If we were baking a cake, you would be tasting it in the mixing bowl. Either help to bake, wait patiently or try a different recipe.

@noisy I have taken what i think you are getting at and changed it a bit. I think this could work?? @xeroc  @tbone @complexring @abit @JonnyBitcoin @brainbug @Shentist @Akado @TravelsAsia @BunkerChain Labs @merivercap @btswildpig @fuzzy @bytemaster

Bitshares generates a 2 of 2 multisig bitcoin address. 1 of these signitures is held by the witnesses. The other signature is held by the bitshares users account.
The user deposits bitcoin to this new btc account and will only be able to retrieve it when the witnesses provide the other key.
Bitshares then generates a sideBTC token for the user.
The user can then use this SIDEBTC as collateral to create BITBTC.  but they will only need 100% collateral and have zero risk of margin call or force settlement.

To regain access to his realbtc he will need to repay all debts. Bitshares the destroys  the SIDEBTC token and allows access to the real BTC by getting the witnesses to sign with the second key.

Quote from: bytemaster on February 12, 2016, 05:50:00 pm

Quote from: tbone on February 12, 2016, 05:42:21 pm

@bytemaster:

Just wanted to resurrect the sidechain thread with an idea/question.  Since there's risk (perhaps intolerable risk) of collusion  associated with witnesses signing off on transfers to a multi-sig BTC wallet, would it be possible for the BTS blockchain to hold the private key for such a BTC wallet and automatically make transfers out of it (and into a user's individual BTC wallet) whenever a user sells their SIDE.BTC on the DEX?

It is possible to do secure multi-party computation among the witnesses.  Doesn't prevent collusion of witnesses though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_multi-party_computation

So is it not possible for the Bitshares blockchain to hold the private key for the common wallet and automate the transfers so witnesses don't need to be involved?

Because we're the shit and only assholes don't HODL

Quote from: mf-tzo on February 11, 2016, 10:50:44 pm

@luckybit and others I never owned a single eth because I don't understand its purpose but can you please explain me in 5 lines why ethereum should be worth $1 bil and what it can do that bitshares can't do and why bitshares shouldn't be worth equally? What are the differences and why eth is so superior?

I just don't get all this ethereum madness and I don't get it why people dump bts at these levels.
Please explain.
Thanks

Eth is worth that much because the speculative capital make that worth much .It's simple math .

BTS is not worth that much because BM likes to kill speculators on the ground of future development and real users . Without speculative capital , you have no bubble .

So , in order for BTS to grow , BTS has to get real users . And because real users will never use a product provided by some dev without legal protection/customer support/consumer protection,  unlike real company and real product . So ...you get the idea why it is so hard for BTS to grow .

Quote from: cube on February 11, 2016, 04:20:11 pm

Tonyk's idea is getting sweeter.

Do you think he deserves some brownies? Ha hah aha hahahah aha haahhahah ahahahhahahhahha ahah!

Quote from: jakub on February 10, 2016, 07:13:36 pm

I am mainly upset by the way this change is being introduced. Instead of starting with a forum thread "Let's revise the target/purpose of the referral program" to present arguments pro and con, the whole thing has been obfuscated and wrapped into a bigger package that required a lot of prior work done by you and other people. As a result, this strategy change is now entangled with other much less controversial stuff. The fact that you have put so much effort to revise every single fee, validates the purpose of this change in the eyes of many people here and allows you to have less solid arguments about the justification itself. I'm sure you are going to defend this by saying that all of this is interconnected and can only be viewed as a single package, but I disagree. I perceive this as an intentional measure, often used in politics.

I always appreciate your bright ideas and ability to articulate your points well.

As a third-party to the matter, if I may speak out on it.

It did not come across to me (and likely other committee members) that we were getting onto a topic of "Let's revise the target/purpose of the referral program" .  We were thinking of what can be done to enable both the trading/exchange and referral businesses to function well and to prosper together in the bts network.  When one side (trading/exchange) is asking for lower transfer fee, the other side AM/LTM and referral program can continue to be attractive and useful (with other kinds of fee revised).  xeroc has offerred to work on the fee schedule and we are thankful for his work.  In short, we were focusing on fees and their implications (and not just the referral program per se).  As a referrer, it is natural that the matter to you centres around the referral program and that your POV is therefore xeroc 'revise target of referral program'.  Consequently, a misunderstanding arised because of the difference in POV.

Quote from: jakub on February 10, 2016, 07:13:36 pm

As for the transfer fee, the main thing to consider is why we expect users to make transfers in the first place. If a user does not have a good reason to do a transfer, she will not do it, no matter what the fee is. For me this is the main issue: most people currently do have any reason to move their funds around. And there is only one way to give people this badly needed reason: businesses building useful apps around BitShares. For this we need to patiently wait, like a good gardener waits for her plants to grow, and while waiting we must not change the rules.

I believe users do want to transact freely, be it to trade for BTC, to send some bts/bitassets to friends and/or family members, or some other reasons.  However, any transaction of value USD2 or below would mean a transfer fee of 5% -  (30bts or approx USD0.10) too costly and prohibitive. 

As a referrer, one may wait patiently for a potential future that some businesses would build on this fee structure and reap the benefits then.  As a user, one would not see the rationale to continue to suffer the prohibitive transfer fee and to wait for a future that may never come.

seriously?!
WTF?!?!?!?! Now I got to buy into this rally, or join the IOTA team and pump vaporware?!