Author Topic: Merging Ethereum and BitShares  (Read 10213 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
My advice is to focus on you own ecosystem and implement smart contracts via codius.

I just started reading about Codius. I like their decision to allow regular programming languages to be used and to run them in a Native Client sandbox rather than a VM!

Just need an API to access the BitShares database (accounts, balances, order books) and the Object Graph, require some threshold of the 101 active delegates in a round (say 80%?) to approve of the actions (changes to the database that the smart contract has authority over) claimed to be done by this contract, and figure out a good way of charging fees in a deterministic manner.

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4311
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
My advice is to focus on you own ecosystem and implement smart contracts via codius.

 +5%
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
If someone wants to read the post they can PM me. On second thought I was being overly negative and it's not the kind of stuff we want posted directly in our general discussion. It's one of those ideas I had and was compelled to write out, but now I've already written it there's no need for it anymore (because honestly, the chances of a merger are.. yeah). The discussion can still continue, random people just shouldn't be exposed to a wall of text that can be interpreted as bearish.

to be clear I don't think removing it was necessary at all, and its a good conversation

I know, the fact that someone apparently posted it somewhere else just makes me too nervous to keep it up since that also happened with my last crazy merger plan and that didn't put our community in too good a light.

On second thought I'd rather have the discussion be how to compete with ethereum rather than how to merge with them.

Edit: okay put it back in the OP with a disclaimer. Shouldn't cause problems now.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2015, 01:59:09 am by Rune »

charleshoskinson

  • Guest
There are different ways to construct bitassets. It depends upon what parameters you tend to care most about and what tradeoffs you are willing to live with. Networks of federated servers enabling fractional reserve CfDs connected to a margin pool might work significantly better with the tradeoff of reduced fungibility for example.

Ethereum likely won't have a PoW system for long. I've seen the work on a replacement PoS system it's quite nicely thought out, yet still requires a formal proof in something like TLA+ and peer review.

My advice is to focus on you own ecosystem and implement smart contracts via codius.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
I say dont delete this post.

Here is another question: Can EtherUSD capture its transaction fees and return them to EtherUSD holders as yield? Or are they just sent into the mining vortex as usual? Again switching to PoS at a later date is another reason why BitShares does BitAssets more cleanly.

Would love to know what Charles thinks.

Fees paid in BitUSD are double the normal fees, so the ethUSD contract could have an extra fee on top that turned into yield. Actually there's one big benefit I'm realizing now, it'll probably never be possible to send an ethUSD transaction without holding ETH. That complicates things for the kind of banking customers we're trying to target.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
If someone wants to read the post they can PM me. On second thought I was being overly negative and it's not the kind of stuff we want posted directly in our general discussion. It's one of those ideas I had and was compelled to write out, but now I've already written it there's no need for it anymore (because honestly, the chances of a merger are.. yeah). The discussion can still continue, random people just shouldn't be exposed to a wall of text that can be interpreted as bearish.

to be clear I don't think removing it was necessary at all, and its a good conversation
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Newmine's next post on bitcointalk will probably now be "Greedy Bitshares Devs want to merge with Ethereum".  :P
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
If someone wants to read the post they can PM me. On second thought I was being overly negative and it's not the kind of stuff we want posted directly in our general discussion. It's one of those ideas I had and was compelled to write out, but now I've already written it there's no need for it anymore (because honestly, the chances of a merger are.. yeah). The discussion can still continue, random people just shouldn't be exposed to a wall of text that can be interpreted as bearish.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Quote
I disagree with this. You don't want to put everything on the slow VM. You want certain things written natively so that they are accelerated. Certainly there is a huge place for Turing complete scripts, but there is also an important place for native features. I think what is really important is to have a good method of coming to consensus on feature upgrades that are requested to be developed, and then a binding way to vote for the hard fork features to activate on the blockchain (this would obviously only happen after enough people have upgraded to the new clients supporting those features).

Ethereum already has a feature that basically allows you to run certain often-used programs as native code. I think the actual mechanism that creates market pegged assets is programmatically very simple anyway, and in the long run I think all blockchains will converge on the same "speed".

I used to agree with your last point, but what's making me change my mind is one of the things we're discovering with our delegates. Programmers will prefer technical complexity to social complexity. I think the guy who comes up with some fancy new feature will much rather try to put in some way of monetizing it directly in the code, rather than having to campaign for delegate funding. I used to think that direct monetization was impossible, but the trick is simply that if the fee is low enough then people won't even bother switching to a fee-less clone, and if there's any sort of network effect from the feature then the first person to invent it will be completely "locked in".

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Removing this would be ridiculous. Don't give in to that kind of pressure. This isn't coming from BM, I3, or the community. This is one person's idea and it's food for discussion. If someone from the outside cannot put that into proper context, then let them think what they will.

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
LOL, great job @ the shamless pumper who submitted this to r/ethereum. You sure know how to ruin our reputation in the space.

Lol... Ultimately the ethereum community is as money hungry as every other coin... Should I delete OP?

No, but if you can't tell the difference between this thread and the thing posted to reddit then you should contain your opinions to this forum

I can't find anything like this on reddit? Got worried for a moment someone linked directly to this post as proof that bitshares is bad. Gonna remove the text anyway to make sure it doesn't happen.

Someone linked to this with the title "Bitshares and ethereum merger?". No ability to empathize and clearly a BTS bagholder. Really makes me angry because that "helpful" behavior directly hurts us.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
I say dont delete this post.

Here is another question: Can EtherUSD capture its transaction fees and return them to EtherUSD holders as yield? Or are they just sent into the mining vortex as usual? Again switching to PoS at a later date is another reason why BitShares does BitAssets more cleanly.

Would love to know what Charles thinks.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2015, 01:28:03 am by speedy »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
One of our biggest assets is our creative agility.
Merging with any other big community (whether Overstock, or Ethereum, or Disney) would destroy that.

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
LOL, great job @ the shamless pumper who submitted this to r/ethereum. You sure know how to ruin our reputation in the space.

Lol... Ultimately the ethereum community is as money hungry as every other coin... Should I delete OP?

No, but if you can't tell the difference between this thread and the thing posted to reddit then you should contain your opinions to this forum

I can't find anything like this on reddit? Got worried for a moment someone linked directly to this post as proof that bitshares is bad. Gonna remove the text anyway to make sure it doesn't happen.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Even BitShares would eventually have to be reinvented as a turing complete block chain, and the hard coded market pegged assets would likely have to be replaced by scripted MPA's, in order to streamline and optimize everything.

I disagree with this. You don't want to put everything on the slow VM. You want certain things written natively so that they are accelerated. Certainly there is a huge place for Turing complete scripts, but there is also an important place for native features. I think what is really important is to have a good method of coming to consensus on feature upgrades that are requested to be developed, and then a binding way to vote for the hard fork features to activate on the blockchain (this would obviously only happen after enough people have upgraded to the new clients supporting those features).

Before I bothered to understand it, I'd always imagined that Ethereum, as this "gimmick turing complete fancy little block chain for nerds", would end up becoming a sidechain of BitShares, where all the useful stuff could then be put on the primary BitShares block chain.

This sidechain idea is still valid in my opinion. You can pay for all of the Dapps running on the blockchain specializing on general purpose computation using BitAssets that derive their value from the root DAC in which they are shorted into existence and collateralized by BTS. That is what I propose here.

Now I personally don't think we will be able to achieve consensus between BTS and ETH stakeholders and join forces. But let's say it was possible. We would need a way to negotiate the terms of the merger. Simply arbitrarily picking percentages or having negotiations between Dan and Vitalik isn't going to cut it. The stakeholders need to come to a consensus. So I suggest the following method if you did in fact want to go through with this merger:

We modify the BitShares codebase to allow for BTS stake to also vote for a percentage between 0% and 100% in addition to a delegate slate, and update the BitShares client to this new codebase. We launch a DPOS no-BitAsset clone of this new BitShares with the genesis allocated to ETH stake (call this ETH'). We would have to convince the Ethereum community to import their private keys into the client and use it to vote for their preferences with the understanding that if the merger goes through their original ETH allocation will be worthless and this new ETH' will end up having value (at least temporarily until it is snapshotted into yet another token). BTS holders will be voting for the smallest percentage allocation in a new combined token (call it BTS') that they will accept, with the remainder being distributed to ETH' holders. Similarly, ETH' holders will be voting for the smallest percentage allocation in BTS' that they will accept, with the remainder being distributed to BTS holders. This gives us a distribution of each community's stake over the percentages they each accept in the new combined token. We search for the percentage breakdown that maximizes the sum of the percentage of stakeholders approving of that breakdown for each of the communities (with equal weights for each community in the sum). If the lesser percentage of stakeholders approving of that optimal breakdown between the two communities is larger than X% (I suggest an X = 75), then we go through with the merger. If after some point in time (after people change their votes back and forth and stake ownership shifts around) the previous condition is not satisfied, then we give up on the idea.

If the merger is to go through and we have our consensus percentage breakdown, we can then hard fork BTS to BTS' (with its new stake allocation) and let the previous ETH' holders (who were previously ETH holders) join our community with a fungible asset we all share. At that point, the Ethereum devs and their crowdsale funds follow along with the community. At some point, when the Proof-of-Stake version (ideally using DPOS) of Ethereum (with BitAssets added) is ready, the client can hard fork again from the BitShares client to that new Ethereum client. We can also rename BTS' to something else and do an overall rebranding to something else (decided by BTS' stakeholder consensus).
« Last Edit: January 09, 2015, 01:42:07 am by arhag »