Topic: On a decentralized bitcoin-based stock market... - page 4. (Read 9654 times)

From this and some of the other threads I have read regarding GLBSE, you guys kinda seem out for blood.  Though I don't know Nefario, I can definitely sympathize with having too many projects on the go and not being able to devote all the time needed.  As well, anybody that has been involved in a bitcoin based business or idea, sure they were gung ho when it was 15-20$ but the negative sentiment sure bumps people down a peg (myself incluided).  Life takes over, whats paying your bills, today, has to take precedence again..  Add to that, if he was infact in a accident, and has recovery ontop of it?? I think working with the existing GLBSE (or at least trying to extend an olive branch), seeing what the roadmap looks like (if any) and seeing if there is any common ground between what is being discussed here and what is already slated for production is a good start.  

I have read alot of Nefarios past posts and such because the GLBSE really intrigued me.  Like I said in my original post, decentralization of this thing seems like a natural progression to me, and I don't think based on some of the very interesting topics Nefario has talked about etc, that it isn't already in the works or at least on paper..  I do not think "the plan" has even started yet, this is alpha level stuff.  I am not saying don't start any new projects..   I am just saying, don't fragment further what is already very small and half broken without giving it a chance.  The reason why the GLBSE volume is peanuts is because of the lack of trust, if a bunch of different "stock exchanges" come up, well, who is going to invest?  

If any of the core GLBSE crew would like to chime in on this, we're all ears.  I mean if the project is not going to be further developed by the creator, then hopefully he /they  gives it to the community to develop further.  Again though, these things do not happen over night...  Nefario has talked about open sourcing the GLBSE in the past, if / when he does, I think the first logical step is to get an alpha up using a blockchain backend.  After that we could worry about which chain.  My personal thoughts would lean towards it's own chain utilizing merged mining.. There would be network level transaction fees, and the network would operate at a very low level just like bitcoin, just enough to faciliate transactions and not interfere in anyones business.  Broker sites can give users the nice fluffy interface they're after and charge a premium on that to monetize their sites etc.. Premium features = premium fees, etc etc..

Moving a couple companies to an alternate "stock exchange" at the stage of the game though, I think it will set us back quite a bit.  Even more so then glbse dying once a week or something.  However, I sure would like to get some type of commitment from GLBSE management that they aren't just going to up and shut down or on a whim because there is no time or money or something.  As alpha as it is, there is still a metric shit ton of peoples livelihood already tied up in it.. and it is too late too call it quits, if they aren''t going to run it, it has to be given to the community.  They couldn't even issue "refunds" if they wanted too..




 

An anonymous contract? That would be an interesting document to try to take to court. It might work for a business like Silk Road. It might reduce the overhead on dark-nets.

So it looks like people have tried to build this before.  Lets actually do it this time

Looks like it's already been figured out how to trade across chains.  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_5:_Trading_across_chains

I wrote about something similar to this in another thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/decentralized-btc-exchange-client-impossible-to-implament-49163

OK But if you need WebHostng or VPS at all in the development of this let me know!

Thanks for the support.  If this is done right, we won't need any web hosting for the chain.  However, hosting an e-portfolio service could still be of benefit. Just because we don't need web wallets, doesn't mean they don't exist (see instawallet)

like I stated on the other thread, BTCWebHost.com would be happy to offer full scale free hosting on our server.

A blockchain implementation sounds nice for keeping everything distributed over p2p, but I see some potential problems (that I hope we can work out).

For the sake of simplicity, lets call our fork stockcoin.

Would you mine stockcoins just like bitcoins or would merged mining be a good idea? (I think merged mining would be smart)

Would stockcoins be destroyed when a stock is purchased?  Would there be a limited number of stockcoins? If there are a limited number, and they are being destroyed, what do we do when they are all gone?

How do we tie the chains together? Right now you buy stocks on GLBSE with BTC. I'm assuming we would want to keep this ability even though our transactions are outside of the bitcoin chain. If we can tie our stockcoin to any other chain (not just bitcoin), I think we will be better off.

Could we somehow tie into namecoin (or at least take their ideas)?  We could use the personal namespace (or a similar namespace) to register an asset and it's pgp keys.  http://dot-bit.org/Personal_Namespace

I think actually using namecoin might not be a good idea as it doesn't really have anything for issuing/selling stocks, but using some of its ideas could give us a head start.

Let's discuss how a peer-to-peer, decentralized bitcoin-based stock exchange might be best implemented.