Both bitcoin and litecoin have switched into downtrends today after breaking key support levels. News from South Korea and China keeps weighing on market sentiment. Bitcoin Switches to Downtrend After a long time bitcoin is finally in a downtrend on ...
- Real Name: Michael Manville
- Location: Canada
- Bitcoin Tipping Address (This is not your LTBCOIN address): 1KdeAvaTaJSQPSz8DcajZiFNDrSVRihdGW
- Replies: 55
- Topics: 4
- Likes Received: 5
Impressive news out of Singapore, thanks for posting. I've been pondering the success of city-state governance as an alternative to nation states. Anarchy seems too implausible for human society in the near term, but city-states could work in the mean time.
Singapore and Hong Kong are prime examples of effectively run city-states and given the inevitable rise of blockchain finance, they seem more agile and able to attract talent while lumbering nation states like the US and Europe cling to the status quo in order to protect legacy industries, social welfare programs, and massive debts.
Perhaps in the future decentralized governance will emerge in the form of more powerful cities, which would be like decentralized hubs or nodes that interconnect with each other. Smaller cities and towns would also have more self-direction. The nation state with far reaching borders is a failing idea and national borders are a burden. Perhaps the emerging financial revolution will foster super cities while nations bankrupt themselves. The new Asian Infrastructure Bank favors a regional approach to large projects which makes more sense than a nationalistic approach. Nation states are a bad idea and promote costly conflicts and defence spending.Posted on April 16, 2015 at 12:22 AM
Bitcoin & Beyond
At the Toronto Bitcoin Conference I asked Jeffrey if Liberty.me would be introducing its own currency (a la LTBcoin or some other format). At the time he suggested that maybe there would be competing currencies within Liberty.me. I wonder if he has had any more recent revelations on this topic.Posted on August 1, 2014 at 8:55 AM
Really stoked about this idea guys, great job!Posted on July 26, 2014 at 8:55 AM
I made this comment on CoinDesk, thought I would share it here as well. Any Canadians Bitcoiners out there, let's see if we can still influence the intepretation of this law:
This statement was published on CoinDesk in the article entitled What Canada’s New Regulations Mean for Bitcoin Businesses: "Generally speaking, if you sell any type of good or service for profit in the cryptospace, you may expect to be included as the definition of a dealer in digital currency."
I find that statement to be a bit presumptuous and probably totally inaccurate. If the law is interpreted in this way, it will be totally negative and drive Bitcoin use underground in Canada. The article isn't even clear who made this statement or on what basis.
I think the law will be interpreted to require MSB licenses for businesses that accept fiat deposits for Bitcoin/virtual currency, not businesses who who simply sell goods and services for Bitcoin (ie. merchants).
This will be a key distinction that will hopefully be made clear in the final law. We should dig through the gov't public forums and find out how to make our voices heard on this one.Posted on June 24, 2014 at 11:22 AM
As long as we have the possibility to do "off blockchain" transactions/transfers within the LTB system, without needing CounterParty, nor wait for any confirmations, LTBcoin will be more user friendly and more enjoyable to use generally.
I think we should let people decide when to make a withdrawal. Paranoid people might want every cent of their LTBc in cold storage. Others (like me) will be fine with up to $100 worth of LTBc just sitting on the system so I can use it to tip, buy sponsorships, etc without having to deal with CounterParty (or pay the associated fees).
Using my case as an example, if my account exceeds $150 worth of LTBc I might go through the effort of withdrawing the surplus $50 to my "on chain" Counterwallet, but the less I have to do that, the better. If LTB gets goxed and I lose my $100 that's my loss, oh well. Others might have a different threshold. I'd be worried if there was an automated system to "sweep" the coins out after a certain balance, that feature might get hacked and they would get swept by a malicious actor. But again, I am no dev so not sure which aspects are easier or more difficult to secure.Posted on May 13, 2014 at 9:26 PM
My only thought was that we run it similar to the way Bitcoin exchanges like Cryptsy run. The transactions are virtual until you make a deposit or withdrawal. A hot wallet could cover day-to-day withdrawals but most people might be comfortable just leaving their coins in their virtual account. In this scenario, it would be easy to move coins around the system, send/receive from one user to the next, just like it is easy on Cryptsy to move coins around.
I don't know how easy or difficult that would be to secure relative to these other suggestions (I am no dev so rather clueless on what is easy or hard to build). I doubt Adam wants to run a cryptsy like exchange but there might be a simpler version that suits our limited needs. I think easy and convenient for both the users and admin has to be the priority.Posted on May 13, 2014 at 6:43 PM
Thanks for your contribution Coinconomics. I fixed the links, thanks for pointing that out... they broke when the forum moved from ltbcoin.com to forum.ltbcoin.com. I will check out the document you submitted.
I learned a great deal writing it, so I hope others can do the same. I apologize for the format, but coming from a financial background, the "investor overview" is just the format I am most comfortable with when organizing my thoughts and links.
I appreciate you taking the time to read over the report.
I read the report and was very impressed with the info and presentation style. Well done! I recommend everyone give it a read... the file was posted by Coinconomics as a PDF about 4 comments up.Posted on May 3, 2014 at 12:50 AM
New? Find Help Here.
Coinconomics said: I do not want to start another thread for this, since I feel that my
LTBcoin Overviewbelongs in a section similar to this one, so if you all (especially mmanvil74) agree, I would like to attach my report to this already very clear and insightful write-up.
The report itself attempts to bring together all of the theoretical concepts provided by Adam into one space, so that new and seasoned members alike can start to fit all of the pieces of the puzzle together into a bigger picture.
Al in all, I am excited to see these Distributed Autonomous Consensus (DAC) rule-sets we are all discussing here eventually come together to form the basis for a full fledged Media DACP (Distributed Autonomous Consensus Platform).
P.S. I realize the post is under construction, but the links in the original post are broken as of this date.
Thanks for your contribution Coinconomics. I fixed the links, thanks for pointing that out... they broke when the forum moved from ltbcoin.com to forum.ltbcoin.com. I will check out the document you submitted.Posted on May 1, 2014 at 7:42 PM
New? Find Help Here.
I just ran across an instance where a content creator has done a mini-fundraiser in order for his content to be released for free to all (instead of charging people to view it, or subsidizing with ads, he solicits a minimum amount of donations). He did this the usual way via PayPal but apparently it worked.
The idea being if I raise x LTBcoin I will release x content for free to everyone. In this case, the content might be an idea that has yet to be produced, or it has already been produced, but either way it is up to the audience to fund the publication of the content by donating sufficient payment.
Even better would be if the early donors now "own" a % of that content based on their donation and share in the eventual tips it earns, and/or any LTBcoin it might earn through Proof Of Publishing. Really popular content might deliver a profit to the initial donors.
I know this goes back to the question of crowd funding on a content by content basis or ACT by ACT basis and the costs and admin involved with creating an asset for every piece of content. I think there must be a way to achieve the same goal without necessarily creating an asset in Counterparty for every instance.
I agree with @deweller it would be good to get some version of this idea off the ground, test it, measure feedback, and start again. Maybe we start by @deweller soliciting donations for x amount of BTC from the community to build such a tool - and maybe LTB could match/augment that amount of donations as part of the future LTBcoin distribution.
I know we are close to launch so maybe Adam is thinking to launch the coin first and then start building tools. Anyway, I am excited to see how this all plays out.
The Expo in Toronto was great by the way, thanks to all who contributed.Posted on April 18, 2014 at 9:26 PM
- Posts Authored: 1
- Posts Contributed To: 0
4,134 viewsJanuary 12th, 2015 by Michael Manville
The proliferation of cryptocurrencies has caused many to question the very definition of currency. The introduction of user-created assets, network tokens, app coins, and other Bitcoin 2.0 jargon represents our attempt to name something similar but somehow different than currency. Bitcoin itself has many attributes that fit the definition of currency, and yet, many of its attributes do not resemble currency at all.
Regardless of the terms used to define a currency, currency does not have ...Read More