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.
Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 503. (Read 3917531 times)
February 04, 2014, 06:35:50 PM
February 04, 2014, 06:24:10 PM
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.
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.
February 04, 2014, 06:16:36 PM
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.
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.
February 04, 2014, 04:28:22 PM
Quote
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.
February 04, 2014, 03:52:41 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
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
February 04, 2014, 03:43:45 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.
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.
February 04, 2014, 03:20:50 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...
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.
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/
February 04, 2014, 03:02:02 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...
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...
February 04, 2014, 02:12:08 PM
- ddos attacks
- relatively high fees for trading, withdrawing money
Fees will *have* to be present in decentralized exchanges, to prevent… DDoS attacks.- relatively high fees for trading, withdrawing money
Quote
long delays on withdraws
Okay.Quote
- 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.- government intervention
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.
February 04, 2014, 01:58:20 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...
February 04, 2014, 01:43:06 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.
February 04, 2014, 01:41:48 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.
While I agree it won't be easy nor simple, it is obviously the way to go.
February 04, 2014, 01:38:20 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.
February 04, 2014, 09:43:04 AM
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.
February 04, 2014, 04:59:56 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.
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.
lol. Typical AM communication. A complete muddle. I hope it was faked because it was unworkable and essentially stupid.
February 04, 2014, 04:43:38 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.
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.
February 04, 2014, 04:36:50 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.
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.
February 04, 2014, 04:33:06 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.
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.
February 04, 2014, 01:32:20 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
February 04, 2014, 01:30:00 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.
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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4418750
http://www.blockscan.com/assetInfo.aspx?q=SICMINER
Jump to: