ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[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.

[ThickAsThieves]

..stuff..

First, I have little interest in debating the finer points of decentralization as an initiative, nor laboring to defend my interpretations of it. This is mostly because it's all moot. People are working on decentralization, and it will either be useful or it won't. I'm okay with either outcome.

Second, while I didn't do a good job separating out the concepts, it was a rant after all, there were distinct concepts being described. For example, I don't think decentralization is particularly useful for stock exchanges, but I do think it has its uses. So yes, "vetting and auditing process has nothing to do with on what system the shares are traded". That was implied within my arguments.

Third, the scope of me saying "Having to trust 3 people instead of 1 is not decentralization" was intentional. Token decentralization is not enough. You call this notion childish, but I have serious concerns about Bitcoin not being up to the task of sufficiently defending itself from mining centralization and luring people into a false sense of security. Bitcoin is not untouchable, but it may become so.

Fourth, while I understand that breaking a thing into pieces does, in a literal sense, decentralize it, it does not do so in the way most forumites and reddites perceive it to when it comes to stock exchanges. What they are looking for is not protection from government shutdown, that has yet to even affect them. They are looking for a safe haven to gamble away their bitcoins attempting to make money by mistake (because it's easier and more entertaining than learning how to earn more responsibly), while not having to worry about the issuer or exchange scamming them. Again, this is a trust issue (with vetting/auditing falling into the same category), not a centralization one.

This leads me to...

Fifth, I wholeheartedly disagree with your estimation of the crowd's comprehension of the things they support. Maybe I'm just jaded, but that's what I observe. This crowd exhibits swarm behavior, is anti-intellectual, and hostile toward any disruption on sight.

Sixth, your response to me wondering why people aren't working on a decentralized WoT is system amounts to, "because they don't know how". Well, that's my point too, no? Of course, we're both being a little silly by assigning a "they" and then assuming it does what we "think" is "best".

Finally, I do appreciate your notion of design through iteration in regards to all these things evolving over time. We all get so excited and start pathing through our brains to possible futures, that we forget humans have to actually sit down and make this stuff, and that won't come without errors and iterations. People better keep that in mind about Bitcoin as the choice protocol too.

[BldSwtTrs]

..stuff..

First, I have little interest in debating the finer points of decentralization as an initiative, nor laboring to defend my interpretations of it. This is mostly because it's all moot. People are working on decentralization, and it will either be useful or it won't. I'm okay with either outcome.

Second, while I didn't do a good job separating out the concepts, it was a rant after all, there were distinct concepts being described. For example, I don't think decentralization is particularly useful for stock exchanges, but I do think it has its uses. So yes, "vetting and auditing process has nothing to do with on what system the shares are traded". That was implied within my arguments.

Third, the scope of me saying "Having to trust 3 people instead of 1 is not decentralization" was intentional. Token decentralization is not enough. You call this notion childish, but I have serious concerns about Bitcoin not being up to the task of sufficiently defending itself from mining centralization and luring people into a false sense of security. Bitcoin is not untouchable, but it may become so.

Fourth, while I understand that breaking a thing into pieces does, in a literal sense, decentralize it, it does not do so in the way most forumites and reddites perceive it to when it comes to stock exchanges. What they are looking for is not protection from government shutdown, that has yet to even affect them. They are looking for a safe haven to gamble away their bitcoins attempting to make money by mistake, because it's easier and more entertaining than learning how to earn more responsibly, while not having to worry about the issuer or exchange scamming them. Again, this is a trust issue (with vetting/auditing falling into the same category), not a centralization one.

This leads me to...

Fifth, I wholeheartedly disagree with your estimation of the crowd's comprehension of the things they support. Maybe I'm just jaded, but that's what I observe. This crowd exhibits swarm behavior, is anti-intellectual, and hostile toward any disruption on sight.

Sixth, your response to me wondering why people aren't working on a decentralized WoT is system amounts to, "because they don't know how". Well, that's my point too, no? Of course, we're both being a little silly by assigning a "they" and then assuming it does what we "think" is "best".

Finally, I do appreciate your notion of design through iteration in regards to all these things evolving over time. We all get so excited and start pathing through our brains to possible futures, that we forget humans have to actually sit down and make this stuff, and that won't come without errors and iterations. People better keep that in mind about Bitcoin as the choice protocol too.

Dex have two huge benefits :
- It reduce risk (less trust needed)
- It reduce work

Both work and risk generate costs. So it boils down to a cost reduction benefit.

A lot of people thought Bitcoin doesn't have any advantage. Well, the main appeal of Bitcoin is cost reduction. And because efficiency is vital in a competitive environment, the whole economy will adopt it. As Dex...

People are not excited by decentralization for the sake of decentralization. They think decentralization is great because it's the medium of a drastic improvement in efficiency.

[Rival]

When and if someone designs and implements a decentralized securities exchange that fulfills all of the expected functions, it will become self-evident. Just as bitcoin did.

When the Nazi propaganda team put out a book "100 scientists prove Einstein is wrong", the press asked the physicist for comment. He said simply: "If I were wrong it would only take one."

My point is, when the correct solution is created, we will each recognize it, one at a time.

[memvola]

Fifth, I wholeheartedly disagree with your estimation of the crowd's comprehension of the things they support. Maybe I'm just jaded, but that's what I observe. This crowd exhibits swarm behavior, is anti-intellectual, and hostile toward any disruption on sight.

Thanks for pointing out. That's probably why I perceived your argument as a straw man, but you may indeed be right.

Sixth, your response to me wondering why people aren't working on a decentralized WoT is system amounts to, "because they don't know how". Well, that's my point too, no? Of course, we're both being a little silly by assigning a "they" and then assuming it does what we "think" is "best".

Well, my now bitrotten WoT design has become a victim of too ambitious goals. Obviously it's time to go back to the drawing board and work on something realistic, instead of whining.

[Chris_Sabian]

Dividend: 0.00027377

[neilol]

Dividend: 0.00027377

Confirmed

[_mr_e]

Dividend: 0.00027377

Confirmed

We're rich!

[Chris_Sabian]

Here are the past dividends if anyone is interested as this information may be hard to find.

12-Jun-13   0.03628311 19-Jun-13   0.01810108 26-Jun-13   0.01938069 03-Jul-13   0.02297025 10-Jul-13   0.02075485 17-Jul-13   0.02536692 24-Jul-13   0.02405901 31-Jul-13   0.01858868 07-Aug-13   0.02457145 14-Aug-13   0.024597289 21-Aug-13   0.01226019 28-Aug-13   0.01239987 04-Sep-13   0.01404192 11-Sep-13   0.01355608 18-Sep-13   0.00967485 25-Sep-13   0.00879957 02-Oct-13   0.00800337 09-Oct-13   0.00486048 16-Oct-13   0.00403284 23-Oct-13   0.00374772 30-Oct-13   0.0035336 06-Nov-13   0.00290692 13-Nov-13   0.00299 20-Nov-13   0.00132577 27-Nov-13   0.00199664 04-Dec-13   0.00198945 11-Dec-13   0.00134945 18-Dec-13   0.0012171 25-Dec-13   0.00061248 01-Jan-14   0.00081605 08-Jan-14   0.00066897 15-Jan-14   0.00096215 22-Jan-14   0.00026655 29-Jan-14   0.00061457 05-Feb-14   0.00027377

[shadallion]

Yuck

[bitcoin.newsfeed]

Here are the past dividends if anyone is interested as this information may be hard to find.

I see, that you jump-in in exactly same time as me ... yeah... i know, how you feel 

[Zubilica]

I believe that next week we will see half of this week divs