I think most gateways/exchanges using BitShares use the memo field and a uniquely-generated deposit id to route funds to the right place. It's possible to mistype the memo, but don't most people copy-paste?

That's the problem though. It's freetext. There is literally no way to validate it. Bitcoin Addresses have a built-in checksum that prevents (well, makes it difficult) to enter a wrong number (Destination address for the funds). If a customer does enter the wrong number into the Bitshares 'memo' field (for example; copy & pasting the wrong text length) and submits the transaction, support staff would need to get involved to reroute the funds at the point at which the customer complains their account hasn't been credited. This just isn't an acceptable user experience and will end up happening more often than not.

Also, it's possible to provide a convenience link that automatically takes the user to the web wallet with the account name and memo pre-filled.

How would you do this?

Thanks!

I'm building a simple website to explore how I would store Bitshares asset balances for user accounts. Taking typical Bitcoin websites as examples; as a user, you are issued a Bitcoin Address and can send Bitcoins to that address. The website 'owns' the private key to that Bitcoin Address within it's wallet, and can therefore spend the balance of any Bitcoins sent to that address. It's analogous to an account number and pretty simple from a user's perspective (ignoring the amalgam of characters that constitute a Bitcoin address).

However, I'm not clear how to replicate similarly simple behaviour in Bitshares. It seems there are two possible approaches;

1) Create a single 'company' account on the Bitshares blockchain and issue the customer with the name of the account along with a custom 'memo' identifier that allows routing of their funds within the context of the website. This approach was used on Bter and is thwart with the possibility of user-error because the memo field is ostensibly free-text without validation. If the user inputs a wrong character (which they will definitely do) when they are trying to deposit funds, the whole automated process breaks down (and someone supporting the website would need to manually identify and route the funds).

or;

2) Create a unique account on the Bitshares blockchain for each user registering on the website and issue the customer with the name of the account. The account's private keys are held locally by the website and the user uses the name as a unique identifier to route their funds. This seems like an approach that is more user friendly, but raises the possibility of

• A) cluttering the bitshares blockchain
• B) users attempting to register the same account name outside of the website (E.g. through the bitshares client) and being denied because the name is taken by the website
• C) identification of accounts tied to the website by third parties; for example - if new accounts were prefixed 'MYWEBSITE-' (nasty privacy violation)

In the case of B and C, is there a way to stealth-ify accounts? Perhaps through the issuance of an Address (in the same vain as Bitcoin) rather than a friendly account name; and is there a way to prevent or hide account names to avoid identification and relation of accounts back to the website?

I'd really appreciate some input on the available options to solving this problem.
 

Except when the client software is polished and everything is said and done it is going to be the master of many...and is already beginning to shape up that way. 

Please tell me of one tech that offers what BitShares does and does it better.  I'd like to hear about it.  The ONLY weak point up to this point has been marketing...and that has nothing to do with the tech.

The operative word being when. I believe BitShares is the very best solution available, but this constant attempt to portray it as a better solution than every existing solution doesn't help adoption. The simple fact is, Ripple has been around for years. It might be centralized, it might be a giant house of IOU cards, it might well be flawed but it's technology that's in the field and has a number of bricks and mortar financial institutions backing it.

BitShares might well offer all the functionality of Ripple and Bitcoin combined, but the fact is Ripple and Bitcoin are seen as distinct technologies. As if Ripple or Bitcoin in isolation weren't confusing enough, the average individual will find reconciling both feature-sets under one roof a real challenge.

People need a bite-size features that encapsulates the benefits of BitShares while highlighting the flaws in current competitors and that is BitUSD (assets), deterministic confirmation times and yield. They don't want to know about delegates, they don't care about distributed exchanges - the Apple experience is paramount.

Sure, you can explore how deep the rabbit hole goes if you want, but a majority don't want to.  Trying to make BitShares everything to everyone just adds confusion and will cause people to dismiss it.
 

Probably this is not enough, if someone send you 1000 bitUSD, it's difficult to tell whether this bitUSD is the pegged USD or just user issued asset, especially to new users who are not familiar with all those stuff.

Agreed. There should be no ambiguity. Perhaps some mechanism/flag to distinguish between 'user' created assets and 'system' created assets. I realize bitUSD, bitGLD etc are ostensibly user created, but they were done by the development staff at/near Bitshares(x) inception. Perhaps some consensus marker similar to voting for a delegate to ensure the duplicate/nonsensical and just pointless assets never get viewed unless you explicitly go looking for/ask bitshares to show them. And of course, all the spam assets that will be created to pray on those not paying attention "BittUSD", "BtUSD" "BittUSD" etc...horrible.

Besides, all these extra 'assets' make an awful mess. The average user will want to have all the 'noise' pre-filtered and only left with the unambiguous 'authentic original' assets.

Is there a concrete timeframe for the merger of AGS/PTS/BTSX and all the competing DAC's under the "Bitshares" and BTS brand? I am very keen to promote BTS(X) - specifically BitUSD, but I can't find any concrete timeframes only proposals and vague (albeit exciting) roadmaps.

Is there a date when everything is going to be brought back into the Bitshares fold, so that we can start building services around a single brand and technology stack (Bitshares) without the risk of causing confusion and ambiguity to new potential adopters?

I agree except with the bitAsset part. BitAssets as a whole are not that important, but bitUSD volume is VITAL.

You're right, but its the age old chicken and egg. Volume spurs adoption, but adoption spurs volume.

It is the most important thing, the goal should be to have a Coinapult Locks-like experience built into the wallet.

Isn't the current implementation of BitUSD holding pretty well against the USD? That's all Coinapult Locks does in the Bitcoin world, basically guarantee you'll get the USD amount back out that you put in, regardless of the Bitcoin price.

30 day rule must be implemented now! The community must unite and set up some real bitUSD volume/bots. Having it on an exchange so it is possible to trade bitUSD directly to bitcoin would also be a huge advantage, especially if it could end up becoming the hedge of choice like nuBits has managed to become on bter and ccedk.

I wasn't aware that funds got locked up for that long in shorts. I think the developers are working on bots and this (hopefully). Out of interest, isn't nuBits just another alt-coin that suffers the same volatility issues as Bitcoin? In otherwords there is no way to know in reality where the price will actually end up making its useful as a hedge more a gamble than anything else?

To be honest, if in-spite of all the innovations behinds BitSharesX, the name was the only thing that stopped you from committing, perhaps BitSharesX isn't for you...