http://www.blockstream.com/
would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 850. (Read 2032266 times)
going thru the paper now but this seems to be a problematic assumption:
"the core observation is that “Bitcoin” the blockchain is conceptually independent from “bitcoin” the asset: if we had technology
to support the movement of assets between blockchains, new systems could be developed which
users could adopt by simply reusing the existing bitcoin currency"
http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
Also:"the core observation is that “Bitcoin” the blockchain is conceptually independent from “bitcoin” the asset: if we had technology
to support the movement of assets between blockchains, new systems could be developed which
users could adopt by simply reusing the existing bitcoin currency"
http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
"Centralization risk" is never defined, nor is the mechanism via which it occurs is is explained.
(already know that answer to that one - it's Peter Todd's repackaging the natural monopoly fallacy)
"No safe upgrade path" is a software engineering deficiency, not an inherent feature of the problem space.
Moving transactions off the "main" blockchain deprives it of the tx fee revenue the parent blockchain requires to pay for hashing.
going thru the paper now but this seems to be a problematic assumption:
"the core observation is that “Bitcoin” the blockchain is conceptually independent from “bitcoin” the asset: if we had technology
to support the movement of assets between blockchains, new systems could be developed which
users could adopt by simply reusing the existing bitcoin currency"
http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
"the core observation is that “Bitcoin” the blockchain is conceptually independent from “bitcoin” the asset: if we had technology
to support the movement of assets between blockchains, new systems could be developed which
users could adopt by simply reusing the existing bitcoin currency"
http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
buying bitcoin...
time is running out.
time is running out.
just over the first resistance line on the intermed term:
GDX & GDXJ have been hinting. it feels too soon...
silver may be making a premature break for it:
http://www.bnr.nl/nieuws/beurs/370560-1410/elf-banken-zakken-voor-stresstest-ecb
(Eleven banks fail ECB's stress test)
Unfortunately I can't find an english article yet.
EDIT: Found it: http://www.businessinsider.com/report-11-banks-are-about-to-fail-europes-biggest-ever-stress-tests-2014-10
(Eleven banks fail ECB's stress test)
Unfortunately I can't find an english article yet.
EDIT: Found it: http://www.businessinsider.com/report-11-banks-are-about-to-fail-europes-biggest-ever-stress-tests-2014-10
How Japanese Hyperinflation Starts (In 1 Chart)
That new bitcoin exchange in Japan may be an example of perfect market timing.
I mean the ability for a company to raise funds by selling equity as bearer shares is one that only companies in the informal economy will benefit from.
Isn't this a near tautology? A company issuing bearer shares is very likely not compliant with securities laws and has therefore entered the informal economy if it wasn't there already.
The more interesting question is whether this will cause the informal economy to expand, or the definition to shift.
Economies used to be mostly informal (free), before recent decades when computer technology has enabled governments to implement ever greater surveillance and micro-management of the financial sector, turning Orwell's 1984 from a warning into a road-map. Paper share certificates were similar to cash. Corporate share registers were intended to ensure that that people's holdings were secure, not provide a vector for state spying/control/censorship(AML) into people's financial affairs.
The definition of "informal" economy needs to shift back to the "free" economy it used to be.
I mean the ability for a company to raise funds by selling equity as bearer shares is one that only companies in the informal economy will benefit from.
Isn't this a near tautology? A company issuing bearer shares is very likely not compliant with securities laws and has therefore entered the informal economy if it wasn't there already.
The more interesting question is whether this will cause the informal economy to expand, or the definition to shift.
You think so? Someone may want to use bitUSD because they work with USD and all partnerships are set up with USD... but get all of the benefits of transfering tokens across the blockchain with low fees and low latency etc etc... to me it seems opposite... it is geared towards bringing in the real economy as it stands today. This goes with nuBits/XCP/NXT whoever solves the problem first to reach the network effect.
Those aren't what I was talking about.I mean the ability for a company to raise funds by selling equity as bearer shares is one that only companies in the informal economy will benefit from.
That doesn't mean everybody who invents some kind of token-based financial instrument is doing something worthwhile. Most of the "assets" being traded on those platforms right now are worthless.
Ofcourse, if they weren't worthless we wouldn't even be talking about validity in the first place.
You think so? Someone may want to use bitUSD because they work with USD and all partnerships are set up with USD... but get all of the benefits of transfering tokens across the blockchain with low fees and low latency etc etc... to me it seems opposite... it is geared towards bringing in the real economy as it stands today. This goes with nuBits/XCP/NXT whoever solves the problem first to reach the network effect.
Those aren't what I was talking about.I mean the ability for a company to raise funds by selling equity as bearer shares is one that only companies in the informal economy will benefit from.
That doesn't mean everybody who invents some kind of token-based financial instrument is doing something worthwhile. Most of the "assets" being traded on those platforms right now are worthless.
So no anonymous shareholders, which complicates the use of blockchain-based share certificates. "Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.
This is just one example. I suspect anonymous asset-backed tokens are unlawful as well (and is probably the reason we haven't seen Brock Pierce's "real coins"). Download the applicable laws in any relevant jurisdiction, and the difficulty in navigating them should become clear.
Only the informal economy is going to benefit from most of these tools.This is just one example. I suspect anonymous asset-backed tokens are unlawful as well (and is probably the reason we haven't seen Brock Pierce's "real coins"). Download the applicable laws in any relevant jurisdiction, and the difficulty in navigating them should become clear.
You think so? Someone may want to use bitUSD because they work with USD and all partnerships are set up with USD... but get all of the benefits of transfering tokens across the blockchain with low fees and low latency etc etc... to me it seems opposite... it is geared towards bringing in the real economy as it stands today. This goes with nuBits/XCP/NXT whoever solves the problem first to reach the network effect.
So no anonymous shareholders, which complicates the use of blockchain-based share certificates. "Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.
This is just one example. I suspect anonymous asset-backed tokens are unlawful as well (and is probably the reason we haven't seen Brock Pierce's "real coins"). Download the applicable laws in any relevant jurisdiction, and the difficulty in navigating them should become clear.
Only the informal economy is going to benefit from most of these tools. This is just one example. I suspect anonymous asset-backed tokens are unlawful as well (and is probably the reason we haven't seen Brock Pierce's "real coins"). Download the applicable laws in any relevant jurisdiction, and the difficulty in navigating them should become clear.
Again I believe these are companies issuing shares for raising funds or profits... PTS/AGS may have legal issues which were used to raise funds... but not bitshares which is not a company but a toolkit... if a company uses it to issue their own shares to raise funds then yes it falls into the category you claim.
"Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.
Hmm, bearer shares are quite common. Of course, at certain moments the company learns who it's shareholders are at that time. What do you think listed shares are?
Prove it. Cite one example of a jurisdiction where companies can presently issue bearer shares. I think there may be some tax-haven type locations where it's still possible, but that's hardly "quite common."
The Netherlands.
It's a common term at Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearer_share.asp
It's a common term because bearer shares were used in the past and some are still in circulation. Here's an excerpt from an IMF report regarding the status of bearer shares in the Netherlands:
Panama, Luxemburg, Isle of Man, and other locations where bearer share issuance was previously possible are also phasing them out.
Quote
I cannot imagine bearer shares are prohibited in the US or other Western countries. How would you list a company then?
Ownership is transferred from one registered entity to another.
So much for "publicly tradable".
"Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.
Hmm, bearer shares are quite common. Of course, at certain moments the company learns who it's shareholders are at that time. What do you think listed shares are?
Prove it. Cite one example of a jurisdiction where companies can presently issue bearer shares. I think there may be some tax-haven type locations where it's still possible, but that's hardly "quite common."
The Netherlands.
It's a common term at Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearer_share.asp
It's a common term because bearer shares were used in the past and some are still in circulation. Here's an excerpt from an IMF report regarding the status of bearer shares in the Netherlands:
Panama, Luxemburg, Isle of Man, and other locations where bearer share issuance was previously possible are also phasing them out.
Quote
I cannot imagine bearer shares are prohibited in the US or other Western countries. How would you list a company then?
Ownership is transferred from one registered entity to another.
All i have to say to that is... "That's a bit mad!"
Benjamin Fulford is not "a bit" mad...Hehe.. ok, I didn't know him. Fully certifiably mad then, if he's like that all the time.
I'd love the BRICs to break up the Jekyll Island Cabal as much anybody but...
On a scale of 1 to Martin Armstrong, BF is 9.5 nutbars short of a moonbat.
I find his "info leaks" very entertaining, like a good novel.
His father was a Canadian diplomat and he wrote for Forbes for quite a long time until he defected to Japan where he is quite popular to this day.
Of course he has a terrible reputation in the west, as any defector would. But the world is bigger than our own countries, some interesting stuff going on for sure. Time of change is afoot.
If you found that entertaining then here's something with more "substance" from a real Russian politician talk show, seems they are pissed with the sanctions and tooling up for a fight, trouble brewing:
Enable youtube captions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiOiSQG5iVY
Bottom line: buy and hold some Bitcoin (and gold or silver) and wait for the waters to settle in a decade or two.
Jump to: