đź“… Original date posted:2021-07-09
đź“ť Original message:> On Jul 9, 2021, at 10:44, Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > there is an unsupportable leap being made here
>
> You think that because you're misinterpreting me. I'm in no way claiming that any solvent company can prove it, I'm simply claiming that any company can prove that they have bitcoin reserves to cover bitcoins promised as account balances.
You can prove that in your own wallet. All other scenarios imply lending (which is what is implied by “reserve”) and lending cannot be 100% reserve.
> > Banks (lending institutions) do not operate under any such pretense
>
> You seem to be saying that banks are under no legal obligation to serve cash on demand to customers. While you might be right,
I am, as banks are lending institutions.
> again you're misinterpreting me. Banks do in fact make claims to their customers that they'll be able to get cash out of their account on demand.
Up to the insured limit, in 7 days. This is of course true because the taxpayer has insured the bank to that level.
> They're called demand deposit accounts for a reason.
They are time deposits, read your bank agreement. Not that it makes any difference. How the contract is satisfied is not a term of the contract, just that it is. And as I pointed out, money markets have had no reserve requirement and have a nearly spotless record of satisfying their obligations.
> And certainly customers expect to be able to withdraw their cash on demand.
Irrelevant.
> > With a 100% of investment cash hoard, there is zero lending and zero return
>
> I did say "pretend" did I not?
See above.
> > “relate to” is a far cry from 100% “reserve”
>
> Indeed. Again, you seem to be misunderstanding me. You're putting the words "100% reserve" in my mouth, when I never said any such thing. Proof of 80%/50%/20% reserves is still useful if that's the clear expectation for the customer/client.
Without 100% “reserve” there is no way to cryptographically demonstrate “solvency”. And even with that, investors would have to accept the promise that there are no other liabilities.
The schemes don’t preclude hacks, insider or otherwise, bankruptcy, or state seizure, no matter what the reserve.
It’s information, sure, but it’s not what people seem to think. If one wants full reserve banking, use a wallet. If one wants to invest, the money will be spent - that’s why it was raised. There can be no covenant placed on it that will ensure it’s return.
e
Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sg…ppx3c
2023-06-07 22:56:45
in reply to nevent1q…u0a7
Author Public Key
npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3cPublished at
2023-06-07 22:56:45Event JSON
{
"id": "66f20ad4052ba4fc517981a7dc6e70ed17562ce641cf29016fc4972404bbfa17",
"pubkey": "82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e",
"created_at": 1686178605,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8d7c8e46a21aeccd372e51b6693b44408b64b038bd6112c7f0d1530660522551",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"21ca433c9c422c9f161e371eb6891d2ef7f62c36c360d84355c1eee0ce0702dd",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3030ec2d70259fdd55ba8e063740c139c3daaa618f86e3fae34cebcb73c742ba"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-07-09\n📝 Original message:\u003e On Jul 9, 2021, at 10:44, Billy Tetrud \u003cbilly.tetrud at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e there is an unsupportable leap being made here\n\u003e \n\u003e You think that because you're misinterpreting me. I'm in no way claiming that any solvent company can prove it, I'm simply claiming that any company can prove that they have bitcoin reserves to cover bitcoins promised as account balances. \n\nYou can prove that in your own wallet. All other scenarios imply lending (which is what is implied by “reserve”) and lending cannot be 100% reserve.\n\n\u003e \u003e Banks (lending institutions) do not operate under any such pretense\n\u003e \n\u003e You seem to be saying that banks are under no legal obligation to serve cash on demand to customers. While you might be right,\n\nI am, as banks are lending institutions.\n\n\u003e again you're misinterpreting me. Banks do in fact make claims to their customers that they'll be able to get cash out of their account on demand.\n\nUp to the insured limit, in 7 days. This is of course true because the taxpayer has insured the bank to that level.\n\n\u003e They're called demand deposit accounts for a reason.\n\nThey are time deposits, read your bank agreement. Not that it makes any difference. How the contract is satisfied is not a term of the contract, just that it is. And as I pointed out, money markets have had no reserve requirement and have a nearly spotless record of satisfying their obligations.\n\n\u003e And certainly customers expect to be able to withdraw their cash on demand. \n\nIrrelevant.\n\n\u003e \u003e With a 100% of investment cash hoard, there is zero lending and zero return\n\u003e \n\u003e I did say \"pretend\" did I not?\n\nSee above.\n\n\u003e \u003e “relate to” is a far cry from 100% “reserve”\n\u003e \n\u003e Indeed. Again, you seem to be misunderstanding me. You're putting the words \"100% reserve\" in my mouth, when I never said any such thing. Proof of 80%/50%/20% reserves is still useful if that's the clear expectation for the customer/client.\n\nWithout 100% “reserve” there is no way to cryptographically demonstrate “solvency”. And even with that, investors would have to accept the promise that there are no other liabilities.\n\nThe schemes don’t preclude hacks, insider or otherwise, bankruptcy, or state seizure, no matter what the reserve.\n\nIt’s information, sure, but it’s not what people seem to think. If one wants full reserve banking, use a wallet. If one wants to invest, the money will be spent - that’s why it was raised. There can be no covenant placed on it that will ensure it’s return.\n\ne",
"sig": "828f24593db3efbf109b27f5cd292e1f08441e3c25342765bfc859df152dc76751aa36c6693df190c7d9d4f551e818775b7c67b494194ee770e89e9b6dd5e556"
}