0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
We are talking with a couple of retails chains (+40,000 supermarkets) and they are very concert about the data security, ownership and transparency. The are looking for a cheaper and faster payment rail network. BitShares with their DEX could be a good option for them. However lets say we have MC Donalds and BurgerKing on the Platform, both companies want to keep their daily transactions cloacked. Nobody wants to be analyized by their direct competitors! One option would be permission and permission less ledgers, but since BitShares is a open payment network stealth transactions are elematary for our future growth.With stealth in place we can do both. Show all transaction in public or hide certain transactions.
regarding sidechain, I feel what you said is that we haven't found a secure solution for that, but not "we should not add".sidechain will help a lot, assuming it is robust/secure enough, it can make the inter chain value transfer more convenient. and then will be no need to have various kind of BTCs and ETHs in DEX.Ethereum now have the BTCrelay, we also need similar feature.we do not have to set BTC and ETH also collateral, if it is not risk free. maybe we haven't got an acceptable solution for this, but we need to find such a solution
Quote from: arhag on June 11, 2016, 06:44:30 amQuote from: kenCode on June 11, 2016, 05:53:24 am@arhag Would Stealth benefit from the use of Schnorr Signatures in any way? Anyone think this route would be better than going with CN, CT, CCT, ZKT, etc? A Schnorr signature by itself doesn't get you any privacy benefits that a ring signature (or Zerocash's complicated zkSNARKs) would give you. It is just another way to do signatures as an alternative to the ECDSA that is currently used in BitShares (and Bitcoin and most other altcoins). Now I do think a Schnorr signature is better (for example it very nicely allows for arbitrarily large efficient threshold signatures). And I would very much love to see BitShares eventually use EdDSA. But that is sort of unrelated to the topic at hand.Did you say you had a cryptography guy helping you with this process? Because if you want to build something that goes beyond simply implementing a GUI for the existing blinded transfer feature, then that is really important. Yes, and yes. For Stealth to be the "killer app" for anon and untrace tho we have to choose the right components here, think about the nsa and other orgs that may hate this kind of technology, those are the things I want to solve, or at least as close as what avail tech has to offer.
Quote from: kenCode on June 11, 2016, 05:53:24 am@arhag Would Stealth benefit from the use of Schnorr Signatures in any way? Anyone think this route would be better than going with CN, CT, CCT, ZKT, etc? A Schnorr signature by itself doesn't get you any privacy benefits that a ring signature (or Zerocash's complicated zkSNARKs) would give you. It is just another way to do signatures as an alternative to the ECDSA that is currently used in BitShares (and Bitcoin and most other altcoins). Now I do think a Schnorr signature is better (for example it very nicely allows for arbitrarily large efficient threshold signatures). And I would very much love to see BitShares eventually use EdDSA. But that is sort of unrelated to the topic at hand.Did you say you had a cryptography guy helping you with this process? Because if you want to build something that goes beyond simply implementing a GUI for the existing blinded transfer feature, then that is really important.
@arhag Would Stealth benefit from the use of Schnorr Signatures in any way? Anyone think this route would be better than going with CN, CT, CCT, ZKT, etc?
I would like to see Rate limited fees, Autobridging, Maker/Taker, Negative Fees, Smartcoin Park rates, Bond Market, MetaTrader Integration, Trading Bots first and then Stealth and possibly sidechains. I made this post to say why I don't want them, but if the community thinks it is fine to add them and everyone agrees then I will step back and I will still join the coin offering. I would also like to see improvements on the voting mechanisms based on the Dash voting model and I definitely want to see contracts being implemented. We need to act soon. Waves are a direct competitors, of unknown quality, however they have 16MUSD and they can definitely learn from the past mistakes of each crypto... For the features I mentioned we need about 300.000$ to 500.000$, if we consider the work needed to be done on the GUI.
Maybe I missunderstood how FBA works. I had in mind that when you own an FBA you have a % of each Tx fee from the feature you paid for.As an example, if someone would fund stealth, he would benefit from each Tx fee on stealth transfer (ex : 20% for BTS / 80% for him )Besides having his FBA worth its speculative value from the market and beeing able to sell it anytime.
What if Bts Munich (or anyone wanting to step up) set up a worker of 3-5k (tiny sum, would be voted for sure) to pay for expenses to set up a ICO campain to sell a global FBA that would support development for blinded Tx, Stealth, bond market, rate limitex fee ... ).
Bitshares Munich seem to be able to do A LOT with small funds. We don't need to gather millions.
We would have an ICO with goals, a simple list of features by money gathered. ICO : 50k > blinded Tx and rate limited TxICO : 100k > + stealthICO : 150k > + bond market... and so on.
With the right campain, it would be easy to collect 500k. Ppl nowadays jumps on any ICO that looks promising. Besides the FBA token would be tradable right after the ICO, it's a fast way to make money if the FBA token increase in value after the ICO (for a investor perspective) The other benefit is this campain would get the attention on BitShares, on FBA (very good thing) and finally ppl would expect the market cap to grow in response of amazing features added (this expetation would increase the market cap).
My idea was to try to have the funds to develop all features included in on only FBA. As we can't know how much funds we would collect, I was thinking of doing it with milestone. Every X thousands $ we add one feature that have fees with one that don't but increase the overall value of BitShares anyway. I keep thinking if it's well done, we could easily collect what we need to allow BitShares to take off soon. We will be have all these features one day but the big question is ... will it be too late ? Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Maybe I missunderstood how FBA works. I had in mind that when you own an FBA you have a % of each Tx fee from the feature you paid for.As an example, if someone would fund stealth, he would benefit from each Tx fee on stealth transfer (ex : 20% for BTS / 80% for him )Besides having his FBA worth its speculative value from the market and beeing able to sell it anytime.Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Maybe it's over simplistic but ...What if Bts Munich (or anyone wanting to step up) set up a worker of 3-5k (tiny sum, would be voted for sure) to pay for expenses to set up a ICO campain to sell a global FBA that would support development for blinded Tx, Stealth, bond market, rate limitex fee ... ).We would have the funds to finish what BitShares needs to get back on the scene with the big guys. FBA would split a decent amount to the network so we keep our long terme profitability goals. The higher market cap after having attention from crypto public would provide more funds to keep evolving (to the m...) Bitshares Munich seem to be able to do A LOT with small funds. We don't need to gather millions. We would have an ICO with goals, a simple list of features by money gathered. ICO : 50k > blinded Tx and rate limited TxICO : 100k > + stealthICO : 150k > + bond market... and so on. With the right campain, it would be easy to collect 500k. Ppl nowadays jumps on any ICO that looks promising. Besides the FBA token would be tradable right after the ICO, it's a fast way to make money if the FBA token increase in value after the ICO (for a investor perspective)The other benefit is this campain would get the attention on BitShares, on FBA (very good thing) and finally ppl would expect the market cap to grow in response of amazing features added (this expetation would increase the market cap). Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
I was talking about development in general. I wanted bigger ICO so that we can develop all the features we want to and we need to.
A quick fix would be to create OPENStealth as an FBA and have Openledger as escrow or something like that.
Again I am gonna wait and see your plan about adding Ring Signatures to the game.
Imagine the blockchain bloat if we add Ring Signature in BitShares ... But without money we can't do anything. No money, no honey.
I agree with your first commend on steemit, but I can't open the second one.
Quote from: tarantulaz on June 09, 2016, 08:16:46 pmLet's admit it, DPoS isn't ideal to fund development. At least not as good as Dash's masternodes How is Dash's governance and proposal funding system better? I'm actually curious, because I haven't had time to look into it yet. On a very quick inspection I didn't see anything novel or that stood out to me (when I compare to what BitShares already has). Keep in mind, I am talking technicals here. Maybe Dash stakeholders are blessed without an anti-dilution camp holding them hostage. But that has nothing to do with the technology.That doesn't mean BitShares governance systems are great. I have issues with it which I have talked about here and here. And I have some additional ideas (in drafts or even still in my head) for how I would like to see the worker system change to provide greater certainty to those getting paid who got elected. It's not great to get your worker elected only to worry everyday whether your worker is being paid or not because of vote fluctuations.But the bigger issue is, could we get stakeholder consensus to implement such a large change. Probably not.
Let's admit it, DPoS isn't ideal to fund development. At least not as good as Dash's masternodes
Quote from: arhag on June 09, 2016, 05:00:38 pmQuote from: kenCode on June 09, 2016, 04:41:34 pmI am probably not going to ultimately use RingCT. I think we can combine CN and CCT (one timers and compact conf tx (h/t Blockstream)), radically reducing the space that is needed and then dump proof of square this way. We are still working this out, but this just might be the ticket. What is CN? One time rings which mix the senders identities for untraceability
Quote from: kenCode on June 09, 2016, 04:41:34 pmI am probably not going to ultimately use RingCT. I think we can combine CN and CCT (one timers and compact conf tx (h/t Blockstream)), radically reducing the space that is needed and then dump proof of square this way. We are still working this out, but this just might be the ticket. What is CN?
I am probably not going to ultimately use RingCT. I think we can combine CN and CCT (one timers and compact conf tx (h/t Blockstream)), radically reducing the space that is needed and then dump proof of square this way. We are still working this out, but this just might be the ticket.
Quote from: arhag on June 09, 2016, 05:00:38 pm And I believe Compact Confidential Transactions were broken. Right now I think that is just hearsay by btctalk "Poloniex Matthew" (a btctalk newbie)
And I believe Compact Confidential Transactions were broken.
Quote from: tarantulaz on June 09, 2016, 06:09:49 pm On the funding side, would anyone consider doing an ICO-type funding? Yes, BitShares Munich Quote from: tarantulaz on June 09, 2016, 06:09:49 pm ICOs seem to attract a lot of attention recently and raising 500.000 especially for an established project wouldn't be that hard. Jeez well you wouldn't believe how far I can stretch even 10K.
On the funding side, would anyone consider doing an ICO-type funding?
ICOs seem to attract a lot of attention recently and raising 500.000 especially for an established project wouldn't be that hard.
Have you looked at Zerocash (https://z.cash)? Hiding who you are, where you are connected etc might be a lot easier if we can somehow use their method for the mixing stage.
From my limited understanding of Zerocash (zk-SNARKs wtf?) it doesn't have very good performance, and does it still require a trusted setup? If so, that is a non-starter to me.
blinded transactions are not just a detour or even a "half-way" towards stealth transactions. We ultimately want to support both methods, IMO, but blinded transactions are 1) easier to use, 2) not prone to losses, and 3) easier to implement. It would be difficult for me to support a worker that favors supporting stealth before supporting blind transactions. I would like to see a lower cost worker created for blinded transactions first, then a higher cost worker created to support stealth after blinded transactions have been successfully implemented.
We need both simple blinded transfers (with no hiding of metadata) and also a great stealth system ... building a GUI for simple blinded transfers is a much easier problem, so I expect it to be completed first.
Quote from: tarantulaz on June 09, 2016, 07:07:12 pmQuote from: bitsharesbrazil on June 09, 2016, 06:43:40 pmYou can fork any time, but who is going to follow you? Bitshares holders will not, big guys will not, the market will not, brwnd recongnition will not, awareness will not, community will not, But if you can find BiG new money for it fork it make an ico, dump early at no cost, develop n let community judge if you have either.Who said that they will not? Are you a representative of all big holders? I am just setting a question that has MANY pros and a few cons. If the community says no, we don't want this fork, but we are still up for going through the slow way of not spending then fine. Getting paid by the blockchain at current rates and with the current split in the community, is painful, slow and many times you don't even get paid. Who wants to get paid by a blockchain who can revoke the contract anytime or whose token value is dropping day by day?Lisk got 6M, Waves 16$ and there are more to come. We need about 500.000$ and we'll become huge. Otherwise, we can wait for developers to get some pennies, so that they can fix a few bugs and the documentation then we are done.We are so much smaller than bitcoin, that the holders can offer less than 500.000$/y, but Bitshares needs a lot more in order to grow, otherwise it is going to die slowly. Many people already say that BitShares is dead and they are not that wrong. If people keep thinking that way, then BitShares will die, because hey, that's the word on the street, so it must be true.Bitshares dead? A lot of data dont say that, for me it is stronger n much stronger than before....do your research again.Average people does not make a diference in lisk ico, lisk ico was small targeting average investor. The only diffent thing is ethereum. ico party will be over soon n.we will start mining party again.Is it fud because the price has to go up now?
Quote from: bitsharesbrazil on June 09, 2016, 06:43:40 pmYou can fork any time, but who is going to follow you? Bitshares holders will not, big guys will not, the market will not, brwnd recongnition will not, awareness will not, community will not, But if you can find BiG new money for it fork it make an ico, dump early at no cost, develop n let community judge if you have either.Who said that they will not? Are you a representative of all big holders? I am just setting a question that has MANY pros and a few cons. If the community says no, we don't want this fork, but we are still up for going through the slow way of not spending then fine. Getting paid by the blockchain at current rates and with the current split in the community, is painful, slow and many times you don't even get paid. Who wants to get paid by a blockchain who can revoke the contract anytime or whose token value is dropping day by day?Lisk got 6M, Waves 16$ and there are more to come. We need about 500.000$ and we'll become huge. Otherwise, we can wait for developers to get some pennies, so that they can fix a few bugs and the documentation then we are done.We are so much smaller than bitcoin, that the holders can offer less than 500.000$/y, but Bitshares needs a lot more in order to grow, otherwise it is going to die slowly. Many people already say that BitShares is dead and they are not that wrong. If people keep thinking that way, then BitShares will die, because hey, that's the word on the street, so it must be true.
You can fork any time, but who is going to follow you? Bitshares holders will not, big guys will not, the market will not, brwnd recongnition will not, awareness will not, community will not, But if you can find BiG new money for it fork it make an ico, dump early at no cost, develop n let community judge if you have either.
Quote from: Stan on June 09, 2016, 05:19:29 pmI'd like to see the discussion separate the affordability/priority issues from the underlying best approach.If Ken has a whale sponsor with deep, um, blubber, what is the best thing to build for the ecosystem?Please read my post above, my concern is not just affordability. Assuming one approach is the "best" is itself an error, IMO.
I'd like to see the discussion separate the affordability/priority issues from the underlying best approach.If Ken has a whale sponsor with deep, um, blubber, what is the best thing to build for the ecosystem?
For new networks yes... why would an investor want to come in and make a bunch of existing holders more rich with their money? This is the position I have gotten numerous times when talking to investors about bitshares.. there is no clear ROI... and the politics that have divided the direction of Bitshares (anti-dilusion vs. etc) only heightened the risk profile. I understand that this is an FBA though... which investors understand.
Well, if KenCode has his whales behind him and they are going to fund the development then I guess it should be up to him and his team. As long as the solution is working and they commit in doing everything right with the GUI as well, then I can't see a reason to argue. However I still think that little privacy = no privacy for me and untested-new-high privacy technology is both too risky and time consuming.On the funding side, would anyone consider doing an ICO-type funding? I know it might sound crazy, but this discussion has been within the NXT community as well. With the current liquidity pool workers, market cap, the existing dilution from the merger and the Chinese community voting against most projects, we should try and raise some money for a specific number of projects and sell BTS to whales OTC. If that happens via a hard fork, that would be the quickest way. Create an account managed by an elected committee that will handle the funds and get Ronny to assist us with the escrow.This would have many benefits :1) No immediate drop in the market cap2) Immediate access to funds and we don't have to worry about the votes, so mini projects like Chronos' videos, as well as svk can keep being funded.3) No more arguments about funding workers4) More whales would get in the ecosystem that could invest more if everything goes well both in terms of development and privacy5) ICOs seem to attract a lot of attention recently and raising 500.000 especially for an established project wouldn't be that hard. With the right promotion BitShares could attract more people to get involved.For this one we need some people to lead the way. We need a good plan first and then a strong committee to implement the things the majority of stakeholders and CO participants has agreed on.
Quote from: dannotestein on June 09, 2016, 02:43:11 pmBM after he decided that the current GUI implementation of stealth was too problematic, I came to the conclusion that what we really need at the moment is simply "blinded transactions" and I think this should be the immediate focus. I think the problem was money and time. He is way too focused on Steem right now guys to work on Stealth which is why BitShares Munich team is going to finish that project. Chris and Rodrigo are bringing whales, and whales want privacy. Marketing such an important product like Stealth however will need to include all the things that the competition, media and trolls in the comments would fire at us saying "hahaha look they are releasing a half assed product!" Instead, I'm choosing to take a bit more time and do it right the first time. First Mover Advantage. Give the world something that it so sorely desires, do it right the first time, and market the hell out of it so that when the world sees it, they shut the f*ck up and say "ok, now this is cool". Total anonymity, total untraceability, ring sig, automated backups via ipfs/ipns, super tight integration with graphene-ui and ease of use, so easy in fact that Savers and Whales actually WANT to use it. I will not settle for anything less. I can take us a long way with this even with a little bit of funding so it only makes sense to spend the funds on the proper path instead of a "just do it this way for now" approach.
BM after he decided that the current GUI implementation of stealth was too problematic, I came to the conclusion that what we really need at the moment is simply "blinded transactions" and I think this should be the immediate focus.
I prefer not to store data on our blockchain, hence my IPFS preference.
This should also include changes to the GUI to automatically backup the old memo key onto the blockchain (not IPFS, don't worry it's not a lot of data to backup) any time the memo key is changed. It should be backed up in a way such that the new memo key can retrieve the old memo key (at least the last known one at the time of the change), so some with the latest memo key can follow the chain of backups on the blockchain and recover all memo keys that had been active for the account. It should also be possible to retrieve the latest memo key using the current owner key (at least for scenarios where there is a single owner key that can have owner authority) so that someone can recover full access to their account using just the owner key (or actually brain key).
I need to continue thinking about and working on my ideas for the stealth design and I will post a write up when I can.
But I will give a basic overview. First, it requires Monero's RingCT cryptography by Shen Noether. This cryptography allows linkable ring signatures that work with blinded values (Pedersen commitments). But instead of using this cryptography to just pay a stealth balance to a recipient directly, the cryptography is used only for decentralized on-blockchain coin-mixing. The main reason is to reduce the risk of lost funds due to no recent backup. In my system, the amount and sender are hidden, but the recipient is not.
Holding multiple active stealth balances at a time allows a sender to, with high likelihood, have enough funds available to send without needing to wait for the coin-mixing process. The nature of the coin mixing process means that someone can follow the chain of coin mixing steps in an efficient way and retrieve all of their active stealth balances starting from a root set originating from their public account (i.e bandwidth-efficient restore from only a brain key for a light client is possible even if the user has active stealth balances), and yet the public cannot do the same thus keeping the identity of the owner of each stealth balance private.
I need to continue thinking about and working on my ideas for the stealth design and I will post a write up when I can. But I will give a basic overview. First, it requires Monero's RingCT cryptography by Shen Noether. This cryptography allows linkable ring signatures that work with blinded values (Pedersen commitments). But instead of using this cryptography to just pay a stealth balance to a recipient directly, the cryptography is used only for decentralized on-blockchain coin-mixing. The main reason is to reduce the risk of lost funds due to no recent backup. In my system, the amount and sender are hidden, but the recipient is not. This means there is no out-of-band communication necessary for someone to know they have received funds. They also don't need to do any backups after receiving funds to be able to get access to their received funds from only a brain key. The amount is hidden in the same manner that Confidential Transactions already do. The sender is hidden by making the payment from an active stealth balance that has not already been used to pay any other recipient. A new stealth balance can be created from an old stealth balance using the decentralized on-blockchain coin mixing process. Holding multiple active stealth balances at a time allows a sender to, with high likelihood, have enough funds available to send without needing to wait for the coin-mixing process. The nature of the coin mixing process means that someone can follow the chain of coin mixing steps in an efficient way and retrieve all of their active stealth balances starting from a root set originating from their public account (i.e bandwidth-efficient restore from only a brain key for a light client is possible even if the user has active stealth balances), and yet the public cannot do the same thus keeping the identity of the owner of each stealth balance private.
Quote from: tarantulaz on June 09, 2016, 11:37:42 am I would also like to hear from @kenCode about his Stealth plans. A few days ago he said that we should be expecting an announcement soon. @arhag just said that there is a good way to add privacy via another way. Have there been discussions between the two of you? We are still working on the job description so that we know what's done, what's not, what I want to add to Stealth (ring sigs, possibly CN/CT or a combo of both), ipfs/ipns and who my confirmed network of consultants will be. I have an experienced cryptographer on my side but he's not cheap (even for Turkish labor) as well as a nice sized crew savvy enough with graphene-ui, graphene and ipfs/ipns. @arhag I am interested in seeing every possible way we could do this. Stealth can whip monero, dash, zcash and the lot of them if we do this right. Leaving nothing for the competition to point at. Even with Tor and I2P support (please Lord give us global meshnet soon!), you have to think about the NSA and what sort of crypto tools they might be able to employ to crack Stealth. Whales want privacy so Stealth has got to set the new standard.
I would also like to hear from @kenCode about his Stealth plans. A few days ago he said that we should be expecting an announcement soon. @arhag just said that there is a good way to add privacy via another way. Have there been discussions between the two of you?
Just my 2 cents: based on discussions I had with BM after he decided that the current GUI implementation of stealth was too problematic, I came to the conclusion that what we really need at the moment is simply "blinded transactions" and I think this should be the immediate focus.
Quote from: dannotestein on June 09, 2016, 05:11:01 amQuote from: arhag on June 09, 2016, 04:57:26 amQuote from: dannotestein on June 09, 2016, 04:52:12 amI haven't had time to read this whole thread, but Eric and I worked out a way earlier today to do a fully-decentralized version of sidechains that doesn't require multi-sig authorities, which from my limited reading would overcome the major objection originally expressed about sidechains in the OP. It wasn't prompted by this post, but by interest in linking graphene-based chains to ethereum (the original impetus being to link to ethereum as part of a move to get DAO support for peerplays). There's a fair amount of work involved in the implementation, but not an insurmountable amount by any means. So if peerplays is successful in getting DAO funding, it looks like we'll make this happen.I find that very hard to believe, because I had convinced myself this is fundamentally impossible. Very interested to see what your solution is, what its limitations are, and whether it actually addresses any of the concerns of the OP.There's lots of details I don't have time to go into now, but the essence of the technique is to extract sufficient data from one blockchain to create a proof-of-burn (or proof-of-lock) that the other blockchain will accept if published to that blockchain. On etherium, a smart contract would serve as the arbiter for that proof. On a graphene blockchain, the validation would be built into the blockchain protocol. Most of the details lie in how to efficiently construct such proofs. Part of the proof is information that indicates the owner on the blockchain accepting the proof.It's hard if not impossible for one chain to trust something happened on another chain. Even if every node validates every block of both chains, it still doesn't make much sense to trust a non-trustless chain.Bitcoin has the most potentiality to be considered as trustless;Eth is perhaps trustless, but I doubt smart contracts are (there is always an image in my head that most of if not all smart contracts aren't trustless);Graphene based chains are definitely not trustless.Am I missing something?//Update: I must be drunk..
Quote from: arhag on June 09, 2016, 04:57:26 amQuote from: dannotestein on June 09, 2016, 04:52:12 amI haven't had time to read this whole thread, but Eric and I worked out a way earlier today to do a fully-decentralized version of sidechains that doesn't require multi-sig authorities, which from my limited reading would overcome the major objection originally expressed about sidechains in the OP. It wasn't prompted by this post, but by interest in linking graphene-based chains to ethereum (the original impetus being to link to ethereum as part of a move to get DAO support for peerplays). There's a fair amount of work involved in the implementation, but not an insurmountable amount by any means. So if peerplays is successful in getting DAO funding, it looks like we'll make this happen.I find that very hard to believe, because I had convinced myself this is fundamentally impossible. Very interested to see what your solution is, what its limitations are, and whether it actually addresses any of the concerns of the OP.There's lots of details I don't have time to go into now, but the essence of the technique is to extract sufficient data from one blockchain to create a proof-of-burn (or proof-of-lock) that the other blockchain will accept if published to that blockchain. On etherium, a smart contract would serve as the arbiter for that proof. On a graphene blockchain, the validation would be built into the blockchain protocol. Most of the details lie in how to efficiently construct such proofs. Part of the proof is information that indicates the owner on the blockchain accepting the proof.
Quote from: dannotestein on June 09, 2016, 04:52:12 amI haven't had time to read this whole thread, but Eric and I worked out a way earlier today to do a fully-decentralized version of sidechains that doesn't require multi-sig authorities, which from my limited reading would overcome the major objection originally expressed about sidechains in the OP. It wasn't prompted by this post, but by interest in linking graphene-based chains to ethereum (the original impetus being to link to ethereum as part of a move to get DAO support for peerplays). There's a fair amount of work involved in the implementation, but not an insurmountable amount by any means. So if peerplays is successful in getting DAO funding, it looks like we'll make this happen.I find that very hard to believe, because I had convinced myself this is fundamentally impossible. Very interested to see what your solution is, what its limitations are, and whether it actually addresses any of the concerns of the OP.
I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but Eric and I worked out a way earlier today to do a fully-decentralized version of sidechains that doesn't require multi-sig authorities, which from my limited reading would overcome the major objection originally expressed about sidechains in the OP. It wasn't prompted by this post, but by interest in linking graphene-based chains to ethereum (the original impetus being to link to ethereum as part of a move to get DAO support for peerplays). There's a fair amount of work involved in the implementation, but not an insurmountable amount by any means. So if peerplays is successful in getting DAO funding, it looks like we'll make this happen.
By the way @arhag what do you think of the witnesses being able to do CoinJoins like Dash's masternodes?
Quote from: tarantulaz on June 08, 2016, 03:57:09 pmhttps://steemit.com/bitshares/@tarantulaz/why-i-think-stealth-backups-and-sidechains-shouldnt-be-added-in-bitshares I don't do clickbait. Could you copy and paste the content?
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@tarantulaz/why-i-think-stealth-backups-and-sidechains-shouldnt-be-added-in-bitshares
Instead of witnesses, any group of trusted personalities or companies could form a similar decentralized escrow business that would be better than a lone exchange if not quite as good as an unmanned service...In fact, if all the businesses that are building on BitShares were to agree to add their reputations to the mix, it might be ideal.Better yet, if we elected the Top 15 Most Trusted Businesses in the ecosystem to each run a sidechain interface node wouldn't that solve all issues?
I maintain that having no privacy on the blockchain at this stage is a massive blunder.If stealth is fundamentally broken, then that's an ever bigger blunder.Almost nobody interested in crypto will want a completely transparent blockchain. At least based on my experience around such communities.Also, for 99.999% of our potential users, Tor is a no-go: the light client has no proxying support, and the default Tor browser configuration runs in private/incognito mode, so localstorage isn't available, so the wallet throws an error while starting up.Besides, as discussed in another thread some days ago, the wss endpoint can correlate accounts to a wallet, even worse to all your wallets, since the connection the client establishes to the server isn't closed when switching wallet.Mind elaborating on the issues with Dash? What is wrong with DarkSend (or whatever they've rebranded it to these days)
Probably a better idea than top 15 witnesses given the temptation for thieves to exploit the current voter apathy and low market cap of BitShares in order to steal potentially large BTC or ETH reserves.It is worth noting that from a technology perspective, the code that would need to be written to allow that approach of a sidechain (where I assume changes to the multisig group would be a manual process) is probably roughly 80% of the effort needed to build a sidechain system run by the dynamic set of witnesses.
I don't do clickbait. Could you copy and paste the content?
Unclickable clickbait.
Unclickable clickbait. Welcome to the future! I clicked it anyway. Here's the contents.
In conclusion I would like to point that all these features as good as might seem, are very dangerous. The BitShares community should focus on more practical stuff, especially in the following :Rate limited fees, Autobridging, Maker/Taker, Negative Fees, Smartcoin Park rates, Bond Market, MetaTrader Integration, Trading Bots. All these would add a lot of potential and value to BitShares, they don’t have any hidden dangers for the BitShares platform and their cost is relatively low. At current rates they could be done in 1 year.
Finally I wanted to add a side note on sidechains. Honestly that would be even worse than adding stealth. Doom scenario for sidechains : Bitcoins worth 2M USD are held by the Bitshares Blockchain.All witnesses collude to steal all coins or all witnesses are hacked and have no control, 2. Someone takes control over big proxies or stakes and votes witnesses his/her own (Hacking proxies or exchanges) 3. Big proxies/holders/exchanges collude to steal fundsBytemaster said that it wouldn’t make sense for someone do so. But did he consider the fact that BitShares are a lot less liquid that Bitcoin? Even if Bitshares were worth 20M USD the fact that they are illiquid makes them worth a lot less than they actually are.
QuoteWhat? You're trusting your coins to the owner of a single exchange company with no supervision by other independent cosigners? Really?They're trusting registered & highly regulated companies in countries with relatively strong & effective legal systems. Their owners are also making millions of dollars and so have a financial incentive to keep making money and not go to jail. DPOS currently has neither the same legal fallback & delegates who make only a few hundred bucks a month. While the delegates ability to damage and profit from harming BTS is limited. They could get full value from other blockchain tokens. By increasing the incentive for delegates to misbehave and therefore the trust required in them you increase the fragility of BTS. Blockchain competition is also reducing fees to near zero so the value centre of BTS is BTS collateralised SmartCoins, UIA tokens not collateralised with BTS are much less attractive, see MaidSafe, Synereo & Agoras, collectively worth >$50 million on an Omni blockchain worth <$1.4 million...So I don't see the value in there myself. For me the way to make BTS useful and popular now & massively grow the value of BTS is by focusing on market maker & yield subsidies to create useful liquidity & demand around the peg so that bridges can convert fairly close to 1-1.
What? You're trusting your coins to the owner of a single exchange company with no supervision by other independent cosigners? Really?
I created this post in order to express my opinion, about the additions of some features in BitShares. I know that a lot of people won’t like what I’ll say, but I think that adding the stealth feature on BitShares is a very bad idea. Same goes for the on ‘’chain backups’’ and sidechains.As some well-known community members pointed out, stealth has a few problems. The main one is the metadata. Shadowcash’s chain was denonymized because they hadn’t applied something appropriately. Dash and Shadowcash sold and are still selling fake promises that their finances are private. However in the near future even a small adversary will be able to analyse their chain. Is this a thing that the BitShares community wants to do? Sell fake promises to raise the market cap? NXT added CoinShuffle many months ago and nothing really changed. It isn’t just the damage that will be done by all the imminent problems, but also in terms of labor costs etc.There are so many more things that will have to be done to the GUI and the chances of people losing funds is huge. Think of the efforts svk will have to put in making everything bug free. Also the backup feature as good as it might seem, it sounds very dangerous to me. New users will be storing online backups with poor passwords which will be easily cracked.Want anonymity? Wash your coins appropriately before buying BitShares and spread them into random accounts and use TOR to stay anonymous.Want a secure backup of your files? Try Sia or Storj after their full release, or another encrypted provider. The whole point of the blockchain is that you hold your private keys and not anybody else.Also don’t forget about the fact that if you hide your balance you won’t be able to vote afterwards. That is quite worrying especially if you wanna hide a big amount. At least Yunbi won’t be hiding it’s balance, so it will be a big blow to how people receive funding.Finally I wanted to add a side note on sidechains. Honestly that would be even worse than adding stealth. Doom scenario for sidechains : Bitcoins worth 2M USD are held by the Bitshares Blockchain.All witnesses collude to steal all coins or all witnesses are hacked and have no control, 2. Someone takes control over big proxies or stakes and votes witnesses his/her own (Hacking proxies or exchanges) 3. Big proxies/holders/exchanges collude to steal fundsBytemaster said that it wouldn’t make sense for someone do so. But did he consider the fact that BitShares are a lot less liquid that Bitcoin? Even if Bitshares were worth 20M USD the fact that they are illiquid makes them worth a lot less than they actually are.For example if someone controls a big stake, he can then open a big short position on Bitshares, take all Bitcoins and then sell the rest of the shares if he managed to steal any. After the hack there will be a panic sell of BitShares, not of Bitcoins though. 2M USD worth of Bitcoin’s can be hacked and nobody cares. If 2M USD of BitShares were hacked, the panic would be over the roof and the price of BitShares below the floor. His short position would make him huge profits, plus he could make the price go down even more by selling his shares. Currently someone needs to either control all the voting shares (about ¼ of the total supply) or 1/3 to ½ of the non voting BitShares.In conclusion I would like to point that all these features as good as might seem, are very dangerous. The BitShares community should focus on more practical stuff, especially in the following :Rate limited fees, Autobridging, Maker/Taker, Negative Fees, Smartcoin Park rates, Bond Market, MetaTrader Integration, Trading Bots. All these would add a lot of potential and value to BitShares, they don’t have any hidden dangers for the BitShares platform and their cost is relatively low. At current rates they could be done in 1 year.PS I do want privacy, but stealth isn’t the answer. I know a lot of time has been spent on this feature, but we need to move forward without it.