Thanks to
luckybit's suggestion here:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452
"It might be a better idea from a marketing perspective to rename it to "invisible transactions" and call it "invisible mode" or "incognito" mode. Stealth transfers is something which some people might think is quirky. It also has a more militant sound to it.",
I propose changing the name of a Stealth Feature to "Privacy Mode".
I propose that I fund the development and implementation of this feature in full as a private investor and at zero cost to BitShares holders.************************************************************************************************************************
There has already been preliminary discussion of this by the Community in two threads:
Fee Backed Assets (FBA)
« on: November 27, 2015, 01:44:04 AM »https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20286.0.html and
Stealth Transfers Worker Proposal
« on: November 19, 2015, 12:48:16 AM »https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.0.htmlMuch consultation with Stan of Cryptonomex and with several prominent and trusted members of our BitShares Community (rgcrypto, Thom, Riverhead, Xeroc) has lead me to some preliminary conclusions as to how a "Privacy Mode" feature could best be implemented and used in a safe and timely fashion and at no risk to the BitShares Community.
One of the first and thorniest problems we tackled is the nasty fact of "Regulatory Risk". There exists a vocal contingent of Forum members who want very much that an FBA (fee based asset) be created to fund this feature upgrade to the BitShares blockchain. They want that everyone be thus enabled an opportunity to participate in the fee stream originating from future use of the feature by purchasing shares of a "STEALTH" asset.
The conundrum is that whoever creates the FBA and offers it to the public as a means of participation in a fee-based income stream
faces a risk of coming under regulatory scrutiny if the project is a success (Satoshi Dice) or even if it is not a success (through some disgruntled investor complaining to a regulatory authority).
For a more in depth look in to Regulatory Risk please see:
http://www.cuttingedgecapital.com/what-is-a-security-and-why-does-it-matter/
"What is a security and why does it matter?
If something falls within the definition of a security under applicable law, it will be governed by extensive rules and regulations that can be quite complex and expensive to comply with."And subject the issuer to a large fine/other penalties if not complied with!!!!As CoinHoarder has said in this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20431.msg263638.html#msg263638
"I can think of a ton of things that fit one or a few categories but not all, so I will only list things that I think mostly apply to all categories:
Cryptocurrency IPOs
Unregistered securities (operating one or offering an exchange service)
Unregistered money service businesses
Gambling"
***************************************************************************************************************************
Once a "Privacy Mode" feature has been implemented on the blockchain,
but not before, it would then be possible for future investor entrepreneurs to create FBAs and crowd fund new features by having a Private Mode account issue the FBA from an unknown jurisdiction that is presumably not subject to securities concerns. Several exist in this world of ours
.
As a matter of fact, once the "Private Mode" feature has been implemented on the blockchain and is proven to work........
and once there is a visible and growing fee-based income stream coming from use of the feature...........
I have been informed that there are investors who would be interested in purchasing that fee stream from me and they might then create an FBA and offer shares for sale on the DEX as a way for the Community to participate in that fee stream.
These investors are private and unknown to either me or Cryptonomex. I would simply be selling them the keys to the income stream and then she/they can create an FBA if they so wish. It is beyond the control of myself or Cryptonomex. But they have indicated that this is what they intend.
*************************************************************************************************************************
Here follows a potential contract between myself (onceuponatime) and Cryptonomex:Stealth "Privacy Mode" feature and Fee Based Assets
Cryptonomex Statement of Work
The purpose of this contract is to develop a Privacy Mode feature, Privacy Mode fee accumulation account, Maintenance Account, Initialization Package, and GUI interface for BitShares scoped for a firm fixed price of $45K. The following requirements apply:
1. The Privacy Mode feature shall be implemented as proposed in https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452 (as amended).
2. It shall provide the following fee based services:
o Transfer from public account to their own private balance
o Transfer from one of their private accounts to one of their private contacts
o Transfer from one of their private accounts to any public account
o Register a new account using a private balance.
o Receive a private transfer from a 3rd party given a transfer receipt.
3. Each of these services shall charge a fee initially set at 3x the standard transfer fee, but which may be adjusted from time to time by the owner(s) of the Privacy Mode fees account
4. Fees shall be automatically distributed by the blockchain to the following accounts:
o 20% to the BitShares network.
o 20% to a Maintenance Account.
o 60% to holder(s) of the Privacy Mode Fees accumulation account
5. The Maintenance Account shall be controlled by five specified manager accounts in a 3 of 5 multisig configuration. These managers will control the allocation of this fund to future maintenance and upgrade tasks.
6. The Initialization Package shall modify the blockchain to make the Privacy Mode feature available to users.
7. The Initialization Package shall make provision for the creation of generic Fee Based Assets (FBA) and set the fee for such
8. A GUI shall be provided in the OpenLedger and Light wallets to allow ordinary users to easily use the Privacy Mode features.
9. Documentation of the Privacy Mode feature and Maintenance and Fee Accumulation account shall be provided on the appropriate reference web sites.
10. Resulting software patch to the Graphene library shall have the same license as the rest of Graphene subject to the condition that the results of the Initialization package and fee distribution mechanisms are not modified.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Road Map:- Feedback and discussion of this thread: December 8 to December 10, 2015
- Presentation of an amended Cryptonomex Worker Proposal: Dec 11, 2015
This worker proposal should include Milestones of what is intended to be
accomplished by the end of week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4 and week 5 so that the
Community can follow progress in the github.
- Voting for Worker Proposal: Dec 11 to January 1, 2016
- onceuponatime forwards $45,000 to Cryptonomex: Jan.2, 2016
_ Cryptonomex does the development and testing of the feature: (4 to 6 weeks)
- Hard fork for implementation of the feature: Monday Feb, 15th (Louis Riel Day)
************************************************************************************************************************
What can YOU (BitShares holders) do?- over the next two days please discuss any insight you may have as to potential weaknesses or missed opportunities in the plan as outlined. Post your comments in this thread.
- when the Worker Proposal comes out in a couple of days, PLEASE VOTE!!
My offer to fund the development of a Privacy Mode feature is contingent upon the
Worker Proposal having been voted in by January 1st, 2016 (preferably much sooner!).