Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Competing BitUSDs in DACs - why no cross-chain atomicity instead of merger?  (Read 625 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline monsterer


There's been a lot of talk recently about preventing the various DACs from competing with each other, by merging them all into Bitshares. The DACs would be competing if each one of them (being blockchains in their own right), had to implement its own, completely separate BitUSD. This would indeed be disastrous and confusing, since you'd have a set of differently priced(!) and differently liquid BitUSD markets for each asset.

What I don't really understand is why there isn't a feature in the core to allow cross-chain atomic operations, then you could still have each DAC be its own blockchain (since they need to store their state somehow), have the asset which represents the DAC listed as a plain user created asset on the main bitsharesX DAC, but also allow operations on the local DAC's blockchain to be synchronized atomically with the bitsharesX DAC blockchain when needed - for example, paying dividends to asset holders, or a unlocking a purchase of music via BitUSD.

That way you can keep the separation of concerns of having a blockchain per DAC and also pave the way for non dacsunlimited 3rd party DACs to have the same advantage of sharing a nice, singular, liquid BitUSD market.

Anyone care to enlighten me? :)

Cheers, Paul.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2014, 04:29:22 PM by monsterer »
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Nice question! I'd like to see proper explanation and analysis on this one.

Offline Pheonike

It is matter of time and resources. That ability is going to be added. But until then it easier to market and brand one-chain for now. Plus, it's a waste of resources in sense to have these separate chains with separate set of delegates when there is some much unused capacity on the BTS chain. By the time the BTS becomes saturated the cross-chain trading will already be developed.

Offline monsterer

It is matter of time and resources. That ability is going to be added. But until then it easier to market and brand one-chain for now. Plus, it's a waste of resources in sense to have these separate chains with separate set of delegates when there is some much unused capacity on the BTS chain. By the time the BTS becomes saturated the cross-chain trading will already be developed.

I'm surprised it would take less time to merge all those DACs into one giant blockchain than it would to add the cross-chain stuff...but there again, I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the code-base :)
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Pheonike


It may not take that long, but from a marketing stand point it is easier to initially market one brand "BitShares" than multiple ones. Especially since we are trying to make a big marketing push in one month. It's going to take a lot testing to make sure it works. You don't marketing something in beta to masses when it dealing with money.

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Each new BitUSD purchased adds at least that amount to the CAP of a DAC.

An outsider buying $10 million BitUSD today would raise the CAP of BTSX by at least $10 million or more.

So competing DACs would rather have their own 'X'USD adding value to their own DAC than use BitUSD from BTSX. Which is why we'd having competing BitAssets if we didn't merge & have everyone's interest aligned with people using BitAssets on BTS is my understanding.

 

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12339
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I'm surprised it would take less time to merge all those DACs into one giant blockchain than it would to add the cross-chain stuff...but there again, I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the code-base :)
Having separated blockchains does not solve the issue of "serving two masters" ..
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline monsterer

Each new BitUSD purchased adds at least that amount to the CAP of a DAC.

An outsider buying $10 million BitUSD today would raise the CAP of BTSX by at least $10 million or more.

So competing DACs would rather have their own 'X'USD adding value to their own DAC than use BitUSD from BTSX. Which is why we'd having competing BitAssets if we didn't merge & have everyone's interest aligned with people using BitAssets on BTS is my understanding.

But in a parallel argument, each asset (representing a DAC in my suggested model) on bitsharesX increases in CAP exactly the same way as shares are purchased?
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Pheonike


Having those separate chains will require having separate teams developing on them. Right now we don't have enough developers available to support all those separate projects. Each of those features can have their own frontend client.

Offline monsterer

Having separated blockchains does not solve the issue of "serving two masters" ..

This is the issue with bytemaster being requested to carry improvements in one DAC over to all the others? I'm not certain, but it sounds like the implementation of a DAC would be a lot easier without having to worry about the wallet, the matching engine, the GUI, the markets etc etc? All of those concerns would vanish if you just had assets (representing the foreign DACs) listed on bitsharesX DAC because you'd be using the existing system. Therefore, as a DAC implementer, you wouldn't need to pester bytemaster to add those features to your own DAC, you'd 'just' talk to the bitsharesX DAC using this atomic op system.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Each new BitUSD purchased adds at least that amount to the CAP of a DAC.

An outsider buying $10 million BitUSD today would raise the CAP of BTSX by at least $10 million or more.

So competing DACs would rather have their own 'X'USD adding value to their own DAC than use BitUSD from BTSX. Which is why we'd having competing BitAssets if we didn't merge & have everyone's interest aligned with people using BitAssets on BTS is my understanding.

But in a parallel argument, each asset (representing a DAC in my suggested model) on bitsharesX increases in CAP exactly the same way as shares are purchased?

Ok I missed that. I guess your model would require another 101 delegate system for each DAC and all the hassle and expense that entails. It could also diminish the network effect of single blockchain would get & the individual DACs might still be be exposed to BTSX failure risk. 

If it's a user issued asset like on NXT, NXT only benefits from transaction fees. The CAP of the user issued asset doesn't add to the CAP of NXT just like MaidSafecoin is actually worth more than Mastercoin itself.

So putting it all on one blockchain maximises network effect & gives BTS shareholders maximum benefit from what would have been the CAP of individual DACs as well as the increase in CAP from anybody purchasing BitAssets. Not sure though.

Offline monsterer

Ok I missed that. I guess your model would require another 101 delegate system for each DAC and all the hassle and expense that entails. It could also diminish the network effect of single blockchain would get & the individual DACs might still be be exposed to BTSX failure risk. 

If it's a user issued asset like on NXT, NXT only benefits from transaction fees. The CAP of the user issued asset doesn't add to the CAP of NXT just like MaidSafecoin is actually worth more than Mastercoin itself.

So putting it all on one blockchain maximises network effect & gives BTS shareholders maximum benefit from what would have been the CAP of individual DACs as well as the increase in CAP from anybody purchasing BitAssets. Not sure though.

Delegates are obviously required to produce the blocks in any new DAC due to DPOS, but that will be true of every single third party DAC which is created in either system.

If the user issued asset is purchased with BitUSD and that BitUSD has been on-ramped into bitsharex from fiat currencies, then surely the asset's CAP *does* add to the worth of the entire bitsharesx DAC?
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
If the user issued asset is purchased with BitUSD and that BitUSD has been on-ramped into bitsharex from fiat currencies, then surely the asset's CAP *does* add to the worth of the entire bitsharesx DAC?

I don't think so.  Like MaidSafe was purchased with Mastercoin but the assets $10 million CAP does not add to the CAP of MSC. So too, if the third party DAC is an asset, even if it's purchased with on-ramped fiat to BitUSD, it still only has a temporary BTSX boost and we only benefit from transaction fees long term not the assets CAP.

I'm not super technical though.

Offline Pheonike

User assets won't increase the value bts no collateral needed to generate them.

Offline vbuterin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
So basically, implementing sidechains to have a shared cross-platform currency?

It's a rather sound idea in principle; sidechains are actually much easier and more scalable to do between two properly designed 2.0 networks than when one of the networks is Bitcoin.

 

Google+