AGS potential security issue

[testz]

I feel like I've read that suggestion like 4 times already.

Yes, having a tool to sign the transaction outside the 3rd party DAC is a good idea. I think nobody is discussing it because it seems obvious...

Look like new etherum use same idea  :)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

13.  But I don't trust you with my bitcoin private keys.

There is no need to trust us.  Simply sign an æther address under your control with a bitcoin private key using whatever wallet you are comfortable with (e.g., blockchain.info, Armory, etc.,) and paste the resulting signature into the æthereum client.

[xeroc]

I feel like I've read that suggestion like 4 times already.

Yes, having a tool to sign the transaction outside the 3rd party DAC is a good idea. I think nobody is discussing it because it seems obvious...

+5%

[toast]

I feel like I've read that suggestion like 4 times already.

Yes, having a tool to sign the transaction outside the 3rd party DAC is a good idea. I think nobody is discussing it because it seems obvious...

[xeroc]

how can we protect our AGS private key while claiming shares from  3rd party DAC?

Aye.  There's the right question to be discussing.

We already do (obviously unnoticed):
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4737.msg61330#msg61330

Could you (@Stan or @Bytemaster) comment on Freetrades idea?

[Stan]

So help me understand - PTS doesn't have regulatory issues because it was mined, not issued? And in retrospect - AGS might have regulatory issues, because it was directly funded?

I'm asking because from a technical perspective I don't see any issues implementing this. It seems that you guys are avoiding it like a hot potato, but if that's what your lawyers said then I guess it explains the resistance on your part.

Don't get us wrong.  As serious AGS holders we would benefit from having them be liquid.  But we stated multiple reasons, among which are regulatory considerations.

Watch for Parts 2 and 3 of "Happy Birthday BitShares."  You'll get more insights there.

In the mean time, I'll point out that, as a ProtoDAC, XTS will make AGS partly liquid, since all BitShares X variants will be derived from it.  Over time, other ProtoDAC families will do the same.  See our March Newsletter for detail on the concept of ProtoDAC families and DAC industry sectors.

[bitmeat]

So help me understand - PTS doesn't have regulatory issues because it was mined, not issued? And in retrospect - AGS might have regulatory issues, because it was directly funded?

I'm asking because from a technical perspective I don't see any issues implementing this. It seems that you guys are avoiding it like a hot potato, but if that's what your lawyers said then I guess it explains the resistance on your part.

[sudo]

how about give a chance to  transfer AGS  such as  every other year?

[Stan]

Making AGS liquid will have to be a community activity and is not something we can do.  If AGS were tradable it would become property and this property could become a security with imaginative regulators.  While AGS is not tradable it is not property nor an asset.  It is merely a record of your donation that other DAC launchers may airdrop to. 

If someone wants to come along and create Liquid AGS and then market it as the better choice to airdop to then that is their business, but we cannot endorse it or 'bless it'.     

+1

Precisely.  Plus, you don't want us to:

1.  Its unique property is that it lets developers air-drop to proven donors - an awesome demographic.
2.  If you make it tradable, then it is no different from PTS.
3.  So a third party might ask, "Why is this one demographic worth 20%?"

You want PTS and AGS to stay separate demographics, each worth honoring for its own reason.

how can we protect our AGS private key while claiming shares from  3rd party DAC?

Aye.  There's the right question to be discussing.

[sfinder]

Making AGS liquid will have to be a community activity and is not something we can do.  If AGS were tradable it would become property and this property could become a security with imaginative regulators.  While AGS is not tradable it is not property nor an asset.  It is merely a record of your donation that other DAC launchers may airdrop to. 

If someone wants to come along and create Liquid AGS and then market it as the better choice to airdop to then that is their business, but we cannot endorse it or 'bless it'.     

+1

Precisely.  Plus, you don't want us to:

1.  Its unique property is that it lets developers air-drop to proven donors - an awesome demographic.
2.  If you make it tradable, then it is no different from PTS.
3.  So a third party might ask, "Why is this one demographic worth 20%?"

You want PTS and AGS to stay separate demographics, each worth honoring for its own reason.

how can we protect our AGS private key while claiming shares from  3rd party DAC?

[Stan]

Making AGS liquid will have to be a community activity and is not something we can do.  If AGS were tradable it would become property and this property could become a security with imaginative regulators.  While AGS is not tradable it is not property nor an asset.  It is merely a record of your donation that other DAC launchers may airdrop to. 

If someone wants to come along and create Liquid AGS and then market it as the better choice to airdop to then that is their business, but we cannot endorse it or 'bless it'.     

+1

Precisely.  Plus, you don't want us to:

1.  Its unique property is that it lets developers air-drop to proven donors - an awesome demographic.
2.  If you make it tradable, then it is no different from PTS.
3.  So a third party might ask, "Why is this one demographic worth 20%?"

You want PTS and AGS to stay separate demographics, each worth honoring for its own reason.

[bytemaster]

Making AGS liquid will have to be a community activity and is not something we can do.  If AGS were tradable it would become property and this property could become a security with imaginative regulators.  While AGS is not tradable it is not property nor an asset.  It is merely a record of your donation that other DAC launchers may airdrop to. 

If someone wants to come along and create Liquid AGS and then market it as the better choice to airdop to then that is their business, but we cannot endorse it or 'bless it'.     

[blahblah7up]

As I understood the suggestion, the signed message was to be used to collect the shares of the new DAC instead of the private key.  But if the private key has already been exposed anyone who has it can create that signed message.

As far as private key already exposed there is no good way to solve that with the current system. I did like the idea of using derived individual private key per DAC so that if one DAC software steals it, it doesn't compromise the rest of your apps.

I also like this idea but it still relies on a single point of failure.  In that case you better be sure you made your AGS donation with a signed tx from a paper wallet created on an air gapped computer.

Do you think most people did?

[bitmeat]

That is how I interpreted CrazyBit's suggestion.

You seem to be suggesting that AGS will be liquid but I still haven't heard anything that suggests that from anyone within Invictus.

Yes, my proposal makes it liquid and is extremely easy to implement. Had I seen some support from Invictus I would even volunteer to implement it. But no dice. So we wait. Seems like we are close for the BTS X though.

I think it's a pretty good idea, and anyone is free to implement it. Likewise anyone is free to just go ahead and implement a liquid version of AGS once the donation period ends.

I just don't think anyone here wants to change the officially endorsed definition of AGS, don't want to make the "changing the deal" reputation worse.

Right, but we wouldn't be changing the distribution amounts, just allowing ownership to be transferred, prior to launch. Anyways. We live and learn. I would do this if I know Invictus would honor it for BTSX otherwise I have no incentive at the moment.
And again, it seems they are much closer to release so defeats the purpose a bit. But had the idea met less criticism I could've had it up and running back in March.

Thanks for the positive feedback, toast!

[toast]

That is how I interpreted CrazyBit's suggestion.

You seem to be suggesting that AGS will be liquid but I still haven't heard anything that suggests that from anyone within Invictus.

Yes, my proposal makes it liquid and is extremely easy to implement. Had I seen some support from Invictus I would even volunteer to implement it. But no dice. So we wait. Seems like we are close for the BTS X though.

I think it's a pretty good idea, and anyone is free to implement it. Likewise anyone is free to just go ahead and implement a liquid version of AGS once the donation period ends.

I just don't think anyone here wants to change the officially endorsed definition of AGS, don't want to make the "changing the deal" reputation worse.

[bitmeat]

As I understood the suggestion, the signed message was to be used to collect the shares of the new DAC instead of the private key.  But if the private key has already been exposed anyone who has it can create that signed message.

As far as private key already exposed there is no good way to solve that with the current system. I did like the idea of using derived individual private key per DAC so that if one DAC software steals it, it doesn't compromise the rest of your apps.