Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Maybe we should contact zerohedge about bitgold?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-03/guest-post-how-blockchain-and-gold-can-work-together
It is possible to do the following:
1. Have all of the witnesses monitor the BTC network for transfers to a designated multi-sig address which is defined by the BTS consensus to be the top 15 witness signatures (max MSIG allowed by BTC). All of these UNSPENT OUTPUTS get included as part of BTS consensus state.
2. Every time a BTC transaction gets 6 confirmations, the blockchain transfers SIDE-BTC asset to a balance controlled by the first input address (assuming the address is a simple 1 sig input).
3. Allow this SIDE-BTC asset to be converted back to BTC with an operation that makes a request. For witnesses to produce a block they must also sign off on the MSIG transfer authorizing BTC to be sent to the proper address.
This is something that could probably be implemented in about a month of dev time on the back end.
In theory the witnesses could collude to steal all deposited BTC funds.
without multisig, this is already working on metaexchange.
we recieving BTC -->creating METAEX.BTC
if you send METAEX.BTC back we send you BTC and burn METAEX.BTC
you can see the operations in realtime here http://cryptofresh.com/u/dev-metaexchange.monsterer
what is the value of doing it? would it not be better if we can setup some mulitsig for (blocktrades, opernledger and metaexchange) so we can use the same UIA?
gives this really more value?
It is possible to do the following:
1. Have all of the witnesses monitor the BTC network for transfers to a designated multi-sig address which is defined by the BTS consensus to be the top 15 witness signatures (max MSIG allowed by BTC). All of these UNSPENT OUTPUTS get included as part of BTS consensus state.
2. Every time a BTC transaction gets 6 confirmations, the blockchain transfers SIDE-BTC asset to a balance controlled by the first input address (assuming the address is a simple 1 sig input).
3. Allow this SIDE-BTC asset to be converted back to BTC with an operation that makes a request. For witnesses to produce a block they must also sign off on the MSIG transfer authorizing BTC to be sent to the proper address.
This is something that could probably be implemented in about a month of dev time on the back end.
In theory the witnesses could collude to steal all deposited BTC funds.
- Settlement can be discouraged by asking for a percentage fee (1-2%) (this will move the peg AROUND parity. Flat fee for settlement can also be increase which has some negative effects on pred. markets
-The idea that BitUSD was always worth a dollar was good but in practice I think the market would prefer BitAssets to trade around the peg rather than above the peg.
- I think forced settlement at 100% even with the delay can perhaps be manipulated by altering BTS price on external markets.
JohnnyBitcoin previously exploited transwiser via forced settlement & perhaps still has a forced settlement edge given how keen he is on maximising forced settlement, max daily settlement & was also keen to buy $10k BitUSD recently just above feed? https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21096.msg273365.html#msg273365
- I think an actual 1-2% fee could be good as it could then be used to incentivize shorts/other who are the ones that seem the most reluctant to come close to the peg atm.
I think you and a few others have a real misunderstanding of force settlement. Force settling is just a guarantee of liquidity at peg. If people are stupid enough to sell smartcoins for less than what they can be settled for then of course I will buy them and settle at profit. Watch my video at thedex.org for a more detailed explanation.
Weren't you offering to buy the $10k BitUSD in my example for more that it could be force settled at the time?
- Settlement can be discouraged by asking for a percentage fee (1-2%) (this will move the peg AROUND parity. Flat fee for settlement can also be increase which has some negative effects on pred. markets
-The idea that BitUSD was always worth a dollar was good but in practice I think the market would prefer BitAssets to trade around the peg rather than above the peg.
- I think forced settlement at 100% even with the delay can perhaps be manipulated by altering BTS price on external markets.
JohnnyBitcoin previously exploited transwiser via forced settlement & perhaps still has a forced settlement edge given how keen he is on maximising forced settlement, max daily settlement & was also keen to buy $10k BitUSD recently just above feed? https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21096.msg273365.html#msg273365
- I think an actual 1-2% fee could be good as it could then be used to incentivize shorts/other who are the ones that seem the most reluctant to come close to the peg atm.
