Hey Cypherdoc,
I know Benjamin Fulford is not considered a reliable source by many, but nonetheless this makes for fascinating fiction if nothing else:
http://benjaminfulford.net/2014/10/20/did-the-dragon-family-take-control-of-the-federal-reserve-board/
If it were true then I think bitcoin (and gold) would go ballistic as folk leapt to a safe stepping stone during the transition, or do you think most would just buy yuan (if that were actually possible).
There are so many possibilities as to what may happen fairly soonish, most of them will send safety net securities to the moon if they happen.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 852. (Read 2032266 times)
On a side note: Big Banks Start Charging Clients for Euro Deposits
http://online.wsj.com/articles/big-banks-start-charging-clients-for-euro-deposits-1413569321
http://online.wsj.com/articles/big-banks-start-charging-clients-for-euro-deposits-1413569321
lol, what a freak show.
Bitcoin to the Moon.
On a side note: Big Banks Start Charging Clients for Euro Deposits
http://online.wsj.com/articles/big-banks-start-charging-clients-for-euro-deposits-1413569321
http://online.wsj.com/articles/big-banks-start-charging-clients-for-euro-deposits-1413569321
gold breaking up with first challenge @1305:
so what would really be cool here is for the $DJT to go back up and make a new high while the $DJI fails to do the same in a counter trend bounce. that would trigger a Dow Theory non-confirmation which in my work is seen at a majority of major tops in the stock mkt going back over a hundred years. we did have a mini-one at the recent top but it wasn't large enough in my opinion. stay tuned:
all the while Bitcoin is kicking ass.
so what would really be cool here is for the $DJT to go back up and make a new high while the $DJI fails to do the same in a counter trend bounce. that would trigger a Dow Theory non-confirmation which in my work is seen at a majority of major tops in the stock mkt going back over a hundred years. we did have a mini-one at the recent top but it wasn't large enough in my opinion. stay tuned:
shhhhh. be quiet...
First, I have never been involved in the Mastercoin project in any capacity at any time
Sorry about that. My memory must have glitched. 
Out of interest: Say you were given the task of designing a portfolio to survive 1000 years, what would it be comprised of?
Wow. That is a long time.
1000 years? Might I suggest adding some seashells and arrow heads? Inexpensive hedge, and all that.
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.
In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.
This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.
File your S1s, kids.
In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.
This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.
File your S1s, kids.
Perkins Coie is a great firm for crypto issues. Overstock has good taste.
I'm less worried about the legality, because am not so involved, but I still can't figure out how Bitshares is supposed to work.
All assets created in the system are backed by Bitshares, yes? So it would work fine if Bitshares price is rising always.
What stops the cascading effect when one asset gets called short on insufficient backing, and the collateral is then sold?
Doesn't this drive the collateral value down on all the other assets? So when one fails, you may get multiple fails, and if there aren't enough buyers at the moment, you can get a cascade effect.
It would seem a ripe peach of systemic risk for a crypto George Soros to plunder.
Quote
Bitcoin Education Project, Mastercoin, Bitshares, Ethereum.
I just want to clarify a few things. First, I have never been involved in the Mastercoin project in any capacity at any time. Second, while I founded Invictus Innovations with Dan Larimer back in July of last year, I left the company and have had no equity, position or say in anything they have done since early October of 2013. I was in no way involved with protoshares, angelshares or any decisions involving bitshares. Furthermore, with Ethereum, I helped bootstrap the operations of the organization including the Swiss side of things and advised them on some strategic issues. My consultancy ended in June and I haven't been involved in the project in any role since other than occasionally chatting with the founders about technical issues.
Quote
5% US & Royal Mint bullion
UK tax law exempts gains from gold coins issued by royal mint, I dont think USA does ? Out of your list I might go 100% gold if we talking 1000 years, based on president, an Indian temple was recently audited and after many centuries it was realised they have gigantic fortunes. Unfortunately books expire over many years or take alot of care, this temple didnt even know they had this stuff. Land title can be lost just from a new road built your way, politics overwhelms many principles but gold transports and doesnt degrade. Bury it and redirect a river to flow over it
back to the Bitshares thing. i now realize that it has its own blockchain and is just a variation of the same POS scheme. sorry, i don't study these alts.
the fact that Daniel Larimer keeps changing the protocol is concerning, not to mention his public nature and those required of the delegate nodes. the merger with Ethereum indicates to me that both are struggling to come up with a viable solution perhaps never to be found.
the fact that Daniel Larimer keeps changing the protocol is concerning, not to mention his public nature and those required of the delegate nodes. the merger with Ethereum indicates to me that both are struggling to come up with a viable solution perhaps never to be found.
At my first reading of it, I thought it might be an SEC honeypot. That the SEC wanted to get in on the great deal the FBI got by seizing crypto. After more time looking at it, it seems more to be true believers, but I still haven't figured out how it can survive being crushed by cascading failures from economic attacks. George Soros would have a field day with it, if there ever gets to be any real money involved.
More like regulatory attacks. Don't forget that rumor that came out on reddit about the SEC/FINCEN coming out with a surprise announcement soon. There's no way, imo, they are going to let share issuance go unchallenged, especially when they have public figures to attack.
There is no fiat involved... unless you can pay taxes with btsx its not liable to SEC/FINCEN rules currently.. if they change it.. it would invalidate bitcoin aswell. Share issuance only needs to be registered legally at the gateway level between bitUSD etc and USD. Those are external entities outside of bitshares.
Merger with ethereum? They simply past ideas off of each other.. and now bitshares to be turing complete and ethereum to possible go to a more DPOS solution. I think its good for everyone.. but a merger im not sure about that.
The public image (posting his real name) is great for the crypto community and it would be bad if fiat was involved so legal system can go after him to try to shut it down but the way it was designed.. it was designed in every way to comply with legal system if it ever came down to that... even to a point where the company responsible for the wallet development & downloads is based in Hong Kong on purpose and replacing the word "Dividend" and "Interest" to "Burn Rate"... these little things mean they have and are thinking ahead.. and it is in the decisions they make where we place our money as investors because it precludes any technology that they come up with, which is already proving to compete with all of the competitors if not the best solution out there for what it does.
BTW if you take a look at the code, it is not an alt coin per definition.. the code is totally rewritten. It uses OP codes similar to counter party to determine bid/asks/shorts/votes and im nto sure about asset issueing.. but I only looked at the code for 5 mins.. im sure since you are pretty interested you can read up a bit more.
Whoa....that's really naive. See SEC vs Trendon Shavers and US vs Faeilla. Both tried to use the "but i didn't use dollars" defense. Both had their arguments easily and completely shot down.
Wow really? What's naive is the comparison of this and the two bad case examples you gave. I quickly looked them up on google and after 2 mins I came up with the following:
Shrem was operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, money laundering conspiracy. Money transmitting license applies to anywhere FIAT or regulated money is involved. He was helping fund Silk Road so it was obvious to shut that down. FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) has stated that the conversion of Bitcoins into U.S. currency is considered to be the transmission of money. If you are not a transmitter, it's buyer beware as of today. (When you can pay your taxes in bitcoin, then its different).
Shavers ran an obvious online ponzi scheme to sway people out of their money. If SEC can investigate and gaurantee that bts is a ponzi scheme and ByteMaster is trying to steal people's money sure... but I don't... do you?
WTF. The thesis of your previous post was that if you're not doing business in fiat, traditional securities law/regs don't apply. Those two cases above (and others) disprove the idea that you need to be using fiat for the gov the apply existing regs to you.
If I misread you, sorry; please clarify your statements about why it supposedly matters that btsx isn't government-issued fiat.
But you gave two case examples of where it was obvious someone was either trying to steal money from someone in an immoral way (what would 100 people do test) and one was actually using fiat thus considered a money transmitter. If bitshares through issuing shares becomes a money transmitter then yes it must be regulated but as of now it can't be... and I believe if it happens that way.. then sending bitcoins to one another will also need a money transmitter license.
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.
In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.
This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.
File your S1s, kids.
They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized.
Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure.
Out of interest: Say you were given the task of designing a portfolio to survive 1000 years, what would it be comprised of?
I want to play! Initial distribution, given at least $1 million:
20% ancient Greek, Roman, Chinese, & early American coins
20% Eurasian artifacts (suit of armor, Egyptian mummy, Ming vase, & Japanese sword type stuff)
15% French & Italian vineyards
15% English & Swiss orchards & farmland
10% rare books and documents
10% Enlightenment, scientific, industrial, and computer revolution collectibles/artifacts
5% US & Royal Mint bullion
5% crypto (4% Bitcoin + 1% Monero)
100% moon land titles
Out of interest: Say you were given the task of designing a portfolio to survive 1000 years, what would it be comprised of?
I want to play! Initial distribution, given at least $1 million:
20% ancient Greek, Roman, Chinese, & early American coins
20% Eurasian artifacts (suit of armor, Egyptian mummy, Ming vase, & Japanese sword type stuff)
15% French & Italian vineyards
15% English & Swiss orchards & farmland
10% rare books and documents
10% Enlightenment, scientific, industrial, and computer revolution collectibles/artifacts
5% US & Royal Mint bullion
5% crypto (4% Bitcoin + 1% Monero)
back to the Bitshares thing. i now realize that it has its own blockchain and is just a variation of the same POS scheme. sorry, i don't study these alts.
the fact that Daniel Larimer keeps changing the protocol is concerning, not to mention his public nature and those required of the delegate nodes. the merger with Ethereum indicates to me that both are struggling to come up with a viable solution perhaps never to be found.
the fact that Daniel Larimer keeps changing the protocol is concerning, not to mention his public nature and those required of the delegate nodes. the merger with Ethereum indicates to me that both are struggling to come up with a viable solution perhaps never to be found.
At my first reading of it, I thought it might be an SEC honeypot. That the SEC wanted to get in on the great deal the FBI got by seizing crypto. After more time looking at it, it seems more to be true believers, but I still haven't figured out how it can survive being crushed by cascading failures from economic attacks. George Soros would have a field day with it, if there ever gets to be any real money involved.
More like regulatory attacks. Don't forget that rumor that came out on reddit about the SEC/FINCEN coming out with a surprise announcement soon. There's no way, imo, they are going to let share issuance go unchallenged, especially when they have public figures to attack.
There is no fiat involved... unless you can pay taxes with btsx its not liable to SEC/FINCEN rules currently.. if they change it.. it would invalidate bitcoin aswell. Share issuance only needs to be registered legally at the gateway level between bitUSD etc and USD. Those are external entities outside of bitshares.
Merger with ethereum? They simply past ideas off of each other.. and now bitshares to be turing complete and ethereum to possible go to a more DPOS solution. I think its good for everyone.. but a merger im not sure about that.
The public image (posting his real name) is great for the crypto community and it would be bad if fiat was involved so legal system can go after him to try to shut it down but the way it was designed.. it was designed in every way to comply with legal system if it ever came down to that... even to a point where the company responsible for the wallet development & downloads is based in Hong Kong on purpose and replacing the word "Dividend" and "Interest" to "Burn Rate"... these little things mean they have and are thinking ahead.. and it is in the decisions they make where we place our money as investors because it precludes any technology that they come up with, which is already proving to compete with all of the competitors if not the best solution out there for what it does.
BTW if you take a look at the code, it is not an alt coin per definition.. the code is totally rewritten. It uses OP codes similar to counter party to determine bid/asks/shorts/votes and im nto sure about asset issueing.. but I only looked at the code for 5 mins.. im sure since you are pretty interested you can read up a bit more.
Whoa....that's really naive. See SEC vs Trendon Shavers and US vs Faeilla. Both tried to use the "but i didn't use dollars" defense. Both had their arguments easily and completely shot down.
Wow really? What's naive is the comparison of this and the two bad case examples you gave. I quickly looked them up on google and after 2 mins I came up with the following:
Shrem was operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, money laundering conspiracy. Money transmitting license applies to anywhere FIAT or regulated money is involved. He was helping fund Silk Road so it was obvious to shut that down. FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) has stated that the conversion of Bitcoins into U.S. currency is considered to be the transmission of money. If you are not a transmitter, it's buyer beware as of today. (When you can pay your taxes in bitcoin, then its different).
Shavers ran an obvious online ponzi scheme to sway people out of their money. If SEC can investigate and gaurantee that bts is a ponzi scheme and ByteMaster is trying to steal people's money sure... but I don't... do you?
WTF. The thesis of your previous post was that if you're not doing business in fiat, traditional securities law/regs don't apply. Those two cases above (and others) disprove the idea that you need to be using fiat for the gov the apply existing regs to you.
If I misread you, sorry; please clarify your statements about why it supposedly matters that btsx isn't government-issued fiat.
But you gave two case examples of where it was obvious someone was either trying to steal money from someone in an immoral way (what would 100 people do test) and one was actually using fiat thus considered a money transmitter. If bitshares through issuing shares becomes a money transmitter then yes it must be regulated but as of now it can't be... and I believe if it happens that way.. then sending bitcoins to one another will also need a money transmitter license.
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.
In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.
This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.
File your S1s, kids.
back to the Bitshares thing. i now realize that it has its own blockchain and is just a variation of the same POS scheme. sorry, i don't study these alts.
the fact that Daniel Larimer keeps changing the protocol is concerning, not to mention his public nature and those required of the delegate nodes. the merger with Ethereum indicates to me that both are struggling to come up with a viable solution perhaps never to be found.
the fact that Daniel Larimer keeps changing the protocol is concerning, not to mention his public nature and those required of the delegate nodes. the merger with Ethereum indicates to me that both are struggling to come up with a viable solution perhaps never to be found.
At my first reading of it, I thought it might be an SEC honeypot. That the SEC wanted to get in on the great deal the FBI got by seizing crypto. After more time looking at it, it seems more to be true believers, but I still haven't figured out how it can survive being crushed by cascading failures from economic attacks. George Soros would have a field day with it, if there ever gets to be any real money involved.
More like regulatory attacks. Don't forget that rumor that came out on reddit about the SEC/FINCEN coming out with a surprise announcement soon. There's no way, imo, they are going to let share issuance go unchallenged, especially when they have public figures to attack.
There is no fiat involved... unless you can pay taxes with btsx its not liable to SEC/FINCEN rules currently.. if they change it.. it would invalidate bitcoin aswell. Share issuance only needs to be registered legally at the gateway level between bitUSD etc and USD. Those are external entities outside of bitshares.
Merger with ethereum? They simply past ideas off of each other.. and now bitshares to be turing complete and ethereum to possible go to a more DPOS solution. I think its good for everyone.. but a merger im not sure about that.
The public image (posting his real name) is great for the crypto community and it would be bad if fiat was involved so legal system can go after him to try to shut it down but the way it was designed.. it was designed in every way to comply with legal system if it ever came down to that... even to a point where the company responsible for the wallet development & downloads is based in Hong Kong on purpose and replacing the word "Dividend" and "Interest" to "Burn Rate"... these little things mean they have and are thinking ahead.. and it is in the decisions they make where we place our money as investors because it precludes any technology that they come up with, which is already proving to compete with all of the competitors if not the best solution out there for what it does.
BTW if you take a look at the code, it is not an alt coin per definition.. the code is totally rewritten. It uses OP codes similar to counter party to determine bid/asks/shorts/votes and im nto sure about asset issueing.. but I only looked at the code for 5 mins.. im sure since you are pretty interested you can read up a bit more.
Whoa....that's really naive. See SEC vs Trendon Shavers and US vs Faeilla. Both tried to use the "but i didn't use dollars" defense. Both had their arguments easily and completely shot down.
Wow really? What's naive is the comparison of this and the two bad case examples you gave. I quickly looked them up on google and after 2 mins I came up with the following:
Shrem was operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, money laundering conspiracy. Money transmitting license applies to anywhere FIAT or regulated money is involved. He was helping fund Silk Road so it was obvious to shut that down. FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) has stated that the conversion of Bitcoins into U.S. currency is considered to be the transmission of money. If you are not a transmitter, it's buyer beware as of today. (When you can pay your taxes in bitcoin, then its different).
Shavers ran an obvious online ponzi scheme to sway people out of their money. If SEC can investigate and gaurantee that bts is a ponzi scheme and ByteMaster is trying to steal people's money sure... but I don't... do you?
WTF. The thesis of your previous post was that if you're not doing business in fiat, traditional securities law/regs don't apply. Those two cases above (and others) disprove the idea that you need to be using fiat for the gov the apply existing regs to you.
If I misread you, sorry; please clarify your statements about why it supposedly matters that btsx isn't government-issued fiat.
But you gave two case examples of where it was obvious someone was either trying to steal money from someone in an immoral way (what would 100 people do test) and one was actually using fiat thus considered a money transmitter. If bitshares through issuing shares becomes a money transmitter then yes it must be regulated but as of now it can't be... and I believe if it happens that way.. then sending bitcoins to one another will also need a money transmitter license.
... also note Charles Hoskinson has been involved with both BitShares and Ethereum at different stages.
He's got quite the track record.Which is?
back to the Bitshares thing. i now realize that it has its own blockchain and is just a variation of the same POS scheme. sorry, i don't study these alts.
the fact that Daniel Larimer keeps changing the protocol is concerning, not to mention his public nature and those required of the delegate nodes. the merger with Ethereum indicates to me that both are struggling to come up with a viable solution perhaps never to be found.
the fact that Daniel Larimer keeps changing the protocol is concerning, not to mention his public nature and those required of the delegate nodes. the merger with Ethereum indicates to me that both are struggling to come up with a viable solution perhaps never to be found.
At my first reading of it, I thought it might be an SEC honeypot. That the SEC wanted to get in on the great deal the FBI got by seizing crypto. After more time looking at it, it seems more to be true believers, but I still haven't figured out how it can survive being crushed by cascading failures from economic attacks. George Soros would have a field day with it, if there ever gets to be any real money involved.
More like regulatory attacks. Don't forget that rumor that came out on reddit about the SEC/FINCEN coming out with a surprise announcement soon. There's no way, imo, they are going to let share issuance go unchallenged, especially when they have public figures to attack.
There is no fiat involved... unless you can pay taxes with btsx its not liable to SEC/FINCEN rules currently.. if they change it.. it would invalidate bitcoin aswell. Share issuance only needs to be registered legally at the gateway level between bitUSD etc and USD. Those are external entities outside of bitshares.
Merger with ethereum? They simply past ideas off of each other.. and now bitshares to be turing complete and ethereum to possible go to a more DPOS solution. I think its good for everyone.. but a merger im not sure about that.
The public image (posting his real name) is great for the crypto community and it would be bad if fiat was involved so legal system can go after him to try to shut it down but the way it was designed.. it was designed in every way to comply with legal system if it ever came down to that... even to a point where the company responsible for the wallet development & downloads is based in Hong Kong on purpose and replacing the word "Dividend" and "Interest" to "Burn Rate"... these little things mean they have and are thinking ahead.. and it is in the decisions they make where we place our money as investors because it precludes any technology that they come up with, which is already proving to compete with all of the competitors if not the best solution out there for what it does.
BTW if you take a look at the code, it is not an alt coin per definition.. the code is totally rewritten. It uses OP codes similar to counter party to determine bid/asks/shorts/votes and im nto sure about asset issueing.. but I only looked at the code for 5 mins.. im sure since you are pretty interested you can read up a bit more.
Whoa....that's really naive. See SEC vs Trendon Shavers and US vs Faeilla. Both tried to use the "but i didn't use dollars" defense. Both had their arguments easily and completely shot down.
Wow really? What's naive is the comparison of this and the two bad case examples you gave. I quickly looked them up on google and after 2 mins I came up with the following:
Shrem was operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, money laundering conspiracy. Money transmitting license applies to anywhere FIAT or regulated money is involved. He was helping fund Silk Road so it was obvious to shut that down. FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) has stated that the conversion of Bitcoins into U.S. currency is considered to be the transmission of money. If you are not a transmitter, it's buyer beware as of today. (When you can pay your taxes in bitcoin, then its different).
Shavers ran an obvious online ponzi scheme to sway people out of their money. If SEC can investigate and gaurantee that bts is a ponzi scheme and ByteMaster is trying to steal people's money sure... but I don't... do you?
WTF. The thesis of your previous post was that if you're not doing business in fiat, traditional securities law/regs don't apply. Those two cases above (and others) disprove the idea that you need to be using fiat for the gov the apply existing regs to you.
If I misread you, sorry; please clarify your statements about why it supposedly matters that btsx isn't government-issued fiat.
Jump to: