Author Topic: [poll] bug found Should the committee use the committee-trade account to trade  (Read 5078 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

We brought an issue to the forum for the whole community to participate as you have wanted @jakub . It stopped the committee from being able to take any action for almost 2 days now and thus far we have had nobody response except the committee themselves.

As someone who is concerned with ensuring the debunking of the idea of an elite committee, it seems important to you the community are the ones deciding on these things and not the committee. Can you @jakub please get everyone to stop talking about zero fees and other matters and get everyone to focus on this? We need to take action on this liquidity issue, but we don't want to have to work hard on it as you have said we shouldn't.

Thanks for your help.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
It may not be a bug after all but a desired feature. The owner key may ve considered as a coldkey tgis way. It seems I made some errors in the docs talking about authorities.
IMO it's a bug. Don't change the docs.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
This bug does not increase the risk of having these funds stolen while they are being traded.  This would require that of bhuz, bitcube, abit, xeroc, and myself three of us colluded together to steal these funds.  It does however increase the chance that the account can be stolen.  It effectively removes the ability of the committee to add or remove active authorizations to the account.  This instead needs to be done by the existing active authorities until this bug is fixed.
I'd like to point out that the committee still have full control over the "committee-trade" account, so it's possible for the committee to revoke any granted active authorities at any time.
It's just a matter of trust.
I voted for "use this account to trade right now" for better efficiency.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
It may not be a bug after all but a desired feature. The owner key may ve considered as a coldkey tgis way. It seems I made some errors in the docs talking about authorities.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
We previously had a poll https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21218.0.html which showed low turnout, but rather wide support for transferring the bitassets collected by the fee pool to a separate account called committee-trade to sell them for bts.  The OP was

The committee has withdrawn the fees collected by the fee pools for our committee owned assets.  We have not yet sold these bitassets into the market.  This is the first of a number of polls to help determine the best way to accomplish this. 

The issue we have run into is that it is impossible to do anything with the committee account in real time.  Even if we got 51% of the committee on at the same time there is a 1 hour review period required for all committee proposals.  Realistically in order to get 51% of the committee to vote on something would take more like at least 12 hours.  The price of these bitassets can change fast, and the price which we set could be completely inappropriate by the time the proposal passes.  This is even more of a risk if we need to cancel a market order.  I think that using the committee account risks causing more damage to the peg than good.

To combat this I have created a new account http://cryptofresh.com/u/committee-trade It has owner permissions set to the committee, so the committee still has control of the account.  The active authority is currently set to myself, bhuz, abit, and xeroc.  abit and xeroc have not agreed to join in, I added them because I don't think they will mind.  Bhuz volunteered to help.  It is currently set as a 2 of 4 multi sig.  Because the committee account owns this account the committee can adjust the active authorities as it sees fit. 

I propose that we iron out exactly who will have active authority on this account, set the permissions properly, and transfer the bitassets held by the committee-account to committee-trade.  Committee-trade can then sell these assets in real time.  We could even devise a simple bot that will set sell walls at a certain percentage over feed price.

The committee currently owns

USD   6,910
EUR   10.24
GOLD   0.00381
SILVER   3.09
CNY   7,870
BTC   0.476

The consensus from earlier conversations was that we would sell these assets into their BTS market at a certain percentage above the peg.  There will be a separate poll to determine the rate above peg which we should target.  What we should do with the BTS received from these sales, is also a separate conversation.  I would like to keep this conversation about whether or not we should use the committee-trade account or the committee-account account to process these sales.  Also if anyone with good knowledge of the cli_wallet wants to step and help by becoming a multi sig active auth please let us know.

Yesterday we adjusted the active authority on the cOmmittee-trade account to add bitcube, and to increase the required weight to 3 of 5.  This should have required the owner authority of the account, which in this case is the committee.  Instead we discovered a bug.  The active authority can be adjusted by the active authority.  It only required abit and I to add bitcube, and to increase the threshold required.  Abit has filed an issue https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/556 

This bug does not increase the risk of having these funds stolen while they are being traded.  This would require that of bhuz, bitcube, abit, xeroc, and myself three of us colluded together to steal these funds.  It does however increase the chance that the account can be stolen.  It effectively removes the ability of the committee to add or remove active authorizations to the account.  This instead needs to be done by the existing active authorities until this bug is fixed.

Please vote for what you think.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 07:01:25 am by puppies »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads