Quote from: BitThink on February 04, 2014, 09:43:38 AM

Quote from: empoweoqwj on February 04, 2014, 09:36:50 AM

Quote from: BitThink on February 04, 2014, 02:05:54 AM

Quote from: aahzmundus on February 04, 2014, 01:53:47 AM

Quote from: ThickAsThieves on February 03, 2014, 11:46:10 PM

Even AM's own exchange, which they began creating last year, has many inconveniences, and, is ultimately centralized anyway.

Wait a second... besides announcing that he was working on one, I have yet to see any details on any AM exchange system. Although you feel it would not work, what is it that FC has in the works? Is this board member information? Or did I miss a post somewhere...

Also.. to ignore jimmothy, simply ignore him. Stop quoting his posts, it gives him visibility to those who already have him on ignore like myself.

According to the leaked info (it they are true) in chinese forum, AM's exchange, although based on blockchain, is centralized and has severe flaws in the design.

For example, all the assets have to be assigned a buying address and a selling address, and these addresses are assigned by the central authority. Moreover, if you want to sell some shares at 100 BTC, you need to send 100+ BTC to the selling address and trust that address will send them back immediately. It also means you have to own 100 BTC first before you can sell you shares for 100 BTC.

Oh yeah, I remember that from .... ages back. And then the discussion went away. Not sure it was properly explained anyway. May have got lost in translation. There didn't seem any logic in the proposed idea, totally unworkable. Something like counterparty would be much more appropriate, once it has matured a bit.

I confirm my translation complies with the Chinese original text, but cannot know whether the leaked text is really from AM or just faked by someone.

lol. Typical AM communication. A complete muddle. I hope it was faked because it was unworkable and essentially stupid.