ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[JahPowerBit]

but it's more about replacing a manual transfer system with an automated one. No matter how hard you try, AsicMiner is a centralized entity

I agree, and it is anyway priority: make possible, quick and easy shares transfer without using a proprietary and closed source market place.
Centralization or decentralization is only semantic debate.

[glendall]

Decentralized exchanges and stock investments houses are the only way to go for two reasons:

1) Governments are likely going to be increasingly hostile to Bitcoin as it becomes apparent that BTC shows how weak fiat currencies are in comparison. Most countries have economic policy set by the fiat based banking cartels and are all beholden to American monetary policy, which is set by the Federal Reserve and mostly Goldman Sachs.  For example BTCTO was a great place to invest in stocks then all of a sudden poof, 'hey we are closing in 30 days'. That destroyed a lot of value in a lot of stocks as they suddenly had nowhere to trade. Before not too long the only place you'll be able to run an exchange will be Somalia or Sealand if we don't have much luck.

2) WAY too many scammers and scams going on the world of Bitcoin. How many people have lost money to exchanges that have unscrupulous or thieving operators ? [raises hand] Even in the best of times they may just shut suddenly taking all your money with them.  For myself, the last time this with BitFunder. The guy running that, Ukyo, stole millions of dollars worth of deposits and hasn't even needed to give an excuse to people about what happened to their money.  Screw that (for me anyways). I'm using exchanges at the absolute minimum these days although I used to be an active trader and investor.

I think a year from now -- or maybe just really hoping -- that decentralized exchanges will be a serious option for the community.

[jimmothy]

Decentralized exchanges are the only way to go for two reasons:

1) Governments are going increasingly hostile to Bitcoin as it becomes apparent that BTC shows how weak fiat currencies are in comparison.

2) WAY too many scammers and scams going on the world of Bitcoin. How many people have lost money to exchanges that have unscrupulous or thieving operators ? [raises hand] Even in the best of times they may just shut suddenly taking all your money with them.  For myself, the last time this with BitFunder. The guy running that, Ukyo, stole millions of dollars worth of deposits and hasn't even needed to give an excuse to people about what happened to their money.  Screw that (for me anyways). I'm using exchanges at the absolute minimum these days although I used to be an active trader and investor.

I think a year from now -- or maybe just really hoping -- that decentralized exchanges will be a serious option for the community.

Decentralized exchanges would not reduce the amount of scams whatsoever and possibly do the opposite.

However I think many overlook how awesome it would be to be able to take colored coins representing a single asicminer share and transfer it to any exchange that deals with colored coins.

Rather than having to trust one guy editing a shareholder list which can be compromised many ways, a blockchain based system would allow for extremely easy and safe transferring of shares. I still think centralized exchanges will be needed for trading but for keeping records and transferring shares colored coins would be much easier imo.

[glendall]

A very well designed and coded  Decentralized Exchange could certainly make it very difficult to scam people.  You could feasibly design a p2p exchange with little potential to scam people using some sort of cryptographic escrow could you not?  Certainly FAR less scam potential than with a centralized exchange, I would think.  It is technically feasible, it is just a very difficult project.

Colored coins may be way the way to go as well.

[jimmothy]

A very well designed and coded  Decentralized Exchange could certainly make it very difficult to scam people.  You could feasibly design a p2p exchange with little potential to scam people using some sort of cryptographic escrow could you not?  Certainly FAR less scam potential than with a centralized exchange, I would think.  It is technically feasible, it is just a very difficult project.

Escrow would only prevent a small portion of scams. Scams like labcoin will still continue to thrive but the only solution to that would be due diligence. Also some sort of reputation system like ebays might help.

But anything is an improvement to the system we are using now.

[jimmothy]

1) Governments are likely going to be increasingly hostile to Bitcoin

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.

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

Decentralized exchanges would mean the gov can't walk over to ukyos house and tell him to shut down his exchange. They would be forced to go after the asset issuers instead.

And wot is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. But bitcoin-otc is pretty shitty and centralized.

[Kouye]

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

It's still easier to shutdown "thepiratebay" than to find & sue every guy telling his friends "I'll seed this great movie for the next 48h, here's the link, share it around!"

[jimmothy]

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.

Can you really not see the difference between shutting down an exchange vs a single asset?

Just like how shutting down megaupload affected more than 1 download. But you can shut down thepiratebay and the torrents would still exist.

[Kouye]

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

Been hired to troll by someone wanting to get in at 0.4 ?

[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