Quote from: QuantPlus on October 14, 2013, 11:26:46 PM

The legal requirement of SETTLEMENT on a specific date...
Whether by Delivery or Cash Settlement is what enforces futures markets.
It's not clear to anyone whether you have a proper mechanism in place.

This is what I had said to Charles in private too yesterday and what I said upthread. I am not saying it won't possibly work, but I have very strong doubts, because without threat of delivery there is no reason it must track the underlying unit.

I wish we could have decentralized tracking of alternative monetary units and equities. I just don't think it will work technically. I am happy if I am wrong.

Quote from: cunicula on October 15, 2013, 02:20:14 AM

this is a ponzi scheme.

I hope you are not insinuating that the principals knowingly wish to create a ponzi scheme, because I don't detect that lack of ethics. I just think bytemaster leans towards collectivism as marketing strategy, i.e. we will all own this and be paid dividends (e.g. the name registration decentralized corporation concept). I don't doubt his serious programming abilities. Whereas, I lean minanarchist (a subset of libertarians), and I think they are the market that will be moving their capital into a coin as the G20 starts the bail-ins and retirement nationalizations (confiscations) circa 2016 to 2020. I am most focused on fixing the anonymity, block chain, and network resilience of the coin. P.S. I am not advertising any altcoin effort of mine by saying this; there is none as of the moment.

Imagine what happens when localbitcoins is shut down. Then how do you obtain coins without passing through id checks and thus G20 capital controls. The USA is preparing its strategy against Bitcoin:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/04/bitcoin-seized-its-days-are-numbered/

Bitcoin has an insurmountable lead, and I believe (Moldbug's theory that) there will be only one blockchain that wins. The only way Bitcoin loses, is if there is some key feature that is missing. I think I just stated above by implication what I think that feature is.

Everyone was ridiculing me since 2007 when I've been saying in public forums that the government was going to do these evil things, and now Snowden has helped to show that I was probably correct. Yet still many people (e.g. gmaxwell) apparently think the threat is not proven and it is best to take the middle ground (status quo with slow adaption) approach. Instead I think a technical war is ahead between the (minanarchist freedom fighting) people and the dying socialism.

And I believe the USA as a nation-state will be on the evil side of the war this time, unlike in Patrick Henry's call to action:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/25/there-is-no-going-back-nsa-is-here-to-endure/

And the NSA may not be the most powerful entity we need to fear:

http://www.nestmann.com/the-nsa-has-nothing-on-these-guys

From past discussion, it appears that bytemaster believes we as a society must work this out and the solution lies in convincing society to do the right thing. I understand that throughout history this only happens AFTER the socialism has destroyed everything into a pile of debris. First there is the war. This time the war will be in the network.

I had published the official government site links for bail-ins plans in place for every G7 member nation. Now I see this today:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/14/european-banking-crisis-seizing-10-of-everyones-accounts-hello-cyprus/

Quote

In the last section of the IMF report, on page 58, right before the appendices, it reads:

Quote

The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a capital levy a one-off tax on private wealthas an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability. The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen by some as fair).