4 ms·
Very interesting, I hope you are not in the United States. I doubt the CFTC would take too kindly to this especially since they are binary options. Good luck!
by jboggan 11y ago
Very interesting, I hope you are not in the United States. I doubt the CFTC would take too kindly to this especially since they are binary options. Good luck!
- GigabyteCoin 11y agoFrom the intro: >Etheropt has no owner. Its entire operation is described and executed by an Ethereum smart contract.
- jboggan 11y agoThat smart contract was written by a person and they should realize that there might be legal repercussions in the US at least. I have a great interest in this space (I started a failed cryptocurrency options exchange myself) and I hope that it blossoms. I would like to see regular puts and calls instead of binary options, the latter is ill-suited for hedging and really just a speculative instrument.
- GigabyteCoin 11y ago>That smart contract was written by a person and they should realize that there might be legal repercussions in the US at least. Satoshi Nakamoto created the world's most powerful cryptocurrency and nobody knows anything about that person or group, remember.
- s_q_b 11y agoNakamoto took careful steps to hide his identity. The creators of Ethereum have not. That said, this is one of those "holy shit" moments for me. Once a DAC is running, there isn't a damn thing a government can do about it. Or even its creator. It's like a creature let loose in the wild, or a virus with a checkbook. The mind reels at the possibilities.
- amazon_not 11y agoIsn't this limited to binary options because binary options have a set price and payout? Regular puts and calls have a potentially unlimited payout which means the seller would have to put up some serious collateral and/or hedge their exposure. If nothing else, I'd figure that would add some complexity and/or counterparty risk. I'm not well versed in these matters, so perhaps you could enlighten me.
- jhildings 11y agoHow would they prove that a certain person wrote it ? And also, what if someone publish the code of someone else, who is responsible then ?
- kordless 11y agoThe CFTC can eat one. Seriously, there's not a goddamn thing they will be able to do about DACs. Better call a hearing.
- jboggan 11y agoIt's funny to realize that a DAC can go on existing even after its creators may have been charged or imprisoned for breaking a law or regulation. I don't agree with the CFTC but I acknowledge their power.
- christo 11y agoIs there a distinction between developing software and operating it? Usually. Always?
- dev1n 11y agoThis isn't just software though. This is an organization.
- hellbanner 11y agoAs long as net-neutrality exists, yes.
- danieltillett 11y agoI am sure this will be very comforting for the creators of this once they are sitting in some US jail. Ask the leadership of FIFA how pissing off the US government by double crossing the USA over the 2018 world cup worked out.
- kordless 11y agoWait until "those who jail" start watching code check itself into a decentralized git repo on IPFS after receiving a consensus based payment from a thousand anonymous individuals. Seriously, they have no fucking idea what is coming.
- jarsin 11y agothe dudes github name is the french houdini. Nobody can keep him locked up!