-1- Pointing to exceptional people like xeroc as examples of how "anyone" can just look at the code and understand it are indeed ABSURD. How the fuck can you understand how to get shit done when things change ALL THE TIME? There is NO STABILITY HERE! Efforts aren't finished here! I've seen my share of code in my career and it's very rare that code of any significant complexity can be understood by new devs well enough to implement major functionality without some form of big picture guidance AS WELL AS the nuances of understanding the API at the low level. Look at all the time wasted by various non-core dev teams when the skills and knowledge they learned under BitShares 1 was thrown out the window unilaterally and without ANY warning! Do you think the management genius that let that happen is endearing and appealing to devs, or does it convey just the opposite attitude?

Quote from: bytemaster on December 30, 2015, 01:31:34 am

The DEX is "done" except for...

Well then, IT'S NOT DONE, so stop saying it is. If it's "done" why can't devs code liquidity bots? The API is inconsistent, the docs are minimal and you expect devs to "figure it all out" on their own, especially when it's in a constant state of flux? That's delusional. It's simply not practical to expect anyone outside of the core dev team or other highly experienced DPoS coders (and just how many of those are there?) to be able to or want to act as tech writers to bring documentation up to a level that learning the BitShares API is possible quickly for any outside dev proficient in C++.

Enough already. CNX, stop this constant shifting, and stop disrupting focus. I see you going back to your Bytemaster Blog, that's nice, I truly enjoy reading them. Just be sure you are clear about where the CNX team focus is. Put some detailed thought into that and come up with a solid plan worthy of your intellect. Find a way to stick to it, change only when it's necessary after weighing the pros, cons and costs, on community, investor / shareholder morale.

How is it unstable? The BitShares store I built worked just fine through BTS 0.9x, and in fact converting it to 2.0 only took a few hours. API changes are pretty infrequent, and most changes are additions. Are you talking about the the C++ code? ..or the API? Are you building something?

Generally the hard part is building the app itself.. for most apps BitShares will simply be a distributed & crypto-secure database backend. IMO the bottlenecks are time & money, not bitshares itself.

I was under the impression that the market maker devs were missing cancel_order and that's been implemented now. I saw maqifrnswa submitted the pull request well over a month ago and it was available publicly as a patch.

I have a lot of questions.. but as I see the MAS concept unfold, I get more and more interested. This post begins to dig into the practical issues and it's a great start. It's a natural alignment of incentives, and there's endless possibilities for gamification of mutual aid..

I'll start with the dumbest question: what does MUXER stand for?

I enjoyed the blog post! Vision isn't everything, but it's important to have.. and this is a good one. The MAS is a smart strategy all around, and to have it on our chain could bring a lot of the right people and attention to the project.

It's important to realize that BitShares is already ready for people to build beta apps on (and they are). Yes, it has a lot of "technical depth" so the current learning curve is a bit steep. Testing, experimentation, documentation, & support by non-core developers and users is all it takes to lower the curve.. it just takes time.

Because the DEX is not an FBA, there is little incentive to allocate FULL resources towards making it into the next Poloniex.. maybe that's the price we pay for socialist features The good news is that since it's part of  core infrastructure, businesses will be incentivized to improve it going forward.

May I suggest you represent voting stake as "percent of active" vs "percent of shares".

Also I would be very interested in seeing a measure of total stake claimed in BTS 2... vs unclaimed stake from BTS 1 over time.

It looks like 20.3% of stake is voting and another 20 some percent is held in exchanges.

Good idea.. done!
http://cryptofresh.com/ballots

As for claimed stake- it's on the "charts todo" list

Keep in mind that it only costs 30k BTS to send to 5,000 users if you're a lifetime member.

It would be nice to have a batch send operation tho.. e.g. it could have a base cost of 100 BTS plus 2 BTS per recipient. To send to 5k users would then cost just over 10k BTS.. very reasonable IMO.

wow

+ 1


I think you need now your own wallet.

Thanks tonyk, glad you're enjoying it Whoever was spamming yesterday certainly put on a good show..and it helped with testing.. Slowly getting the hang of websockets.. more cool stuff lined up.
Integrate the web wallet into cryptofresh? Great idea, though I'm not quite comfortable securing such a system. Might be able to get the best of both worlds though through tighter integration with a wallet like OL..

--


I'm pretty happy with where we landed

@Thom - valid points.. but depending on how deep into the rabbit hole you want to go, some of those fears could be misguided. Stealth could be detrimental to a free society in the long run, and could attract unwanted attention in the medium term.. nobody really knows.. just saying that NOT having stealth has value too.

As bm mentioned, current implement of STEALTH transfer is lack of unlinkability as well as untraceability. So it's just like TITAN in bts 0.x (although in 2.0 it does more than TITAN by hiding the amount of transfer), which just let people feel like that their have privacy, but their don't really have. It's dangerous to encourage people to use such non-perfect feature. Personally I don't like to use it nor recommend to other people.

Yes, this is a very good point, and possibly the core of my concern: no true privacy exists (on the internet), and what little does exist, is complex, imperfect, and expensive.

Quote from: roadscape on December 18, 2015, 04:57:42 pm

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I've been thinking it over and have some questions..

Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.

This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just 13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.

With STEALTH BitUSD you could conduct business for weeks/months privately and only need to do the rare conversion which wouldn't necessarily have to go through a payment processor or major exchange so that combo would be profitable for BTS. (This a major benefit over using volatile crypto-currency for business which needs to be traded regularly/often simultaneously for fiat in the process making privacy very hard to achieve.) 

Without more liquid BitAssets though, or other popular sell-able product first, there will be little demand for STEALTH but as Xeroc says the funding/development of some of those products via FBA's may benefit from/require privacy.

I don't think BTS will really increase in value though until BitAsset liquidity or one of those more sell-able products are developed.

Interesting.. could actual businesses use stealth and remain compliant?

Also, would stealth USD be worth more than plain USD? It seems like whoever creates stealth balances from a known account takes on some amount of risk which they could pass off as a premium.. For instance, if Blocktrades or Metaexchange could convert BTC to STEALTH-USD, I wonder how much of a premium they could get away with..

Quote from: roadscape on December 18, 2015, 04:57:42 pm

Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.

But hing the amount and not showing involved parties at all is considered WAY
better privacy.

Quote

This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the
table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH
market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just
13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.

Great observation.
What the MAKER speculators may not know is that the STEALTH proposal is VERY
VERY important for the Fee Backed Asset idea. even though they are independent
proposals (BSIP7 and BSIP8), creating and issuing a FBA under a STEALTH/PRIVATE
account is very important for regulatory reasons!!!
Otherwise people that want to innovate and have t funded via FBA might run into
legal trouble quickly. Read BSIP7 for more details about it.

Quote

Finally, on an ideological note: we've never seen a true global free market, and
we have no idea where it will lead society. It could be really good, it could be
really bad. I posit that stealth is only desirable because of
short-term/reactionary fear. And when people act out of fear they make
bad (I mean truly horrible) decisions.

The Stealth proposal is not only about hiding funds or transfers or privacy. It
is also about making sure not to run into regulatory issues and let more
innovations enter the system more easily.

Aah... good point., I forgot that this was sort of a prerequisite for some FBA's. BSIP7 is helpful, thanks. I now understand that even if MAKER doesn't depend on STEALTH, there might be other important/interesting FBA's which could only be released in a 'counterparty-free setting'.

The memo key for that account is BTS1111111111111111111111111111111114T1Anm, and it appears to be the same for a few others I checked. I believe this means that it's impossible for anyone to read the memos.

Have you sent memos to collateral-holder accounts before?
Can you leave the memo blank as a workaround?