If this is true and that the vast majority don't care to ponder things so fundamentally important like money/value then we've got bigger problems than innovations such as Bitcoin can address.

If people in general are so incapable of independent critical thinking any unscrupulous, entitled entity can dangle a carrot or wage a misinformation campaign to maintain the status quo.

Any meaningful change has to be fostered from the bottom-up by a mass of critical thinkers.

Is it just me or does Erik look like the Caucasian version of

This is upsetting.

I think conscience can be conditioned out of someone based on situation.  In fact, in believe that in certain job roles it's impossible to operate without giving up some amount of shame and guilt.

Which would make me believe that the best at certain jobs are the natural sociopaths.  Depending on setting I believe the 4% is a low estimation.

This.


Resist the urge to be a fanboy of any company.  Think critically in situations where you pay someone for goods/services.  Your payment is their reward - nothing else is owed - including future allegiance. 

True.  Still, this is a one dimensional statement. 

Taken in context we are all in competition for the same revenue source - mining subsidy.  It is every participants responsibility to

1)  Understand their business/market.
2)  Make informed decisions.
3)  Protect their interests.


So, we shouldn't be surprised if miners challenge Bitcoin mining hardware vendors in order to understand/criticize vendor's business plan/practices.  Ultimately, "hobby" or "pro" miners should always be vigilant to monitor any potential market competition and take whatever action available to them to ensure their survival. 

It's surprising and sad that the "mining community" lacks sufficient cohesion to form a semi-formal mining association to represent interests and provide leverage in cases where vendors might threaten their existence.

 

With the demise of GLBSE and similar risks with any central record of ownership it would be a very good time to showcase OT markets functionality and interoperability with BTC.

I believe that #assets-otc or #otc-assets project does pretty much what you describe in your original specs minus any automated trading capacity ie open bid/ask.


I would much prefer the flexibility of trading market functionality over an OTC functionality.  



Colored coin is an interesting idea that leverages proven blockchain.  IIRC, it would not require an alt-chain.  But how can CC be used for open market trading and not just OTC transactions?


Decentralizing record of ownership/brokers/dealers, which is the general direction being proposed, makes an open trading market somewhat more difficult.


Re: OT.  What I like about OT is that it already has P2P asset transfers + a trading market.  I'm not sure how mature, robust or resistant to attack this market functionality would be.

It is certainly possible to have a single GUI for Nym management and stock market.  My only doubt is that OT creates it's own set of virtual assets for trading.  Those virtual assets would be backed by BTC and BTC would have to flow in/out of the OT system.


Re:  Trust.  What's nice about digitally signed p2p asset transfers is that parties can prove ownership in cases of malfeasance.  A centralized record of ownership, in the example case being held by the asset issuer, creates an opportunity for fraud that the public would be unable to scrutinize.  This wouldn't be an effective measure for wholesale fraud (as you point out would be an inherent risk in any of the approaches), but for individual cases where either party can prove ownership or payment with signatures.

The sad thing about this is that we should not expect Bitcoin community members to suffer potentially severe punishment by a government in order to protect integrity.

We cannot realistically expect the average person to defy government coercion at great cost.


Nefario is not the big issue here.  GLBSE, as a centralized record of ownership of unregulated securities open to scrutiny by the government, is where we all made the mistake.

Can we finally wake up and realize it's not safe to hold unregulated capital markets in centralized Web services operated by anonymous and quite possibly Nefarious individuals?



There are alternatives.  The truth is out there.

I couldn't help but responding on public TV.


PBS (Dallas/Ft Worth) introduced me to some of my favorite shows.  There's just no way I would have been exposed to that content in the commercial space.


Take my PBS and I will go jihad.

Good points.

Broker/Dealer combined = bad, bad, bad.   Bad.  

Any risk to GLBSE or any similarly structured securities operation is a risk possibly equating to a complete loss.


Research Open Transactions for securities ownership/trading.  Securities ownership is P2P, so ownership is easily proven, and the trading is mediated by the OT servers.  Counter-party risk remains, but removes mediator risk to a large extent.

Let all be clear.  Estimating current BFL units sold the profit from 30 days of sustained QC/burn-in mining would equate to 80-150 USD discount per unit.


The other ASIC vendors have claimed and will survive without profiting from main-net.  While they may perform limited testing with main-net, they will not be performing 24 hour burn-in sessions with each unit produced.


There's no excuse.  There's no good reason (other than easy money) that they would tell us they would not do this, but then change their mind and consider it an issue of little importance to the mining community.


The BFL unit you have paid for is effectively 80-150 USD more expensive than you realize.  And it's not even the best $/GH.

estimates

1 month post asic
100-150 TH

6 months post asic
450 TH

What is problematic to the health of bitcoin mining is any ASIC vendor that attempts to maintain the current, pre-order sales volume.


BFL is overcapitalized.  Meaning the company has too many employees and equipment to be supported by a limited market such as bitcoin.  The downside for bitcoin miners is that BFL may attempt to sustain their current size and by doing so massively deflate the value of mining equipment.  Those who purchase mining equipment first will suffer losses.

This opinion considers BTC/USD at no more than 15 for the foreseeable future.

Looked over the source again.  Seems to have been updated to 4.2J/GH.  Should clear that up.

Final specs have been revised.

4.2W / - revised hashrate has not been published.  Assumed to be around .5-.7 GH.

bu mp

US Govt prints ridiculous amounts of currency

BFL produces a ridiculous amount of asics

Reward halves


Guess I'll go buy some gold.

Nefario avoids manipulating securities due to theft, i.e. trade roll-backs, but delists securities when an issue directly affects him and is in his best interest.


Both of these issues are complicated to deal with, but there is a sense that's it's all quite arbitrary.


I'll just leave this here.
Open Transactions

+100000000o00


Decentralized (somewhat), secure securities trading.  Try it.

Listing a company on a Web site governed by ToS and not a contract, open to centralized risk and stupid browser exploits? 

No, thanks.