Updated bounty thread in post #2. Please share your view.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ora-bounty-discussion-thread-718077
Topic: [ANN] ORA :: NXT 'monetary system' currency - page 35. (Read 181202 times)
Hope there will be 2nd round of registration soon.
Pretty sure I filled out the form a while back but I don't see myself on the stakeholders list
Contact Mac Red. Did you not get an email from mac red?
Pretty sure I filled out the form a while back but I don't see myself on the stakeholders list
I just want to make some comments on this piece of news:
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-affected-new-yorks-bitlicense-may-trade-discount/
Here's a little backgrounder. Anyone paying attention to capital flows is aware that the sovereign debt crisis is getting worse. The proposed NY law in the article is not a cause but a symptom. Governments worldwide are cracking down on financial privacy because almost every country, state, county, and municipality is wallowing in debt. Nobody is talking seriously about reducing governments' spending (which is the problem), and when an official does speak of it they get mauled by public-sector workers who fear their benefits being cut. And so they should fear. Reducing government spending means reducing the pay and or number of government staff. Government officials are notorious for creating bureaucracies/hiring-programs that are vastly bloated and filled with golden promises that are, frankly, impossible to pay for, in the long term if not the short. It is easy to make a promise of payment when the actual implosion happens on the watch of a future official.
This proposed law is about tracking money for tax purposes as much as eliminating financial privacy. And in about a year, this crisis will become far worse as government debt becomes the ugliest, most risky investment, and capital flows out of public and into private markets. Even if the law does not pass, expect more governments in the near future to restrict cryptocoin capital flows using some method like this. This public to private swap is merely a repeat of a cycle that has gone on for thousands of years, as governments imploded. It is time once again for governments who spend with profiglacy to be shunned by investors. That will make governments incapable of borrowing (at reasonable rates), and for revenue they will pass all sorts of laws restricting capital movement and penalizing investors and financial privacy. That is why the USA has even infected the time-honoured swiss banking privacy system with legal threats and retributions, so as to track and tax wealth. And not the super-rich, but everyone else gets caught in the net. Laws like that are often touted as "getting the rich" and those laws always define the "rich" as everyone who isn't eating catfood to survive. Ironically, it is the super-rich who always manage to squirm out of the net, mainly because these laws are almost always income-based, and the rich often have much more investment income, which isn't "earned income".
What does this mean for anonymity? As the article suggests, the law intends to attack from the exchange perspective. That is a government's first answer to everything like this: attack the exchanges. That's basically what China's government did. I have heatedly argued with others that the governments of the world don't have to outlaw cryptocurrency. All they have to do is outlaw exchanges, or at least regulate them. If you require mintpal to report the actual identity of every transaction, then mintpal - rather than be forced out of business by noncompliance - will require all users to provide a copy of their identifying docs, thus making anonymity in crypto unimportant. Whether or not an exchange could survive with that regulation in the crypto space remains to be seen. Who cares if coins are anonymous if selling them or buying them means laying your identity bare?
Meanwhile, NY is trying to get others onboard this experiment by waving the arbitrage flag in front of them. I am seldom amazed at what ppl will do to their own freedom, in exchange for a chance to make money. These regulations are privacy and freedom-killers, plain and simple.
The last line of the article is spot-on:
That part about pushing trading off exchanges is the critical part for Ora. Why do we even need exchanges at all? Let me get this straight: We create decentralized currencies, and then centralize them in order to buy and sell? Why not have a decentralized exchange for decentralized currency? I seriously doubt that any government could successfully restrict p2p software that operates in a truly decentralized manner. It's only when we cross centralized boundaries that we are subjected to proctology exams. So perhaps we should never cross those boundaries, and build that into the product?
Am I the only one who thinks that exchanges will be regulated out of existence?
kind regards,
nio
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-affected-new-yorks-bitlicense-may-trade-discount/
Here's a little backgrounder. Anyone paying attention to capital flows is aware that the sovereign debt crisis is getting worse. The proposed NY law in the article is not a cause but a symptom. Governments worldwide are cracking down on financial privacy because almost every country, state, county, and municipality is wallowing in debt. Nobody is talking seriously about reducing governments' spending (which is the problem), and when an official does speak of it they get mauled by public-sector workers who fear their benefits being cut. And so they should fear. Reducing government spending means reducing the pay and or number of government staff. Government officials are notorious for creating bureaucracies/hiring-programs that are vastly bloated and filled with golden promises that are, frankly, impossible to pay for, in the long term if not the short. It is easy to make a promise of payment when the actual implosion happens on the watch of a future official.
This proposed law is about tracking money for tax purposes as much as eliminating financial privacy. And in about a year, this crisis will become far worse as government debt becomes the ugliest, most risky investment, and capital flows out of public and into private markets. Even if the law does not pass, expect more governments in the near future to restrict cryptocoin capital flows using some method like this. This public to private swap is merely a repeat of a cycle that has gone on for thousands of years, as governments imploded. It is time once again for governments who spend with profiglacy to be shunned by investors. That will make governments incapable of borrowing (at reasonable rates), and for revenue they will pass all sorts of laws restricting capital movement and penalizing investors and financial privacy. That is why the USA has even infected the time-honoured swiss banking privacy system with legal threats and retributions, so as to track and tax wealth. And not the super-rich, but everyone else gets caught in the net. Laws like that are often touted as "getting the rich" and those laws always define the "rich" as everyone who isn't eating catfood to survive. Ironically, it is the super-rich who always manage to squirm out of the net, mainly because these laws are almost always income-based, and the rich often have much more investment income, which isn't "earned income".
What does this mean for anonymity? As the article suggests, the law intends to attack from the exchange perspective. That is a government's first answer to everything like this: attack the exchanges. That's basically what China's government did. I have heatedly argued with others that the governments of the world don't have to outlaw cryptocurrency. All they have to do is outlaw exchanges, or at least regulate them. If you require mintpal to report the actual identity of every transaction, then mintpal - rather than be forced out of business by noncompliance - will require all users to provide a copy of their identifying docs, thus making anonymity in crypto unimportant. Whether or not an exchange could survive with that regulation in the crypto space remains to be seen. Who cares if coins are anonymous if selling them or buying them means laying your identity bare?
Meanwhile, NY is trying to get others onboard this experiment by waving the arbitrage flag in front of them. I am seldom amazed at what ppl will do to their own freedom, in exchange for a chance to make money. These regulations are privacy and freedom-killers, plain and simple.
The last line of the article is spot-on:
Quote
At the end of the day these regulations will do nothing but push more trading off exchange and make it more expensive for honest people to obtain financial privacy.
That part about pushing trading off exchanges is the critical part for Ora. Why do we even need exchanges at all? Let me get this straight: We create decentralized currencies, and then centralize them in order to buy and sell? Why not have a decentralized exchange for decentralized currency? I seriously doubt that any government could successfully restrict p2p software that operates in a truly decentralized manner. It's only when we cross centralized boundaries that we are subjected to proctology exams. So perhaps we should never cross those boundaries, and build that into the product?
Am I the only one who thinks that exchanges will be regulated out of existence?
kind regards,
nio
Something tells me something is in your mind. Let it out.
Mac, all those unsecured accounts, can we ask them to register in www.secureae.com ?
Not sure how that site works? Would it be easier than just making a transaction?
I guess the issue is these users simply haven't been active enough so far to check their stakes (or lack of). I've even instructed some what to do over PM but with not everyone's bothered to reply or fix it. Also sent an email reminder to everyone it concerns weeks ago with detailed instructions where to make a transaction. Most read it, of course.
Here's an idea. Now that there's much fewer entries left unsecured I guess it'd be more reasonable to manually PM everyone and remind them that way as well. Of course one could argue this shouldn't be needed but we could do it to speed things up. I could do it tomorow and set a final deadline for 7 more days for people to fix their addresses. Then, to make it easier to distribute, do one last update in a single batch after the time has ended (no daily checks until then).
That sounds reasonable to me Mac! Set a deadline for 7 days for people to fix their NXT address, but try as best you can to contact people and let them know. Then 'round 1' distribution would be finished
That part about pushing trading off exchanges is the critical part for Ora. Why do we even need exchanges at all? Let me get this straight: We create decentralized currencies, and then centralize them in order to buy and sell? Why not have a decentralized exchange for decentralized currency? I seriously doubt that any government could successfully restrict p2p software that operates in a truly decentralized manner. It's only when we cross centralized boundaries that we are subjected to proctology exams. So perhaps we should never cross those boundaries, and build that into the product?
Am I the only one who thinks that exchanges will be regulated out of existence?
Am I the only one who thinks that exchanges will be regulated out of existence?
Very well said (the entire post). Yes the idea of centralized and inevitably controlled exchanges seems very counterproductive to me. I do think we'll move away from them more and more. In a dream scenario I personally would very much like to see a decentralized exhange for the ORA coins (not just the assets).
DAC exchange is the Olympic in the crypto world. but how to make it come true ? as i know, our coin must depend on other coin , and wait to clone it. in other worlds, we can develop ORA from scratch , like NXTL?
Very well said (the entire post). Yes the idea of centralized and inevitably controlled exchanges seems very counterproductive to me. I do think we'll move away from them more and more. In a dream scenario I personally would very much like to see a decentralized exhange for the ORA coins (not just the assets).
The others day I tought that Ora coins could be the first cryptocoin to be release on the Nxt monetary system (coming soon). I know that one goal of Nxt is to use a cryptocurrency on top Nxt instead of using the NXT tokens itself. These are words said by CfB (if i remember well). The equilibirum between Nxt and cryptocoins on top of Nxt is supposed to reduce the volatility of cryptocurrency. With anti-deflation system, that is one goal behind the Nxt monetary system.
Ora distribution was very good. It would make sense for me to use that fair distribution as money on top of the Nxt very good platform.
I don't know if all this is possible. This is just an idea to brainstorm.
What are your thoughts on this?
That part about pushing trading off exchanges is the critical part for Ora. Why do we even need exchanges at all? Let me get this straight: We create decentralized currencies, and then centralize them in order to buy and sell? Why not have a decentralized exchange for decentralized currency? I seriously doubt that any government could successfully restrict p2p software that operates in a truly decentralized manner. It's only when we cross centralized boundaries that we are subjected to proctology exams. So perhaps we should never cross those boundaries, and build that into the product?
Am I the only one who thinks that exchanges will be regulated out of existence?
Am I the only one who thinks that exchanges will be regulated out of existence?
Very well said (the entire post). Yes the idea of centralized and inevitably controlled exchanges seems very counterproductive to me. I do think we'll move away from them more and more. In a dream scenario I personally would very much like to see a decentralized exhange for the ORA coins (not just the assets).
I just want to make some comments on this piece of news:
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-affected-new-yorks-bitlicense-may-trade-discount/
Here's a little backgrounder. Anyone paying attention to capital flows is aware that the sovereign debt crisis is getting worse. The proposed NY law in the article is not a cause but a symptom. Governments worldwide are cracking down on financial privacy because almost every country, state, county, and municipality is wallowing in debt. Nobody is talking seriously about reducing governments' spending (which is the problem), and when an official does speak of it they get mauled by public-sector workers who fear their benefits being cut. And so they should fear. Reducing government spending means reducing the pay and or number of government staff. Government officials are notorious for creating bureaucracies/hiring-programs that are vastly bloated and filled with golden promises that are, frankly, impossible to pay for, in the long term if not the short. It is easy to make a promise of payment when the actual implosion happens on the watch of a future official.
This proposed law is about tracking money for tax purposes as much as eliminating financial privacy. And in about a year, this crisis will become far worse as government debt becomes the ugliest, most risky investment, and capital flows out of public and into private markets. Even if the law does not pass, expect more governments in the near future to restrict cryptocoin capital flows using some method like this. This public to private swap is merely a repeat of a cycle that has gone on for thousands of years, as governments imploded. It is time once again for governments who spend with profiglacy to be shunned by investors. That will make governments incapable of borrowing (at reasonable rates), and for revenue they will pass all sorts of laws restricting capital movement and penalizing investors and financial privacy. That is why the USA has even infected the time-honoured swiss banking privacy system with legal threats and retributions, so as to track and tax wealth. And not the super-rich, but everyone else gets caught in the net. Laws like that are often touted as "getting the rich" and those laws always define the "rich" as everyone who isn't eating catfood to survive. Ironically, it is the super-rich who always manage to squirm out of the net, mainly because these laws are almost always income-based, and the rich often have much more investment income, which isn't "earned income".
What does this mean for anonymity? As the article suggests, the law intends to attack from the exchange perspective. That is a government's first answer to everything like this: attack the exchanges. That's basically what China's government did. I have heatedly argued with others that the governments of the world don't have to outlaw cryptocurrency. All they have to do is outlaw exchanges, or at least regulate them. If you require mintpal to report the actual identity of every transaction, then mintpal - rather than be forced out of business by noncompliance - will require all users to provide a copy of their identifying docs, thus making anonymity in crypto unimportant. Whether or not an exchange could survive with that regulation in the crypto space remains to be seen. Who cares if coins are anonymous if selling them or buying them means laying your identity bare?
Meanwhile, NY is trying to get others onboard this experiment by waving the arbitrage flag in front of them. I am seldom amazed at what ppl will do to their own freedom, in exchange for a chance to make money. These regulations are privacy and freedom-killers, plain and simple.
The last line of the article is spot-on:
That part about pushing trading off exchanges is the critical part for Ora. Why do we even need exchanges at all? Let me get this straight: We create decentralized currencies, and then centralize them in order to buy and sell? Why not have a decentralized exchange for decentralized currency? I seriously doubt that any government could successfully restrict p2p software that operates in a truly decentralized manner. It's only when we cross centralized boundaries that we are subjected to proctology exams. So perhaps we should never cross those boundaries, and build that into the product?
Am I the only one who thinks that exchanges will be regulated out of existence?
kind regards,
nio
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-affected-new-yorks-bitlicense-may-trade-discount/
Here's a little backgrounder. Anyone paying attention to capital flows is aware that the sovereign debt crisis is getting worse. The proposed NY law in the article is not a cause but a symptom. Governments worldwide are cracking down on financial privacy because almost every country, state, county, and municipality is wallowing in debt. Nobody is talking seriously about reducing governments' spending (which is the problem), and when an official does speak of it they get mauled by public-sector workers who fear their benefits being cut. And so they should fear. Reducing government spending means reducing the pay and or number of government staff. Government officials are notorious for creating bureaucracies/hiring-programs that are vastly bloated and filled with golden promises that are, frankly, impossible to pay for, in the long term if not the short. It is easy to make a promise of payment when the actual implosion happens on the watch of a future official.
This proposed law is about tracking money for tax purposes as much as eliminating financial privacy. And in about a year, this crisis will become far worse as government debt becomes the ugliest, most risky investment, and capital flows out of public and into private markets. Even if the law does not pass, expect more governments in the near future to restrict cryptocoin capital flows using some method like this. This public to private swap is merely a repeat of a cycle that has gone on for thousands of years, as governments imploded. It is time once again for governments who spend with profiglacy to be shunned by investors. That will make governments incapable of borrowing (at reasonable rates), and for revenue they will pass all sorts of laws restricting capital movement and penalizing investors and financial privacy. That is why the USA has even infected the time-honoured swiss banking privacy system with legal threats and retributions, so as to track and tax wealth. And not the super-rich, but everyone else gets caught in the net. Laws like that are often touted as "getting the rich" and those laws always define the "rich" as everyone who isn't eating catfood to survive. Ironically, it is the super-rich who always manage to squirm out of the net, mainly because these laws are almost always income-based, and the rich often have much more investment income, which isn't "earned income".
What does this mean for anonymity? As the article suggests, the law intends to attack from the exchange perspective. That is a government's first answer to everything like this: attack the exchanges. That's basically what China's government did. I have heatedly argued with others that the governments of the world don't have to outlaw cryptocurrency. All they have to do is outlaw exchanges, or at least regulate them. If you require mintpal to report the actual identity of every transaction, then mintpal - rather than be forced out of business by noncompliance - will require all users to provide a copy of their identifying docs, thus making anonymity in crypto unimportant. Whether or not an exchange could survive with that regulation in the crypto space remains to be seen. Who cares if coins are anonymous if selling them or buying them means laying your identity bare?
Meanwhile, NY is trying to get others onboard this experiment by waving the arbitrage flag in front of them. I am seldom amazed at what ppl will do to their own freedom, in exchange for a chance to make money. These regulations are privacy and freedom-killers, plain and simple.
The last line of the article is spot-on:
Quote
At the end of the day these regulations will do nothing but push more trading off exchange and make it more expensive for honest people to obtain financial privacy.
That part about pushing trading off exchanges is the critical part for Ora. Why do we even need exchanges at all? Let me get this straight: We create decentralized currencies, and then centralize them in order to buy and sell? Why not have a decentralized exchange for decentralized currency? I seriously doubt that any government could successfully restrict p2p software that operates in a truly decentralized manner. It's only when we cross centralized boundaries that we are subjected to proctology exams. So perhaps we should never cross those boundaries, and build that into the product?
Am I the only one who thinks that exchanges will be regulated out of existence?
kind regards,
nio
I have registered #oracoin on freenode. Stop in and chat.
good, but there are not many...
I think I saw two people visit today. Will turn this over to kora when I see him on there. I will be lurking when I am online, considering if coding a tipbot for the chat that transfers assets is useful. Much rather wait until we have a real wallet.
wish can open round 2 reg 
I have registered #oracoin on freenode. Stop in and chat.
good, but there are not many...
Right. That should do it or rather "fix it"
Ya exactly, will send the msgs tomorow.
Right. That should do it or rather "fix it"
Mac, all those unsecured accounts, can we ask them to register in www.secureae.com ?
Not sure how that site works? Would it be easier than just making a transaction?
I guess the issue is these users simply haven't been active enough so far to check their stakes (or lack of). I've even instructed some what to do over PM but with not everyone's bothered to reply or fix it. Also sent an email reminder to everyone it concerns weeks ago with detailed instructions where to make a transaction. Most read it, of course.
Here's an idea. Now that there's much fewer entries left unsecured I guess it'd be more reasonable to manually PM everyone and remind them that way as well. Of course one could argue this shouldn't be needed but we could do it to speed things up. I could do it tomorow and set a final deadline for 7 more days for people to fix their addresses. Then, to make it easier to distribute, do one last update in a single batch after the time has ended (no daily checks until then).
Mac, all those unsecured accounts, can we ask them to register in www.secureae.com ?
Well, as for the faucet, i think, as a temporal solution, a manual one can be made. Like when MacRed distributed the assets. It will take time but finding a developer willing to do it might take more time.
Just a correction, DarkhorseofNxt distributed the assets to everyone, I collected the entries.
Stakeholder update 08/06. [Link]
I'm doing a daily check for newly secured NXT addresses, of the 889 entries in total which made it through all phases.
1 new stakeholder has secured his/her account since last update. This address has been submitted for distribution.
This means 825 NXT accounts have now been secured. PM me if you have any questions or concerns.
I'm doing a daily check for newly secured NXT addresses, of the 889 entries in total which made it through all phases.
1 new stakeholder has secured his/her account since last update. This address has been submitted for distribution.
This means 825 NXT accounts have now been secured. PM me if you have any questions or concerns.
Well, as for the faucet, i think, as a temporal solution, a manual one can be made. Like when MacRed distributed the assets. It will take time but finding a developer willing to do it might take more time.
Jump to: