@telcobert ask yourself: is this bitcoin credit thing operating as or behind a financial institution? if the response is yes, it's clearly going against what bitcoin has been designed for, and clearly mentioned in the first line of its white paper.
Watching flies eating sh*t and making of it a business opportunity for pure profit isn't moral, it simply produces more sh*t for more flies to eat.
Wake up, Telcobert...
This product will continue to enslave persons, produce bad karma and keep those using it in a vicious cycle they are not even aware it exists. It's an addiction designed by a system to keep slaves enslaved.
This isn't good as you might believe, let's learn to run ethical businesses, driven by morality, honor and integrity.
Businesses use bills of exchanger peer-to-peer, amongst themselves.
In fiat world, yes. Not in Bitcoin world.
Bitcoin will change the way we are doing business. Stop living in the past and try to adapt Bitcoin to existing system.
Instead, try to change the existing system to Bitcoin ethos and mechanics.
Here is how people were fooled into these "instruments" from ancient times. Thing that you came now again trying to fool bitcoiners with your crap "bitcredit".
As regards bills of exchange, the documentary correctly recognises several evils:
Bills of Exchange should not be disconnected from gold or silver. True. That's why Bitcredit Protocol is strictly denominated to Bitcoin.
Bills of Exchange should always be paid at maturity. True. That's why Bitcredit Protocol requires verifiable redemption in Bitcoin to a specific Taproot address on maincain.
Bills of Exchange "can be" issued against thin air. Nuance needed. They can but should not. Such "dry" bills were never accepted in free circulation. The ancient church even strictly forbade their issue under "usury" rules. Modern government does the opposite, it enforced "dry" money, because of its systemic corruption.
What Cal Washington apparently does not know:
Merchants strictly only accepted commercial bills issued "against value". This means they were created as medium of exchange ("money") as the first leg against a sale of B2B goods. (Akin to Bitcoiners "proof-of-work"). Financial ("dry") bills were rightly not accepted as money. Bills issued against goods correctly cancel out when used to purchase final goods in the second leg of real exchange. The proceeds were needed and used to redeem the bill. It is an enabler of exchange.
It is not the fault of the instrument if nation states pervert it by corrupt laws, enforcing legal tender and dry issuance against government bonds.
In no way does this diminish the urgent need for the (unperverted) instrument in the Bitcoin system, so that business and trade can start to adopt Bitcoin.
The answer is No.
This "thing" is not "operating as or behind a financial institution".
It is a peer-to-peer "thing".
Assertive comments produce bad karma if claimed without verification
Just because is "built on Bitcoin" it doesn't mean is useful or necessary or good.
"built on bitcoin" is just the new buzzword to fool clueless normies.
Bitcoin in itself is the bill of exchange. If you do not have it, you can't spend it. Simple as that. Bill of exchange literally means "I can spend something that do not have".
It doesn't need any bullshit crap on top of it. Don't try to re-invent the wheel.
Normally, I do not engage with trolls, but I have a free minute. So:
What's the difference between a 'money' and a 'digital commodity' according to 'DarthCon' and why would Bitcoin M0 be the former instead of the latter?
Where does the whitepaper talk about B2B 'credit instruments' according to you?
ifthe response is yes, it's clearly going against what bitcoin has been designed for, and clearly mentioned in the first line of its white paper.