Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on February 17, 2016, 08:17:12 am

Quote from: abit on February 16, 2016, 11:36:20 pm

Thanks for sharing. Will keep an eye on it. @JonnyBitcoin your opinion please?

@abit
 
What they are doing is not acceptable and I have had been arguing with their CEO on twitter and privately.
https://twitter.com/AnthonyWatson/status/698958141610991617?s=09
Their head of reserves is supposedly calling me today and I think they realise they may have messed up with voxels. But I'll see what they say. I like Uphold as a service a lot but they need to change their reserves  otherwise I will be leaving their service.

Thanks for the update 

They say they will be introducing 3 tiers of reserve assets and voxel will be third tier.
This should be live on the transparency page within 2 weeks.
I'm not convinced this will remedy my concerns but I will wait and see what their new transparency page looks like and make my mind up then.

Thanks for sharing. Will keep an eye on it. @JonnyBitcoin your opinion please?

@abit
 
What they are doing is not acceptable and I have had been arguing with their CEO on twitter and privately.
https://twitter.com/AnthonyWatson/status/698958141610991617?s=09
Their head of reserves is supposedly calling me today and I think they realise they may have messed up with voxels. But I'll see what they say. I like Uphold as a service a lot but they need to change their reserves  otherwise I will be leaving their service.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on February 15, 2016, 06:43:21 pm

When I click on DASHBOARD I see a list of accounts that I own.

What is this container for all my accounts called. It can't be an account because my accounts live inside it.

Do I call it my MASTER ACCOUNT or MY DASHBOARD or what ?

Wallet?

Yeah i guess so. So my wallet contains my accounts.
wouldn't it be more logical the other way round?
Have an Account that contained wallets.

Maybe dashboard should be renamed My Wallet with different column for accounts I own and accounts I follow.

Yeah nice smooth voice,  better than my geeky squark.

Fancy re doing the narration for my video?  https://youtu.be/psN-hhDcBrY

Quote from: kenCode on February 13, 2016, 08:49:04 pm

What is your ONE best idea for us to get more banks, or exchanges (or whatever) that will onramp and offramp fiat with our smartcoins?
Currently, it is VERY expensive to get in and out of fiat with smartcoins and we need to bring some competition to this space.
 
ONE great idea, please..

Use dilution to bribe/incentivize a big exchange to add us.

It's not a question of just adding adding a smartcoin bridge.
If I had 10 million dollars or poloniex wanted to add a bridge they couldn't because nobody will create bitassets. the reserve pool will have to do it.

more?  I'm not aware of a single bridge/on ramp/gateway to any smartcoin.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on February 13, 2016, 04:00:02 am

Quote from: complexring on February 13, 2016, 03:39:37 am

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on February 13, 2016, 03:27:45 am

@complexring  @BunkerChain Labs
Your question is: when SIDEBTC is transferred the previous owner will still have the public key so its not secure.

This is how it works, there a 3 types of BTC
1. real BTC
2. SIDEBTC
3. BITBTC (like current bitbtc but collatralised 1:1 with side btc)

So SIDEBTC cannot be transfered ever. The owner of it uses it as collateral to create BITBTC which can be transfered.

So SIDE.BTC (or SIDEBTC, or whatever) will be non-transferrable and will be the underlying collateral for BITBTC.  But then, there could be instances of the original depositor not logging in and not being able to approve a transaction, or just choosing not to do that (for whatever nefarious reason).  Sure, this attack causes them to lose out on the btc that was originally deposited, but they sold for some other asset, say maybe bitEURO, bitCNY, or bitUSD, and are able to withdraw out of the DEX in this manner.  The person who now owns BITBTC will be out if that user ever wants to withdraw bitcoin and hold in their own long-term wallet.

`Transferring` of the private keys must be done in some manner.  Either by moving the bitcoin to a new multisig address each time for each new holder of the underlying asset (inefficient) or, better yet, a(n improved notion of a) smart contract, that is like a dynamic multisig and can be turned on or off when certain conditions are met, i.e. think of it as approving or revoking the signing of a transaction in a regular multisig transaction, but that is done in a trustless manner via the code.  Essentially, program in 'dynamic' addresses where they are spendable if a certain condition is met even if you have the 1 private key that can be used to unlock it, you can't transfer out since you haven't met the appropriate conditions.

This latter solution, if possible, would be great!  I'm not entirely sure how the implementation of smart contracts or the design of them is actually done.  But if this type of dynamic solution isn't already considered, this is a huge improvement!

The bitbtc can move freely and doesn't need the original depositors signature. just like bitbtc currently works.
The new holder of bitbtc will not be able to force settle the bitbtc for real btc but they will be able to sell to someone else 1:1
i see what you mean though. You could discourage this by demanding collateral of 105% instead of 100%

Sure.  I understand bitbtc can be freely moveable and sidebtc is not.  However, the issue still remains if a user who owns bitbtc (or bit(altnamehere)) wants to move out of the system and have the actual cryptotoken in their possession.  We can't rely on the original depositor to always be online to approve a transaction and or to always be honest.

Even if they have an extra 5% collateral that would be needed, I still don't think that this solves the problem.

I concede that the scenario of a dishonest depositor seems unlikely due to the additional 5% penalty and I wouldn't expect a 'rational agent' to behave in that manner.  People are rarely rational, unfortunately, and (most) game theory assumes agents will act in a manner that promotes their own self-interest. 

Even in the case of an honest depositor, what happens when the original depositor is dead and / or loses their private key ? That collateral is locked up forever and there is no way of removing it from the system.  In addition, since the collateral can't actually move, can it really be seen as collateral anymore? I would think not.

Your question asks will the collateral be worthless due to the original depositor losing or purposefully discarding the keys to their account.

Yes this could be an issue. How about you add a condition that all SIDEBTC will expire and be sent back to a BTC address automatically after 5 years of creation date. Same as now how all order cancel after 5 years.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on February 13, 2016, 03:27:45 am

@complexring  @BunkerChain Labs
Your question is: when SIDEBTC is transferred the previous owner will still have the public key so its not secure.

This is how it works, there a 3 types of BTC
1. real BTC
2. SIDEBTC
3. BITBTC (like current bitbtc but collatralised 1:1 with side btc)

So SIDEBTC cannot be transfered ever. The owner of it uses it as collateral to create BITBTC which can be transfered.

So SIDE.BTC (or SIDEBTC, or whatever) will be non-transferrable and will be the underlying collateral for BITBTC.  But then, there could be instances of the original depositor not logging in and not being able to approve a transaction, or just choosing not to do that (for whatever nefarious reason).  Sure, this attack causes them to lose out on the btc that was originally deposited, but they sold for some other asset, say maybe bitEURO, bitCNY, or bitUSD, and are able to withdraw out of the DEX in this manner.  The person who now owns BITBTC will be out if that user ever wants to withdraw bitcoin and hold in their own long-term wallet.

`Transferring` of the private keys must be done in some manner.  Either by moving the bitcoin to a new multisig address each time for each new holder of the underlying asset (inefficient) or, better yet, a(n improved notion of a) smart contract, that is like a dynamic multisig and can be turned on or off when certain conditions are met, i.e. think of it as approving or revoking the signing of a transaction in a regular multisig transaction, but that is done in a trustless manner via the code.  Essentially, program in 'dynamic' addresses where they are spendable if a certain condition is met even if you have the 1 private key that can be used to unlock it, you can't transfer out since you haven't met the appropriate conditions.

This latter solution, if possible, would be great!  I'm not entirely sure how the implementation of smart contracts or the design of them is actually done.  But if this type of dynamic solution isn't already considered, this is a huge improvement!

The bitbtc can move freely and doesn't need the original depositors signature. just like bitbtc currently works.
The new holder of bitbtc will not be able to force settle the bitbtc for real btc but they will be able to sell to someone else 1:1
i see what you mean though. You could discourage this by demanding collateral of 105% instead of 100%