>Well if it is measured at the 1-second or 1-millisecond level, yes the exchanges are in compliance. At the 100-microsecond, 10-microsecond and nanosecond level, perhaps the exchange is in compliance at the 50th percentile.
And once you hit the <1 millisecond level, it's hard to even get reliable measurements, which makes compliance for "same time delivery" really really freaking hard.
Keep in mind, when you're talking about the nanosecond level, you're at the point where the length of cabling between the systems matters.
Sure, there's a lot of new tech coming out, especially with using GPS to synchronize clocks, but it's still a major issue.
It's a hard problem, but it's not insurmountable. Most places are getting these measurements by using PTP with hardware timestamping. Solarflare has NIC offerings where the packets are hardware timestamped on the wire regardless of the queueing that occurs on the internal socketbuffer with that data being available through several special metachannels.
Facebook has a lot more information about you than what you post and 'privacy controls' presumably limit who gets access to the information you do. Both of these things are being abused.
>An m-of-n transaction with a decent and trusted intermediary (or multiple less trusted intermediaries) could also replace bank guarantees, which is the simplest form of trade finance. There are also other opportunities in using bitcoin as proof of ownership or proof that you hold a product.
So let's replace banks with... banks?
The overhead costs that bitcoin will save are just the wire transfer fees. Beyond that, there's still lawyer time, intermediary escrow fees, etc. Those will not change.
You would replace a bank with coinbase, circle, someone else you trust or 2, 3, 4, 5 or even 10 other companies or individuals. Similar to a web of trust.
That is just to replace the trust element of a bank, not the financial function. At the moment it is nearly impossible to split trust across more than one institution - which means there is a single point of failure in the trust chain and if 2008 repeats again x% of people will lose funds. m-of-n allows you to distribute that trust, even if its just more banks signing the transactions to begin with.
Further, there are other ways to do proof of reserve with bitcoin that don't involve m-of-n.
In terms of the financing and risk assessment element, you could carve that out in tranches and sell out it on auction. At the moment the $2 trillion p.a trade finance market is limited in entry to only those who have a banking license, hence the thick fees and profits in it. You could open up the financing and terms to an open market, just like crowdsourced venture funding or project funding, or have smaller institutions that specialize in certain types of risk that they better understand (it is crazy that there are a half-dozen major banks who pretend to be able to understand and price every time of import / export finance situation anywhere in the world).
There's one big difference here: with Bitcoin's multi-signature transactions, you can require the agreement of two of the buyer, seller and arbiter in order to release the funds. The arbiter cannot move funds on its own and must have the cooperation of one of the other parties, which means that he doesn't actually control nor hold any funds. The legal situation here is a classic binding arbitration, and not an escrow - which are very strictly regulated, require licensing in some parts of the world and have a very high costs of operations due to bonds and securities.
Dealing with arbitration services rather than with escrow makes this much simpler, drops the entry/operational costs to nearly nothing and does not even require a lawyer to assist you with the process. This lowers the barriers of entry significantly and allows to create a competitive market for arbitration services in a way that's simply not possible when an escrow is required, leading to reduced end-user costs and improved service quality.
Source: I'm the founder of Bitrated [1], a service that enables exactly those kinds of arbitration services, and received extensive legal advice on this matter from my attorney. Do note, however, that this is a new and somewhat gray territory that can be interpreted in multiple ways (and of course, IANAL/TINLA apply - ask your own lawyer before doing anything.)
(P.S. Bitrated v2, a complete rewrite I've been working on for the past 6 months, which now includes an identity & reputation management system, is about to be shortly released. If anyone is interested, you can follow @bitrated on twitter for updates. </shameless-promotion>)
My point was that Amazon is unprofitable by choice and that makes all the difference.
Amazon is putting food on the table for thousands of people. They are facilitating the sale of product for tens (hundreds?) of thousands of businesses. Their technology underpins and enables many of the startups we love. Their cash flow was and is healthy. That is very different than being unable to turn a profit.
edit: What I meant by "a profitable business" is that Amazon is in several different industries. They have profitable business. They offset their profitable business with growth expenses, but they have business that is profitable.
Not exactly, there is a difference between a company with no revenues burning money and a company that is unprofitable but could be if it stopped spending money on growth and just sat on the income from its existing business.
30-pin was an Apple-only connector, though. Same with lightning.
The 1.5mm jack, on the other hand, is the standard audio connector for just about every consumer-grade device in the world. Not sure what the upside is for Apple, even with them owning Beats.
I agree with you, but here is a weird idea: they will have to make room for a micro USB connector to comply with EU regulations. Adding a connector doesn't feel like anything Apple would do, and giving up lightning would be admitting defeat.
So, let's suppose they go this route: I think that an adapter could be ridiculously small. It needs to wrap that audio connector, hold it tighter than a lighting connector holds a lightning cable (should be fairly easy), add about half a centimeter for the lightning plug, and have room for some chip doing lightning-to-audio conversion.
A lot of speculation? Yes, but if it works, I can see them go that way. The main problem is the case of people who use a single headset with iPhones and non-Apple devices (extra weird idea: when do we see lightning in iMacs?)
And once you hit the <1 millisecond level, it's hard to even get reliable measurements, which makes compliance for "same time delivery" really really freaking hard.
Keep in mind, when you're talking about the nanosecond level, you're at the point where the length of cabling between the systems matters.
Sure, there's a lot of new tech coming out, especially with using GPS to synchronize clocks, but it's still a major issue.