Why is BitShares not ready to offer protection against Mt. Gox / account hacking right now? Isn't it only a matter of educating admins (such as those for metaX, Blktrades & ccedk) on how to use the hierarchical account structure, i.e. multisig? Or are there still bugs in the GUI render that crippled?
If this basic functionality is broken how the hell can BM say with a straight face the DEX is "done"?
And is it possible to expose when entities like ccedk, metaX etc are not using best practices in their account management? Seems like as a community we should put pressure on them to convince us they are indeed following best practices to insure user's funds are always safe.
Presumably we're only talking about the UIAs and IOUs administered by these organizations, b/c users' assets should be held on the BitShares blockchain, and they private keys under their own control.
What am I missing here?
I see it from the other side.
What does BitShares actually provide that gives distinct value ?
All this hierarchial stuff doesn't seem to be an improvement over a well administered hot/cold wallet. If the process is automated, then it can be hacked. At best, you could have a convoluted automated withdrawal system that makes hacking seem less likely, but that is going to be a lot of work and complexity. Complexity is great for allowing exploitable bugs to creep in. It is far from clear that it is even an advantage.
I am not sure what assets you can even protect with BItShares? BitShares's assets? Well there aren't that many. People are interested in altcoins, not BitShares assets.
My question is why did CNX continue to go with such a weird non-standard system, when all it would do is slow adoption. Back whenever, we heard that the BTC api was crap, but who cares if everyone uses it ? BTS was rewritten from scratch, so why repeat the same mistakes? For an exchange to receive BItShares they have to use a memo field. All that sort of stuff does is slow adoption.
BitShares biggest allies have been BTC38 and Poloniex.