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: [BitShares 2.0 Technologies] Dynamic Account Permissions (Discussion)  (Read 411 times)

Offline xeroc

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11904
    • View Profile
    • BitShares.Europe
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc

BitShares 2.0 Technologies
Dynamic Account Permissions



Permission handling for the corporate environment
BitShares designs permissions around people rather than around cryptography which means that it is both easier to use and to understand. Every account can be controlled by any weighted combination of other accounts and private keys. This creates a hierarchical structure that reflects how permissions are organized in real life and makes multi-user control over funds easier than ever. Multi-user control is the single biggest contributor to security and when used properly it can virtually eliminate the risk of theft due to hacking.

full length
« Last Edit: June 08, 2015, 06:31:48 PM by xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ »
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
    • View Profile
  • BTS: akado
I recall someone telling this would be useful to lending if im not mistaken? But got lost in the announcement thread. Anyone could expand on that?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BTS: starspirit
I really loved this part of the announcement. Already I have a million ideas swimming through my head, oh the possibilities....

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
A few of the bits I could find from the hangout (part 1) on this topic ...

12:18: bytemaster : The answer is no. If you want the equivalent of an unregistered account, register the account to the hash of some random characters. The reason is the way the new protocol is structured. Scalability & performance discussion : transactions are 100 bytes, where bitcoin is 250 bytes, because the transfer operation is referring to account ID's instead of addresses. Which means we're using 3 bytes instead of 24 or 32 bytes to reference accounts. All permissions are based on KeyID's which are a couple bytes rather than 32 bytes. Any key has to be registered before it can be used.


40:15: fuzzy : Can transactions have public memos/encrypted memo's?

40:33: bytemaster : Yes, it can have both.

41:05: bytemaster : encrypted email would be expensive.

41:18: bytemaster : Multisig/Multisign is more advanced than any other blockchain out there. We have proposed transactions where all multisig particpants only have to click "approve".

42:31: bytemaster : Security. Your private keys will be more secure than ever, especially with 2FA and Multisig, withdrawal permissions and daily spending limits.

45:19: bytemaster : It's at least as secure as most of the current banking infrastructure, balancing ease of use, security, scalability.

45:37: bytemaster : We are implementing features that make it easy to verify that you're sending to the right person.

46:50: bytemaster : 3FA possible, mostly automated.

Offline alt

look at this <<Death and Bitcoin>>
 https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/death-and-bitcoin

do we have more graceful method to resolve this at Bitshares 2.0?
wallet_account_set_approval  delegate.baozi 1
personal asset:  PAYALT(hourly pay for alt)

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BTS: starspirit
look at this <<Death and Bitcoin>>
 https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/death-and-bitcoin

do we have more graceful method to resolve this at Bitshares 2.0?
Good one alt, this would be a useful problem to solve for everyone with funds in crypto! We should offer a bounty for the neatest workable solution.
I keep getting stuck at needing either (i) a divulged location to store your private keys, which means your beneficiaries (or others) could compromise it before your death, or (ii) a dead man's switch that automatically releases your funds in a pre-arranged manner at a future date unless you stop it, which could be compromised in other ways (e.g. kidnapping!).

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BTS: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
look at this <<Death and Bitcoin>>
 https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/death-and-bitcoin

do we have more graceful method to resolve this at Bitshares 2.0?

Use the withdrawal permissions with a start date 1 year into the future and really high withdrawal limit that your beneficiaries are authorized to withdraw from. Then once a year (before the start date is reached) update the withdrawal permissions to push it forward another year into the future. You can also create multiple ones (or at least I hope you can) that are staggered (say by two weeks), each with their own authorization on who can withdraw. That way you can have fallbacks in case some of your beneficiaries are also dead or otherwise incapacitated, in which each beneficiary in the queue has a two week opportunity to claim the inheritance before it moves on to the next in line. The last fallback could, for example, be a withdrawal permission that your favorite charity has authorization to withdraw from.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BTS: starspirit
look at this <<Death and Bitcoin>>
 https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/death-and-bitcoin

do we have more graceful method to resolve this at Bitshares 2.0?

Use the withdrawal permissions with a start date 1 year into the future and really high withdrawal limit that your beneficiaries are authorized to withdraw from. Then once a year (before the start date is reached) update the withdrawal permissions to push it forward another year into the future. You can also create multiple ones (or at least I hope you can) that are staggered (say by two weeks), each with their own authorization on who can withdraw. That way you can have fallbacks in case some of your beneficiaries are also dead or otherwise incapacitated, in which each beneficiary in the queue has a two week opportunity to claim the inheritance before it moves on to the next in line. The last fallback could, for example, be a withdrawal permission that your favorite charity has authorization to withdraw from.
What if you also gave a trusted third party the power to stop the withdrawals or push forward the withdrawal permissions? In that way you remove the possibility that you simply forget (e.g. dementia), or take away the incentive for malevolent beneficiary parties to compromise either your ability to stop it or of higher ranking beneficiaries to make their withdrawal. The trusted party might even be an official party that requires sightings of death certificates and the like before they are willing to release their hold.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BTS: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
What if you also gave a trusted third party the power to stop the withdrawals or push forward the withdrawal permissions? In that way you remove the possibility that you simply forget (e.g. dementia), or take away the incentive for malevolent beneficiary parties to compromise either your ability to stop it or of higher ranking beneficiaries to make their withdrawal. The trusted party might even be an official party that requires sightings of death certificates and the like before they are willing to release their hold.

I think it would be great if the blockchain had that kind of flexibility. In particular, this is not letting some account change the withdrawal permissions however they like but rather in specific ways (e.g. able to push the start dates forward rather than backward, or adding/removing an additional lock on the ability for withdrawals to occur).

However, it is important to know that adding that ability could have other unintended consequences. For example, this official party could inappropriately put on a hold on withdrawals despite the fact that the benefactor is clearly dead in order to extort the beneficiaries by for example demanding the beneficiaries pay them a cut of the expected inheritance before they are willing to release the hold. That said, having the flexibility to optionally allow a specified third party account to use these mechanisms would be a fantastic addition, and also such extortion risk could likely be somewhat mitigated by decentralizing the trusted third party.

 

Google+