BitShares Forum

Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: seraphim on October 22, 2015, 12:39:54 am

Title: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on October 22, 2015, 12:39:54 am
UPDATE: Canceled. Not enough approval from stakeholders.

BitShares CryptoeXchange (working name)

BTSCX will provide a gateway for cryptocurrencies to a decentralized storage, backing assets tradable on the BTS network (comparable to NXT's SuperNET, but without static main nodes)

For a coin to be added there need to be at least three individuals, so called signers, who hold keys to multisig addresses to store coins and assets. Two of those keys are required for a transaction to get accepted in the blockchain. The signers watch each other and react to suspicious behaviour by locking out the malicious signer, and if possible replacing him.
A multisig address can be created with a variable number of signers and required signatures, so it can be raised per-coin when more individuals applied for signing and get voted in. The number of signers should be in some way proportional to the total deposited value for (obvious) security reasons.

When a coin is added (enough signers available + successful community vote), an asset representing that coin is issued by the signers (also multisig protected), which will be given out in return for deposited coins. The deposits are immediately sent to the multisig storage address.
Returning the asset to the issuer triggers a withdrawal of the respective amount of coins.

The gateway can sustain itself through fees taken from deposits and withdrawals.

The client will support adding new coins and applying as a signer for an added coin as well as voting, trading and community functions.
Like Graphene, the UI will be standalone and can work with remote BTSCX, BTS and coin nodes.
By connecting it to a local coin wallet it will support trading directly out of or into that wallet.

A control asset will be issued, which gives the community the possibility to vote on every variable that may be set, per coin.
Those variables are (list not necessarily complete):
- coins to add
- x-of-y multisig
- offline/dropout tolerance
- fees
- distribution of fees between asset holders, signers, and burning


80% of this asset will be given to the community, 20% will stay with me to be distributed amongst the people helping to create the gateway.

The team consists of 3 persons so far (2 coders, 1 designer). As a rough estimation it'll require about 6 months and at least 30k USD to develop a working product. This would only cover a very basic version though. Adding more features like a trollbox or margin trading will boost that up quite a bit, and if we want to include marketing and further development, even 300k USD could easily be spent in a year. There won't be a company in Switzerland though, promised!

There are 6 proposed workers, amounting to 60k BTS/day each, running for three months (Dec/Jan/Feb). With this setup and current prices having all 6 voted in for 1 month, or 2 for three months, secures the minimum funding.  Donations of BTC, BTS and BitUSD will be accepted when the initial 30k USD target is met through those workers, or during February if it's possible to fill an eventual gap.

In March 2016 the value in USD for everything that came in will be calculated, and 80% of the control asset will be given out proportionally, sharedropping the worker income's part on BTS accounts. Details on that sharedrop need to be discussed, I'm not sure if a proportional drop on everyone makes sense. Whoever holds that asset should participate in the voting.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: mindphlux on October 22, 2015, 06:56:23 am
If you're lobbying for a worker proposal, the software you create should be open source AND, most importantly all the profits that are created must be given back to the BTS community by burning or similiar - expecting the community to pay for development though inflation and then not getting all the rewards and profits is a big nono, in my opinion.

If you do not lobby for a worker contract it looks different, and I would support your plan.

One other thing I noticed. 360K bts a day? Are you serious?? There are only 500k available for worker proposals each day, and your proposal would eat 72% of it. That leaves pretty much nothing for other big worker proposals and it looks like you may act very selfish.

At current rates, that's 1440USD a day or if you remove the weekend, it's 2016 USD per workday (Monday-Friday). 2 programmers and one designer do not cost that much on the open market, and I would expect you to take a big discount when you decide to work for BTS, since you're eating a big amount of the available budget anyway.

All in all, this looks like a private company/product to be built with the community paying - I urge the community to reject this proposal for the time being, as it does not fulfill the base requirements I would see for workers:

Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: fav on October 22, 2015, 08:00:54 am
workers are primarily for developing bitshares, not funding external developments.

since you're building an exchange, you're looking for our affiliate/referral program to get extra funds.

or make a kickstarter asset.

@mindphlux  +5%
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on October 22, 2015, 12:24:47 pm
If you're lobbying for a worker proposal, the software you create should be open source AND, most importantly all the profits that are created must be given back to the BTS community by burning or similiar - expecting the community to pay for development though inflation and then not getting all the rewards and profits is a big nono, in my opinion.

If you do not lobby for a worker contract it looks different, and I would support your plan.

One other thing I noticed. 360K bts a day? Are you serious?? There are only 500k available for worker proposals each day, and your proposal would eat 72% of it. That leaves pretty much nothing for other big worker proposals and it looks like you may act very selfish.

At current rates, that's 1440USD a day or if you remove the weekend, it's 2016 USD per workday (Monday-Friday). 2 programmers and one designer do not cost that much on the open market, and I would expect you to take a big discount when you decide to work for BTS, since you're eating a big amount of the available budget anyway.

All in all, this looks like a private company/product to be built with the community paying - I urge the community to reject this proposal for the time being, as it does not fulfill the base requirements I would see for workers:

  • Software created must be open source
  • Potential profit generated must be burned or 100% given back to the community
  • Rate must be reasonable, may not be at or over market rates, as we have a budget to look after. 2000USD for 3 people full time per DAY is outragous.

Open source is self evident.

The possible profits were planned to go to the community, see the feature/voting list. The 20% I want to put aside are because those who join the team after the fundraise wouldn't have a way to get hold of some control assets else.
I don't expect a lot of profits from the operations anyway. Signers need to get paid, and fees for deposits and withdrawals need to be low to attract users, especially with the high trading fees on BTS.

Using a worker proposal was suggested by Stan and fuzzy while I was still only considering crowdfunding.
I'm aware that the workers' combined amounts are a big part of what's available in that time. That's why I split it up into 6 instead of proposing one, so if something else is proposed there's a way to cut BTSCX funding down while supporting the other cause. There aren't any other big workers for now, and even if all of mine would get voted in there'd still be room for small others.
You're also underestimating the workload for that project. The workers should be running three months only instead of a year, because I'd want funding to be secured before work starts. Having more than three people would make a lot of sense too. So all your calculations on that side are just off.

But ok. I'm in no way dependend on doing this, I just figured BTS to be a great platform to continue with what I've been doing for a while now. And as a truely decentralized and nearly real-time exchange, to me it felt like the holy grail of dx.
Seems like the community really isn't interested in community-funded infrastructure development though, neither through their own pocket nor the blockchain. Instead, it's "expect[ing developers] to take a big discount when [they] decide to work for BTS", and inflation is a bigger worry than infrastructure.

I consider the proposal as rejected for now and will not create the workers.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: mindphlux on October 22, 2015, 03:51:18 pm
With all due respect, I do not want to diss your project or anything, I'm just voicing my opinion.

As fav says, workers are not meant to fund external projects.

Examples for workers:
Add blinded transactions to frontend and post results on github for everyone to see
Add vested balances to frontend
Add proposed transactions to frontend
Improve market trading api calls since they're not too good at the moment
Create mobile wallet

All of these items are not a project that is trying to make money on its own, and I think that is the big difference.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on October 22, 2015, 04:12:59 pm
With all due respect, I do not want to diss your project or anything, I'm just voicing my opinion.

As fav says, workers are not meant to fund external projects.

Examples for workers:
Add blinded transactions to frontend and post results on github for everyone to see
Add vested balances to frontend
Add proposed transactions to frontend
Improve market trading api calls since they're not too good at the moment
Create mobile wallet

All of these items are not a project that is trying to make money on its own, and I think that is the big difference.

That's your point to it. Obviously Stan doesn't agree, or he wouldn't have suggested the proposal to me.
But whatever. The community has clearly shown that it's not willing to fund the project in either way, and I'm totally ok with that.
So let's move on, wherever that may lead to :)
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: tbone on October 22, 2015, 04:59:09 pm
With all due respect, I do not want to diss your project or anything, I'm just voicing my opinion.

As fav says, workers are not meant to fund external projects.

Examples for workers:
Add blinded transactions to frontend and post results on github for everyone to see
Add vested balances to frontend
Add proposed transactions to frontend
Improve market trading api calls since they're not too good at the moment
Create mobile wallet

All of these items are not a project that is trying to make money on its own, and I think that is the big difference.

@mindphlux: Obviously the community is divided as to whether it's appropriate to use a worker proposal to fund development of an external exchange.  I tend to agree with those that would be against it.  But what do you think about using a worker proposal to develop integrated, decentralized storage of other coins, which could then be traded on the Bitshares dex in the form of corresponding smartcoins?  I think that would be a massive winner for us.  Imagine if people could deposit and then trade BTC on the Bitshares dex just like they do at a centralized exchange, but free of counterparty risk.  And imagine further that once coins are trading on the Bitshares dex in this manner, that would provide a nice, easy migration path for these coins (perhaps not Bitcoin, but others) to move from their own blockchain onto ours. 

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19276.msg248887.html#msg248887

@seraphim: is this a project you would be interested in if the community got behind it?
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on October 22, 2015, 05:38:58 pm
With all due respect, I do not want to diss your project or anything, I'm just voicing my opinion.

As fav says, workers are not meant to fund external projects.

Examples for workers:
Add blinded transactions to frontend and post results on github for everyone to see
Add vested balances to frontend
Add proposed transactions to frontend
Improve market trading api calls since they're not too good at the moment
Create mobile wallet

All of these items are not a project that is trying to make money on its own, and I think that is the big difference.

@mindphlux: Obviously the community is divided as to whether it's appropriate to use a worker proposal to fund development of an external exchange.  I tend to agree with those that would be against it.  But what do you think about using a worker proposal to develop integrated, decentralized storage of other coins, which could then be traded on the Bitshares dex in the form of corresponding smartcoins?  I think that would be a massive winner for us.  Imagine if people could deposit and then trade BTC on the Bitshares dex just like they do at a centralized exchange, but free of counterparty risk.  And imagine further that once coins are trading on the Bitshares dex in this manner, that would provide a nice, easy migration path for these coins (perhaps not Bitcoin, but others) to move from their own blockchain onto ours. 

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19276.msg248887.html#msg248887

@seraphim: is this a project you would be interested in if the community got behind it?

An interesting idea for sure. I'd prefer the external solution, because everyone who wants to can become a signer without having to run a (later on potentially resource hungry) witness node besides the coin nodes.  A great part of the BTS universe isn't interested in other cryptos, just like other coin devs (potential signers) probably won't care about the mass of transactions on the bts chain.
For me, the dx gateway would have been a part of bts anyway. Creating another client instead of adding everything to the core just allows everyone to only run the software they need.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: fuzzy on October 22, 2015, 07:18:27 pm
With all due respect, I do not want to diss your project or anything, I'm just voicing my opinion.

As fav says, workers are not meant to fund external projects.

Examples for workers:
Add blinded transactions to frontend and post results on github for everyone to see
Add vested balances to frontend
Add proposed transactions to frontend
Improve market trading api calls since they're not too good at the moment
Create mobile wallet

All of these items are not a project that is trying to make money on its own, and I think that is the big difference.

@mindphlux: Obviously the community is divided as to whether it's appropriate to use a worker proposal to fund development of an external exchange.  I tend to agree with those that would be against it.  But what do you think about using a worker proposal to develop integrated, decentralized storage of other coins, which could then be traded on the Bitshares dex in the form of corresponding smartcoins?  I think that would be a massive winner for us.  Imagine if people could deposit and then trade BTC on the Bitshares dex just like they do at a centralized exchange, but free of counterparty risk.  And imagine further that once coins are trading on the Bitshares dex in this manner, that would provide a nice, easy migration path for these coins (perhaps not Bitcoin, but others) to move from their own blockchain onto ours. 

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19276.msg248887.html#msg248887

@seraphim: is this a project you would be interested in if the community got behind it?

And tbone hits it out of the park...
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: luckybit on October 22, 2015, 09:03:05 pm
TradeNet sounds better than Ubernet. I would say don't use Bitshares in the name either. Take the stealth approach and use Bitshares technology without connecting directly to Bitshares.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: tbone on October 23, 2015, 12:45:17 pm
With all due respect, I do not want to diss your project or anything, I'm just voicing my opinion.

As fav says, workers are not meant to fund external projects.

Examples for workers:
Add blinded transactions to frontend and post results on github for everyone to see
Add vested balances to frontend
Add proposed transactions to frontend
Improve market trading api calls since they're not too good at the moment
Create mobile wallet

All of these items are not a project that is trying to make money on its own, and I think that is the big difference.

@mindphlux: Obviously the community is divided as to whether it's appropriate to use a worker proposal to fund development of an external exchange.  I tend to agree with those that would be against it.  But what do you think about using a worker proposal to develop integrated, decentralized storage of other coins, which could then be traded on the Bitshares dex in the form of corresponding smartcoins?  I think that would be a massive winner for us.  Imagine if people could deposit and then trade BTC on the Bitshares dex just like they do at a centralized exchange, but free of counterparty risk.  And imagine further that once coins are trading on the Bitshares dex in this manner, that would provide a nice, easy migration path for these coins (perhaps not Bitcoin, but others) to move from their own blockchain onto ours. 

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19276.msg248887.html#msg248887

@seraphim: is this a project you would be interested in if the community got behind it?

An interesting idea for sure. I'd prefer the external solution, because everyone who wants to can become a signer without having to run a (later on potentially resource hungry) witness node besides the coin nodes.  A great part of the BTS universe isn't interested in other cryptos, just like other coin devs (potential signers) probably won't care about the mass of transactions on the bts chain.
For me, the dx gateway would have been a part of bts anyway. Creating another client instead of adding everything to the core just allows everyone to only run the software they need.

For users, I see no reason for the interface to be outside the Bitshares wallet.  In fact, that would create a disjointed and confusing user experience.  We're talking about deposit/withdrawal functionality here.  How does it make sense to require an additional client for that?  As for the signer interface, that could potentially be a different matter.  For example, if the only option is for the signer UI to be in the full node as opposed to the light wallet, then creating a standalone client for the signers could be a sensible alternative vs. forcing some signers to install the full node when they might otherwise have no reason to do so.

By the way, you've described the role of the signers as signing off on every deposit or withdrawal, correct?  But would that really be necessary?  Why couldn't that be automated?  So in the UI, a user can generates a bitcoin deposit address, for example.  Once the address receives a deposit, the blockchain issues a corresponding number of e.g. MY.BTC to that user's account, which can then be traded on the dex for, say, BTS or bitUSD.  Why would humans need to get involved, except when it comes to adding support for additional coins to the decentralized storage? 

Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on October 23, 2015, 03:13:34 pm
For users, I see no reason for the interface to be outside the Bitshares wallet.  In fact, that would create a disjointed and confusing user experience.  We're talking about deposit/withdrawal functionality here.  How does it make sense to require an additional client for that?  As for the signer interface, that could potentially be a different matter.  For example, if the only option is for the signer UI to be in the full node as opposed to the light wallet, then creating a standalone client for the signers could be a sensible alternative vs. forcing some signers to install the full node when they might otherwise have no reason to do so.

That's just a frontend thing. Everything will happen on the BTS blockchain through normal transactions, so it'd be totally possible to have any BTS wallet support deposits and withdrawals with minimal effort.

By the way, you've described the role of the signers as signing off on every deposit or withdrawal, correct?  But would that really be necessary?  Why couldn't that be automated?  So in the UI, a user can generates a bitcoin deposit address, for example.  Once the address receives a deposit, the blockchain issues a corresponding number of e.g. MY.BTC to that user's account, which can then be traded on the dex for, say, BTS or bitUSD.  Why would humans need to get involved, except when it comes to adding support for additional coins to the decentralized storage?

The signing is automated of course, but someone has to hold the private keys and act as a gateway between the different blockchains.


TradeNet sounds better than Ubernet. I would say don't use Bitshares in the name either. Take the stealth approach and use Bitshares technology without connecting directly to Bitshares.

Thanks, I like that idea.


I'm unsure how to proceed now - will ask on the hangout when bm is done I think.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on November 02, 2015, 02:48:47 pm
Nothing happened on the hangout, but right now a poll was suggested. Can't hurt, please vote :)
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: luckybit on November 09, 2015, 01:14:22 am
BitShares CryptoeXchange (working name)

Please use this thread to discuss a worker proposal only. For other questions, check out https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18602

BTSCX will provide a gateway for cryptocurrencies to a decentralized storage, backing assets tradable on the BTS network (comparable to NXT's SuperNET, but without static main nodes)

For a coin to be added there need to be at least three individuals, so called signers, who hold keys to multisig addresses to store coins and assets. Two of those keys are required for a transaction to get accepted in the blockchain. The signers watch each other and react to suspicious behaviour by locking out the malicious signer, and if possible replacing him.
A multisig address can be created with a variable number of signers and required signatures, so it can be raised per-coin when more individuals applied for signing and get voted in. The number of signers should be in some way proportional to the total deposited value for (obvious) security reasons.

When a coin is added (enough signers available + successful community vote), an asset representing that coin is issued by the signers (also multisig protected), which will be given out in return for deposited coins. The deposits are immediately sent to the multisig storage address.
Returning the asset to the issuer triggers a withdrawal of the respective amount of coins.

The gateway can sustain itself through fees taken from deposits and withdrawals.

The client will support adding new coins and applying as a signer for an added coin as well as voting, trading and community functions.
Like Graphene, the UI will be standalone and can work with remote BTSCX, BTS and coin nodes.
By connecting it to a local coin wallet it will support trading directly out of or into that wallet.

A control asset will be issued, which gives the community the possibility to vote on every variable that may be set, per coin.
Those variables are (list not necessarily complete):
- coins to add
- x-of-y multisig
- offline/dropout tolerance
- fees
- distribution of fees between asset holders, signers, and burning


80% of this asset will be given to the community, 20% will stay with me to be distributed amongst the people helping to create the gateway.

The team consists of 3 persons so far (2 coders, 1 designer). As a rough estimation it'll require about 6 months and at least 30k USD to develop a working product. This would only cover a very basic version though. Adding more features like a trollbox or margin trading will boost that up quite a bit, and if we want to include marketing and further development, even 300k USD could easily be spent in a year. There won't be a company in Switzerland though, promised!

I will create 6 worker proposals, amounting to 60k BTS/day each, running for three months (target: Nov/Dec/Jan). With this setup and current prices having all 6 voted in for 1 month, or 2 for three months, secures the minimum funding.  Donations of BTC, BTS and BitUSD will be accepted when the initial 30k USD target is met through those workers.
At the end of January 2016 the value in USD for everything that came in will be calculated, and 80% of the control asset will be given out proportionally, sharedropping the worker income's part on BTS accounts (details to be discussed with the community).

This should be built on top of Omni rather than on Bitshares.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: fuzzy on November 09, 2015, 07:41:36 am
Why do you say this luckybit? 

Personally and without hearing luckybits reasoning, I not only support this, but I support the hell out of it.  I mean just imagine our UIAs being not only protected by our blockchain, but also provably backed by the real thing...that is huge.

And we need to fund cool ideas like this until some grow up big and strong...and help pave the way to bitshares being known around the world.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on November 16, 2015, 05:52:08 pm
Fuzzy and the 8/2/2 poll result convinced me to keep going on this. Everything is delayed for a month, the workers will be running dec/jan/feb.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: kuro112 on November 16, 2015, 06:17:10 pm
i really like the idea, it has some... complicated mechanics to work out, but let us know if you need any help architectonic or theory crafting for the system.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on November 25, 2015, 12:08:14 am
There we go. Worker proposals are on the blockchain awaiting your approval (id 10-15).

Final conditions: 6 worker proposals, amounting to 60k BTS/day each, running for three months (Dec/Jan/Feb). With this setup and current prices having all 6 voted in for 1 month, or 2 for three months, secures the minimum funding.  Donations of BTC, BTS and BitUSD will be accepted when the initial 30k USD target is met through those workers, or during February if it's possible to fill an eventual gap.

In March 2016 the value in USD for everything that came in will be calculated, and 80% of the control asset will be given out proportionally, sharedropping the worker income's part on BTS accounts. Details on that sharedrop need to be discussed, I'm not sure if a proportional drop on everyone makes sense. Whoever holds that asset should participate in the voting.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: mindphlux on November 25, 2015, 12:20:21 pm
What is your reasoning with proposing to take away 111% of the daily available worker fund? All your workers cost 360k per day if they're voted in, but the blockchain only pays 321,613 BTS. So you're essentially blocking ALL workers proposals until the end of February if you're voted in.

I think that is very selfish, your budget should never be more than 20-30% of the total daily worker supply.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on November 25, 2015, 01:43:42 pm
You raised that issue before, and I answered it on this thread a month ago...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19351.msg248786.html#msg248786
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: xeroc on November 27, 2015, 09:28:09 am
- I don't really see the need for yet another crypto gateway just now .. we have OpenLedger, blocktrades and metaexhange and people are already confused ..
- Also I can't remember that shareholders paid a thing for any of the existing gateways ..
- why would you need THAT much money? Isn't that supposed to be a profitable business in its own?

If you were to build a gateway for fiat things would look different, but even then I don't see why bitshares shareholders should pay for development of a profitable business. BitShares is not a startup incubator, and not a VC. We seek for more profit on our own and want to reduce costs!
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: Akado on November 27, 2015, 09:32:37 am
- I don't really see the need for yet another crypto gateway just now .. we have OpenLedger, blocktrades and metaexhange and people are already confused ..
- Also I can't remember that shareholders paid a thing for any of the existing gateways ..
- why would you need THAT much money? Isn't that supposed to be a profitable business in its own?

If you were to build a gateway for fiat things would look different, but even then I don't see why bitshares shareholders should pay for development of a profitable business. BitShares is not a startup incubator, and not a VC. We seek for more profit on our own and want to reduce costs!

Although I agree with this, MetaExchange had delegates being paid if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: xeroc on November 27, 2015, 10:08:26 am
Seems you are right and I was wrong about it

According to
http://legacy.bitsharesblocks.com/delegate/earnings?name=dev-metaexchange.monsterer
he has earned
1,428,559.80 BTS

that's way less than $30k though
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: TravelsAsia on November 27, 2015, 10:11:20 am
workers are primarily for developing bitshares, not funding external developments.

since you're building an exchange, you're looking for our affiliate/referral program to get extra funds.

or make a kickstarter asset.

@mindphlux  +5%

 +5%

If it's a strong enough need, create the kickstarter like asset.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on November 27, 2015, 11:14:16 am
- I don't really see the need for yet another crypto gateway just now .. we have OpenLedger, blocktrades and metaexhange and people are already confused ..
- Also I can't remember that shareholders paid a thing for any of the existing gateways ..
- why would you need THAT much money? Isn't that supposed to be a profitable business in its own?

If you were to build a gateway for fiat things would look different, but even then I don't see why bitshares shareholders should pay for development of a profitable business. BitShares is not a startup incubator, and not a VC. We seek for more profit on our own and want to reduce costs!

No, it's not supposed to be a profitable business. It would be decentralized and open source.

The other crypto gateways aren't different to centralized exchanges, they require the user to trust a 3rd party. My goal is to create a completely trustless gateway to make BTS the first fully decentralized crypto exchange ever.

The only stream of income would be deposit/withdrawal fees, which would be used to pay the signers. Asset holders would be able to vote on a part of that going to them (or get burned), but initially it would all go to signers.
With a fee of 0.5% for deposits and withdrawals, a monthly 10 BTC in and out would result in 0.1 BTC, to be divided between at least 3 signers. There's not much room for asset holders to take a share of that. And there's no way for me to make anything out of it after it's released.

This is not about creating a traditional business, but a DAC. With a very big A.


//edit:
As soon as you grasp the whole concept, you'll also realize why the 30k are the lower limit to be able to create a working prototype. A fully featured product would require much more.
Initially I wanted to crowdfund with an asset only, but Stan proposed the workers. And he's right. It would benefit BTS as a whole by bringing in new users (traders!), and there's very little profit, if any, to be expected for investors.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: rgcrypto on November 27, 2015, 04:07:16 pm
Could your project be funded via Fee Backed Assets?
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on November 27, 2015, 04:43:18 pm
I'm not sure if I get your question.

The control asset holders will be able to vote on distribution of fees between signers, them and burning. This asset will partly be sharedropped (the workers part), and can be obtained by sponsoring the development at the end of the funding phase if the workers secured the initial amount.
The asset shouldn't be used to speculate, but to decide on the terms of the gateway. There won't be big returns through deposit/withdrawal fees. Other exchanges live from fees on trades.

If at any point there's really a LOT of coins going in and out, the amount of signers will need to be raised. Up to 16, it'll cost a lot of money to pay them already. Then there's a lot of transactions between the different multisig addresses, which need to be covered from the fees too. Again: The project is not expected to be profitable, only to sustain itself!

A decentralized gateway would add a lot of value to the BTS blockchain, and new applications could be built upon it, a decentralized shapeshift being the most obvious.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: fuzzy on November 27, 2015, 08:41:28 pm
I'm not sure if I get your question.

The control asset holders will be able to vote on distribution of fees between signers, them and burning. This asset will partly be sharedropped (the workers part), and can be obtained by sponsoring the development at the end of the funding phase if the workers secured the initial amount.
The asset shouldn't be used to speculate, but to decide on the terms of the gateway. There won't be big returns through deposit/withdrawal fees. Other exchanges live from fees on trades.

If at any point there's really a LOT of coins going in and out, the amount of signers will need to be raised. Up to 16, it'll cost a lot of money to pay them already. Then there's a lot of transactions between the different multisig addresses, which need to be covered from the fees too. Again: The project is not expected to be profitable, only to sustain itself!

A decentralized gateway would add a lot of value to the BTS blockchain, and new applications could be built upon it, a decentralized shapeshift being the most obvious.

I think he means assets that have fees generated to either buy them back (and burn them) or to send out as dividends to holders.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: Shentist on November 28, 2015, 09:20:07 pm
Seems you are right and I was wrong about it

According to
http://legacy.bitsharesblocks.com/delegate/earnings?name=dev-metaexchange.monsterer
he has earned
1,428,559.80 BTS

that's way less than $30k though

correct - this is the reason why you find our codebase here https://github.com/wildbunny/metaexchange

i think i don't get the concept. how do you achieve a trustfree transfer from BTC into BTS? the best way at the moment are services like metaexchange, because i don't need an account and
the transaction will be executed in a couple of minutes, so the worry of hacks is limited for the user.

how will this been changed with your approach?
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on November 29, 2015, 10:26:07 am
By using multisig addresses controlled by 3-16 elected signers to store coins and representing assets.
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: fuzzy on November 29, 2015, 04:11:30 pm
- I don't really see the need for yet another crypto gateway just now .. we have OpenLedger, blocktrades and metaexhange and people are already confused ..
- Also I can't remember that shareholders paid a thing for any of the existing gateways ..
- why would you need THAT much money? Isn't that supposed to be a profitable business in its own?

If you were to build a gateway for fiat things would look different, but even then I don't see why bitshares shareholders should pay for development of a profitable business. BitShares is not a startup incubator, and not a VC. We seek for more profit on our own and want to reduce costs!

this is a truly decentralized gateway that bitshares holders would end up holding.  wouldn't this be just one more way to give black swan protection since bts price would not be the only factor keeping us alive? 

If so, I honestly think it is worth the worker proposal asking for it (as long as it is done professionally--like I'm pretty sure seraph can do), but I also think that a worker proposal could distribute tokens on maybe a quarterly basis to bts owners as they pay for it to be constructed...and also potentially volunteers who are very capable (mindphlux would be someone who could probably contribute quite alot if motivated to do so!).   

To me, I use an open ledger account, a light wallet and would also use this.  Gotta collect them all!

Oh and ****notice****
Seraph has stated many times this exchange would be fully owned by bitshares holders.  Which is...yes you guessed it: "huge".
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: seraphim on December 01, 2015, 03:10:15 pm
Now the proposal has been around since over three months and failed to gain the necessary traction. Obviously most of the community doesn't think that BTS should be used to decentralize crypto trading.

It's time for me to move on to other things. Best wishes for BTS and the couple of nice people I got to know here over the last years!  :-*
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: fuzzy on December 02, 2015, 04:15:26 am
Now the proposal has been around since over three months and failed to gain the necessary traction. Obviously most of the community doesn't think that BTS should be used to decentralize crypto trading.

It's time for me to move on to other things. Best wishes for BTS and the couple of nice people I got to know here over the last years!  :-*

thank you seraph for spending the time, energy and money to try to get the worker proposal on this.  it would have been absolutely wonderful to see. 
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: unreadPostsSinceLastVisit on December 02, 2015, 04:24:27 pm
Now the proposal has been around since over three months and failed to gain the necessary traction. Obviously most of the community doesn't think that BTS should be used to decentralize crypto trading.

I don't think that's the case. I voted no in the poll and I would love to see this. I just don't think we can withstand it right now. My "no" vote isn't a vote for "doesn't think BTS should be used to decentralize crypto trading," it's a vote for, "patience, let's do this when we can afford it."
Title: Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
Post by: tbone on December 02, 2015, 11:15:00 pm
 +5%  I totally agree, the timing just isn't right at the moment.  Although with the newly developing idea of having features funded via UIAs, I think the time for the Decentralized Gateway could come sooner than otherwise expected.  One thing is for sure, though.  NOTHING will happen if a bunch of worker proposals are just thrown up without extensive discussion on the forum first.