Quote from: onceuponatime on December 08, 2015, 08:16:27 pm

Once a "Privacy Mode" feature has been implemented on the blockchain, but not before, it would then be possible for future investor entrepreneurs to create FBAs and crowd fund new features by having a Private Mode account issue the FBA from an unknown jurisdiction that is presumably not subject to securities concerns. Several exist in this world of ours  .

In this scenario would you then have the problem of whoever is building the business they will have to hide who they are?  For example the devs could not go out and promote their business they are building with the funds from the crowdfund?

Anyone who buys shares in the FBA can promote use of its feature to their own benefit (a share in fee revenue). The creator of the FBA simply hires a development company, such as Cryptonomex or Bitsaphire, to produce the feature.

on the first proposal from bytemaster it was stated

Quote

Stealth transfers cannot participate in the referral program. The fee for a stealth transfer can be higher (premium service) at about $0.50, with $0.10 going to the network and $0.40 going to the individual who funds this improvement to the GUI.  After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.

i can't find it anymore in your proposal. so it will not reverse after the first 20 million BTS anymore?

i would prefer the FBA solution, because it will give bitshare a new asset.

you are aware that you are creating with the multisig account a security as well with your arguments? in BTS 2.0 a account is transferable so this multisig accounts are worth something and can be sold, so this is a security as well.

point is - i don't mind your local jurisdication arguments, they only apply to you and Cryptonomex, because it seems you are also in the US.

I am purchasing software from Cryptonomex if and only if the Community votes to implement the software on the blockchain by voting in a Worker Proposal. I am the sole investor in this.  No asset is created by implementation of the Privacy Mode feature at time of implementation. I do not propose to myself create an asset. Neither Cryptonomex nor I would be or indeed could offer shares in the feature, at time of implementation,  to the public. Hence no security.

The idea behind the multi-sig Maintenance account is to give to trusted Community members a 3 of 5 voting authority over funds accumulated for upgrading or extending the capabilities of the feature if and as necessary. Three of five signatories helps compensate for sickness, accident or death risks and provides me with an advisory board to compensate for my skill deficiencies. I would be only one of five. Therefore I can be very easily outvoted on use of these funds.

Bytemaster has other ideas of how this could be accomplished. Perhaps he will be able to explain them here when he gets time.

Another factor to keep in mind is that under this proposal, besides getting what many consider to be a necessary feature for greater capital inflow in the short term,  there would be no downward pressure on BTS market cap. Cryptonomex would receive the feature's development funding in $US, which they can use to pay their bills. The alternative is to wait for quite an extended period for the community to pay for a Worker Proposal and thyen Cryptonomex receiving the funding in BTS. They would have to sell BTS on the market to pay their real world bills. Big downward pressure on our market cap.

Thanks to luckybit's suggestion here:
 
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452
"It might be a better idea from a marketing perspective to rename it to "invisible transactions" and call it "invisible mode" or "incognito" mode. Stealth transfers is something which some people might think is quirky. It also has a more militant sound to it.",

I propose changing the name of a Stealth Feature to "Privacy Mode".

I propose that I fund the development and implementation of this feature in full as a private investor and at zero cost to BitShares holders.

************************************************************************************************************************

There has already been preliminary discussion of this by the Community in two threads:

Fee Backed Assets (FBA)
« on: November 27, 2015, 01:44:04 AM »
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20286.0.html

and

Stealth Transfers Worker Proposal
« on: November 19, 2015, 12:48:16 AM »
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.0.html

Much consultation with Stan of Cryptonomex and with several prominent and trusted members of our BitShares Community (rgcrypto, Thom, Riverhead, Xeroc) has lead me to some preliminary conclusions as to how a "Privacy Mode"  feature could best be implemented and  used in a safe and timely fashion and at no risk to the BitShares Community.

One of the first and thorniest problems we tackled is the nasty fact of "Regulatory Risk". There exists a vocal contingent of Forum members who want very much that an FBA (fee based asset) be created to fund this feature upgrade to the BitShares blockchain. They want that everyone be thus enabled an opportunity to participate in the fee stream originating from future use of the feature by purchasing shares of a "STEALTH" asset.

The conundrum is that whoever creates the FBA and offers it to the public as a means of participation in a fee-based income stream faces a risk of coming under regulatory scrutiny if the project is a success (Satoshi Dice) or even if it is not a success (through some disgruntled investor complaining to a regulatory authority).

For a more in depth look in to Regulatory Risk please see:  http://www.cuttingedgecapital.com/what-is-a-security-and-why-does-it-matter/

"What is a security and why does it matter?

If something falls within the definition of a security under applicable law, it will be governed by extensive rules and regulations that can be quite complex and expensive to comply with."

And subject the issuer to a large fine/other penalties if not complied with!!!!

As CoinHoarder has said in this thread:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20431.msg263638.html#msg263638
"I can think of a ton of things that fit one or a few categories but not all, so I will only list things that I think mostly apply to all categories:

Cryptocurrency IPOs
Unregistered securities (operating one or offering an exchange service)
Unregistered money service businesses
Gambling"


***************************************************************************************************************************

Once a "Privacy Mode" feature has been implemented on the blockchain, but not before, it would then be possible for future investor entrepreneurs to create FBAs and crowd fund new features by having a Private Mode account issue the FBA from an unknown jurisdiction that is presumably not subject to securities concerns. Several exist in this world of ours  .

As a matter of fact, once the "Private Mode" feature has been implemented on the blockchain and is proven to work........

and once there is a visible and growing fee-based income stream coming from use of the feature...........

I have been informed that there are investors who would be interested in purchasing that fee stream from me and they might then create an FBA and offer shares for sale on the DEX as a way for the Community to participate in that fee stream.

These investors are private and unknown to either me or Cryptonomex. I would simply be selling them the keys to the income stream and then she/they can create an FBA if they so wish. It is beyond the control of myself or Cryptonomex. But they have indicated that this is what they intend.

*************************************************************************************************************************

Here follows a potential contract between myself (onceuponatime) and Cryptonomex:



Stealth "Privacy Mode" feature and Fee Based Assets
Cryptonomex Statement of Work

The purpose of this contract is to develop a Privacy Mode feature, Privacy Mode fee accumulation account, Maintenance Account, Initialization Package, and GUI interface for BitShares scoped for a firm fixed price of $45K.  The following requirements apply:

1.   The Privacy Mode feature shall be implemented as proposed in https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452 (as amended).

2.   It shall provide the following fee based services:
       o   Transfer from public account to their own private balance
       o   Transfer from one of their private accounts to one of their private contacts
       o    Transfer from one of their private accounts to any public account
       o    Register a new account using a private balance.
       o     Receive a private transfer from a 3rd party given a transfer receipt.

3.   Each of these services shall charge a fee initially set at 3x the standard transfer fee, but which may be adjusted from time to time by the owner(s) of the Privacy Mode fees account

4.   Fees shall be automatically distributed by the blockchain to the following accounts:
        o   20% to the BitShares network.
        o   20% to a Maintenance Account.
        o   60% to holder(s) of the Privacy Mode Fees accumulation account

5.   The Maintenance Account shall be controlled by five specified manager accounts in  a 3 of 5 multisig configuration.  These managers will control the allocation of this fund to future maintenance and upgrade tasks.

6.   The Initialization Package shall modify the blockchain to make the Privacy Mode feature available to users.

7.     The Initialization Package shall make provision for the creation of generic Fee Based Assets (FBA) and set the fee for such

8.   A GUI shall be provided in the OpenLedger and Light wallets to allow ordinary users to easily use the Privacy Mode features.

9.     Documentation of the Privacy Mode feature and Maintenance and Fee Accumulation account shall be provided on the appropriate reference web sites.

10.   Resulting software patch to the Graphene library shall have the same license as the rest of Graphene subject to the condition that the results of the Initialization package and fee distribution mechanisms are not modified.


*******************************************************************************************************************

Road Map:

- Feedback and discussion of this thread: December 8 to December 10, 2015

- Presentation of an amended Cryptonomex Worker Proposal: Dec 11, 2015
   This worker proposal should include Milestones of what is intended to be
     accomplished by the end of week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4 and week 5 so that the
     Community can follow progress in the github.

- Voting for Worker Proposal: Dec 11 to January 1, 2016

- onceuponatime forwards $45,000 to Cryptonomex: Jan.2, 2016

_ Cryptonomex does the development and testing of the feature: (4 to 6 weeks)

- Hard fork for implementation of the feature:  Monday Feb, 15th (Louis Riel Day)

************************************************************************************************************************

What can YOU (BitShares holders) do?

-    over the next two days please discuss any insight you may have as to potential weaknesses or missed opportunities in the plan as outlined. Post your comments in this thread.

-    when the Worker Proposal comes out in a couple of days, PLEASE VOTE!!
      My offer to fund the development of a Privacy Mode feature is contingent upon the
       Worker Proposal having been voted in by January 1st, 2016 (preferably much sooner!).

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?

it is late for me and I am about to pass out at my keyboard, but was informed of something quite interesting and would like to delve in a bit further in hopes of someone giving me the cliffs notes version so I don't have to read through the entire thread right now and can save it for a bit further into the future.

Here is a link to a thread I think is worth talking about.  Espcially interested in what fav was talking about with committee members using their positions to help themselves as opposed to bitshares.  I am listening and hoping someone can update me and potentially provide me with some detailed evidence (if possible).

My guess is that Fav was talking about this thread:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.0.html

I've been trying to keep up with the stealth discussion, did the community come to any type of consensus and is it waiting for the fee-backed asset to be developed?

Discussions are ongoing. Expect a Forum post on the rationale of a tentative amended Worker Proposal for community discussion on Monday/Tuesday.

I have been using the light client for a couple of weeks.

What are the instructions for downloading a new release safely?