Quote from: renkcub on October 08, 2017, 06:51:36 am

even with actual bitcoins (you would simply need to exchange those bitcoins for BitBTC first on the Dex, then trade for BitUSD. Or,  even better, trade for BitUSD directly, although this doesn't seem to currently be offered anywhere).

I think you are contradicting yourself here. HOW would you exchange BTC for bitBTC or trade BTC for bitUSD without a centralized gateway? I thought that's exactly what you're proposing to get rid of.

Such a gateway would centralized, but trustless. This is much better, than centralized gateway, which requires to trust your funds to it.

And surely, if OL offered deposits/withdrawals in bitBTC instead of OPEN.BTC, bitBTC volume would be as high as OPEN.BTC volume now.

It does bother me to see this sort of thing being normalized, when did full transparency and the death of financial privacy become a good thing?

If you ask me, not only should all transactions be private by default with optional opt-out, but also market orders should be anonymous, revealing who the trader is , is a significant leak of privacy, that's internal information that the whole internet from order being placed to eternity should have no business knowing about.


Why not work with it on the other side, and have convenient in-wallet functions for exporting trading data, in a non automated manner, to make tax reporting easier .. instead of setting up a system where everyone is guilty by default and the government tracks everything everyone does.

Totally agree with these statements. 

http://stockemperor.com/currencies/sec-purges-cryptocurrencies/

Bitshares is largest from these cryptos, holds $155 mln in capitalization and fell in just a few minutes by a 24%, while Draco’s price decreased 60% and DAR -58%. This means effectively death for these virtual online coins and big losses for unlucky investors.

This is bullshit. Many crypto coins experienced similar fall more than once, and they are still far from being dead.

Quote from: yvv on September 28, 2017, 09:23:59 pm

Quote from: pc on September 28, 2017, 07:06:17 pm

Accounts can be set up so that a robot can use it with a single key, while at the same time a desktop wallet with a different key can only use it together with a 2FA provider.

Then what prevents a hacker to use this account with the same single key as robot?

PRESUMABLY bitcrab's account was hacked through his desktop machine, which in the above setup would not have contained the single robot key. Robots typically run on servers, and servers are more easily locked down than desktop machines.

Ok, you would have one wallet file which is unlocked all the time on device which is difficult to access, and another wallet file which is locked and require 2FA to unlock which is stored on easily accessible device, right? This could work, I guess. What if the second wallet is encrypted with two (or three) different public keys, with private keys stored on different devices? Then you would have multi-FA with no third party involved. Would this be possible to implement?

P.S. In fact, this encryption of wallet with multiple keys is straight forward to implement with something like gnupg, but BTS would need to update GUI to make it convenient to use.

It's not at all shitty. A centralized 2FA service may not be ideal, but it's much better than not having 2FA at all.

IIRC bitcrab said that he accessed the account on a windows machine through a web wallet and/or light wallet. Accounts can be set up so that a robot can use it with a single key, while at the same time a desktop wallet with a different key can only use it together with a 2FA provider.

I think @xeroc had plans to set up a 2FA provider for BTS, but AFAIK it doesn't exist yet.

But multi-key account is much better than 2FA through a third party, and it is already in BTS. If it is not user friendly, this should be fixed asap. Keys from multi-key account can be optionally kept by third parties, and it is still better than google style 2FA.

I too got wrecked (lost btc) in 2014 due to horrible 2FA / security from Google (Gmail) and Blockchain.info.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25039.msg311168.html#msg311168

I understand multisignature protection in different computers but I may have misunderstood something so please advise.

If one has a pc where all his bts wallets a are in this pc (hence all his bts accounts as well) an attacker who gains access to that pc can equally easily have access to all wallets and accounts right? 

So what is the point of multisignature as protection in this case? Would it be difficult to hack 2 different accounts with 2 different passwords as long both are on the same pc or since he gains access to the pc he can hack easily all passwords?

In this case what is the best way one can protect himself? Should we have for example 1 web wallet and 1 light wallet with i.e 1 account to each of this wallets that in order to take a transaction both have to sign 50-50 permissions? Or something else?

The point of multi-signature account is to have 3 different wallets on 3 different devices with 3 different private keys stored in each wallet which control the same account. Two devices may be yours and one belong to someone you trust, or all three may be yours, or one yours and two belong to different people you trust.  You could set up this account such that you need 2 signatures out of 3 to unlock it. This way, if someone hacks one of your devices, your funds are safe, because they can't unlock your account without the other device.  If you lose one of devices, your funds are also safe. You just use another two devices to replace the compromised or lost key.

I have a multi-signature byteball account on desktop, phone and tablet, which works really great for me. Never tried to set up one in bitshares, perhaps I should try this asap and recommend everybody to try.

Sorry for your loss. Any idea about how this went wrong?