?

I think that's doable with multi-sig support of BTC. The issuer can just send certain amount BTC to an address can only be spent by n of m creditable escrows.

This, however, just move the trust of issuer to n of m escrows, only slightly better. At least, the issuer has to bribe n of m escrows, and if n is large enough the cost could be high.

Anyone know the current maximum number of sigs the multi-sig allows? If it's large enough, the list could even include the whole IPO investors.

[empoweoqwj]

These discussions are great, but AM is just entering a phase of intense work with Gen3 chips, signing up partners, getting their own mining operation back on track etc etc.

Why not table a question to FC first, see if AM is even considering moving forward with a blockchain-based exchange in the near future? My guess is they simply won't want to put the time in. They don't have a website either still. Or report dividends to this thread. Or have a PR person ..... a new exchange is a bigger job than all these put together.

[BitThink]

These discussions are great, but AM is just entering a phase of intense work with Gen3 chips, signing up partners, getting their own mining operation back on track etc etc.

Why not table a question to FC first, see if AM is even considering moving forward with a blockchain-based exchange in the near future? My guess is they simply won't want to put the time in. They don't have a website either still. Or report dividends to this thread. Or have a PR person ..... a new exchange is a bigger job than all these put together.

Actually, moving to a mature exchange saves a lot of their jobs. This is not a near-term objective since there's no mature Dex yet anyway.