securities... do we want to limit bch potential due to SEC threats? Or just be able to keep those off the 'mainstream' apps, while they can still be on ninja app, and the bch chain is able to be able to both be non- compliant and compliant due to diff wallets...
Like, the .Com wallet will have to comply w/ all state regs, b/c it's a registered business and the gateways (apple/google) have to comply w/ state regs too...
Not sure where ec and paytaca fit on that spectrum...
But I know the 'controllers' don't like privacy functionality, similarly to how they don't like currency competition or "unregulated" (no cut for them) securities
@kzKallisti are you making a wallet app for bch.ninja 😝
As far as i understand there is no inherent issue with having 'tokens' on a chain from the SECs perspective, just look at Etherium. The issue is when you buy and sell those tokens and they are are not registered with the SEC. And the SEC can not prevent token use, and it is an insane thought that they can. They can go after the big exchanges though and make their lives hard. So there is no reason to think it will affect law regarding people accepting BCH as payment mechanism. And if the SEC wants to attack BCH they can and will find a way anyway to do that.
No. Asterisk. 😇
I mean, I was joking because naan said “ninja app” (referring to a wallet that is not yet existing, much less named), but you’re going to set up a public asterisk server?
Haha no. Read that as "No*."
I meant it more as an adjective, describing the niche rather than necessarily the name of the *hypothetical* wallet :p
Something something oracles.
Обсуждают сегодня