BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bitmarley on February 23, 2015, 05:55:12 am
-
"Mercury - The world's first trustless cryptocurrency exchange"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946174.0;all (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946174.0;all)
Bitcoiners are getting excited about Mercury which is still in alpha. Bitshares can steal their thunder and attract bitcoin investors by adding atomic cross-chain trading (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Atomic_cross-chain_trading) features into the BTS client before they do. As mentioned here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13711.0) this is technically possible with bitshares. This would open a big decentralized gateway allowing the flow of unlimited bitcoins into bitshares.
Bitshares is well positioned to be the first and ultimate smart wallet. But Mercury appears to also be well positioned. We can request Mercury to include BTS and bitUSD but what if they include a bitUSD competitor instead? Are we at their mercy? Of course bitshares is still first mover on cfd type bitassets so it probably will be included. But winning the smart wallet race would be imho awesome for bitshares. Bitshares should be the world's first trustless cryptocurrency exchange.
-
IMO great project
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946174.msg10552749#msg10552749
-
Bitshares can steal their thunder and attract bitcoin investors by adding atomic cross-chain trading (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Atomic_cross-chain_trading) features into the BTS client before they do. As mentioned here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13711.0) this is technically possible with bitshares. This would open a big decentralized gateway allowing the flow of unlimited bitcoins into bitshares.
I mentioned this a few days ago too. That's a priceless feature and will ultimately be the solution to most people's problems as they would be able to do all trading inside BitShares. Imagine the volume of Bter, Poloniex and all other exchanges trading alts inside BitShares BOOM! The few reputable exchanges would only be used to get fiat into the system, other than that, most trades would happen within our client. Can't wait for this
-
Perhaps explore what we have to offer each other, and how we could each make the other stronger.
-
Bitshares can steal their thunder and attract bitcoin investors by adding atomic cross-chain trading (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Atomic_cross-chain_trading) features into the BTS client before they do. As mentioned here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13711.0) this is technically possible with bitshares. This would open a big decentralized gateway allowing the flow of unlimited bitcoins into bitshares.
I mentioned this a few days ago too. That's a priceless feature and will ultimately be the solution to most people's problems as they would be able to do all trading inside BitShares. Imagine the volume of Bter, Poloniex and all other exchanges trading alts inside BitShares BOOM! The few reputable exchanges would only be used to get fiat into the system, other than that, most trades would happen within our client. Can't wait for this
+5%
-
IMO great project
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946174.msg10552749#msg10552749
+5%
Yeah this is a really great project. BTER getting hacked is just another reminder why we need trustless exchanges.
Its critical for bitshares users to have this functionality and it will directly compete with bitshares since both are "smart wallets" that enable diversification. I think they have a slight edge since they incorporate basic bitcoin wallet features (also for each alt-coin) so the bitcoin crowd has a easy access. Only by incorporating basic bitcoin wallet features and atomic cross-chain trading(ACCT) can bitshares dominate the "smart wallet" race.
Do you think that bitshares' potential method - using delegates to escrow atomic cross-chain trading - has advantages over Mercury's method?
-
Mercury is great indeed, but it doesn't solve the problem completely.
It can only support coins derived from bitcoin, because it relies on the internal script processing mechanism within the protocol to produce its contracts. So if you want to trade NXT, XRP, BTS, forget it... :)
-
Mercury is great indeed, but it doesn't solve the problem completely.
It can only support coins derived from bitcoin, because it relies on the internal script processing mechanism within the protocol to produce its contracts. So if you want to trade NXT, XRP, BTS, forget it... :)
He seems to be looking into adding Bitshares though...? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946174.msg10558914#msg10558914
If I understand this correctly, it is possible among all chains that enable AT. No?
-
He seems to be looking into adding Bitshares though...? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946174.msg10558914#msg10558914
Yeah they will add bitshares for sure since its #4 at coinmarketcap.com. The issue for bitshares though is that a huge marketing opportunity could be missed. All this effort that is being spent on marketing yet the low hanging fruit of putting basic bitcoin wallet features into the bitshares client is still hanging. Also the first mover status in the crypto space is huge for marketing and having all the bitcoin/altcoiners jumping onto their atomic cross-chain trading(ACCT) bandwagon instead of bitshares would be a downer. Its not impossible to imagine that another alt-coin will come up with a viable bitUSD competitor and if the Mercury client wins the "smart wallet" race then BTS could become *completely* obsolete. This risk should be nipped in the bud asap.
In the latest bitshares.tv episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWVlqz7Ejf8) Max also highlighted bitcoin wallet features and atomic cross-chain trading as the big touch-down for bitshares. Max is spot on! He predicts Q2 this year for delivery. But I am mildly concerned since I didn't hear the topic discussed yet in the bitshares hangouts (https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts). Bytemaster said in the last hangout that BTER hack was terrible for bitshares price in the short term. Why should bitshares maintain dependencies that can damage the BTS price when it can stand alone without dependencies on external services as the ultimate "smart wallet" crypto-diversification tool? If I hear Bytemaster announce bitcoin wallet and ACCT features then I am buying more BTS. It will be so much easier to buy unlimited BTS when the client has these features. The bitshares community should not depend on shapeshift.io, Mercury or other bitcoin wallet providers.
Going beyond bitcoin and ACCT features the bitshares delegate model is also capable of escrowing any kind of prediction trading! The Bitshares delegate model is the only existing blockchain that allows human brain crunching into the oracle scripting mix yet it isn't leveraging this capability yet. The client could support a tool for delegates and investors to aggregate "price feed" questions wherever there is enough demand to fuel liquidity. For example: "Who will win POTUS in 2016?". Anyway this is a much lower priority than bitcoin and ACCT features.
BTW my view currently is Bytemaster and the bitshares developers are doing an awesome job and that is why I will continue to buy BTS on the dips. Awesome work guys delivering early and often! Absolutely love it! My comments regarding new feature suggestions for the client are meant only for adding fodder into the community head space - I'm just an investor and there are many aspects of bitshares development I don't understand.
-
He seems to be looking into adding Bitshares though...? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946174.msg10558914#msg10558914
Yeah they will add bitshares for sure since its #4 at coinmarketcap.com. The issue for bitshares though is that a huge marketing opportunity could be missed. All this effort that is being spent on marketing yet the low hanging fruit of putting basic bitcoin wallet features into the bitshares client is still hanging. Also the first mover status in the crypto space is huge for marketing and having all the bitcoin/altcoiners jumping onto their atomic cross-chain trading(ACCT) bandwagon instead of bitshares would be a downer. Its not impossible to imagine that another alt-coin will come up with a viable bitUSD competitor and if the Mercury client wins the "smart wallet" race then BTS could become *completely* obsolete. This risk should be nipped in the bud asap.
In the latest bitshares.tv episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWVlqz7Ejf8) Max also highlighted bitcoin wallet features and atomic cross-chain trading as the big touch-down for bitshares. Max is spot on! He predicts Q2 this year for delivery. But I am mildly concerned since I didn't hear the topic discussed yet in the bitshares hangouts (https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts). Bytemaster said in the last hangout that BTER hack was terrible for bitshares price in the short term. Why should bitshares maintain dependencies that can damage the BTS price when it can stand alone without dependencies on external services as the ultimate "smart wallet" crypto-diversification tool? If I hear Bytemaster announce bitcoin wallet and ACCT features then I am buying more BTS. It will be so much easier to buy unlimited BTS when the client has these features. The bitshares community should not depend on shapeshift.io, Mercury or other bitcoin wallet providers.
Going beyond bitcoin and ACCT features the bitshares delegate model is also capable of escrowing any kind of prediction trading! The Bitshares delegate model is the only existing blockchain that allows human brain crunching into the oracle scripting mix yet it isn't leveraging this capability yet. The client could support a tool for delegates and investors to aggregate "price feed" questions wherever there is enough demand to fuel liquidity. For example: "Who will win POTUS in 2016?". Anyway this is a much lower priority than bitcoin and ACCT features.
BTW my view currently is Bytemaster and the bitshares developers are doing an awesome job and that is why I will continue to buy BTS on the dips. Awesome work guys delivering early and often! Absolutely love it! My comments regarding new feature suggestions for the client are meant only for adding fodder into the community head space - I'm just an investor and there are many aspects of bitshares development I don't understand.
Atomic cross chain trading without a known set of TTPs (Trusted third parties) such as BTS delegates is extremely dangerous. Even AT would not solve this problem for BTC or other non TTP blockchains.
We've looked into doing the same in our Moonstone wallet, but atomic cross chain trading is simply too dangerous atm. For cross chain trading and even sidechains to become possible in the future all chains would need a setup very similar to this http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.7935v1.pdf. Something we have been talking about both on the forum and in the dev meetups for some time. We've already ported the existing HL PBFT code to CPP here https://github.com/bitsapphire/Hyperledger_cpp, We're currently working on using the delegate public keys as PGP signatures for PBFT consensus. This would also make arbitrary and highly expandable DAPPs possible on top of DPOS.
-
He seems to be looking into adding Bitshares though...? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946174.msg10558914#msg10558914
Yeah they will add bitshares for sure since its #4 at coinmarketcap.com. The issue for bitshares though is that a huge marketing opportunity could be missed. All this effort that is being spent on marketing yet the low hanging fruit of putting basic bitcoin wallet features into the bitshares client is still hanging. Also the first mover status in the crypto space is huge for marketing and having all the bitcoin/altcoiners jumping onto their atomic cross-chain trading(ACCT) bandwagon instead of bitshares would be a downer. Its not impossible to imagine that another alt-coin will come up with a viable bitUSD competitor and if the Mercury client wins the "smart wallet" race then BTS could become *completely* obsolete. This risk should be nipped in the bud asap.
In the latest bitshares.tv episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWVlqz7Ejf8) Max also highlighted bitcoin wallet features and atomic cross-chain trading as the big touch-down for bitshares. Max is spot on! He predicts Q2 this year for delivery. But I am mildly concerned since I didn't hear the topic discussed yet in the bitshares hangouts (https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts). Bytemaster said in the last hangout that BTER hack was terrible for bitshares price in the short term. Why should bitshares maintain dependencies that can damage the BTS price when it can stand alone without dependencies on external services as the ultimate "smart wallet" crypto-diversification tool? If I hear Bytemaster announce bitcoin wallet and ACCT features then I am buying more BTS. It will be so much easier to buy unlimited BTS when the client has these features. The bitshares community should not depend on shapeshift.io, Mercury or other bitcoin wallet providers.
Going beyond bitcoin and ACCT features the bitshares delegate model is also capable of escrowing any kind of prediction trading! The Bitshares delegate model is the only existing blockchain that allows human brain crunching into the oracle scripting mix yet it isn't leveraging this capability yet. The client could support a tool for delegates and investors to aggregate "price feed" questions wherever there is enough demand to fuel liquidity. For example: "Who will win POTUS in 2016?". Anyway this is a much lower priority than bitcoin and ACCT features.
BTW my view currently is Bytemaster and the bitshares developers are doing an awesome job and that is why I will continue to buy BTS on the dips. Awesome work guys delivering early and often! Absolutely love it! My comments regarding new feature suggestions for the client are meant only for adding fodder into the community head space - I'm just an investor and there are many aspects of bitshares development I don't understand.
Atomic cross chain trading without a known set of TTPs (Trusted third parties) such as BTS delegates is extremely dangerous. Even AT would not solve this problem for BTC or other non TTP blockchains.
We've looked into doing the same in our Moonstone wallet, but atomic cross chain trading is simply too dangerous atm. For cross chain trading and even sidechains to become possible in the future all chains would need a setup very similar to this http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.7935v1.pdf. Something we have been talking about both on the forum and in the dev meetups for some time. We've already ported the existing HL PBFT code to CPP here https://github.com/bitsapphire/Hyperledger_cpp, We're currently working on using the delegate public keys as PGP signatures for PBFT consensus. This would also make arbitrary and highly expandable DAPPs possible on top of DPOS.
So you are saying the Mercury wallet as it is today is "extremely dangerous"? If so I didnt understand why.
-
So you are saying the Mercury wallet as it is today is "extremely dangerous"? If so I didnt understand why.
With the current setup of Bitcoin, you would need to wait just above 100 confirmations to do secure ACCT (Atomic Cross Chain Trading). This would be 1 full round of all delegates for DPOS (about 15-20 minutes atm). These intervals don't make sense for trading. For ACCT to become viable for any chain (without waiting too much) you need a PBFT or PBFT-like real-time Consensus and Ordering Protocol (COP) on top of the main blockchain to make ACCT viable.
That, or the light client trading server does Paypal-like fraud detection and compensates counterparty risk accordingly with pretty high trading fees (anywhere from 0.5-4% of each transaction).
-
So you are saying the Mercury wallet as it is today is "extremely dangerous"? If so I didnt understand why.
With the current setup of Bitcoin, you would need to wait just above 100 confirmations to do secure ACCT (Atomic Cross Chain Trading). This would be 1 full round of all delegates for DPOS (about 15-20 minutes atm). These intervals don't make sense for trading. For ACCT to become viable for any chain (without waiting too much) you need a PBFT or PBFT-like real-time Consensus and Ordering Protocol (COP) on top of the main blockchain to make ACCT viable.
That, or the light client trading server does Paypal-like fraud detection and compensates counterparty risk accordingly with pretty high trading fees (anywhere from 0.5-4% of each transaction).
Thanks for those insights!
Disussion is on. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946174.msg10579605#msg10579605
-
So you are saying the Mercury wallet as it is today is "extremely dangerous"? If so I didnt understand why.
With the current setup of Bitcoin, you would need to wait just above 100 confirmations to do secure ACCT (Atomic Cross Chain Trading). This would be 1 full round of all delegates for DPOS (about 15-20 minutes atm). These intervals don't make sense for trading. For ACCT to become viable for any chain (without waiting too much) you need a PBFT or PBFT-like real-time Consensus and Ordering Protocol (COP) on top of the main blockchain to make ACCT viable.
That, or the light client trading server does Paypal-like fraud detection and compensates counterparty risk accordingly with pretty high trading fees (anywhere from 0.5-4% of each transaction).
Answer here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946174.msg10582076#msg10582076
Could you answer him?
-
while they would have the first move advantage, we're still probably the top choice option for people to escape volatility so it would still increase our volumes.
-
With the current setup of Bitcoin, you would need to wait just above 100 confirmations to do secure ACCT (Atomic Cross Chain Trading). This would be 1 full round of all delegates for DPOS (about 15-20 minutes atm). These intervals don't make sense for trading. For ACCT to become viable for any chain (without waiting too much) you need a PBFT or PBFT-like real-time Consensus and Ordering Protocol (COP) on top of the main blockchain to make ACCT viable.
That, or the light client trading server does Paypal-like fraud detection and compensates counterparty risk accordingly with pretty high trading fees (anywhere from 0.5-4% of each transaction).
I presume you mean "with the current setup of Bitshares" not bitcoin.
Waiting 15-20 minutes for 1 full round of all delegates for DPOS is much better than depending upon a centralized exchange. Sure they don't make sense for day traders but no-one else has produced ACCT services yet so Bitshares with ACCT would today still win first mover status.