Quote from: bytemaster on December 07, 2015, 10:56:36 pm

We have come up with an internal design that we will be submitting for a worker proposal and or revenue sharing crowd funded proposal.   Let me document the details more closely and get an estimated cost in place and we can go from there.

There seems to be quite a few worker proposals coming through, and I'm wondering what sort of role CNX is playing.

Is CNX structuring/scheduling the workers in a way that it thinks BTS can handle and pay for, or are you just putting the proposals up as soon as their ready?  Do you think any of these proposals should come quicker than others?  I can't help but get the feeling that BTS is getting stretched right now...

CNX is moving more toward the crowd funded feature model rather than the dilution model for future efforts.   We are proposing features in the order that we think will benefit BTS the most. 

Could multisig functionality be added to the GUI in a Privacy Mode worker proposal for a reasonable increase in the cost and without drastically affecting eta?

The blockchain technically supports using confidential transfers with multi-sig as well as with public accounts (keeping the amounts private).  Exposing that in the GUI is non trivial.  I would be very interested in getting some ideas of what that might look like.  At this point in time though, I do not wish to increase the scope of the basic worker proposal because it is already tightly budgeted and we absorb all of the risk for cost overruns. 

We would need "off line" signing of transactions and general multisig support throughout the whole wallet. 

I would probably put off-line signing support as a separate worker proposal because its use case applies to everything the wallet can do, not just confidential transfers.

I have put together some mock up interface ideas for adding confidential transfers to the user interface. This is a draft for community review.

https://files.zenhub.io/5665f8501bd9a6596812de50

Global Settlement is for Prediction Markets and is the Equivalent of a Manual Black Swan that cannot be reset.

Quote from: funnybear on December 07, 2015, 12:57:50 pm

As bytemaster states, each market should be seen as its own mini business, as a profit center. So, each asset needs promotion individually.

Agreed, what was said in the last mumble was extremely important and I wish BM had a chance to talk about it a bit more extensively.

Quote from: funnybear on December 07, 2015, 12:57:50 pm

Furthermore, if worker proposal #446 gets approved, this can kill the game for UIA issuer.

But I don't understand what makes you think that worker proposal #446 can be a threat to businesses based on UIAs.
IMO #446 redistributes trading fees earned on bit-assets from the committee account to the Referral Program. How does this affect UIAs?

#446 redistributes all trading fees from BTS to the referral program.  However, we have a new metric of referral (UIA creator).  I think my preferred solution is to create a parameter that determines the percent of BTS market fees that go to the issuer of the asset it is traded against, and the remaining can go to the referral program.   This way future committee members can balance between UIA issuers and the referral program.  Both systems need rewards to grow and prosper and we should do an ALL or NOTHING with them.  The exact balance is something that can be tweaked over time.

Is the dev team required to make changes to try to hit an internal network reaching 100k tps? Whats stopping us from demoing it? That would obvously bring in new investors,

No changes required to hit that except perhaps a more efficient wallet for generating the transactions.

Quote from: sittingduck on December 05, 2015, 02:24:35 pm

For every seller there is a buyer which means you get your fee.

Well, central exchange gets to charge market fee from "both counterparty per trade", but what you are saying is that BitShares exchange will only allow to charge market fee from the buyer, which is only one side. So, yes. You will get your fee on a sell too, but it only adds up to half compared to centralized exchanges.

Yes, unless you trade OPEN.DOGE for OPEN.BTC in which case it is the same as a centralized exchange.   You only get to charge 50% when you are only providing 50% of the service.   Your asset gets to be used in MORE markets than it would otherwise.