Topic: The recurring trouble-cycle of bitcoins, and why I'm here. - page 2. (Read 9785 times)

It still has to be collected from someone, whether it's an employee, a consumer, or a merchant.  VAT just changes the point of collection, and (bonus) creates a massive black market for goods sold for cash or barter outside of the purview of this more recent imposition of immorality. 

What's to stop someone from simply moving their assets completely offshore and running things vicariously from there? (And damned right, he should)  How do you enforce taxation through bitcoin?  I hope that question never gets answered, and that every attempt to impose it rots away and gets tossed into the dustbin.

Taxation can be done by including tax in the price of the goods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax

Taxation is possible with bitcoins as with every other means of exchange. The key phrase here is ''how much''. From my point of view what we see now is the miniature of the bolder future. Dollars won't cease to exist; Nor any other ''government / bank controlled'' money. But they will continue to grow thinner.

Exchanging something you won't be able to ''reproduce / manufacture / print'' like any other fiat money should give a huge advantage on bitcoins. My guess is that we'll eventually come to a point that no miner / bitcoin holder will be happy to exchange his/her BCs to any other fiat money. The difference will be even bigger when the total lot of 21 Billion BCs have already been mined.

Someone might say, you may want to buy gold or diamonds with your BCs. You may as well do so; but eventually you will need to buy food to live; diamonds or gold are not so safe to move around.

I think you missed a pretty huge caveat in there:  "In a society where interactions between humans are voluntary and non-coercive".  This means where there is actually a market, not a state imposing its politicized, fascist version of one.  i.e. a banker couldn't make billions if he weren't lending out 9x the money he had with an unconditional guarantee from a currency monopoly to cover his losses.  No FDIC = depositors that actually give a shit, and a market that immediately begins to differentiate between time deposits and demand deposits, etc. etc.

There are so many things I could add on to that, I could be here typing for hours.  When you have a state whose direct appropriation of wealth and spending is 40% of all economic activity, plus it imposes millions of behavior-modifying regulations upon the remaining 60% of that economy, we can hardly define that as "voluntary and non-coercive".

This still seems like a traditional ratings agency to me.  And potentially limited by opinion "whether the business idea really is a good and viable one".  But you are certainly correct that anonymity has been a bit of an Achilles heel for legal uses of bitcoin.  It is very important that the underlying protocol support pseudo-anonymous transactions but just because the capability is there does not mean that you as a business *SHOULD* be anonymous.  I have been thinking about this a lot and about how the unique properties of bitcoin can be applied to the problem.

While traditional expert-opinion based ratings will always be a part of the equation, you may want to consider the advantages the bitcoin system offers and provide services on top of that for cooperating companies.  As a simple example, it should be possible to generate real-time P&L statements instead of annual/quarterly if a company is willing to divulge its addresses.  Bitcoin and the open company http://effluviaofascatteredmind.blogspot.com/2009/03/thoughts-on-gpl-open-company-concept.html concept seem to go hand in hand.

And it would be possible to put an overlay database and network protocol on top of the blockchain data -- for example one that allows users to "rate" blockchain transactions.  As in all ratings systems this sort of network is hamstrung by the same authenticity issue that is elegantly solved by proof of work in the blockchain.  What I mean is that it would be very easy for someone to create N addresses and M artificial transactions to create artificial ratings.  However, there are many methods that can be used to ferret out these fakes.  For example, a network analysis ought to show a scale property whereas the greater bitcoin blockchain network may have different topology.  Additionally, ratings could be weighted by metrics calculated from the rater's prior activities -- for example "bitcoin days" (loosely: account balance * time you've held them), how long the rater has been active, transactions to other well-known companies, and the rater's own rating.  A combination of these techniques might be used in conjunction to produce a pretty accurate analysis.

And finally, companies who are not willing to provide complete disclosure could register with essentially an "information escrow" service, providing only that company detailed information.  Then that "trusted" 3rd party (that would be your company) could perform the real-time calculations, providing the public with details like daily/weekly money flows (and customer ratings) but every specific rating/transaction would remain private.

Except it doesnt work.
A banker who creates a depression makes billions.
A nobelprice winner who contribute by saving millions of lives makes far less.

Ok, that seems fair enough.

Once you start rating businesses you will be far from unknown. This is not an argument.

Untill, of course, the market needs this information and you become the God of providing a clear path through the mess (whatever mess is then currently going on).
Again, I think the problem with the big rating agencies is not that they rate, but that the whole world is looking at them in times of turmoil.

But people will inevitably use a rating agency as a crystal ball.


Yes, i'm aware of the positive sides to a rating agency.
However, I'm afraid that in times of panic or volatility (often occuring states in bitcoinland) everyone grabs for the biggest sword they can find by any means possible.

Another thing that i was thinking of was to what extent classical analysis methods can be applied to future bitcoin businesses.
I'm expecting a lot of new business models that may or may not be well analysed by real world models.
Sure, in the end its about the numbers below the line, but this needs to be evaluated by the numbers above the line and i'm not sure the old models will hold in all cases.

Anyhow, i feel satisfied with your answers so all i can say now is good luck in your new endeavour!
 

When did we have capitalism? I must have missed the memo.

Bitcoin IS capitalism!!!

Nicely put; capitalism has blown up in our faces... Let's wait and see. I really wonder where this whole thing is heading.

Actually, what you are describing is essentially what the market does when it is allowed to organically and voluntarily select what it wants to use as money.  Instead of a mathematical equation assigning "figures" to productivity and quality and such, you've already got one - it's called profit.

The more scarce/desired the thing I am offering, the more I am likely to make in profit.  All things equal, in a society where interactions between humans are voluntary and non-coercive, my contribution to my fellow man can literally be measured in terms of how much money I make.  Walter Williams likes to call money "certificates of performance" - the more you have, the more you've done, in terms of giving your fellow man what he wants and needs, and the more desired and necessary the thing, the more you succeed.  This in spite of the fact that capitalism is, when you boil it down, a conspiracy to drive profits down to 0 (if it is allowed to).

I so much enjoy reading this thread; really. Before learning about BC, I've discussed an idea with a friend of mine (he's into stock exchange business). I've asked him to imagine how the perfect monetary system would look like. I proposed a saying from Alvin Toffler who predicted ''the society in order to preserve itself should be evolved into a hypersociety and declare money obsolete''.

There was a huge brainstorming that night; I guess the red wine from Nemea, Greece helped a lot; but there was a conclusion. We've came along to the fact that a certain productivity factor should arise. One that should baptise each and everyone's effort for the community to evolve, with a certain grade. Not one should be left without one. Grades should be given to everyone, regardless how small or big they were. Even animals and plants should be graded.

We agreed that the grades should reflect money... well not really; points taken should get you more to the ''respect'' rate of the society system. The more respected, the louder the voice you'd had in order to make a decision for the society to maintain its evolvement. And then... it came to me. I've proposed that the ''points'' should be measured in ''Energy''. Joules, W/h, kW/h and so forth. For instance you are a plumber and fixed a hose; how much hours did you spend? A. Your points should be: (A_hours_spent x Productivity_Factor)=Points_taken. Productivity factors should -of course- include the quality of work done; but that's a different chapter...

The only worry of ours was how could you fix a system that incorporates high security, viability and most important; the 'inability' of someone to create some points out of thin air... and then came BitCoin... and here I am!

If anything this just shows that the economics of violence have been such that extortion has had a profitable ROI and the cost of protection has been too high. The Information Age in general and Bitcoin specifically are great force multipliers which have greatly lowered the cost of protection and largely made violence unprofitable.

BLOGDAIL makes a compelling case:


If you are a member of the aggressive criminal gang then having the productive cows refuse to produce or disappear is a real problem. However, if you are a productive cow then it only makes sense to disappear to Atlantis.

Only because nobody else has been willing to take a beating without raising their own fist.  The principle works, but violence is easier.

As far as ratings go in terms of quality, that stuff is very transparent.  A business has to know which hoops to jump through and which to not.  However, I won't show my weightings in each category because then a business could just "game" the system, only doing things that are given the most weight while still leaving themselves a loophole through which to scam customers.  It will be a sort of checklist that says "if you have all of these things, you will be rated with the highest reliability and security in the eyes of your customers", but the weight each thing is given will not be disclosed.

The nice thing about bitcoin is that compliance is optional - businesses could decide to just go at it on their own, and they might do okay, or not, but there would be less risk because they could just fire up a website for $100 bucks and a bunch of free software, and off you go.  So we could see the adoption of regulations, but most of those regulations will be imposed from the consumer side - businesses that do the best by the consumer survive and thrive, those that fail the consumer die off.  When regulation is voluntary is when it is most effective, because it's not about gaming the system anymore, but serving the customer.  The hoops aren't arbitrary and static, either, and customers will be able to weigh in on this stuff alongside the business community.

The majority of the weight, as far as I can see, would come from the p2p side - customers reviewing the business.  The professional analysis would largely fall on the partnership/investment/debt purchase side of things, with the exception being the sort of BBB aspect to it, which is merely the "gate" to the community.

If you read my earlier posts, what I'm essentially going for is BBB + Yelp for bitcoin-denominated businesses.  I.e. a p2p review system that customers who have done business can leave a review (provide proof of transaction).

My work would be more on a valuation/financial analysis side.  i.e. Are these operations able to generate positive cashflow, what sort of return could investors expect based on similar business models, what experience does ownership have, is their marketing plan viable and professional, is there any insurance against fraud or theft (i.e. certain amount of capital left in third party escrow via a bond, etc.), what sort of dispute resolution is offered (i.e. judge.me) for a dispute between customers and business or investors and business (if any), is the owner of the business forthcoming with his own personal information to help expedite disputes, etc. etc. etc.

There would be essentially a full checklist of hoops through which a business must jump in order to receive an AAA rating, weighted upon how much damage it can do to customers or investors - each minor knock takes the business down within its tier, each major knock bumps it down a tier.  Again this is a work in progress, and I am using the existing models of legitimate ratings agencies and research firms as a template to go on, with the main focus being on recourse and saleable, insured assets in the event of a bankruptcy, etc.

On top of that, I would assign what valuation models deem to be a fair value per share, for companies that are in the IPO stage or secondary offering/bond offering/etc.  So if John's VPN Service is trying to IPO his shares at 2btc when valuation models show they are only worth 0.5btc, I will point this out.

Your insinuation that this gives me the power to make or break businesses is sort of hilarious.  First of all, I am a complete unknown here.  So I would imagine for the first while that the majority of the community would just completely ignore me, which they have every right to do.  Even if people start paying attention, valuations only get you so far and the future is not crystal-ball-capable (if it were, I would be living on my own private island right now and would want for nothing, ever.).  Ratings agencies make mistakes all the time, however the good ones are far more likely to predict future trends and forecast business results with success.  I am only human, but if the difference between me doing a valuation and writeup on a company saves a miner a few grand worth of coins that can be put to more productive uses, it is within my own best interest to do this, outside of any payment I might receive for the service:  I have a fairly substantial bitcoin holdings, and the more legitimacy this economy receives, the more goods and services are brought into the fold and people are protected or at least alerted to bad risk, the more those coins go up in value.  I like to think of it as working towards an earlier and earlier retirement...

As far as corruption goes, anyone on the interwebs is absolutely free to compete with me.  Maybe someone comes out with a way better model that asses risk more effectively.  Who knows.  This is not meant to be some great sword with which a business can be instantly cut off from funding by the community, unless they are a likely scammer/tramp.  This is just like you hopping on to the BBB website and checking out a local roofing company before you hire them, or visiting yelp before you order a flower arrangement for your mother back home, etc.  Just a check and balance, which bitcoin desparately, desparately needs. 

I agree that business ratings should be in large part determined by the reputation from customers using their service, however I think it's necessary to provide "expert" analysis of the business model as well as transparency in the given field of the company. To beat a dead horse, there are quite a few people on the forum that believe Pirate is running a legit company, even though they don't know his business model (or worse, don't care that it's shady as long as they see returns), that would give BS&T good reviews on a peer-only based site.  It would be nice to have a few (Bitcoin)BBB type agencies running independently to cross-check each other, that provided customer reviews based on the service as well as analyzing their business model and providing information on how the business is actually run. This may create a "central failure point" if the (B)BBB became corrupted, but some of that risk "should" be mitigated with intelligent research and due diligence. I wouldn't dump any amount of money into a company w/out first investigating them, but a website I could go to as a starting point would be a big help.

I currently go to school and work full time as well as maintaining a mid-sized mining farm (which will look like cpu mining once ASIC is released >.<) so I don't have enough time to play the market or spend inordinate amounts of time researching investment opportunities, and having a place I could go to get ideas on opportunities sounds much better than earning 0% in my wallet.dat.

Any system built on Bitcoin will have the possibility of corruption, you cannot avoid human nature. The trick is how to mitigate that possibility and provide accountability in the event, however unlikely, it occurs.

Of course I have. And history shows that the Ghandi outcome is the exception rather than the norm.

Ever heard of Ghandi?

He and his followers broke the spirit of the British military not with force, but by refusing to fight back.  You can only beat a pacifist so many times before you feel like scum.

While i'm glad to hear you'd be using a different model than Moody's and the other rats, i'm still worried.
By implementing your idea YOU would become the corruptable entity.
You could make or break businesses.
Your incentive will still be to tell your clients what they want/pay for, only difference is that the client is the other side.
Instead of paying you to look good, businesses could pay you to look less good.

By shuffling stuff around you have not fixed anything, you just managed to move the problem (temporarily) out of view.

Nothing you wrote will be enough to prevent corruption, it will just prevent the specific scam the current global rating agencies were running.

Ratings would preferably be decided upon by an open group process where there is an exchange of experiences and where there is a place for an investigator.

The real problem with Moody's etc is perhaps not the fact that they rate businesses, but that the world looks solely to them for answers in times of uncertainty.
The intrinsic power flowing from such a position should be considered very very carefully.
For one, it would be unwise for the community to trust a newcommer to the community with such a task.

So i would still like to hear an answer to my previous questions.
-How will you prevent corruption of such a powerfull organisation?
-Is this even preventable and if not, is such a false sense of security still valuable to the community?

S&P and Moody's entire business model is easily corruptible.  They are Banana Republic ratings agencies, and I hope that individual investors continue to realize what a sham they are (they are regularly paid the companies whose securities and debt they rate).

Egan Jones is more like the business model I would be looking to bring to Bitcoin.  In my book, those guys are heroes.  They have been around for a long time, and remain uncorrupted against their alleged competition, because of the business model that they chose to adopt (i.e. their business model is buy-side driven, whereas the other ratings agencies are sell-side funded).  The investing public can petition us to rate a security, and I can contact the security issuer and tell them that I have a bunch of investors lined up, but they want to see more than a business prospectus and feel-good idea.  Investors wouldn't have to pay for the rating unless the business or individual agreed to be rated.   There are other services I will be offering in conjunction to a straight ratings agency that will provide investors with some insurance against scamming and poor business models.

This is where many scammers will fade away.  A lot of them can talk a good game, but if someone were to go through and dissect their operations, the holes are pretty obvious (If I were asked to rate Pirate, for example...).  If they refused to allow their business to be rated, I would actually post up on our ratings page that the business in question issued a refusal or we received no response from them, including screenshots of the conversation, if applicable.  Our ratings would be based on whether an investor or buyer would be able to obtain any sort of recourse in the event of a collapse or fraud, on top of the potential gains/losses from operations, and whether the business idea really is a good and viable one.

The other side is that a business could come to us and pay a small fee, submit their full business plan, financials, executive experience, etc., and we would assign them a rating and an outlook based on a host of criteria (all of which will be posted up so consumers can see what our grading is based on).  This would be a one-time arrangement where a business would agree to receive whatever rating we assigned it based on our analysis.

I am not saying this is a be-all, end-all for the bitcoin community and the infant securities market, but it is one tool in a toolbox that can be employed to protect members of the bitcoin community, and I want to be a part of that.  If someone comes along with an even better idea, they take my business and the community is even better off for it.  I of course have selfish intentions at the root of all of this - income, for starters, and that my underlying bitcoin investments from way back in the day will increase drastically if we can add stability and security to bitcoin and encourage millions of dollars of new products to enter the bitcoin markets.  But this is a mutual-benefit arrangement, which, last I checked, is the definition of human progress.