Topic: Please stop turning into morons just because you see "Brock Pierce" somewhere - page 2. (Read 7887 times)

I think he got that seat just promising to restart a dead business like MtGox, but afaik he only started his own coin.

The primary problem with RealCoin is that it will confuse the heck out of everyone who doesn't already understand decentralized currency fairly deeply. All the bitcoin-as-currency naysayers who've been yacking about "separate the currency from the network" will look to RealCoin as proof that it can be done. What they're obviously missing is that RealCoin, by having its value backed in series by centralized entities (RealCoin, and the Fed), is not decentralized and therefore offers none of the meaningful benefits of a decentralized currency. You, in fact, cannot separate the bitcoin currency from blockchain technology while retaining the purpose of a blockchain: decentralized global consensus.

But that's not how it'll be billed, or how people will see it. They'll think that they can get the benefits of "bitcoin", or crypto-currency more generally, by using this RealCoin thing; ie, transaction security, quick payments across borders, etc. Trouble is, we can do that stuff with PayPal, Square, Venmo, etc....and much more efficiently!

Blockchains are a real pain. We only use them because they solve distributed consensus and we don't have another good way to do that. If RealCoin is going to "back"/peg something with dollars, they don't need a blockchain, and they certainly shouldn't be calling what they're doing "decentralized" anything.

If this thing gains any traction, it'll trigger a very annoying confusing period for bitcoin/crypto. It doesn't solve anything... People will still have to buy RealCoins with dollars on some fiat-crypto exchange. They could just be buying bitcoin. It *adds* another complexity layer and confusion. That's all.


FWIW, the fact that Brock Pierce is behind this only matters given his role at the *BITCOIN* Foundation. Someone doing the RealCoin concept has been inevitable for a while; just wish it wasn't someone who's supposed to be focusing on promoting bitcoin, as both technology *and* currency.

Wow, thanks for the article. Such a sad read, one man's descent into insanity drags so many others with him

BTW, Brock was born in 1980, so he was 19 when the lawsuit was brought against the trio in 2000. Alexander Burton, the guy who sued them, was born in 1981, one year later. Anyone else see the absurdity of the "child molester" claims?

After living in London for about two years, Collins-Rector and Bowles moved to Antwerp, Belgium. Together, they often played an online video game called Entropia Universe, according to people with knowledge of their relationship — Bowles using the name “Colonel Lee Bowles” and Collins-Rector under the moniker “Marcus Slayem Aurelius.” They became prominent players, but in August 2007, members of Entropia Universe identified who “Marcus Slayem Aurelius” really was when a picture of Collins-Rector appeared in a U.K. tabloid article titled “Tycoon paedo on prowl in UK.” The vociferous reaction by many other players soon forced Collins-Rector and Bowles out of the game.

A non-volatile alternative to Bitcoin

One Realcoin = One USD

Realcoin will use a Bitcoin 2.0 software protocol known as Mastercoin, which takes digitized information about particular assets or contracts and embeds it into bitcoin transactions. In this case, that data will define the rights attached to realcoins. Realcoin founder Mr. Sellars is the chief technology officer of the Mastercoin Foundation.

To ensure realcoins retain their value at one dollar, the firm will maintain a real-time record of its dollar-based reserves, all held in conservative investments, and will subject that record to the blockchain’s authenticating system, Mr. Collins said. Realcoins will be introduced or removed from circulation depending on whether dollars are being added or redeemed.

Wow, thanks for the article. Such a sad read, one man's descent into insanity drags so many others with him

BTW, Brock was born in 1980, so he was 19 when the lawsuit was brought against the trio in 2000. Alexander Burton, the guy who sued them, was born in 1981, one year later. Anyone else see the absurdity of the "child molester" claims?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/found-the-elusive-man-at-the-heart-of-the-hollywood-sex-abus You're not going to believe what you're about to read. Fair warning, it's a tad long.

True that.  Who cares whether or not he is gay as twinkletoes sipping pink bubbly wine from a teacup.  All that shit is fine.  The hate comes from raping children.  Gay or not gay, raping children tends to invoke some backlash.  

Damn i thought you killed yourself. So were you able to get your money back from Mt.Gox? No more CCMF?

An exchange holds both fiat and crypto (supposedly securely) and this will hold fiat and crypto as well.  I don't see a difference there.  If they can add and remove digital tokens as required, it means they have the tokens and if they claim they have an actual dollar for every digital dollar it means they have the fiat as well.  If an exchange can screw up and lose those things, so can this.  If you did get burned by an exchange, the real disappointment is that you would be interested in the next big failure.  This is not an attempt to decentralise a digital dollar for the benefit of the community, this is an attempt to create a monopoly on digital dollars for the benefit of a few investors. 

You won't see as much bashing when a legitimate attempt at decentralised exchanges finally comes around, because we all want that.  This is definitely not it, though.  This is crap.

I don't really understand all this Brock Pierce hate. Another person's sexuality is none of my business.

Karma? http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/found-the-elusive-man-at-the-heart-of-the-hollywood-sex-abus You're not going to believe what you're about to read. Fair warning, it's a tad long.

Very disappointing to see so many uninformed replies in this thread. We should welcome anything that can allow decentralization of exchanges, a fiat or gold backed blockchain is definitively one step in the right direction. The issuer needs to be able to deal with the regulatory challenges and that's no small hurdle to overcome, but if it can be done, this could be amazing.

If given the choice between holding a decentralized but centralized backed currency versus a centralized and centralized backed currency I'd likely go with the former. Imagine if victims of mtgox could trade their goxUSD/goxBTC now? Or what if the holders of gold in e-gold could trade it? Perhaps you don't want to wait for 5 years to get your gold back and rather sell it off to someone who is willing to for a discount?

It's not fully decentralized since you must trust the issuer (and more importantly be aware of the government and their intentions), but it's one step in that direction as you now have full control of the token, while previously it would be stuck in your account on some website. Most importantly you can't run a decentralized exchanges with paypal/bank/pm like you can with a blockchain.

There is another advantage: It minimize the likelihood of failure when the only job of the entity is to secure and distribute the funds, versus also running an exchange and/or payment provider at the same time.

Wasn't someone doing this for gold? I seem to recall that. I'd love to see fully backed gold blockchain. The problem the issuer have is how to be left alone (from government thieves). Is there a place on earth where setting up this will work long-term? Perhaps not, but both e-gold and liberty reserve did last for many years. In 5-10 years bitcoin may very well be so widely accepted that there is no longer a big need for it.

I'm watching this.

U mad? Or are u suffering from multiple personality disorder?

NEVER FORGET! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Entertainment_Network

Very disappointing to see so many uninformed replies in this thread. We should welcome anything that can allow decentralization of exchanges, a fiat or gold backed blockchain is definitively one step in the right direction. The issuer needs to be able to deal with the regulatory challenges and that's no small hurdle to overcome, but if it can be done, this could be amazing.

If given the choice between holding a decentralized but centralized backed currency versus a centralized and centralized backed currency I'd likely go with the former. Imagine if victims of mtgox could trade their goxUSD/goxBTC now? Or what if the holders of gold in e-gold could trade it? Perhaps you don't want to wait for 5 years to get your gold back and rather sell it off to someone who is willing to for a discount?

It's not fully decentralized since you must trust the issuer (and more importantly be aware of the government and their intentions), but it's one step in that direction as you now have full control of the token, while previously it would be stuck in your account on some website. Most importantly you can't run a decentralized exchanges with paypal/bank/pm like you can with a blockchain.

There is another advantage: It minimize the likelihood of failure when the only job of the entity is to secure and distribute the funds, versus also running an exchange and/or payment provider at the same time.

Wasn't someone doing this for gold? I seem to recall that. I'd love to see fully backed gold blockchain. The problem the issuer have is how to be left alone (from government thieves). Is there a place on earth where setting up this will work long-term? Perhaps not, but both e-gold and liberty reserve did last for many years. In 5-10 years bitcoin may very well be so widely accepted that there is no longer a big need for it.

I'm watching this.

I'm not sure what u r talking about !!! What is wrong with a CoinLearn.org referral link with goo.gl URL shortener ?