Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VqXny-00060i-VU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:37:34 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of thinkloop.com designates 209.85.212.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.177; envelope-from=bk@thinkloop.com; helo=mail-wi0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VqXnx-0004Uc-LR for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:37:34 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id cc10so125919wib.16 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:37:27 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=/PLeFMlKZ9z7nTPZuyzn+hakBka/Fvj7hqfY4WPdnL4=; b=kFpkzomQ34ZICNcByWSnALmyWFSQ1ErQ1GYYV4oRm+MA9zP4w4qQyAxaNHRyw42H5e 6w58faQnrkNQVLiHk5pJ/+y2YWU4kJJDqFaTBO5xVz++r6uSTPWPyIa22fJ4X7MVFeYA +ADWTyfvWQdvMSBceEJZujbUuDqjpnUJDk9WQoht766bmQJN53o+Tb+Kk6nkyDNbtCCG 7GfCNc/JRfZr5OlFQX1UgFCtiKWbC84o4kQ+IGY4t+wJ7DDpvXUYBmVamFtjmVt6Cw2T LiItbAkqRjm7Vmh+aAf5aZB2N9TAXfUQfWWUDSopmrz7+/LHxiOi+D7AfofU07RcDj+I ppgw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnA4rDK7hCMQzInhNf6osix7efG2mQUcviUQxOOg2CyaThLks6EyEi+SCJO9/YzD3I6q8ek X-Received: by 10.194.60.103 with SMTP id g7mr76024798wjr.37.1386720459085; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:07:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.18.234 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:07:19 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [67.170.49.167] In-Reply-To: References: <20131209221130.GA22556@shavo.dd-wrt> From: Baz Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:07:19 -0800 Message-ID: To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86cfbc5df03604ed370489 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: freico.in] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 LOTS_OF_MONEY Huge... sums of money X-Headers-End: 1VqXnx-0004Uc-LR Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net, Ryan Carboni Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Monetary Authority for Bitcoin X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:37:35 -0000 --047d7b86cfbc5df03604ed370489 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bitcoin's volatility is not a symptom of its architecture, but a reflection of the collective knowledge of its future acceptance. Currently that knowledge is based on very volatile sources: how some senator feels about it this morning, which direction departments in the Chinese government are leaning. The issue is that proof-of-work is missing from society's end. As time goes on, laws, regulations and policies will start to form, people will challenge them, they will be reviewed and updated, they will be challenged again on different grounds, re-reviewed, and so on. Each of those confirmations will make it that much harder to change earlier confirmations. It won't matter anymore what some senator thinks this morning because she will have months of hard-work ahead of her before she can affect any change. It also doesn't matter if the rulings are positive or negative, just having them will add stability to Bitcoin at some value between $0.0001 to $100,000 per coin. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Jorge Tim=F3n wrote: > On 12/10/13, Ryan Carboni wrote: > > You're just closed minded. > > No, at least to persons have explained you why your proposal is not > feasible. > If you wanted to learn, you would have made questions on why those > parts of your proposal are unfeasible. > There have been many proposals about "stablecoins" in bitcointalk and > other forums (for example, the "initial proposals" freicoin subforum). > I have participated in several of them trying to find a solution and > I'm now convinced that this is impossible to implement in a secure AND > P2P system. > > This is off-topic for this forum, specially if (as you've shown to us) > you are not interested in learning why this proposal is unfeasible. > > -- > Jorge Tim=F3n > > http://freico.in/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK > Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. > Download it for free now! > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D111408631&iu=3D/4140/ostg= .clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --047d7b86cfbc5df03604ed370489 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bitcoin's volatility is not a symptom of its architect= ure, but a reflection of the collective knowledge of its future acceptance.= Currently that knowledge is based on very volatile sources: how some senat= or feels about it this morning, which direction departments in the Chinese = government are leaning. The issue is that proof-of-work is missing from soc= iety's end. As time goes on, laws, regulations and policies will start = to form, people will challenge them, they will be reviewed and updated, the= y will be challenged again on different grounds, re-reviewed, and so on. Ea= ch of those confirmations will make it that much harder to change earlier c= onfirmations. It won't matter anymore what some senator thinks this mor= ning because she will have months of hard-work ahead of her before she can = affect any change. It also doesn't matter if the rulings are positive o= r negative, just having them will add stability to Bitcoin at some value be= tween $0.0001 to $100,000 per coin.




On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Jorge Tim=F3n <jtimon= @monetize.io> wrote:
On 12/10/13, Ryan Carboni <ryan.jc.pc@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're just closed minded.

No, at least to persons have explained you why your proposal is not feasibl= e.
If you wanted to learn, you would have made questions on why those
parts of your proposal are unfeasible.
There have been many proposals about "stablecoins" in bitcointalk= and
other forums (for example, the "initial proposals" freicoin subfo= rum).
I have participated in several of them trying to find a solution and
I'm now convinced that this is impossible to implement in a secure AND<= br> P2P system.

This is off-topic for this forum, specially if (as you've shown to us)<= br> you are not interested in learning why this proposal is unfeasible.

--
Jorge Tim=F3n

http://freico.in/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK
Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base.
Download it for free now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam= pad/clk?id=3D111408631&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--047d7b86cfbc5df03604ed370489--