bitcoin->bitBTC gateway needs testers!

[svk]

What if there is a delegate.gateway for this that will shoulder any fees in this kind of service, so it will be zero fee, 1:1  bitcoin <-> bitBTC
or even give bonus when transferring bitcoin to bitBTC

Why should the DAC subsidize such a service? It is offered by 3rd parties and used by 3rd parties. Let them handle the fees among themselves.

Agreed, while it will be necessary for anyone providing this service to put up some starting capital, once it's up and runnning it should be able to finance itself through fees. Bridges can then compete on fees and on reputation.

[pc]

What if there is a delegate.gateway for this that will shoulder any fees in this kind of service, so it will be zero fee, 1:1  bitcoin <-> bitBTC
or even give bonus when transferring bitcoin to bitBTC

Why should the DAC subsidize such a service? It is offered by 3rd parties and used by 3rd parties. Let them handle the fees among themselves.

[Shentist]

What if there is a delegate.gateway for this that will shoulder any fees in this kind of service, so it will be zero fee, 1:1  bitcoin <-> bitBTC
or even give bonus when transferring bitcoin to bitBTC

pls check my post before.

after the webside is running and the service is function properly we could do it this way. At this point in time we don't need to make money, but don't want to loose also.

[joele]

What if there is a delegate.gateway for this that will shoulder any fees in this kind of service, so it will be zero fee, 1:1  bitcoin <-> bitBTC
or even give bonus when transferring bitcoin to bitBTC

[bitmarley]

In the same way that delegates do price feeds, couldn't they verify bitcoin transactions, thereby making bitcoin trades with bitshares trustless?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13274

[bytemaster]

so the escrow feature could make crypto gateways trustless?
what is the escrow mechanism?

Doesn't make gateways trustless, but provides a dispute resolution for person to person trades.

[bitmarley]

so the escrow feature could make crypto gateways trustless?
what is the escrow mechanism?

[Shentist]

Escrow is tested and ready for next DVS hard fork. 

great!!

would love to bring the p2p transfers rolling.

[bytemaster]

Escrow is tested and ready for next DVS hard fork. 

[Shentist]

I mean when the gateway is running  the user who transfers BTC, who do they have to trust if anyone?
Could the gateway operator steal btc or fail to function?   

you have to trust us for sure, because we are running this and will use the own funds to make it possible. we are thinking about a p2p solution via escrow in the moment, because we believe it would be great to just trade p2p with only a needed escrow for dispute.

[bitmarley]

I mean when the gateway is running  the user who transfers BTC, who do they have to trust if anyone?
Could the gateway operator steal btc or fail to function?   

[Shentist]

Can someone provide a trust profile of this gateway?

what do you mean with it?

the tech you can check on the github  https://github.com/wildbunny/metaexchange

if you mean the trustworthy of the community members who are in that moment involved (shentist, monsterer)

- you can check our posts and what we are doing for the community

- we are in GER and UK so not much to say at this point in time.

- later on you will get more informations when the side and the gateway/bridge is running for the public!

[bitmarley]

Can someone provide a trust profile of this gateway?

[monsterer]

I played a bit with this service, today.

I realize I did not follow the instructions [partly because my Armory does not provide compresses private keys only the one that start with 5. So does the BTS client  btw when you use wallet_dump_private_key, even though you say it does use compressed ones, maybe internally], anyway with that in mind I used amounts that I really do not care about.

- I dumped the private key, using wallet_dump_private_key, of the active public key of an unregistered BTS account.

- Imported those in the BTC wallet.

-Transferred BTC to the gateway address from there and got the bitBTC.

- Using the GUI sent those bitBTC to metaexchangebtc and got nothing back... :)

No worries, as I said it was a very small amount, just letting you know how it went.

Can you give me the bitshares trx id of the bitBTC that you sent, I'll look into what happened? :)

[clout]

Request them to remove this. It would bring more volume and benefit them also.

Why would we remove the easiest way for people to buy our product? If anything we should suggest they get rid of the the 1% fee on bts withdrawals which is inconsistent with all other withdrawals

[sumantso]

with 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.

I don't really follow this statement. Theres also a negligible fee associated with bitcoin and bitassets deposits/withdrawals. You'd only really be subject to the 0.2% for converstion from btc to bts.

I think he's taking into account the 1% BTS withdrawal fee on Bter.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

This is also why bitUSD is a better alternative to bitBTC. If the reserves for bitUSD run low you can purchase them on bter and circumvent the 1% fee. I personally don't believe we should use bitBTC at all but we'll see how the market develops.

Request them to remove this. It would bring more volume and benefit them also.

[clout]

with 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.

I don't really follow this statement. Theres also a negligible fee associated with bitcoin and bitassets deposits/withdrawals. You'd only really be subject to the 0.2% for converstion from btc to bts.

I think he's taking into account the 1% BTS withdrawal fee on Bter.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

This is also why bitUSD is a better alternative to bitBTC. If the reserves for bitUSD run low you can purchase them on bter and circumvent the 1% fee. I personally don't believe we should use bitBTC at all but we'll see how the market develops.

[biophil]

with 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.

I don't really follow this statement. Theres also a negligible fee associated with bitcoin and bitassets deposits/withdrawals. You'd only really be subject to the 0.2% for converstion from btc to bts.

I think he's taking into account the 1% BTS withdrawal fee on Bter.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

[jshow5555]

I played a bit with this service, today.

I realize I did not follow the instructions [partly because my Armory does not provide compresses private keys only the one that start with 5. So does the BTS client  btw when you use wallet_dump_private_key, even though you say it does use compressed ones, maybe internally], anyway with that in mind I used amounts that I really do not care about.

- I dumped the private key, using wallet_dump_private_key, of the active public key of an unregistered BTS account.

- Imported those in the BTC wallet.

-Transferred BTC to the gateway address from there and got the bitBTC.

- Using the GUI sent those bitBTC to metaexchangebtc and got nothing back... :)

No worries, as I said it was a very small amount, just letting you know how it went.

[clout]

with 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.

I don't really follow this statement. Theres also a negligible fee associated with bitcoin and bitassets deposits/withdrawals. You'd only really be subject to the 0.2% for converstion from btc to bts.

[toast]

I think we should call services like this "bridges" to distinguish from "gateways" which issue IOUs.

[Shentist]

What jurisdiction are you based in?

UK / Germany

In Germany you most likely need permission from the BAFin for such a gateway. I can only recommend *not* running that service from here, you may get into serious trouble.

In the future we hope to provide a FIAT gateway,  for this we need a permission. We are fully aware of this.

If you guys can handle transactions from third party services is it necessary to establish a fiat gateway?

It would be cool if I could buy $500 worth of btc instantly from circle.com. Send those btc to the gateway and receive 500 bitusd. I know that you have said you want to monetize the services of this gateway but I think it would be far more beneficial to not charge users for converting btc to bitassets. We want want to make the on and off ramp process as frictionless as possible. Actually, it might be useful to use another delegate spot to subsidize the spread costs. I'd certainly vote for the use of funds in this way. 

we don't care to make money at this point, but we have to think not to loose money by providing this service. I think we can discuss any possibility if anything is running and the community thinks it is better to make it without fees.

the only concern was that we are running out of funds and we need to convert on extern sources and this will costs fees. if we could cover this fees with a delegate position - fine! with 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.

But, now, we need first to prove that this service is function without bugs.

[clout]

What jurisdiction are you based in?

UK / Germany

In Germany you most likely need permission from the BAFin for such a gateway. I can only recommend *not* running that service from here, you may get into serious trouble.

In the future we hope to provide a FIAT gateway,  for this we need a permission. We are fully aware of this.

If you guys can handle transactions from third party services is it necessary to establish a fiat gateway?

It would be cool if I could buy $500 worth of btc instantly from circle.com. Send those btc to the gateway and receive 500 bitusd. I know that you have said you want to monetize the services of this gateway but I think it would be far more beneficial to not charge users for converting btc to bitassets. We want want to make the on and off ramp process as frictionless as possible. Actually, it might be useful to use another delegate spot to subsidize the spread costs. I'd certainly vote for the use of funds in this way. 

[fluxer555]

That's true, however for optimal performance, a gateway should be able to handle high volumes, as well as high asymmetric volumes. Being able to change funds in only one direction could leave a bad taste in the mouths of some new users.

[clout]

Thinking about this... it seems you will need to hold 2x the value of the volume at any point in time in order to remain both instant and 100% solvent at all times. If somebody sends you 1BTC, then you purchase 1 BitBTC with your own funds, and hold the 1BTC. You need to hold on to that 1 BTC, so that when they cash out from BitBTC to BTC, you have the funds readily available to send them instantly.

If you go the route of only holding 1x funds, then first of all there will be a delay between when you send BTC and receive BitBTC (receive BTC > centralized exchange > buy BTS > send to wallet > buyBitBTC > send to customer) and a delay from withdrawals (receive BitBTC > sell for BTS > centralized exchange > buy BTC > send to customer). Secondly, you are exposed to volatility in that time frame. Thirdly, you will often be <100% solvent in the middle of these trades.

Thoughts?

There is no issue of solvency because this is a bitasset gateway not an iou gateway. Theres no obligation to provide or redeem bitBTC.

[Shentist]

Thinking about this... it seems you will need to hold 2x the value of the volume at any point in time in order to remain both instant and 100% solvent at all times. If somebody sends you 1BTC, then you purchase 1 BitBTC with your own funds, and hold the 1BTC. You need to hold on to that 1 BTC, so that when they cash out from BitBTC to BTC, you have the funds readily available to send them instantly.

If you go the route of only holding 1x funds, then first of all there will be a delay between when you send BTC and receive BitBTC (receive BTC > centralized exchange > buy BTS > send to wallet > buyBitBTC > send to customer) and a delay from withdrawals (receive BitBTC > sell for BTS > centralized exchange > buy BTC > send to customer). Secondly, you are exposed to volatility in that time frame. Thirdly, you will often be <100% solvent in the middle of these trades.

Thoughts?

no we will hold both sides at the same time. the only problem is, if we are only trading in one side and running out of bitBTC or BTC. We are thinking of some solutions, but we need just to make the test runs and bring the webside online.

would be nice to get some feedback from people who tried it, and can provide information how it work or are there problems we are not aware at the moment.

Perhaps you could do what alt did and create a UIA to fund liquidity of operations. You could give shareholders of this UIA dividends of your profits.

this could be done if needed. in the moment we need to prove - that it is working, nothing do think to far ahead.

[fluxer555]

Thinking about this... it seems you will need to hold 2x the value of the volume at any point in time in order to remain both instant and 100% solvent at all times. If somebody sends you 1BTC, then you purchase 1 BitBTC with your own funds, and hold the 1BTC. You need to hold on to that 1 BTC, so that when they cash out from BitBTC to BTC, you have the funds readily available to send them instantly.

If you go the route of only holding 1x funds, then first of all there will be a delay between when you send BTC and receive BitBTC (receive BTC > centralized exchange > buy BTS > send to wallet > buyBitBTC > send to customer) and a delay from withdrawals (receive BitBTC > sell for BTS > centralized exchange > buy BTC > send to customer). Secondly, you are exposed to volatility in that time frame. Thirdly, you will often be <100% solvent in the middle of these trades.

Thoughts?

no we will hold both sides at the same time. the only problem is, if we are only trading in one side and running out of bitBTC or BTC. We are thinking of some solutions, but we need just to make the test runs and bring the webside online.

would be nice to get some feedback from people who tried it, and can provide information how it work or are there problems we are not aware at the moment.

Perhaps you could do what alt did and create a UIA to fund liquidity of operations. You could give shareholders of this UIA dividends of your profits.

[Shentist]

Thinking about this... it seems you will need to hold 2x the value of the volume at any point in time in order to remain both instant and 100% solvent at all times. If somebody sends you 1BTC, then you purchase 1 BitBTC with your own funds, and hold the 1BTC. You need to hold on to that 1 BTC, so that when they cash out from BitBTC to BTC, you have the funds readily available to send them instantly.

If you go the route of only holding 1x funds, then first of all there will be a delay between when you send BTC and receive BitBTC (receive BTC > centralized exchange > buy BTS > send to wallet > buyBitBTC > send to customer) and a delay from withdrawals (receive BitBTC > sell for BTS > centralized exchange > buy BTC > send to customer). Secondly, you are exposed to volatility in that time frame. Thirdly, you will often be <100% solvent in the middle of these trades.

Thoughts?

no we will hold both sides at the same time. the only problem is, if we are only trading in one side and running out of bitBTC or BTC. We are thinking of some solutions, but we need just to make the test runs and bring the webside online.

would be nice to get some feedback from people who tried it, and can provide information how it work or are there problems we are not aware at the moment.

[vikram]

Shows the correct balance (with the received bitBTC), whereas

>>> wallet_account_transaction_history receiving_account_name

does not show the record of the transaction or the correct balance.

I didn't try it in the GUI clients.

Yes, I believe this is a bug in the client related to receiving a transaction sent to a BTS address instead of a BTS account.

Yes, there are many bugs in the transaction history like this that we are aware of. Ignoring that, the output of wallet_account_balance should always be correct!

[monsterer]

Shows the correct balance (with the received bitBTC), whereas

>>> wallet_account_transaction_history receiving_account_name

does not show the record of the transaction or the correct balance.

I didn't try it in the GUI clients.

Yes, I believe this is a bug in the client related to receiving a transaction sent to a BTS address instead of a BTS account.

[fundomatic]

Moved BTC into the BitShares blockchain and back, no funds lost :)

However,
it seems like a similar(same) issue https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12381.msg163754#msg163754
is still there in the core "client_version": "v0.5.0" build and running on linux debian, namely:

>>> wallet_account_balance receiving_account_name

Shows the correct balance (with the received bitBTC), whereas

>>> wallet_account_transaction_history receiving_account_name

does not show the record of the transaction or the correct balance.

I didn't try it in the GUI clients.

[islandking]

What about creating a user issued asset on BTS for investing in this? That way you can raise start up capital for the gateway.

[xeroc]

Hu .. didnt know shentist is part of same gang ... having a clarification from bafin would be awesome ... also when considering legal issues for delegates in germany ..

[fluxer555]

Thinking about this... it seems you will need to hold 2x the value of the volume at any point in time in order to remain both instant and 100% solvent at all times. If somebody sends you 1BTC, then you purchase 1 BitBTC with your own funds, and hold the 1BTC. You need to hold on to that 1 BTC, so that when they cash out from BitBTC to BTC, you have the funds readily available to send them instantly.

If you go the route of only holding 1x funds, then first of all there will be a delay between when you send BTC and receive BitBTC (receive BTC > centralized exchange > buy BTS > send to wallet > buyBitBTC > send to customer) and a delay from withdrawals (receive BitBTC > sell for BTS > centralized exchange > buy BTC > send to customer). Secondly, you are exposed to volatility in that time frame. Thirdly, you will often be <100% solvent in the middle of these trades.

Thoughts?

[Shentist]

What jurisdiction are you based in?

UK / Germany

In Germany you most likely need permission from the BAFin for such a gateway. I can only recommend *not* running that service from here, you may get into serious trouble.

In the future we hope to provide a FIAT gateway,  for this we need a permission. We are fully aware of this.

[pc]

What jurisdiction are you based in?

UK / Germany

In Germany you most likely need permission from the BAFin for such a gateway. I can only recommend *not* running that service from here, you may get into serious trouble.

[bitmarket]

wow. wow. and wow.  this is huge.   Most exciting development for bitshares in months.   can't wait for the non-private-key version.  when do  you think?

If I were running a bounty delegate I would send you  bitUSD2,000 right now

[monsterer]

Thanks for setting up a gateway!

I want to exchange BTC for BitBTC. Let's assume I trust your centralized gateway not to just keep my BTC after I send first.

How many BitBTC are available?
Which exchange will you be passing larger orders through on when you run out?
What is the expected time after you receive BTC (0-confirmations) before you send BitBTC?
What security measures have you implemented? Is this an auto-exchange with your private keys held online? Do you have a small hot wallet and keep most funds in cold storage?
What is your business model to assure us you will remain profitable and keep the service running?
What jurisdiction are you based in?
If this business grows, will you plan to seek licensing?

Are you aware of the problems that will arise when trying to implement a service that "sends funds to the address they came from?"  To name one: if you send from any third-party service, such as an exchange, you will typically not control the address the bitcoins appear to come from, so any payment back to that address (on another blockchain in this case) will be sent to the third-party service, who will not likely be easily able to link them to your account (especially since they almost certainly do not have their BTC private keys imported into a BTS wallet).  It is highly recommended to implement the service properly, by requiring the user to specify the receiving address for BitBTC (TITAN name, preferably).  Also a refund address in case you need to cancel their order for any reason.  I recognize the simplicity of using the same privkey for 2 networks, but for usability it's probably a non-starter.  You should also generate a new BTC address on your side for each transaction.

Good questions!

How many BitBTC are available?

Right now this gateway is beta mode for testing purposes, as such only 0.5BTC on each side are available and the maximum transaction size is 0.01BTC. This is because we are in public test mode and will change when we are fully operational.

Which exchange will you be passing larger orders through on when you run out?

This has not been decided yet, we have a number of things to consider before we can finalise.

What is the expected time after you receive BTC (0-confirmations) before you send BitBTC?

1 confirmation

What security measures have you implemented? Is this an auto-exchange with your private keys held online? Do you have a small hot wallet and keep most funds in cold storage?

As we are in test mode we don't have hot/cold wallet arrangement, but we will move to such a set up in production mode.

What is your business model to assure us you will remain profitable and keep the service running?

We have a couple of options here, again not totally finalised. One is to implement a spread on the buy/sell prices, another is to keep BTC/bitBTC spread and charge free and implement charges on other features in the pipeline, such as different markets.

What jurisdiction are you based in?

UK / Germany

If this business grows, will you plan to seek licensing?

We would like to acquire the relevant licences for a fiat gateway in the future.

Are you aware of the problems that will arise when trying to implement a service that "sends funds to the address they came from?"

Indeed - the production version of our gateway will remove the need for this concession.

Cheers, Paul.

[bitfayre]

Thanks for setting up a gateway!

I want to exchange BTC for BitBTC. Let's assume I trust your centralized gateway not to just keep my BTC after I send first.

How many BitBTC are available?
Which exchange will you be passing larger orders through on when you run out?
What is the expected time after you receive BTC (0-confirmations) before you send BitBTC?
What security measures have you implemented? Is this an auto-exchange with your private keys held online? Do you have a small hot wallet and keep most funds in cold storage?
What is your business model to assure us you will remain profitable and keep the service running?
What jurisdiction are you based in?
If this business grows, will you plan to seek licensing?

Are you aware of the problems that will arise when trying to implement a service that "sends funds to the address they came from?"  To name one: if you send from any third-party service, such as an exchange, you will typically not control the address the bitcoins appear to come from, so any payment back to that address (on another blockchain in this case) will be sent to the third-party service, who will not likely be easily able to link them to your account (especially since they almost certainly do not have their BTC private keys imported into a BTS wallet).  It is highly recommended to implement the service properly, by requiring the user to specify the receiving address for BitBTC (TITAN name, preferably).  Also a refund address in case you need to cancel their order for any reason.  I recognize the simplicity of using the same privkey for 2 networks, but for usability it's probably a non-starter.  You should also generate a new BTC address on your side for each transaction.

[fluxer555]

What is the reason why it need to import the bitcoin private key?
If you import your bitcoin private key to bitshares wallet can it display your bitcoin balance and can it send to bitcoin address?
Please clarify?

Importing private keys is necessary in this very early version so that we know where to send bitcoins after we receive bitAssets from you - the public key is accessible via the transaction, and since this public key is the same as you have in your bitcoin wallet, we can send bitcoins to the address which corresponds to it.

Future versions, coming soon will use a website and this will not be necessary.

It should support both options, for people who want more privacy and/or to disassociate themselves from as much centralization as possible.

This gateway will have the least amount of exposure to counterparty risk of any exchange currently accessible with bitcoin, especially with provable solvency set up. I think this advancement is bigger than a lot of people realize.

[monsterer]

What is the reason why it need to import the bitcoin private key?
If you import your bitcoin private key to bitshares wallet can it display your bitcoin balance and can it send to bitcoin address?
Please clarify?

Importing private keys is necessary in this very early version so that we know where to send bitcoins after we receive bitAssets from you - the public key is accessible via the transaction, and since this public key is the same as you have in your bitcoin wallet, we can send bitcoins to the address which corresponds to it.

Future versions, coming soon will use a website and this will not be necessary.

[Riverhead]

Always nice to see these services come on line! I'll send some today.

Is this a similar service to ShapeShift?

[speedy]

What is the reason why it need to import the bitcoin private key?
If you import your bitcoin private key to bitshares wallet can it display your bitcoin balance and can it send to bitcoin address?
Please clarify?

The gateway uses the sending BTC address as the recipient address for BitBTC. Therefore importing the BTC address into your BTS wallet will let it know when BitBTC is received.

I think.

[joele]

What is the reason why it need to import the bitcoin private key?
If you import your bitcoin private key to bitshares wallet can it display your bitcoin balance and can it send to bitcoin address?
Please clarify?

[monsterer]

Yes that's right, its not IOUs, its bitBTC for bitcoins :)

* edit: I should mention the gateway code supports both types, so anyone who forks our codebase can still use it to issue their own gateway IOUs if their use-case requires it.

[svk]

Awesome, I'll see if I can find the time to do a test later today!

Am I understanding this right, you do not use an IOU for this?

As opposed to x-chain.info this gateway is direct BTC to BitBTC. So they have to charge a spread to monetize this, but it will be much more convenient for an average person to use this since they can pay bitshares transaction fees in BitBTC. Now all we need is to get BitBTC liquid and it will be really easy for anyone to use BitShares to trade BitBTC/BitUSD

That's even better than what I was expecting, I hadn't realized that was how it was going to work!  +5%

[Rune]

Awesome, I'll see if I can find the time to do a test later today!

Am I understanding this right, you do not use an IOU for this?

As opposed to x-chain.info this gateway is direct BTC to BitBTC. So they have to charge a spread to monetize this, but it will be much more convenient for an average person to use this since they can pay bitshares transaction fees in BitBTC. Now all we need is to get BitBTC liquid and it will be really easy for anyone to use BitShares to trade BitBTC/BitUSD

[liondani]

looking forward to test it!

PS as an advice to testers:
create new BTS & BTC wallets using it only for gateways transactions like this, since secret keys are used/involved and just use the wallets to make the exchanges and not to store your funds there.... like you should do with centralized exchanges  ;)

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

[svk]

Awesome, I'll see if I can find the time to do a test later today!

Am I understanding this right, you do not use an IOU for this?

[monsterer]

Hi everyone, I'm cross-posting this here for better visiblity!

The metaexchange BTC->bitBTC gateway is live for testing!

Here is how to use this

* Import your bitcoin private keys into the bitshares wallet account that you want to use. The private keys must be compressed* (i.e. not starting with a 5, they look like this L4rK1yDtCWekvXuE6oXD9jCYfFNV2cWRpVuPLBcCU2z8TrisoyY1).

* Funds must be sent from a registered bitshares account

* use wallet_account_update_active_key to set one of your imported keys as the active key

* send bitcoins to our gateway address: 1KduukGNb5SH8L6oDwQf8sDrKk68fjvnvF

* send bitBTC to our gateway account: metaexchangebtc

Any bitcoins you send will be turned into bitBTC by the gateway (after 1 confirmation) and sent to your bitshares account. Any bitBTC that you send to the gateway will be turned into bitcoins and sent to your bitcoin wallet.

We have funded the gateway with 0.5 BTC/0.5 bitBTC for testing purposes, there is a 0.01 BTC transaction size limit at the moment. Please use small amounts to test this with - this is beta software and may contain bugs, you could lose funds.

For this test there are no transaction fees.

We are well aware that this private key importing process isn't usable for the non-techy, so the next step is to create a simple website to make this procress 100% frictionless, which is what I'll be working on next.

Cheers, Paul.

*) The reason private keys must be compressed is that the bitshares client always converts any private key (compressed or uncompressed) into a compressed public key and since there are two different bitcoin addresses associated with each private key (one from the compressed key, one from the uncompressed version) funds may not arrive in your bitcoin wallet if you import the incorrect type, since the bitshares account public key is turned into a bitcoin address by the daemon.

In case of error, you can import the other version of the private key into your bitcoin wallet to get the funds, but this requires a rescan, which takes a while.