Quote from: pankkake on February 05, 2014, 12:18:09 AM

Quote from: jimmothy on February 05, 2014, 12:14:53 AM

Not a very good argument. The thing about a blockchain based system is that it literally cannot be shut down. That means I can send shares to whoever I want, whenever I want, without anyones permission.

What a retard.

I'm talking about the issuer. You can trade shares of a business that doesn't exist anymore because it has been shut down, how does that fix anything?

We all understand that you would still have to trust the issuer with a decentralized exchange.

Current system:
Trust Issuer
Trust Passthrough Operator
Trust Centralized Exchange

Decentralized System:
Trust Issuer

Either way you still have to trust the issuer. The decentralized system eliminates the need to trust third parties between you and the issuer. These third parties are extra attack vectors for governments as well.

Quote from: romerun on February 04, 2014, 08:43:45 PM

the way it should work for AM is,
FC picks a DEx to use as settlement,
TAT or whatever passthru continues to trade on centralize exchanges to gain the benefit of speed and more broader market,
when user withdraws from passthru, passthru can just execute the change of ownership on the DEx,

no more FC pm/email,

FC uses information on DEx to distribute dividend,
Of course, ppl can also trade directly on DEx, maybe arbitraging across DEx and centralize ones.

This ^^ is an awesome idea and what I was trying to recommend to TAT. Why not innovate and embrace the new technology.

Where's the downside to TAT issuing Passthrough shares on a decentralized exchange like Counterparty?

How is this different from issuing passthroughs on multiple centralized exchanges. Why not make passthroughs available on decentralized exchanges as a temporary fix until Friedcat transfers all the shares over to a decentralized solution?

This way we only have to trust the issuer and the passthrough operator. Eliminates having to trust a centralized exchange like Havelock.