16
General Discussion / Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« on: June 08, 2016, 04:41:00 pm »Unclickable clickbait. Welcome to the future!
I clicked it anyway. Here's the contents.
Thanks
Quote
In conclusion I would like to point that all these features as good as might seem, are very dangerous. The BitShares community should focus on more practical stuff, especially in the following :
Rate limited fees, Autobridging, Maker/Taker, Negative Fees, Smartcoin Park rates, Bond Market, MetaTrader Integration, Trading Bots. All these would add a lot of potential and value to BitShares, they don’t have any hidden dangers for the BitShares platform and their cost is relatively low. At current rates they could be done in 1 year.
I'd rather focus a lot on those features too. I don't know enough about Stealth/Privacy solutions to comment so I have to take it from others I trust on the forum that Stealth has a lot of issues. The complete openness of BTS is an issue though (especially in the BTS 2.0 transition, a lot of people had used their forum names for their accounts not realising everybody would be able to openly view their balances.) So even some level of privacy could be a positive.
Quote
Finally I wanted to add a side note on sidechains. Honestly that would be even worse than adding stealth. Doom scenario for sidechains : Bitcoins worth 2M USD are held by the Bitshares Blockchain.
All witnesses collude to steal all coins or all witnesses are hacked and have no control, 2. Someone takes control over big proxies or stakes and votes witnesses his/her own (Hacking proxies or exchanges) 3. Big proxies/holders/exchanges collude to steal funds
Bytemaster said that it wouldn’t make sense for someone do so. But did he consider the fact that BitShares are a lot less liquid that Bitcoin? Even if Bitshares were worth 20M USD the fact that they are illiquid makes them worth a lot less than they actually are.
I agree, I don't like the idea of witnesses controlling millions in Bitcoin either,
QuoteWhat? You're trusting your coins to the owner of a single exchange company with no supervision by other independent cosigners? Really?
They're trusting registered & highly regulated companies in countries with relatively strong & effective legal systems. Their owners are also making millions of dollars and so have a financial incentive to keep making money and not go to jail.
DPOS currently has neither the same legal fallback & delegates who make only a few hundred bucks a month. While the delegates ability to damage and profit from harming BTS is limited. They could get full value from other blockchain tokens.
By increasing the incentive for delegates to misbehave and therefore the trust required in them you increase the fragility of BTS. Blockchain competition is also reducing fees to near zero so the value centre of BTS is BTS collateralised SmartCoins, UIA tokens not collateralised with BTS are much less attractive, see MaidSafe, Synereo & Agoras, collectively worth >$50 million on an Omni blockchain worth <$1.4 million...
So I don't see the value in there myself. For me the way to make BTS useful and popular now & massively grow the value of BTS is by focusing on market maker & yield subsidies to create useful liquidity & demand around the peg so that bridges can convert fairly close to 1-1.