Market Discussions

Ok, I see that four people are really committed to keeping this discussion in the realm of make-believe even for internet spaceships.

Just as with the insurance scheme, I've made it clear that Hex is clueless about even the fundamentals of business, and is just looking to hoodwink enough naive people into creating a base level of support for his ill-conceived ideas. Just as with his insurance scheme, he won't even make it far enough to try. If a couple of eager people want to waste their time on ridiculous ideas despite being presented with actually valid options, then there is little more I can do for them.

I'll bump this thread in a month for ample helping of "itoldyouso" and "holyshityouredumb".

We obviously have a difference of opinion over the various ways people can be swayed and what is considered "proper and acceptable" discourse, and to a certain degree it's something that you take seriously. That's fine.

I think you are lacking an awareness of the importance of the nature of the venue that is a spaceships game forum, and the corresponding nature of the discourse that takes place. When you follow all your liberal, academic rules of argumentation, you're merely providing the appearance of legitimacy to those you're arguing against. They don't follow your rules of logic, so there is no way you can "box them in" like you would in academic circles, yet you choose to hold yourself to these rules. The result is you write a whole bunch of words that people only half read, because **** it it's spaceships, and it appears you are in a serious discussion over serious topics with serious people, while really some scammer is just hammering out garbage on his end, hoping people are swayed by the appearance of legitimacy.

I don't expect to change your mind here...but I think your behaviour is really quixotic, where your adherence to some inappropriate code ultimately betrays you to what you are attempting to speak against. I think your faith in people's willingness to wade through enormous and cumbersome arguments, and then emerge with the "truth" is sadly misplaced in this venue.

But you'll keep trying anyway? :)

I wouldn't disagree with your point here, it's very largely valid. I would comment on the specific case, since I do have some knowledge of it.

A larger amount would have been noticeable much more quickly...as it was, we discovered the discrepancy because it caused a breach in the referential integrity of the database - that is to say, because it was done directly to just one table, other tables with relationships to it showed a discrepancy. I think there are key integrity checks that can be built into any Bank now to lesson the possibility that it would be noticed sooner....but that doesn't make it impossible, just more difficult.

I've already covered this multiple times.

You're the one talking to me. I'm talking to raw.

We have much in common, you and I.

Since this has turned into debate club, I'd like to see Darth Tickles cite his sources. Should he fail to do so, all points that he's made are hereby moot on the grounds that they're unsubstantiated pomp wrapped in a 'mysterious' avatar

Of course, What we'll see now is yet another reply decrying both my understanding of fundamental economics, EVE's meta, and anything else he cares to 'slam my **** in the door' about

More on topic now
Risk in EVE is the end-all-be-all mechanic that the game is entirely built around, as I've said before. You take a risk when you undock, you take a risk when you purchase a good (for trade or use), you take a risk when you fill a bond, when you offer a bond, loan or IPO, and you take a risk whenever you engage with another part of the game

Now, these are all things that hold true in the real world as well. This is the great wit of EVE's creators -- in the real world, you take a risk when you engage with another part of reality. You risk pain, you risk money, you risk your time, you risk the very idea and concept of yourself whenever you are in contact with something else (which is all the time)

While much of Real Life's risks are insubstantial, you are always actively managing those risks -- with EVE, the repercussions are largely intangible. You're not going to lose your job, you're not going to die, you're not going to be in debt to creditors, there are no long-term substantial, tangible, REAL risks involved with anything you're doing in EVE. This is the basic fabric of EVE

[i] how can you best manage risk for fun and profit[/i
Be it with the spaceship you undock with, or the goods you purchase (for trade or use), when you're filling the bond, when you're offering the bond, loan or IPO, and whenever you are engaging with another part of the game

When EBANK Collapsed (and I'm sure you're going to take issue with this part, because I don't understand what I'm talking about), what did the depositors REALLY lose

Was it their time? Certainly not, because they made a concious decision to accrue the capital, spend it, and hope. At no point during this process were the ever NOT playing the game

Was it their money? Nowhere on any GTC, ETC, or PLEX does it entitle you to profit, fun, or success. They are merely tickets to get in

Was it their reputation? No, they're the 'victims' of one player's greed, [i]which everyone is well aware is a major driving force of everything in EVE.[/i

Now look at it from the other angle, if you would, Tickles

When EBANK Collapsed what did those who ran it lose
Was it their time? Definitely. If you're famiiar with EBANK you'll know they spent extensive time outside of the game building a framework from scratch, IN THE REAL WORLD (much like your book), discussing business strategies etc

Was it their money? Of course! It costs money to host things on the web, surely even you must know this

Was it their reputation? Without a doubt. As evidenced by your sentiment toward Hexxx, he is clearly not a trusted individual in your book of names, likely stemming from his involvement with EBANK. The name ITSELF is (as has been said in this thread before) the 'kiss of death', and rightly so -- it was a monumental construct collapsing in on itself for the reasons we've spent nearly 12 pages discussing thus far


My point is this: You take risks. You choose what those risks are, and the game is a game of managing those risks. So here we are, discussing the concept of banking in a hypothetical setting, attempting to 'work out the kinks' as it were; meanwhile, you sit just outside the realm of reasonable discussion, blurting out your objections to nearly everything suggested, implied, and sometimes to things that just aren't there, on the grounds that you know more, you've experienced more, and that these things somehow entitle you to faith-based arguments that should be listened to and thoughtlessly accepted simply because Darth Tickles, master of EVE, says them.

You are entirely correct that there is never enough money to pay for all the debt. We have a debt-based monetary system. If all the debt were theoretically wiped out, new money could not be created and the system would crash. However, the debt that we are talking about is not the debt that people are familiar with. It is not bad, destructive debt that is even intended to be entirely paid off at some point in the future. The rate of increase of debt is on an exponential growth function along with the exponential growth of production of goods (because of increase exponential growth of technology and population). So your statement that it is on an inevitable track to "explode" is false and due to misconceptions about how the system functions.

Also, I was specifically talking about Treasury Notes, not Federal Reserve Notes. Treasury Notes (and Treasury Bills, Treasury Bonds) are all bonds issued by the US Government. Those bonds are sold on a private market (usually of commercial banks) very regularly. This is how the US accrues debt to pay for the the great number of governmental programs, with the intention of collecting taxes to pay off debt while accruing future debt. The Federal Reserve can purchase these bonds from the commercial banks by creating money out of thin air. That is one of their central jobs, in fact. The rate at which they buy bonds controls the rate of increase of the money supply. At the end, the Federal Reserve must pay the US Treasury back its earnings from the bonds it bought. This is why you hear the phrase "the US government owes itself the majority of its own debt." The entire system is extremely clever, because it is designed to avoid the US Treasury being able to create money itself. Past history has shown that when a government has direct ability to create the money supply, they are much more likely to spend themselves into hyperinflation. The Federal Reserve system is a checks and balance for money creation.



I actually apologize for the way the cognitive dissonance remark was said. I was trying to make a legitimate point about a seeming contradiction in his statements in a cute way to try to make light fun, but later realized that, under the already heated circumstances of our general disagreements, it just made Darth more irritated. My manner was childish. Sorry Darth Tickles.



Hexxx and I were not definitely not advocating exploiting people as a policy that a future bank upstart should take. I think we were commenting that, eventually, another bright group of MD thinkers might get together and try to start a bank again. And we both believe that there seems to be people willing to trust a bank, especially if the bank can explain how it would avoid the problems that plagued previous banks. A lot of MDers might think anyone who invests in a new bank is a complete idiot, but I actually do not hold that opinion. Judging from forum posts, I believe that a lot of people that invested with Phaser were giving them a few hundred million expecting to lose that small amount but really hoping that Phaser would prove itself to be a real bank. From their perspective, a few hundred million is a rather paltry amount to pay for the chance to see if an upstart bank that is getting a lot of attention actually at least paying back the principal plus interest (of course, it does nothing to check to see if it is a Ponzi Scheme).



I really want the discussion to center around the API as a method to overcome the database vulnerabilities, because I believe the API might be the way to fix the problem. If all deposits and withdrawals are sent through a handful of bank characters, then those APIs should be able to recreate the entire logs of the banks transactions. Imagine if the API was not only being retrieved by the bank's database for their website, but it was also being retrieved by a trusted third parties database. Then all the accounts were made public, so everyone could see everyone's deposit or withdrawal. The trusted third party could clearly see irregularities if the database were tampered with. Moreover, if the bank was scammed and the database destroyed, the third party would still have the records to help the bank repay its customers from the assets that remained.

I think you'd find a wee bit of opposition to that.

Most people don't like other people to know just how much ISK they have (or don't have).
Or for that matter that they are involved with Bank X in the first place.

Privacy is a BIG concern for many. Any bank not respecting that would have an even harder time growing.

---

As for a technical solution as how to secure data, it's really not that hard.

Daily backups of the DB is sufficient (to a different location)
The API is able to track back that far should a DB disaster occur (do note that the API has a limit as to how far back you can "see")

That done, you can always go back and analyze the data in case of suspected DB tampering.

You won't be able to *prevent* it (as that's simply logical impossible), but you'll be able to detect it.