-
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452
This worker proposal is under development but may be the single most important worker proposal in terms of near-term impact.
My "gut" tells me that crypto-diehards are looking for an easy to use ANONYMOUS currency and those of us that are freedom loving actually want and need this. Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the crypto and banking world.
If we have the best of breed privacy then it will put us well ahead of the competition. Hopefully helping pull us up to Dash.
This work is heavy on UI development and advanced Javascript so has a lot of unknowns.
-
Eta?
-
I would consider this to be high priority.
-
I would appreciate this translate in(to) English
"This work is heavy on UI development and advanced Javascript so has a lot of unknowns. "
-
This feature helps set BitShares apart from most other crypto currencies
Is this actually true ? This just seems to make Bitshares more like Bitcoin forks ? (Not that this is bad..) I'm just trying to understand what property of these feature(s) sets Bitshares apart?
-
I disagree that anonymity the most important... The most important is as follows
1. Fees for trading updated per the worker proposal
2. Referral program for trading fees
3. API for 3rd party platforms and liquidity bots
We are a decentralized exchange. We have finally discovered what we are and what we are niche is. Most people never get a chance to discover that much less exploit it... DON'T GET DISTRACTED!
-
I disagree that anonymity the most important... The most important is as follows
1. Fees for trading updated per the worker proposal
2. Referral program for trading fees
3. API for 3rd party platforms and liquidity bots
We are a decentralized exchange. We have finally discovered what we are and what we are niche is. Most people never get a chance to discover that much less exploit it... DON'T GET DISTRACTED!
Agreed. We need to be the decentralised exchange first.
-
This feature helps set BitShares apart from most other crypto currencies
Is this actually true ? This just seems to make Bitshares more like Bitcoin forks ? (Not that this is bad..) I'm just trying to understand what property of these feature(s) sets Bitshares apart?
The Smartcoin combo.
I'm not sure of the immediate value of this proposal.
However for those who'd like to see BitShares grow into the payment business and achieve merchant adoption, I personally think it's unlikely in the near term without payment processor partnerships.
However there are businesses that prefer to keep their activities private, so they're unlikely to use payment processors for crypto to bank conversion anyway. Those same businesses struggle using existing crypto alternatives because of their volatility and the fact that the majority of businesses work on very tight margins.
Dollar stable smartcoins + privacy would be very appealing to those businesses.
I disagree that anonymity the most important... The most important is as follows
1. Fees for trading updated per the worker proposal
2. Referral program for trading fees
3. API for 3rd party platforms and liquidity bots
We are a decentralized exchange. We have finally discovered what we are and what we are niche is. Most people never get a chance to discover that much less exploit it... DON'T GET DISTRACTED!
Agreed. We need to be the decentralised exchange first.
+5% Personally I'd like to see those things first and a significant lowering of the transfer fee until a few key Smartcoin markets become more liquid.
(At which point 'DEX + liquid SmartCoins' will be the valuable, game changing product we can then start charging for and market strongly via the referral programme. Until then make it as cheap and easy as possible for existing and new users to kickstart those markets.)
-
My "gut" tells me that crypto-diehards are looking for an easy to use ANONYMOUS currency and those of us that are freedom loving actually want and need this. Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the crypto and banking world.
your "gut" eh?
blink twice if you're under duress. ;)
hmm.
It is a big feature, and likely meaningful to a lot of money. If it takes any time at all though, I agree there are a handful of things that should get done first. Before Stealth.
like access to cancel_order from the API (tell me its already there)
-
My "gut" tells me that crypto-diehards are looking for an easy to use ANONYMOUS currency and those of us that are freedom loving actually want and need this. Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the crypto and banking world.
+5% +5%
Do it so Peter Todd won't have to use ShapeShift from now on. ;)
-
like many project ,there are some differences between developer and market (community of BTS), this is a common problem , As a developer, I also have some difference with market . because the difference of creating value between developer and market
developer : create value by technology.
market : create value by finding requirement.
many market person thing is reasonable when I consider it as I am market ,though I am a developer ,
-
I disagree that anonymity the most important... The most important is as follows
1. Fees for trading updated per the worker proposal
2. Referral program for trading fees
3. API for 3rd party platforms and liquidity bots
We are a decentralized exchange. We have finally discovered what we are and what we are niche is. Most people never get a chance to discover that much less exploit it... DON'T GET DISTRACTED!
Yeah, focus on the exchange first which will hopefully bring liquidity to a few key smartcoin markets. Stealth transfers are kind of useless if people are trapped in an illiquid market. I definitely think blinded transfers will be very important after some liquidity has been reached.
-
I agree with some other comments here. Anonymity is nice to have, but it's nowhere near as important as getting this trading engine in ship-shape so that we can finally attract some volume. Eyes on that ball, please. If we get this done well, then I think funding will come very easily for other "nice to have" features such as anonymity.
-
holy moly - 45.000 USD?
not at this point in time.
i agree with lil_jay890. focus at the mission and then we can take this points.
I disagree that anonymity the most important... The most important is as follows
1. Fees for trading updated per the worker proposal
2. Referral program for trading fees
3. API for 3rd party platforms and liquidity bots
We are a decentralized exchange. We have finally discovered what we are and what we are niche is. Most people never get a chance to discover that much less exploit it... DON'T GET DISTRACTED!
-
holy moly - 45.000 USD?
:o did not see that. ya i'm good. will use monero. ;)
-
Sounds great! +5%
Though I don't think its as high a priority as some other features as others have expressed.
Great to know we could have this though.
I am going to start collecting some data regarding this matter to see if we can get a sense for what we can expect in ROI for adding this feature. It will be helpful to determine what it may mean in penetrating certain markets.
-
I don't think this is high priority right now.
-
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452
This worker proposal is under development but may be the single most important worker proposal in terms of near-term impact.
My "gut" tells me that crypto-diehards are looking for an easy to use ANONYMOUS currency and those of us that are freedom loving actually want and need this. Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the crypto and banking world.
If we have the best of breed privacy then it will put us well ahead of the competition. Hopefully helping pull us up to Dash.
This work is heavy on UI development and advanced Javascript so has a lot of unknowns.
Now we are talking . I urge members of this community to get bebind the master on this one. Once this feature is completed you will see investors flooding into bitshares, I guarentee.
-
Now we are talking . I urge members of this community to get bebind the master on this one. Once this feature is completed you will see investors flooding into bitshares, I guarentee.
You misspelled drug lords.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/O0oo0.gif)
It's a joke. I'm just saying it before someone else does.
-
I don't think this is high priority right now.
Priority for who ? For you or for the trader who might want to have some privacy ? Do you guys want people to join bitshares or not ? Freedom of movement is a must for any activity to flourish ! You guys keep looking at this from limited perspective . Bitshares is not your private exchange or chain , I am truly shocked by the reaction of some members on this forum. Why the hell do you need a decentralized exchange then ? No freedom of movement means no trading, no exchange no nothing. Lets say I operate an airline and dont know what bussiness class is and keep wondering why the hell I dont get business from thick wallets. Do you think I should tell customer "no need for business class, just sit somewhere, everybody is going to the same destination " and wonder why I dont see some suits and ties on my plane....
I want a working product first.
bond market, whatever else a trader needs before using most of our funds for an optional feature.
-
some people dont want some little fcking hacker steal their hard earned money online
I'm an idiot. Explain how stealth transactions will prevent a hax0r from stealing my wallet?
-
some people dont want some little fcking hacker steal their hard earned money online
I'm an idiot. Explain how stealth transactions will prevent a hax0r from stealing my wallet?
No you are not, I exaggerated that part . We just need to provide that feeling of privacy. What are bussineness class doing in front seats , do they arrive earlier than the rest of the passengers, or do they survive a possible crash ? You know the answer, and thats how it is ...
-
some people dont want some little fcking hacker steal their hard earned money online
I'm an idiot. Explain how stealth transactions will prevent a hax0r from stealing my wallet?
I don't wear my bling when I'm waltzing around the barrios ;)
-
I agree on all points with you bytemaster.
-
I don't wear my bling when I'm waltzing around the barrios ;)
;)
-
I want a working product first.
bond market, whatever else a trader needs before using most of our funds for an optional feature.
Nicely said! In far fewer words than I used.
-
Yes! Let's do this!
Stealth transfers are already in the client so this shouldn't be a lot of work? Mostly just UI stuff? If yes, I don't think this will slow down the development of other significant features that are coming.
With this worker proposal completed we can acquire lots of hardcore fans and users. Those kind of people who will believe in Bitshares and want it to thrive. Those kind of people who will spread the gospel of Bitshares even without any compensation. You should never underestimate the fanaticism of privacy oriented people. These people might be our powerusers (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19748).
Little caveat: To get the full benefit from this, I think we propably should have better liquidity in the smartcoins. Price stable currencies + stealth transfers will give a user experience that make (certain kind of) people fall in love with Bitshares. So maybe there is no need to start to implement this right now today – but in the near future, absolutely.
-
I disagree that anonymity the most important... The most important is as follows
1. Fees for trading updated per the worker proposal
2. Referral program for trading fees
3. API for 3rd party platforms and liquidity bots
We are a decentralized exchange. We have finally discovered what we are and what we are niche is. Most people never get a chance to discover that much less exploit it... DON'T GET DISTRACTED!
Yeah, focus on the exchange first which will hopefully bring liquidity to a few key smartcoin markets. Stealth transfers are kind of useless if people are trapped in an illiquid market. I definitely think blinded transfers will be very important after some liquidity has been reached.
This! Improve the fu***ing API real quick!!
-
I disagree that anonymity the most important... The most important is as follows
1. Fees for trading updated per the worker proposal
2. Referral program for trading fees
3. API for 3rd party platforms and liquidity bots
We are a decentralized exchange. We have finally discovered what we are and what we are niche is. Most people never get a chance to discover that much less exploit it... DON'T GET DISTRACTED!
Yeah, focus on the exchange first which will hopefully bring liquidity to a few key smartcoin markets. Stealth transfers are kind of useless if people are trapped in an illiquid market. I definitely think blinded transfers will be very important after some liquidity has been reached.
This! Improve the fu***ing API real quick!!
+5% +5% +5%
-
My "gut" tells me that crypto-diehards are looking for an easy to use ANONYMOUS currency and those of us that are freedom loving actually want and need this. Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the crypto and banking world.
I would prefer a proposal which brings bitshares core anonymity up to the state of the art, instead of just an 'also ran':
https://github.com/ShenNoether/MiniNero/blob/master/RingCT0.1_copy.pdf
As mentioned here:
Privacy/anonymity consists of:
A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)
Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.
-
My "gut" tells me that crypto-diehards are looking for an easy to use ANONYMOUS currency and those of us that are freedom loving actually want and need this. Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the crypto and banking world.
I would prefer a proposal which brings bitshares core anonymity up to the state of the art, instead of just an 'also ran':
https://github.com/ShenNoether/MiniNero/blob/master/RingCT0.1_copy.pdf
As mentioned here:
Privacy/anonymity consists of:
A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)
Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.
Where's this second quote from?
While I admit my understanding of the new stealth transactions is limited, it seems to me they can offer B.
My understanding is that if you make a blinded transaction from a blinded account to another blinded account, no one can see that transaction. In fact you even have to notify the receiver that you've made the transaction by off-chain methods because they won't be able to tell they've received it. Not very practical, granted, but seems untraceable to me.
-
Where's this second quote from?
While I admit my understanding of the new stealth transactions is limited, it seems to me they can offer B.
My understanding is that if you make a blinded transaction from a blinded account to another blinded account, no one can see that transaction. In fact you even have to notify the receiver that you've made the transaction by off-chain methods because they won't be able to tell they've received it. Not very practical, granted, but seems untraceable to me.
No one can see who sent the transaction except the recipient. That's where the hole is. The new stuff is just the old stuff + blinded quantities, isn't it?
-
Anonymity is not profitable, meaning it's a no no for me. API and Bond Markets first.
Anonymity is useless with no liquidity, plus there are already other well known option for that like monero and dash. I don't know if they're as good as advertised but that doesn't matter. We're not trying to compete with them. There's less money in the anonymity market than in a proper exchange used by traders.
The only way anonymity would be profitable is if it was to be used by darkmarkets which (1) Don't even use monero and dash, well established projects known for anonymity and (2) some people don't want to be associated to dnms.
No profits can be taken from anonymity right now. It doesn't bring as much value as bringing in traders. They don't care about anonymity, they care about having a proper tool that can be used for profits.
It's all nice being libertarian but we need to follow the money. Only then when we're into a well established position, recognized as a brand, can we have the luxury of implementing certain things
-
I echo the sentiment that liquidity and easy user access to the decentralized exchange should be the sole priority for any short term resources, and is a critical issue that is more important than privacy or pretty much anything else at this point. Privacy is something existing users will demand over time, rather than something that draws in new users (because few users + lots of privacy tech still means low privacy)
That being said, high privacy is going to become industry standard quite soon and I think it's a good idea for BitShares to have it on the horizon. Even Ethereum is doing it now as Vitalik has apparently implemented ring signatures: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3tappe/early_alpha_monerolike_linkable_ring_signatures/
-
liquidity and bond market are more important. We need yield back.
Look at Monero. It hasn't all faired that well even though it has anonymity.
-
Give me one good reason why I should invest in bonds on this platform compared to the current centralized system. I would like to know why bonds are priority on a public ledger open to the whole world .
The cost of buying bonds in the centralized system is much higher than it would be on bitshares. We (small investors) also would have the ability to issue bonds on our system, which you can't do as a regular investor in the current centralized system.
But the bond market isn't the priority right now either. The priority is the exchange.
-
I agree with bytemaster 100%+5%. The public accounts here feel even less private than my centralized brokerage account. At least there, only the brokerage company knows my transactions. Here it feels like someone took my bank statement from the mail, crossed my name/address out, and posted it on the internet. That feeling alone holds me back.
The backbone of bitshares won't come from the general public initially. Heck, I can't even get engineers I know to buy one bitcoin, let alone buying bts to trade here. The fundamental driver of all cryptos has been freedom & privacy. bitacer already pointed that out. Bank institutions want privacy because it's part of doing business, traders need the privacy to perform the way they want.
Joe public will be the last group to use bitshares. Ease of use, low fees, and stealth transactions will bring in the current users of crypto and the banks. Let the public work through them to get here.
-
My "gut" tells me that crypto-diehards are looking for an easy to use ANONYMOUS currency and those of us that are freedom loving actually want and need this. Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the crypto and banking world.
I would prefer a proposal which brings bitshares core anonymity up to the state of the art, instead of just an 'also ran':
https://github.com/ShenNoether/MiniNero/blob/master/RingCT0.1_copy.pdf
As mentioned here:
Privacy/anonymity consists of:
A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)
Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.
So many advancements in the crypto scene. This particular change would require a hard fork to implement and would only provide a marginal increase in privacy.
Under BitShares 2:
You cannot tell two transfers were to the same recipient.... until they spend them together.
When they are spent together you don't know which output was to someone else and which was change.... unless one of the outputs is combined with another output for which you know the owner.
Through tracing of blinded balances back to their public source you can calculate an upper bound on the value of a blinded balance, for example we know the total value of all blinded balances is the clear upper bound on any individual blinded balance.
There are only two kinds of attackers on your privacy:
1. 3rd parties whom you have never done business
2. Those with whom you have done business.
Under BitShares 2 you are completely protected from 3rd parties, but have slightly less protection from those you do business with. If I send you a lot of payments I may be able to identify a large subset of the blinded outputs that belong to you, but I would be unable to learn your balance. If you then transfer the blind output I gave you to a 3rd party then I know the upper bound on all outputs derived from the one I sent you.
The conclusion is that the BitShares wallet should always combine all of an individual's inputs in every transaction. This will provide a similar protection to ring signatures (preventing those who sent you funds from being able to know the upper bound on downstream transactions).
At the end of the day the only information leaked is that "you received payments from multiple people". With every subsequent payment the probability that an individual output belongs to the same person falls by 50%.
Privacy is therefore most compromised around the edges of the blinded/stealth transfers when users convert to/from public/private it leaks some information.
Adopting ring signatures would therefore increase your privacy by increasing the "upper bound" value for an output by merging in outputs that don't belong to you and by not grouping multiple transactions as being to/from a single party.
So for almost every conceivable use case what BitShares provides is more than sufficient even if ring signatures are technically better privacy.
What I would like to know is what kind of size and computational penalty one takes for adopting the more comprehensive solution.
-
So many advancements in the crypto scene. This particular change would require a hard fork to implement and would only provide a marginal increase in privacy.
Under BitShares 2:
You cannot tell two transfers were to the same recipient.... until they spend them together.
When they are spent together you don't know which output was to someone else and which was change.... unless one of the outputs is combined with another output for which you know the owner.
Through tracing of blinded balances back to their public source you can calculate an upper bound on the value of a blinded balance, for example we know the total value of all blinded balances is the clear upper bound on any individual blinded balance.
There are only two kinds of attackers on your privacy:
1. 3rd parties whom you have never done business
2. Those with whom you have done business.
Under BitShares 2 you are completely protected from 3rd parties, but have slightly less protection from those you do business with. If I send you a lot of payments I may be able to identify a large subset of the blinded outputs that belong to you, but I would be unable to learn your balance. If you then transfer the blind output I gave you to a 3rd party then I know the upper bound on all outputs derived from the one I sent you.
The conclusion is that the BitShares wallet should always combine all of an individual's inputs in every transaction. This will provide a similar protection to ring signatures (preventing those who sent you funds from being able to know the upper bound on downstream transactions).
At the end of the day the only information leaked is that "you received payments from multiple people". With every subsequent payment the probability that an individual output belongs to the same person falls by 50%.
Privacy is therefore most compromised around the edges of the blinded/stealth transfers when users convert to/from public/private it leaks some information.
Adopting ring signatures would therefore increase your privacy by increasing the "upper bound" value for an output by merging in outputs that don't belong to you and by not grouping multiple transactions as being to/from a single party.
So for almost every conceivable use case what BitShares provides is more than sufficient even if ring signatures are technically better privacy.
What I would like to know is what kind of size and computational penalty one takes for adopting the more comprehensive solution.
I'll be that guy again.
From a layman's perspective this sounds much like what was said concerning TITAN in 1.0 and now we're being asked to pay $45,000 to get a similar level of privacy in 2.0.
Please ELI5 why that is not the case.
-
Are we trying to build this...
(http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a485/emailtooaj/955ea5b1-7f44-47f8-8ca1-a616f5045667_zpsvxj8i5pb.jpg) (http://s1280.photobucket.com/user/emailtooaj/media/955ea5b1-7f44-47f8-8ca1-a616f5045667_zpsvxj8i5pb.jpg.html)
Or are we trying to build this....
(http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a485/emailtooaj/ca74e3a8-2668-4c55-ace1-f0524ccaded4_zpslitl3z5g.jpg) (http://s1280.photobucket.com/user/emailtooaj/media/ca74e3a8-2668-4c55-ace1-f0524ccaded4_zpslitl3z5g.jpg.html)
If we're trying to build this... ^^^^^^^^^^^^
then there must be a coherent way in approaching this. Stealth features are awesome... but it's just tint on the windows, an "aftermarket" item.
Why can we NOT focus on getting a SOLID and SMOOTH running back end first and foremost! (analogy= Engine, Transmission and Frame)
*with 2.0 this has been much better!
Why can we NOT get a clear and usable API put together (analogy= The doors and windows to the car)
*other devs have bitched and complained about this for some time now
Why can we NOT get an intuitive and simple GUI together (analogy=Instrument panel, Steering wheel and Keyed Ignition)
*again kudos...light years from 1.0 to 2.0 but still lacking many features and usability
Sooo... with this analogy, If you had a gas can (analogy= gas is liquidity) and wanted to use it to fill up a form of transportation and be able to use it... which of the above two vehicles above would you choose? Right now we're resembling the first!
I know we have the smartest and most talented Engineers working on this project but, DAMN... let's step away from the draft tables in Engineering Dept. for a minute and let's get "all hands on deck" and onto the shop floor working everyone available... going station by station... helping to get this thing +99% complete.
Once done...THEN we can focus how best to find/get willing users with gas cans in hand and then proceed listening to the markets of "what" aftermarket features are wanted/needed.
Bitshares IMO, always has and always should be the DEX it was meant to be. After this has been established and implemented 100% , other features and add-on's should be quicker and easier to implement once the time comes. I say this because you'll already have "most" of the ideas/plans sitting on the shelves in Engineering Dept. and will have "free'd" up man power to jump on those projects.
So please...
We need to get away from this vvvvvvvv
(http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a485/emailtooaj/380c46d5-139b-458e-a419-3a6ee4514e8c_zpswicmdqge.jpg) (http://s1280.photobucket.com/user/emailtooaj/media/380c46d5-139b-458e-a419-3a6ee4514e8c_zpswicmdqge.jpg.html)
and move towards this vvvvvvv
(http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a485/emailtooaj/769b2e3c-1d71-46ce-bda8-a5a5f906a70a_zpsdvyeu2hd.jpg) (http://s1280.photobucket.com/user/emailtooaj/media/769b2e3c-1d71-46ce-bda8-a5a5f906a70a_zpsdvyeu2hd.jpg.html)
Could stealth bring liquidity to Bitshares... ABSOLUTELY, but not until everything else get's wrapped up IMO.
And please don't take this as a "Bash" towards the Devs or any of the hard working community members; but realistically... It's time we get our shit together and be who we're suppose to be, THE MOST PROFESSIONAL AND BEST IN CRYPTO!
And it must start with solid/clear project management that leads to end goals; not the other way around.
We have plenty of goals ATM to keep us busy.
-
Are we trying to build this...
Or are we trying to build this....
afaict we're building this ...
(http://i.imgur.com/aSb5obd.png)
-
Under BitShares 2 you are completely protected from 3rd parties, but have slightly less protection from those you do business with.
...because they can prove a link between sender and receipient, therefore can leak the information, which is a fairly large hole. That's where ring signatures come into play.
I would rather have full privacy, than a halfway house - the bond market would be a better goal than a half way house, IMO.
-
I disagree that anonymity the most important... The most important is as follows
1. Fees for trading updated per the worker proposal
2. Referral program for trading fees
3. API for 3rd party platforms and liquidity bots
We are a decentralized exchange. We have finally discovered what we are and what we are niche is. Most people never get a chance to discover that much less exploit it... DON'T GET DISTRACTED!
Yeah, focus on the exchange first which will hopefully bring liquidity to a few key smartcoin markets. Stealth transfers are kind of useless if people are trapped in an illiquid market. I definitely think blinded transfers will be very important after some liquidity has been reached.
This! Improve the fu***ing API real quick!!
+5%
The exchange is the backbone for making smartcoins useful. Let's get that working, smooth out the wallets and bring existing crypto investors into the BitShares ecosystem. There's been so much great progress in this area, let's keep that focus.
-
I agree with bytemaster 100%+5%. The public accounts here feel even less private than my centralized brokerage account. At least there, only the brokerage company knows my transactions. Here it feels like someone took my bank statement from the mail, crossed my name/address out, and posted it on the internet. That feeling alone holds me back.
The backbone of bitshares won't come from the general public initially. Heck, I can't even get engineers I know to buy one bitcoin, let alone buying bts to trade here. The fundamental driver of all cryptos has been freedom & privacy. bitacer already pointed that out. Bank institutions want privacy because it's part of doing business, traders need the privacy to perform the way they want.
Joe public will be the last group to use bitshares. Ease of use, low fees, and stealth transactions will bring in the current users of crypto and the banks. Let the public work through them to get here.
+5%
-
Under BitShares 2 you are completely protected from 3rd parties, but have slightly less protection from those you do business with.
...because they can prove a link between sender and receipient, therefore can leak the information, which is a fairly large hole. That's where ring signatures come into play.
I would rather have full privacy, than a halfway house - the bond market would be a better goal than a half way house, IMO.
Is it really half-housed or just being practical? I'm not sure. But I think we should be thinking about what will happen 3 months out from now when Bitcoin has serious transaction problems. When that day happens, people will be looking at altcoins, especially those that will protect your privacy. Look at the chart that Mike Hearn posted today. Are we ready to capture this moment?
http://imgur.com/Uo3vFvC
-
Look at the chart that Mike Hearn posted today.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19959.msg256310.html#msg256310
;)
-
Not saying we shouldn't do it... we just have more important/pressing matters to work out. I would say if we do the privacy thing, it should be a 2016 project.
-
Not saying we shouldn't do it... we just have more important/pressing matters to work out. I would say if we do the privacy thing, it should be a 2016 project.
I agree. I like the idea, however, I see it as a much lower priority.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/uf85w.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/uf85w) (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/uf85w.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/uf85w) (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
At $45k dollars with other critical work needed, I remember, I'm just suggesting a different priority schedule.
-
@montpelerin that was funny, havent seen that meme in a while.
Thing is, for 45k we can get something more useful. That's the problem. If you compare this feature with other stuff where the money could be used, there are better options under the current circumstances.
If you're on a tight budget and it's cold, are you going to buy that cool watch or are you going to buy a jacket to keep you warm?
-
At $45k dollars with other critical work needed, I remember, I'm just suggesting a different priority schedule.
Yeah, $45k does seem like a lot for basic personal safety mechanisms.
I have not and will not claim any of my balances until bitshares offers at least a minimal level of safety and security for basic users.
No voting, no tips, no etc. - I'm sure there are a lot of people like me in the same boat.
Allowing everyone to see every account balance is nothing short of dangerous carelessness.
How about we just add a little disclaimer about the possible risks assumed by high value bitshares users to our attempts to attract new users:
(http://gemcapitolshows.com/images/target.jpg)
-
How about we go back to bitshares 0.9 where we had TITAN and didnt have to pay $45k for privacy features?
Oh by the way, if if the worker proposal passed you wouldnt get $45k out of it. Try to sell tens of millions more BTS and you'll probably get less than half that because the price will be down under 500 sats.
You know whats doing great? Nushares.
The are profitable and buying back 20-40btc of NSR per week, which bitshares devs want to get tens of millions of BTS for features that already existed in 1.0 that they took away, so they can dump them and crash the price even more. Lol!
-
How about we go back to bitshares 0.9 where we had TITAN and didnt have to pay $45k for privacy features?
Oh by the way, if if the worker proposal passed you wouldnt get $45k out of it. Try to sell tens of millions more BTS and you'll probably get less than half that because the price will be down under 500 sats.
You know whats doing great? Nushares.
The are profitable and buying back 20-40btc of NSR per week, which bitshares devs want to get tens of millions of BTS for features that already existed in 1.0 that they took away, so they can dump them and crash the price even more. Lol!
lulz welcome back Ander! =)
Soon the answer to this will be that we are here to watch NSR pass BTS market cap. :P
pimp it brother! you gonna b rich! =)
-
I agree with Bytemaster that this is a much needed upgrade. Bitshares needs to stay on the cutting edge of cryptocurrency technology to succeed in the coming years. Financial privacy will become a standard feature of next generation cryptocurrencies vying for the top spot in the cryptocurrency wars, and it will serve Bitshares well to upgrade now rather than later. Bytemaster is correct in positing that strong financial privacy will help win over the die-hard cryptocurrency fanatics. Financial privacy, and in turn fungibility, are some of the biggest topics in the cryptocurrency community as of late and for good reason.
I know everyone wants more market and transaction volume sooner rather than later, but that is something that will have to grow organically. The non-developer part of the community is best served for that job, and thanks to the referral system businesses are getting staged for an all-out marketing blitz that will speed up adoption more than any development work could ever do. Let the stakeholders, community and businesses that stand to profit from adoption do the legwork as far as that's concerned, and let the programming wizards keep upgrading Bitshares so it can stay ahead of the competition in this very competitive market.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% from me on this proposal
-
I agree with Bytemaster that this is a much needed upgrade. Bitshares needs to stay on the cutting edge of cryptocurrency technology to succeed in the coming years. Financial privacy will become a standard feature of next generation cryptocurrencies vying for the top spot in the cryptocurrency wars, and it will serve Bitshares well to upgrade now rather than later. Bytemaster is correct in positing that strong financial privacy will help win over the die-hard cryptocurrency fanatics. Financial privacy, and in turn fungibility, are some of the biggest topics in the cryptocurrency community as of late and for good reason.
I know everyone wants more market and transaction volume sooner rather than later, but that is something that will have to grow organically. The non-developer part of the community is best served for that job, and thanks to the referral system businesses are getting staged for an all-out marketing blitz that will speed up adoption more than any development work could ever do. Let the stakeholders, community and businesses that stand to profit from adoption do the legwork as far as that's concerned, and let the programming wizards keep upgrading Bitshares so it can stay ahead of the competition in this very competitive market.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% from me on this proposal
How do you feel about the bug that caused our "marketing blitzers" to lose almost all of their referral fees?? Maybe they would unleash a blitz and let the "wizards" code if they actually had a functioning referral system from said "wizards".
You can't keep finishing things 80% of the way. This pie in the sky stuff needs to be put on hold until the exchange and referral system works. It needs to be put on hold until an actual usable platform is available. You could have all the bells and whistles in the world, but it wouldn't mean a thing if the underlying exchange sucks.
What is 80% of cutting edge? That's like the sharpness of a baseball bat...
-
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452
This worker proposal is under development but may be the single most important worker proposal in terms of near-term impact.
My "gut" tells me that crypto-diehards are looking for an easy to use ANONYMOUS currency and those of us that are freedom loving actually want and need this. Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the crypto and banking world.
If we have the best of breed privacy then it will put us well ahead of the competition. Hopefully helping pull us up to Dash.
This work is heavy on UI development and advanced Javascript so has a lot of unknowns.
I will pledge $1500 out of my own pocket towards this important upgrade to our system. If there are just 29 other community members who will do the same then it can proceed.
-
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452
This worker proposal is under development but may be the single most important worker proposal in terms of near-term impact.
My "gut" tells me that crypto-diehards are looking for an easy to use ANONYMOUS currency and those of us that are freedom loving actually want and need this. Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the crypto and banking world.
If we have the best of breed privacy then it will put us well ahead of the competition. Hopefully helping pull us up to Dash.
This work is heavy on UI development and advanced Javascript so has a lot of unknowns.
I will pledge $1500 out of my own pocket towards this important upgrade to our system. If there are just 29 other community members who will do the same then it can proceed.
It looks like thats going to be the only way ...We need this vltal feature asap.
-
Democracy is an ugly bitch !
-
I will pledge $1500 out of my own pocket towards this important upgrade to our system. If there are just 29 other community members who will do the same then it can proceed.
#btstip "onceuponatime" 1 FISTBUMP
-
Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...
- onceuponatime (http://btstip.io/Home/Dashboard?username=onceuponatime): has been credited 1 FISTBUMP
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://btstip.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.msg258891/topicseen.html#msg258891
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
ugly bitch
and there's my next UIA =)
-
#btstip "Tuck Fheman" 100 OPENSESAME
I will pledge $1500 out of my own pocket towards this important upgrade to our system. If there are just 29 other community members who will do the same then it can proceed.
#btstip "onceuponatime" 1 FISTBUMP
-
Hey twitter, here are the results of your tips...
- Tuck Fheman (http://btstip.io/Home/Dashboard?username=Tuck Fheman): has been credited 100 OPENSESAME
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://btstip.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.msg258898/topicseen.html#msg258898
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
#btstip "Tuck Fheman" 100 OPENSESAME
ty!
-
Asking for money for futures we had is so surrealistic... (even if we only had the illusion we had it)...
(https://s3-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Ffc01.deviantart.net%2Ffs12%2Ff%2F2006%2F328%2F9%2F6%2FDon__Quixote_by_barnaulsky_zeek.jpg&sp=269afe4f28d63de2f02ecbf087463218)
-
You can't keep finishing things 80% of the way. This pie in the sky stuff needs to be put on hold until the exchange and referral system works. It needs to be put on hold until an actual usable platform is available. You could have all the bells and whistles in the world, but it wouldn't mean a thing if the underlying exchange sucks.
What is 80% of cutting edge? That's like the sharpness of a baseball bat...
+5%
Let's continue the focus on bringing the exchange where it needs to be.
-
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452
This worker proposal is under development but may be the single most important worker proposal in terms of near-term impact.
My "gut" tells me that crypto-diehards are looking for an easy to use ANONYMOUS currency and those of us that are freedom loving actually want and need this. Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the crypto and banking world.
If we have the best of breed privacy then it will put us well ahead of the competition. Hopefully helping pull us up to Dash.
This work is heavy on UI development and advanced Javascript so has a lot of unknowns.
I will pledge $1500 out of my own pocket towards this important upgrade to our system. If there are just 29 other community members who will do the same then it can proceed.
This is good to know and sets an example of leading and not waiting for mass approval for change. I will note it in the ticket.
-
How do you feel about the bug that caused our "marketing blitzers" to lose almost all of their referral fees?? Maybe they would unleash a blitz and let the "wizards" code if they actually had a functioning referral system from said "wizards".
You can't keep finishing things 80% of the way. This pie in the sky stuff needs to be put on hold until the exchange and referral system works. It needs to be put on hold until an actual usable platform is available. You could have all the bells and whistles in the world, but it wouldn't mean a thing if the underlying exchange sucks.
What is 80% of cutting edge? That's like the sharpness of a baseball bat...
I was not aware there was an issue with the referral system. Link?
As far as the market.. I've made several trades with no issues, and they are working on the GUI already. It has been updated at least once and the new market view is a step in the right direction.
Let Bytemaster do his thing. The second he leaves the project Bitshares is screwed (that is until the community grows to a certain size.) We should keep him happy and support proposals he thinks are important, as he is usually right and has steered us in the right direction thus far.
-
How do you feel about the bug that caused our "marketing blitzers" to lose almost all of their referral fees?? Maybe they would unleash a blitz and let the "wizards" code if they actually had a functioning referral system from said "wizards".
You can't keep finishing things 80% of the way. This pie in the sky stuff needs to be put on hold until the exchange and referral system works. It needs to be put on hold until an actual usable platform is available. You could have all the bells and whistles in the world, but it wouldn't mean a thing if the underlying exchange sucks.
What is 80% of cutting edge? That's like the sharpness of a baseball bat...
I was not aware there was an issue with the referral system. Link?
The debate is that Western referrers are building business models around the new BTS transfer fee of circa $0.15 - $0.2. In their professional opinion it's unlikely the referral programme will be effective at a much lower amount.
However some (like myself) believe $0.2 is too high for a user to user transfer fee compared against crypto & centralized competitors.
It's particularly a problem in our largest market China, also disrupts some existing business models that need a more competitive fee and new ones like the tipping bot.
I think this is the latest thread covering the subject. The committee put forward an attempted compromise but which wasn't much of an improvement for either side. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20073.0.html
-
How do you feel about the bug that caused our "marketing blitzers" to lose almost all of their referral fees?? Maybe they would unleash a blitz and let the "wizards" code if they actually had a functioning referral system from said "wizards".
You can't keep finishing things 80% of the way. This pie in the sky stuff needs to be put on hold until the exchange and referral system works. It needs to be put on hold until an actual usable platform is available. You could have all the bells and whistles in the world, but it wouldn't mean a thing if the underlying exchange sucks.
What is 80% of cutting edge? That's like the sharpness of a baseball bat...
I was not aware there was an issue with the referral system. Link?
As far as the market.. I've made several trades with no issues, and they are working on the GUI already. It has been updated at least once and the new market view is a step in the right direction.
Let Bytemaster do his thing. The second he leaves the project Bitshares is screwed (that is until the community grows to a certain size.) We should keep him happy and support proposals he thinks are important, as he is usually right and has steered us in the right direction thus far.
I agree with this and think that ANONYMITY is important. I have "heard" that Dash is now accepted on some of the Darknet sites. I'm sure that has helped them. Not that Darknet sites are our target per se...but won't hurt.
-
The debate is that Western referrers are building business models around the new BTS transfer fee of circa $0.15 - $0.2. In their professional opinion it's unlikely the referral programme will be effective at a much lower amount.
However some (like myself) believe $0.2 is too high for a user to user transfer fee compared against crypto & centralized competitors.
It's particularly a problem in our largest market China, also disrupts some existing business models that need a more competitive fee and new ones like the tipping bot.
I think this is the latest thread covering the subject. The committee put forward an attempted compromise but which wasn't much of an improvement for either side. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20073.0.html
Thanks for filling me in. I should probably read the forums more often. :)
That is certainly an issue, but it seems to me that some sort of compromise could be struck to keep both sides happy.
-
How do you feel about the bug that caused our "marketing blitzers" to lose almost all of their referral fees?? Maybe they would unleash a blitz and let the "wizards" code if they actually had a functioning referral system from said "wizards".
You can't keep finishing things 80% of the way. This pie in the sky stuff needs to be put on hold until the exchange and referral system works. It needs to be put on hold until an actual usable platform is available. You could have all the bells and whistles in the world, but it wouldn't mean a thing if the underlying exchange sucks.
What is 80% of cutting edge? That's like the sharpness of a baseball bat...
I was not aware there was an issue with the referral system. Link?
The debate is that Western referrers are building business models around the new BTS transfer fee of circa $0.15 - $0.2. In their professional opinion it's unlikely the referral programme will be effective at a much lower amount.
However some (like myself) believe $0.2 is too high for a user to user transfer fee compared against crypto & centralized competitors.
It's particularly a problem in our largest market China, also disrupts some existing business models that need a more competitive fee and new ones like the tipping bot.
I think this is the latest thread covering the subject. The committee put forward an attempted compromise but which wasn't much of an improvement for either side. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20073.0.html
I know why you are stubborn in your opinions. The same reason I am :) ....way too often they are correct. But please make an effort and see that the tipbot does not need lower fees. The opposite - the somewhat high fees make him a major (only for now) player in the micro payments in the BTS ecosystem.
-
Let's have a road-map available on our website (instead of this funny looking thing (https://bitshares.org/roadmap/)) and put building this stealth feature in a queue.
Those who want it won't mind waiting a bit if they can clearly see it on the road-map.
I agree with @lil_jay890 that we should not start building new features (however important they are) until we complete those already in the pipeline.
Otherwise it just looks chaotic.
How about completing this little road-map first?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19735.msg253383.html#msg253383
Plus this crucial & long awaited thing: fix & standardize the API for trading bots.
And please @bytemaster replace the outdated road-map on the website.
We are shooting ourselves in the foot with this.
Is an investor supposed to follow this forum closely to find out about our short- and mid-term plans? Business people don't' have time for this.
-
How do you feel about the bug that caused our "marketing blitzers" to lose almost all of their referral fees?? Maybe they would unleash a blitz and let the "wizards" code if they actually had a functioning referral system from said "wizards".
You can't keep finishing things 80% of the way. This pie in the sky stuff needs to be put on hold until the exchange and referral system works. It needs to be put on hold until an actual usable platform is available. You could have all the bells and whistles in the world, but it wouldn't mean a thing if the underlying exchange sucks.
What is 80% of cutting edge? That's like the sharpness of a baseball bat...
I was not aware there was an issue with the referral system. Link?
The debate is that Western referrers are building business models around the new BTS transfer fee of circa $0.15 - $0.2. In their professional opinion it's unlikely the referral programme will be effective at a much lower amount.
However some (like myself) believe $0.2 is too high for a user to user transfer fee compared against crypto & centralized competitors.
It's particularly a problem in our largest market China, also disrupts some existing business models that need a more competitive fee and new ones like the tipping bot.
I think this is the latest thread covering the subject. The committee put forward an attempted compromise but which wasn't much of an improvement for either side. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20073.0.html
I know why you are stubborn in your opinions. The same reason I am :) ....way too often they are correct. But please make an effort and see that the tipbot does not need lower fees. The opposite - the somewhat high fees make him a major (only for now) player in the micro payments in the BTS ecosystem.
Not wanting to derail this important thread on the stealth workers proposal, I responded here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20132.msg259108.html#msg259108
-
I already mentioned I liked the idea of stealth transfers, however, I rather see it a Q1 2016 item. I'd like to see the focus on the items we had on the current roadmap: exchange, apis, referrals.
I remember reading somebody mentioning that this approach isn't as secure as Monero's rings. I'd like to hear from a developer on their thoughts.
-
How do you feel about the bug that caused our "marketing blitzers" to lose almost all of their referral fees?? Maybe they would unleash a blitz and let the "wizards" code if they actually had a functioning referral system from said "wizards".
You can't keep finishing things 80% of the way. This pie in the sky stuff needs to be put on hold until the exchange and referral system works. It needs to be put on hold until an actual usable platform is available. You could have all the bells and whistles in the world, but it wouldn't mean a thing if the underlying exchange sucks.
What is 80% of cutting edge? That's like the sharpness of a baseball bat...
I was not aware there was an issue with the referral system. Link?
As far as the market.. I've made several trades with no issues, and they are working on the GUI already. It has been updated at least once and the new market view is a step in the right direction.
Let Bytemaster do his thing. The second he leaves the project Bitshares is screwed (that is until the community grows to a certain size.) We should keep him happy and support proposals he thinks are important, as he is usually right and has steered us in the right direction thus far.
I'm referring to this thread...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19961.0.html
CNX took 99.6% of the referral fee... they said it was a bug, told us that it's not their responsibility to fix it but they are going to be nice and fix it for "free".
1. I believe it is their responsibility to fix the bug. Every real company offers at least a 30 day warranty of manufacturing defects. This is no different.
2. Too many people here treat BM as some sort of God. News flash, he isn't. I'm sure he is a good coder, but I'm not in a position to judge that. All I know is that bitshares graphene is maybe 60-70% of what was promised an hyped in June. Now CNX is trying to create worker proposal to charge for different projects. One project is the bond market. This was included in the announcement in June... now he is saying it is going into a worker proposal and it's going to cost $100k!!! This on top of his other proposal to fix the API and trading fee stuff which is another $50k... and it could be argued the fee and API should have been corrected before bts 2.0 launched. So I guess what's the big deal if we spend another $45k on some privacy thing??... Oh, and it was brought up in the mumble today that we should pay for his travel to go to conferences and promote bts. Second news flash... they have been going to conferences for the last 2 years and look at how much that has helped the price. No big deal lets just burn $250k.
People here say "yeah lets do it" because they feel we have unlimited funding. We don't. We already cut our fees and the transactions have not picked up... take a look at our reserve fund, it's not going in the right direction.
And I still have not seen a response to whether or not these worker proposals will be distributed to muse, identabit and any other chain... all on BTS's dime.
-
How do you feel about the bug that caused our "marketing blitzers" to lose almost all of their referral fees?? Maybe they would unleash a blitz and let the "wizards" code if they actually had a functioning referral system from said "wizards".
You can't keep finishing things 80% of the way. This pie in the sky stuff needs to be put on hold until the exchange and referral system works. It needs to be put on hold until an actual usable platform is available. You could have all the bells and whistles in the world, but it wouldn't mean a thing if the underlying exchange sucks.
What is 80% of cutting edge? That's like the sharpness of a baseball bat...
I was not aware there was an issue with the referral system. Link?
As far as the market.. I've made several trades with no issues, and they are working on the GUI already. It has been updated at least once and the new market view is a step in the right direction.
Let Bytemaster do his thing. The second he leaves the project Bitshares is screwed (that is until the community grows to a certain size.) We should keep him happy and support proposals he thinks are important, as he is usually right and has steered us in the right direction thus far.
I'm referring to this thread...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19961.0.html
CNX took 99.6% of the referral fee... they said it was a bug, told us that it's not their responsibility to fix it but they are going to be nice and fix it for "free".
1. I believe it is their responsibility to fix the bug. Every real company offers at least a 30 day warranty of manufacturing defects. This is no different.
2. Too many people here treat BM as some sort of God. News flash, he isn't. I'm sure he is a good coder, but I'm not in a position to judge that. All I know is that bitshares graphene is maybe 60-70% of what was promised an hyped in June. Now CNX is trying to create worker proposal to charge for different projects. One project is the bond market. This was included in the announcement in June... now he is saying it is going into a worker proposal and it's going to cost $100k!!! This on top of his other proposal to fix the API and trading fee stuff which is another $50k... and it could be argued the fee and API should have been corrected before bts 2.0 launched. So I guess what's the big deal if we spend another $45k on some privacy thing??... Oh, and it was brought up in the mumble today that we should pay for his travel to go to conferences and promote bts. Second news flash... they have been going to conferences for the last 2 years and look at how much that has helped the price. No big deal lets just burn $250k.
People here say "yeah lets do it" because they feel we have unlimited funding. We don't. We already cut our fees and the transactions have not picked up... take a look at our reserve fund, it's not going in the right direction.
And I still have not seen a response to whether or not these worker proposals will be distributed to muse, identabit and any other chain... all on BTS's dime.
I was just waiting in the weeds for you to to write it better than I could ever do!
[well, not being me stating the truth helps a lot as well]
but as in the previous case...100% correct in addressing all the important issues.
+ 100
PS
I want to include some posts from the "BM is our only hope" kind of guys...but way too many of them. so I will assume everyone is aware, if not participating in this ..way of. ...thinking.
-
"We fix our own bugs for free!... Sometimes...and only as a favour" INC
.... is not a very good title
or behaviour.
-
Additionally, when can we expect a worker proposal "To remove the greatest invention in Margin Calling"?
Is it worth 30K or less?
I do not mind this particular square wheel in the BTS system. All it does is guarantee no liquidity for any and all bitAssets, but if it is as fine with you as I garter and as long as one can transfer his losses stealthily....man no problem here.
-
@lil_jay890 has some very harsh judgements that are both factually incorrect unfair in my opinion.
CNX didn't take any referral fee of 99.6%, Open Ledger did. It is in control of an account belonging to OL.
Your post implies we did it intentionally to "steal" some referral fees.
It is costing CNX more to fix a simple scaling bug in the wallet than was paid in referral fees, so we are either stupid thieves or it was an honest bug and personal sacrifice on our part to fix. Furthermore, CNX isn't taking any of those referral fees, but letting Open Ledger keep 100% of them.
The one thing that CNX did is over promise what we could deliver given our time and money. But considering we were paying for 100% of what we did deliver we have no liability to deliver anything on any particular schedule. We certainly don't have a commitment to continue funding development in any area we do not see as having a role in the future profitability of CNX.
Those who are investing in CNX have to pick and chose what to spend those investment dollars on. They will of course spend the money on the projects that have the highest payoff. The reality is that subsidizing development of features for BitShares has a very low payoff without a side business plan.
We created Graphene so we could license the blockchain technology to those who need high performance blockchains. We are continue to innovate in providing custom solutions and helping others adopt blockchain technology. BitShares got a free upgrade based upon our efforts, but we have no more commitment to support Graphene than any other open source software provider giving their work away for free. Tech support, bug fixes, and new features are on our schedule at our discretion.
As far as the prices we quote, it isn't greed it is practical reality. It is about free market prioritization and balancing supply / demand.
We aren't forcing anyone to pay us anything nor are we unilaterally voting these proposals for our own benefit.
We traded bond markets for stealth transfers at the protocol level.
The attitude of entitlement, contempt, and blame is totally uncalled for. Everyone is working their hardest to find a sustainable long term solution.
-
No software company offers a warranty on a FREE product provided WITHOUT WARRANTY.
If you think BitShares should have a software support contract that covers a certain amount of bug fixes then that may be the proper way to structure things.
Software bugs cost people money, if we had to take out liability insurance for any and all losses as a result of software then our rates would be $1000 per hour or more. It would be totally impractical to produce software on an kind of market competitive schedule.
-
@lil_jay890 has some very harsh judgements that are both factually incorrect unfair in my opinion.
CNX didn't take any referral fee of 99.6%, Open Ledger did. It is in control of an account belonging to OL.
Your post implies we did it intentionally to "steal" some referral fees.
It is costing CNX more to fix a simple scaling bug in the wallet than was paid in referral fees, so we are either stupid thieves or it was an honest bug and personal sacrifice on our part to fix. Furthermore, CNX isn't taking any of those referral fees, but letting Open Ledger keep 100% of them.
The one thing that CNX did is over promise what we could deliver given our time and money. But considering we were paying for 100% of what we did deliver we have no liability to deliver anything on any particular schedule. We certainly don't have a commitment to continue funding development in any area we do not see as having a role in the future profitability of CNX.
Those who are investing in CNX have to pick and chose what to spend those investment dollars on. They will of course spend the money on the projects that have the highest payoff. The reality is that subsidizing development of features for BitShares has a very low payoff without a side business plan.
We created Graphene so we could license the blockchain technology to those who need high performance blockchains. We are continue to innovate in providing custom solutions and helping others adopt blockchain technology. BitShares got a free upgrade based upon our efforts, but we have no more commitment to support Graphene than any other open source software provider giving their work away for free. Tech support, bug fixes, and new features are on our schedule at our discretion.
As far as the prices we quote, it isn't greed it is practical reality. It is about free market prioritization and balancing supply / demand.
We aren't forcing anyone to pay us anything nor are we unilaterally voting these proposals for our own benefit.
We traded bond markets for stealth transfers at the protocol level.
The attitude of entitlement, contempt, and blame is totally uncalled for. Everyone is working their hardest to find a sustainable long term solution.
He did not say you made the bug on purpose and/or to steal the money*! [That is something you put in his mouth in order for him to sound like the bad guy]
All he said was [which you confirmed in the above] that you, for whatever reasons, consider it a great favour to fix your own bugs. While at the same time asking [unwillingly and at loss according to you] to produce more piece of garbage...excuse me code, for which you have no desire to take even the simplest responsibility.
*The fact still remains, even though neither I nor him think it was a deliberate attempt, you and your partners OL ended up with 96% or whatever, but practically all of the fees (besides the BTS 20% cut)
-
I don't have contempt nor do I feel entitled. CNX coming back to the bts coffers for a quarter of a million dollars needs to be highly scrutinized. Especially for things that we were told would be included in the initial release. Why not just admit "we made a mistake, and didn't realize we were unable to do what we said we could. We will be glad to fix it, but we need more funding". Instead it's passed over like you are doing BTS a favor. How do we know these projects that you talk about won't be over promised and under delivered again? I'm just going off CNX's track record. Just once I would like to see an example of something that was completed 100% and I would feel more confident.
Again my main question. If BTS pays for these upgrades, will they be available to the the other chains like identabit and muse??
-
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452
This worker proposal is under development but may be the single most important worker proposal in terms of near-term impact.
My "gut" tells me that crypto-diehards are looking for an easy to use ANONYMOUS currency and those of us that are freedom loving actually want and need this. Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the crypto and banking world.
If we have the best of breed privacy then it will put us well ahead of the competition. Hopefully helping pull us up to Dash.
This work is heavy on UI development and advanced Javascript so has a lot of unknowns.
YES YES YES
This is the right way. We NEED the privacy - otherwise BitShares becomes a tool of oppression and control (should it ever take off w/o privacy) rather than liberation. As I've always believed it HAS the potential to be.
You touched on this on your "Why are we Here" post recently. While I don't reply in that thread (traveling), let me say here that you delved into the very heart of the matters at hand. I totally share the same vision - many of here do.
May I also suggest that proxy support be implemented! For advanced users it's simple enough with firewall wizardry, but normal users don't have a chance. SOCKS5 proxying at least (-> tor). Do you agree?
-
We traded bond markets for stealth transfers at the protocol level.
:-\
I share the same opinion as jay, it might not be your intention but you're making it sound like a favour and that you need to get paid for features we thought we would have. Apparently we thought it wrong or there was a clear lack of communication. I know you can't work for free, but all of this could be have been avoided if it was communicated pre 2.0 announcement.
I thought that we would have all of the tech you mention here https://bitshares.org/technology/ Otherwise, why even mention it? That way ethereum can announce they have millions of apps, etc when they haven't even start working on them.
All I'm saying is although I believe you didn't do anything with malicious intent and understand you need to be paid, there was a clear and serious lack of communication.
-
I don't have contempt nor do I feel entitled. CNX coming back to the bts coffers for a quarter of a million dollars needs to be highly scrutinized. Especially for things that we were told would be included in the initial release. Why not just admit "we made a mistake, and didn't realize we were unable to do what we said we could. We will be glad to fix it, but we need more funding". Instead it's passed over like you are doing BTS a favor. How do we know these projects that you talk about won't be over promised and under delivered again? I'm just going off CNX's track record. Just once I would like to see an example of something that was completed 100% and I would feel more confident.
Again my main question. If BTS pays for these upgrades, will they be available to the the other chains like identabit and muse??
Did BM ask more funding to fix this problem? Please give me the source.
-
No software company offers a warranty on a FREE product provided WITHOUT WARRANTY.
If you think BitShares should have a software support contract that covers a certain amount of bug fixes then that may be the proper way to structure things.
Software bugs cost people money, if we had to take out liability insurance for any and all losses as a result of software then our rates would be $1000 per hour or more. It would be totally impractical to produce software on an kind of market competitive schedule.
It is not liability insurance, it is fixing the non working coffee makers coming out of your factory. (as in not compensating the people killed by it, just fixing the one that fail at making coffee)
Really?
The warranty would be 9 times greater than the product itself???
This is one hell of a shitty product, if it costs 9x more to repair all defects than to produce it in the first place.
-
Since 2014 Q4 (when the dev team ran out of money), CNX owes us nothing. Just get used to it.
CNX is free to make worker proposals whatever they like (including fixing bugs) and we are free to accept them or reject them.
If a coder is unwilling to take responsibility for his bugs, he only risks his reputation.
CNX is not doing us a favor - they are just taking care of their reputation.
They said they would fix the bug so there is no issue.
And if we continue with this "attitude of entitlement" - we risk our reputation (as a community).
-
Since 2014 Q4 (when the dev team ran out of money), CNX owes us nothing. Just get used to it.
CNX is free to make worker proposals whatever they like (including fixing bugs) and we are free to accept them or reject them.
If a coder is unwilling to take responsibility for his bugs, he only risks his reputation.
CNX is not doing us a favor - they are just taking care of their reputation.
They said they would fix the bug so there is no issue.
And if we continue with this "attitude of entitlement" - we risk our reputation (as a community).
I did see an entitlement in the last 5-7 posts or so...but it was not coming from me... or the community.
Or do you suggest, we stop asking legitimate questions, for some greater good?
-
No software company offers a warranty on a FREE product provided WITHOUT WARRANTY.
If you think BitShares should have a software support contract that covers a certain amount of bug fixes then that may be the proper way to structure things.
Software bugs cost people money, if we had to take out liability insurance for any and all losses as a result of software then our rates would be $1000 per hour or more. It would be totally impractical to produce software on an kind of market competitive schedule.
It is not liability insurance, it is fixing the non working coffee makers coming out of your factory. (as in not compensating the people killed by it, just fixing the one that fail at making coffee)
Really?
The warranty would be 9 times greater than the product itself???
This is one hell of a shitty product, if it costs 9x more to repair all defects than to produce it in the first place.
In software terms there are always bugs and things that can be considered "non-working". That said, we DID come back and fix things without charge. The reason we pointed out that we didn't ...HAVE TO... is merely to protect us against unbounded liability for making fixes to bugs / issues that come up.
A 9x markup represents how much longer it would take to audit the code and ensure it is free of bugs. It represents the time it would take to implement all the extra tests required to increase the quality of all of the code to the level of perfection demanded by some.
You better believe that if a coffee pot manufacturer was giving away free products that had some minor defects they wouldn't offer to fix them. Especially if it came with no warranty as being fit for any purpose.
Like I said above, we overcommitted to what we could deliver in a USER INTERFACE. We also quickly retracted the bond market commitment a week after announcement.
This whole "blame game" is not really productive. Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment. It is up to each of us to manage our own personal expectations.
-
Since 2014 Q4 (when the dev team ran out of money), CNX owes us nothing. Just get used to it.
CNX is free to make worker proposals whatever they like (including fixing bugs) and we are free to accept them or reject them.
If a coder is unwilling to take responsibility for his bugs, he only risks his reputation.
CNX is not doing us a favor - they are just taking care of their reputation.
They said they would fix the bug so there is no issue.
And if we continue with this "attitude of entitlement" - we risk our reputation (as a community).
(http://i.imgur.com/bIEsHMo.gif)
#btstip "jakub" 1 FISTBUMP
-
Hey rgcrypto, here are the results of your tips...
- jakub (http://btstip.io/Home/Dashboard?username=jakub): has been credited 1 FISTBUMP
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://btstip.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.msg259189/topicseen.html#msg259189
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
It is a great product and it is SO close to being a fully functional, decentralized exchange and trading engine. If I were a developer and it were my baby, I'd want to make it bug-free as well.
If it isn't quite perfect, then we spend the funds to get it done. We'll be thankful we did.
-
#btstip "bytemaster" 1 GREATIDEA
-
Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...
- bytemaster (http://btstip.io/Home/Dashboard?username=bytemaster): has been credited 1 GREATIDEA
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://btstip.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.msg259203/topicseen.html#msg259203
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
It is a great product and it is SO close to being a fully functional, decentralized exchange and trading engine. If I were a developer and it were my baby, I'd want to make it bug-free as well.
If it isn't quite perfect, then we spend the funds to get it done. We'll be thankful we did.
Bond Markets were dismissed and replaced for stealth transfers. There goes the trading engine. Still I would gladly approve a worker proposal for that to be implemented but I guess we will end up spending much more money in something we need. At this time we could already have bond market at the protocol level for free which we don't.
-
It is a great product and it is SO close to being a fully functional, decentralized exchange and trading engine. If I were a developer and it were my baby, I'd want to make it bug-free as well.
If it isn't quite perfect, then we spend the funds to get it done. We'll be thankful we did.
Bond Markets were dismissed and replaced for stealth transfers. There goes the trading engine. Still I would gladly approve a worker proposal for that to be implemented but I guess we will end up spending much more money in something we need. At this time we could already have bond market at the protocol level for free which we don't.
We ditched the bond market we originally proposed after feedback from the community. The protocol level rules created a system that was combination bond/option and that made them difficult to price an unpredictable. The new bond market rules are more complex than the one originally proposed because it actually enforces margin calls on users. This extra complexity means we can toss the partial work that we already did on bond markets prior to June 8th and must start over.
I really really want a bond market. I am just trying to estimate the relative complexity of various tasks.
-
I really really want a bond market. I am just trying to estimate the relative complexity of various tasks.
I think (just an idea) we have an opportunity to attract devs with this problem. How about going on bitcointalk/other crypto forum and advertise that the BitShares blockchain is looking to implement bond markets and that CNX is starting the bid at 100k. Anyone who wants to compete to get the job can outbid CNX to get the loot upon completion of the project.
-
It is a great product and it is SO close to being a fully functional, decentralized exchange and trading engine. If I were a developer and it were my baby, I'd want to make it bug-free as well.
If it isn't quite perfect, then we spend the funds to get it done. We'll be thankful we did.
Bond Markets were dismissed and replaced for stealth transfers. There goes the trading engine. Still I would gladly approve a worker proposal for that to be implemented but I guess we will end up spending much more money in something we need. At this time we could already have bond market at the protocol level for free which we don't.
We ditched the bond market we originally proposed after feedback from the community. The protocol level rules created a system that was combination bond/option and that made them difficult to price an unpredictable. The new bond market rules are more complex than the one originally proposed because it actually enforces margin calls on users. This extra complexity means we can toss the partial work that we already did on bond markets prior to June 8th and must start over.
I really really want a bond market. I am just trying to estimate the relative complexity of various tasks.
Thanks for the reply, was waiting on some clarification about bond markets.
-
No software company offers a warranty on a FREE product provided WITHOUT WARRANTY.
If you think BitShares should have a software support contract that covers a certain amount of bug fixes then that may be the proper way to structure things.
Software bugs cost people money, if we had to take out liability insurance for any and all losses as a result of software then our rates would be $1000 per hour or more. It would be totally impractical to produce software on an kind of market competitive schedule.
It is not liability insurance, it is fixing the non working coffee makers coming out of your factory. (as in not compensating the people killed by it, just fixing the one that fail at making coffee)
Really?
The warranty would be 9 times greater than the product itself???
This is one hell of a shitty product, if it costs 9x more to repair all defects than to produce it in the first place.
In software terms there are always bugs and things that can be considered "non-working". That said, we DID come back and fix things without charge. The reason we pointed out that we didn't ...HAVE TO... is merely to protect us against unbounded liability for making fixes to bugs / issues that come up.
A 9x markup represents how much longer it would take to audit the code and ensure it is free of bugs. It represents the time it would take to implement all the extra tests required to increase the quality of all of the code to the level of perfection demanded by some.
You better believe that if a coffee pot manufacturer was giving away free products that had some minor defects they wouldn't offer to fix them. Especially if it came with no warranty as being fit for any purpose.
Like I said above, we overcommitted to what we could deliver in a USER INTERFACE. We also quickly retracted the bond market commitment a week after announcement.
This whole "blame game" is not really productive. Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment. It is up to each of us to manage our own personal expectations.
Please just answer my question! Will the other chains get the improvements that bts pays for?!?
PS I'm a top 50 largest shareholder... And if I'm bringing up these points what do you think compettitors are saying?
-
The new bond market rules are more complex than the one originally proposed because it actually enforces margin calls on users.
Fantastic! I'm glad you came around to the idea :)
-
No software company offers a warranty on a FREE product provided WITHOUT WARRANTY.
If you think BitShares should have a software support contract that covers a certain amount of bug fixes then that may be the proper way to structure things.
Software bugs cost people money, if we had to take out liability insurance for any and all losses as a result of software then our rates would be $1000 per hour or more. It would be totally impractical to produce software on an kind of market competitive schedule.
It is not liability insurance, it is fixing the non working coffee makers coming out of your factory. (as in not compensating the people killed by it, just fixing the one that fail at making coffee)
Really?
The warranty would be 9 times greater than the product itself???
This is one hell of a shitty product, if it costs 9x more to repair all defects than to produce it in the first place.
In software terms there are always bugs and things that can be considered "non-working". That said, we DID come back and fix things without charge. The reason we pointed out that we didn't ...HAVE TO... is merely to protect us against unbounded liability for making fixes to bugs / issues that come up.
A 9x markup represents how much longer it would take to audit the code and ensure it is free of bugs. It represents the time it would take to implement all the extra tests required to increase the quality of all of the code to the level of perfection demanded by some.
You better believe that if a coffee pot manufacturer was giving away free products that had some minor defects they wouldn't offer to fix them. Especially if it came with no warranty as being fit for any purpose.
Like I said above, we overcommitted to what we could deliver in a USER INTERFACE. We also quickly retracted the bond market commitment a week after announcement.
This whole "blame game" is not really productive. Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment. It is up to each of us to manage our own personal expectations.
Please just answer my question! Will the other chains get the improvements that bts pays for?!?
PS I'm a top 50 largest shareholder... And if I'm bringing up these points what do you think compettitors are saying?
Yes. If we do it then we are the copyright holders and will have unrestricted use.
-
PS I'm a top 50 largest shareholder
#btstip "lil_jay890" 1 FISTBUMP
https://youtu.be/yT_bYEY8Gi0
-
Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...
- lil_jay890 (http://btstip.io/Home/Dashboard?username=lil_jay890): has been credited 1 FISTBUMP
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://btstip.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.msg259229/topicseen.html#msg259229
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
Please just answer my question! Will the other chains get the improvements that bts pays for?!?
PS I'm a top 50 largest shareholder... And if I'm bringing up these points what do you think compettitors are saying?
Yes. If we do it then we are the copyright holders and will have unrestricted use.
Then BTS is going to pay for all the features on all the other chains? I understand they have not enough liquidity atm and Identabit doesnt even exist (for public at least), will they in the future be the ones paying for feature integration in BTS?
Seems kind of unfair some are 'paying' for every other chain.
-
No software company offers a warranty on a FREE product provided WITHOUT WARRANTY.
If you think BitShares should have a software support contract that covers a certain amount of bug fixes then that may be the proper way to structure things.
Software bugs cost people money, if we had to take out liability insurance for any and all losses as a result of software then our rates would be $1000 per hour or more. It would be totally impractical to produce software on an kind of market competitive schedule.
It is not liability insurance, it is fixing the non working coffee makers coming out of your factory. (as in not compensating the people killed by it, just fixing the one that fail at making coffee)
Really?
The warranty would be 9 times greater than the product itself???
This is one hell of a shitty product, if it costs 9x more to repair all defects than to produce it in the first place.
In software terms there are always bugs and things that can be considered "non-working". That said, we DID come back and fix things without charge. The reason we pointed out that we didn't ...HAVE TO... is merely to protect us against unbounded liability for making fixes to bugs / issues that come up.
A 9x markup represents how much longer it would take to audit the code and ensure it is free of bugs. It represents the time it would take to implement all the extra tests required to increase the quality of all of the code to the level of perfection demanded by some.
You better believe that if a coffee pot manufacturer was giving away free products that had some minor defects they wouldn't offer to fix them. Especially if it came with no warranty as being fit for any purpose.
Like I said above, we overcommitted to what we could deliver in a USER INTERFACE. We also quickly retracted the bond market commitment a week after announcement.
This whole "blame game" is not really productive. Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment. It is up to each of us to manage our own personal expectations.
If you do not remember it, I will refresh your memory - I was the only person [sorry if there was a second person but two is about the total count] that after the announcement said that the bond market as proposed was a not well thought out and definitely a terrible idea to implement.
So, I am forever glad you decided not to include it and will never blame you for "promising" and not doing it. As I said, not including it was and still is the right move for everybody.
On a similar note I do think your insistence on a feature pretty much everyone finds good but not immediately necessary, and behaving like this logical reasoning somehow hurts your feelings (or vision) is childish at least and quite possibly destructive to the whole project.
Hope you see it for what it is.
-
A 9x markup represents how much longer it would take to audit the code and ensure it is free of bugs. It represents the time it would take to implement all the extra tests required to increase the quality of all of the code to the level of perfection demanded by some.
We can expect a much more polished & documented product from each of these new proposals than what we got at launch, right? With better communication?
The 4 weeks post-launch weren't very confidence-inspiring for some, leaving them in a low-expectation mood, and causing sticker shock I think. Personal expectations are up to us, but we still need to recalibrate occasionally and get on the same page.
If this new worker model means CNX can give it 100% I'm all for it.
-
Please just answer my question! Will the other chains get the improvements that bts pays for?!?
PS I'm a top 50 largest shareholder... And if I'm bringing up these points what do you think compettitors are saying?
Yes. If we do it then we are the copyright holders and will have unrestricted use.
Then BTS is going to pay for all the features on all the other chains? I understand they have not enough liquidity atm and Identabit doesnt even exist (for public at least), will they in the future be the ones paying for feature integration in BTS?
Seems kind of unfair some are 'paying' for every other chain.
It is a giant conflict of interest... CNX gives us buggy software, makes us pay to fix it and says they are free of all liability. Yet if we want any upgrade we have to pay crazy high prices, but they get to license it to whoever they want. BTS takes all the risk while cnx gets paid and takes no risk.
I strongly recommend not supporting cnx worker proposals until these deals can be put on more level ground. Cnx is using bts as it's piggy bank and lab rat at the expense of the shareholders. Now I have a clearer picture for why the Chinese left and the price tanked.
If bts is ever going to grow, it must break free of any and all licensing cnx has over it.
-
Now I have a clearer picture for why the Chinese left and the price tanked.
I doubt that is the case, I really think its because of the privacy issue. China is still a communist country right . Without privacy bitshares is like a very well equipped businessman, NAKED BUT WEARING A TIE.
-
I suggest that after 2-4 weeks Bytemaster can set the worker proposal to be voted. If people want this feature, it will get voted in. If not, then it will wait until it is it's time.
I will vote for it when it's put on the blockchain and recommend others to do so too.
I agree that we are propably not going to see a lot of users coming because of this. But it is important to understand that those who come because of this are propably very useful early adopters.
Just look at this thread: montpelerin wont use Bitshares until this is implemented, bitacer has been very vocal in this thread, onceuponatime is willing to fund this feature from his own pocket.
These kind of people are the best early adopters. They will believe in the product even if it is a little bit buggy. They will make sure that all their friends know about this. They don't need to be paid for marketing.
If a start-up wants to gain any meaningful traction, it has have early adopters. It is easier if the early adopters are high quality, and the quality is mostly measured by how much users believe in the product.
(On the other hand, worst early adopters are those who are just bitching and complaining about the product and it's makers all the time. They might become an unpleasant burden and slow down the journey to success.)
About price tag: right now Bitcoin is paying a little bit less than 50 000 dollars per hour for miners. So we get this feature for less than one hour of bitcoin mining, I think that is quite cheap price.
Anyway, if you know somebody that could make this cheaper, please ask them to do it. Of course it is always better to save money and let the cheapest offer do the job.
-
I agree that we are propably not going to see a lot of users coming because of this. But it is important to understand that those who come because of this are propably very useful early adopters.
+5%
These kind of people are the best early adopters. They will believe in the product even if it is a little bit buggy. They will make sure that all their friends know about this. They don't need to be paid for marketing.
+5%
About price tag: right now Bitcoin is paying a little bit less than 50 000 dollars per hour for miners. So we get this feature for less than one hour of bitcoin mining, I think that is quite cheap price.
I never looked at it like that. Good point!
Anyway, if you know somebody that could make this cheaper, please ask them to do it. Of course it is always better to save money and let the cheapest offer do the job.
Personally this is not something I want done on the cheap. I want the most qualified people we can find working on this proposal.
#btstip "Samupaha" 1 FISTBUMP
-
I disagree that anonymity the most important... The most important is as follows
1. Fees for trading updated per the worker proposal
2. Referral program for trading fees
3. API for 3rd party platforms and liquidity bots
We are a decentralized exchange. We have finally discovered what we are and what we are niche is. Most people never get a chance to discover that much less exploit it... DON'T GET DISTRACTED!
Yeah, focus on the exchange first which will hopefully bring liquidity to a few key smartcoin markets. Stealth transfers are kind of useless if people are trapped in an illiquid market. I definitely think blinded transfers will be very important after some liquidity has been reached.
This! Improve the fu***ing API real quick!!
+5% +5% +5%
agree
-
Very good points Samupaha , bugs are nuances , I am for an accommodating marketplace which meets users' basic needs. I believe I can bring in quite many users from my Country, because bitshares have qualities that people here will really appreciate.
-
Anonymity is not profitable, meaning it's a no no for me. API and Bond Markets first.
Anonymity is useless with no liquidity, plus there are already other well known option for that like monero and dash. I don't know if they're as good as advertised but that doesn't matter. We're not trying to compete with them. There's less money in the anonymity market than in a proper exchange used by traders.
The only way anonymity would be profitable is if it was to be used by darkmarkets which (1) Don't even use monero and dash, well established projects known for anonymity and (2) some people don't want to be associated to dnms.
No profits can be taken from anonymity right now. It doesn't bring as much value as bringing in traders. They don't care about anonymity, they care about having a proper tool that can be used for profits.
It's all nice being libertarian but we need to follow the money. Only then when we're into a well established position, recognized as a brand, can we have the luxury of implementing certain things
Not everything is about profit..
-
Since 2014 Q4 (when the dev team ran out of money), CNX owes us nothing. Just get used to it.
CNX is free to make worker proposals whatever they like (including fixing bugs) and we are free to accept them or reject them.
If a coder is unwilling to take responsibility for his bugs, he only risks his reputation.
CNX is not doing us a favor - they are just taking care of their reputation.
They said they would fix the bug so there is no issue.
And if we continue with this "attitude of entitlement" - we risk our reputation (as a community).
I did see an entitlement in the last 5-7 posts or so...but it was not coming from me... or the community.
Or do you suggest, we stop asking legitimate questions, for some greater good?
I think both sides are at fault:
- CNX for not being able to produce a clear road-map for the next 6 months, which would show what their priorities are and which of the new features will be beneficial for other Graphene-based blockchains (and this must be done to avoid this "paid by Bitshares used by others" syndrome). So far BM has always been hiding behind the pretext of worker proposals not being decided by him.
- the community for not being able to accept the fact that CNX is free to propose whatever they like and we can criticize them but at this stage we are not entitled to anything from CNX. I understand that there is a very thin border between asking legitimate questions & giving critique / feedback AND demanding that something needs to be done because it was "promised". However sometimes we cross this border and I'm trying to prevent that.
-------------------------------------------------------------
We need a clear road-map both for alleviating bad emotions inside the community and for outside investors to be able to see where this project aims.
Since no-one from CNX seems to seeing the importance of this, I'll try to create such road-map later on today based on the information scattered to this forum.
-
Anonymity is not profitable, meaning it's a no no for me. API and Bond Markets first.
Anonymity is useless with no liquidity, plus there are already other well known option for that like monero and dash. I don't know if they're as good as advertised but that doesn't matter. We're not trying to compete with them. There's less money in the anonymity market than in a proper exchange used by traders.
The only way anonymity would be profitable is if it was to be used by darkmarkets which (1) Don't even use monero and dash, well established projects known for anonymity and (2) some people don't want to be associated to dnms.
No profits can be taken from anonymity right now. It doesn't bring as much value as bringing in traders. They don't care about anonymity, they care about having a proper tool that can be used for profits.
It's all nice being libertarian but we need to follow the money. Only then when we're into a well established position, recognized as a brand, can we have the luxury of implementing certain things
Not everything is about profit..
It is if you want BitShares to succeed. You can't act like there is no competition. Who knows tomorrow something can appear and do something better. Then what happens to BitShares? You can't take this project for granted. The more profits the more potential it has to succeed. I don't want to sound like I'm on my high horse but if we act like sheep we will get eaten and disappear. Simple as that. You don't have the money, resources or time to relax and think: "everything will be ok". You can't take this for granted.
What good is privacy/anonimity if you don't have liquidity? It's useless. You just wasted precious time and money you won't ever get back while someone else is already working on something better (or trying to).
You want it to succeed, it has to make profits, bring in users and liquidity. What good is BItShares if it has s billion features and no one uses it? Same thing as if it not existed.
The liberty BitShares aims to achieve depends on money and profit, you have to understand that whether you like it or not.
-
Hey Akado , could you define what you mean by "profit" ? I am not pulling your leg , I want to understand what it means to you.
-
About price tag: right now Bitcoin is paying a little bit less than 50 000 dollars per hour for miners. So we get this feature for less than one hour of bitcoin mining, I think that is quite cheap price.
I never looked at it like that. Good point!
lol
So please calculate now... how much "hours of bitcoin mining" it will take to evaporate bitshares marketcap
-
Hey Akado , could you define what you mean by "profit" ? I am not pulling your leg , I want to understand what it means to you.
@bitacer
DAC profit as to burn more fees so they could then be used on worker proposals, increasing the supply again, but not as much as to not influence the supply much (or the opinion of shareholders who care about dilution).
If we do countless worker proposals we will increase our supply right? Although there's a cap at 3.7B so when you reach that no more dilution = no more development.
So by burning the most amount of shares possible (profit) we can balance things out when we dilute because of worker proposals.
Did I make myself clear? Sorry if I didn't.
Edit: profit would be if you burned more than the shares generated for worker proposals but that will be impossible for quite some time so I'm considering "profit" keeping things balanced. It's the best we can achieve atm.
-
About price tag: right now Bitcoin is paying a little bit less than 50 000 dollars per hour for miners. So we get this feature for less than one hour of bitcoin mining, I think that is quite cheap price.
I never looked at it like that. Good point!
lol
So please calculate now... how much "hours of bitcoin mining" it will take to evaporate bitshares marketcap
lol. you forgot to calculate the costs of bitcoin mining.
-
About price tag: right now Bitcoin is paying a little bit less than 50 000 dollars per hour for miners. So we get this feature for less than one hour of bitcoin mining, I think that is quite cheap price.
I never looked at it like that. Good point!
lol
So please calculate now... how much "hours of bitcoin mining" it will take to evaporate bitshares marketcap
It's paid with the same money. Of course Bitcoin has bigger market cap right now. But think it this way: bitcoiners will pay a big chunk of money just to keep the transactions going for an hour. What we get with the same amount of money? A really cool and useful feature on the GUI.
This is why DPOS will overtake all POW-coins. In the long run we will get more and more features while they just spend everything on electricity. Some day will come the tipping point when users realize that they can get way more value for their money with Bitshares.
-
Not everything is about profit..
(http://toprightnewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/trump-smirking.jpg)
-
What good is privacy/anonimity if you don't have liquidity? It's useless. You just wasted precious time and money you won't ever get back while someone else is already working on something better (or trying to).
But perhaps the two are indeed related? Perhaps capitals will not fly into bitshares if everything is 100% public. Perhaps you need some anonymity/privacy features to get some liquidity going.
Would you open a bank account in a bank which makes your whole account and movements public? I know I wouldn't, and most people, I would assume, wouldn't either.
Well, right now that's what we have.
-
Those who are investing in CNX have to pick and chose what to spend those investment dollars on. They will of course spend the money on the projects that have the highest payoff.
The reality is that subsidizing development of features for BitShares has a very low payoff without a side business plan.
This is why you have to be Extremely sceptical of any CNX worker proposal. CNX interests are not aligned with BTS.
CNX may overcharge BTS wherever possible, (higher payoff) & they will push worker proposals that have the most benefit to the generic CNX Graphene blockchains instead of ones that are very BTS specific (maximum payoff) If CNX can get BTS to pay for developments they are building anyway, then they really maximise their payoff.
Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the banking world.
I imagine the privacy feature is one that will benefit all Graphene blockchains and appeal to their banking customers. They may be building it anyway. Hence why it's possibly, suddenly the most important have to have next feature worth $45 000.
-
Those who are investing in CNX have to pick and chose what to spend those investment dollars on. They will of course spend the money on the projects that have the highest payoff.
The reality is that subsidizing development of features for BitShares has a very low payoff without a side business plan.
This is why you have to be Extremely sceptical of any CNX worker proposal. CNX interests are not aligned with BTS.
CNX may overcharge BTS wherever possible, (higher payoff) & they will push worker proposals that have the most benefit to the generic CNX Graphene blockchains instead of ones that are very BTS specific (maximum payoff) If CNX can get BTS to pay for developments they are building anyway, then they really maximise their payoff.
Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the banking world.
I imagine the privacy feature is one that will benefit all Graphene blockchains and appeal to their banking customers. They may be building it anyway. Hence why it's possibly, suddenly the most important have to have next feature worth $45 000.
This^^^
It's a very good thing that investors are realizing this
-
The Larimer Family Spirit
A while ago I discovered the Larimer Family Spirit. Father, mother and son working at Invictus together for a better tomorrow. I think that they would not cheat or do selfish stuff because the family grounds all of them and protects them from going the wrong way.
Bytemaster wants to program some stealth functions, and to support him now means to support his creative flow. Organic Code. More expensive but much better.
Anonymity is very important. BitShares needs this feature as fast as possible. Easy, fast, anonymous token exchange for everyone, worldwide. BitShares can then be used alongside TOR and Bitmessage for every day privacy :)
-
The Larimer Family Spirit
A while ago I discovered the Larimer Family Spirit. Father, mother and son working at Invictus together for a better tomorrow. I think that they would not cheat or do selfish stuff because the family grounds all of them and protects them from going the wrong way.
Bytemaster wants to program some stealth functions, and to support him now means to support his creative flow. Organic Code. More expensive but much better.
Anonymity is very important. BitShares needs this feature as fast as possible. Easy, fast, anonymous token exchange for everyone, worldwide. BitShares can then be used alongside TOR and Bitmessage for every day privacy :)
Part of the reason we travelled to Blacksburg was to meet the Larimers, look them in the eyes, and shake hands. They welcomed us into their home and showed us great hospitality. One may be forgiven for doubting their allegiance or claiming conflict of interest or what have you, if you have not met them. But as 38PTSWarrior indicates above... this isn't your typical crypto scenario. The Larimers, and the whole team in Blacksburg are the real deal. This isn't some game for them. Of course they will seek to maximize profit for themselves and their families, but they also want the best for BitShares, they are invested on so many levels.
I for one, want to see this proposal, and a whole host of others being fast tracked through to funding. Let's work out the details and get it done. Cryptonomex can deliver. I say, give them the resources they need and we'll all be richer for it. We've a long ways to go before we have another team as wise, adept, and big hearted as the one who brought us BTS to begin with.
Let's get this list that jakub has started prioritized, each project fine tuned to our satisfaction, and start knocking items off the list.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20171.0.html
"Tough times don't last but tough people do." - A.C. Green
-
What good is privacy/anonimity if you don't have liquidity? It's useless. You just wasted precious time and money you won't ever get back while someone else is already working on something better (or trying to).
But perhaps the two are indeed related? Perhaps capitals will not fly into bitshares if everything is 100% public. Perhaps you need some anonymity/privacy features to get some liquidity going.
Would you open a bank account in a bank which makes your whole account and movements public? I know I wouldn't, and most people, I would assume, wouldn't either.
Well, right now that's what we have.
100% agree with this. If you were a well-heeled investor, would you want to put money into a system where you will be on everyone's radar?
-
I for one, want to see this proposal, and a whole host of others being fast tracked through to funding. Let's work out the details and get it done. Cryptonomex can deliver. I say, give them the resources they need and we'll all be richer for it. We've a long ways to go before we have another team as wise, adept, and big hearted as the one who brought us BTS to begin with.
Let's get this list that jakub has started prioritized, each project fine tuned to our satisfaction, and start knocking items off the list.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20171.0.html
"Tough times don't last but tough people do." - A.C. Green
I agree. I don't think there is any question that work needs to be done and this is precisely what the funds are for. Get a clear picture of what we want spelled out and quantified and pay someone to do it. Holding on to the funds is not going to help anyone. No one is going work for free. CNX and bytemaster are the best options we have at the moment, with all the right incentives, history and knowledge of the code to swiftly produce the changes we need. I'm not opposed to others, I just haven't seen any.
For me, as a fantasy illustration, i would not mind 1 bit, if we paid CNX a Billion BitShares or ALL the remaining funds and they produced a perfect , flawless, product that achieved all of our goals. The value of the system would exceed your dreams and we'd all be rich and free.
Obviously that's not going to happen. The point is we do have a team willing to do the work and anything even close to the product we have defined will be well worth whatever we need to spend to pay for it.
The funds we have can take us a long way. Lets prepare this properly, with a clear goal/roadmap, and make it happen.
-
I for one, want to see this proposal, and a whole host of others being fast tracked through to funding. Let's work out the details and get it done. Cryptonomex can deliver. I say, give them the resources they need and we'll all be richer for it. We've a long ways to go before we have another team as wise, adept, and big hearted as the one who brought us BTS to begin with.
Let's get this list that jakub has started prioritized, each project fine tuned to our satisfaction, and start knocking items off the list.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20171.0.html
"Tough times don't last but tough people do." - A.C. Green
I agree. I don't think there is any question that work needs to be done and this is precisely what the funds are for. Get a clear picture of what we want spelled out and quantified and pay someone to do it. Holding on to the funds is not going to help anyone. No one is going work for free. CNX and bytemaster are the best options we have at the moment, with all the right incentives, history and knowledge of the code to swiftly produce the changes we need. I'm not opposed to others, I just haven't seen any.
For me, as a fantasy illustration, i would not mind 1 bit, if we paid CNX a Billion BitShares or ALL the remaining funds and they produced a perfect , flawless, product that achieved all of our goals. The value of the system would exceed your dreams and we'd all be rich and free.
Obviously that's not going to happen. The point is we do have a team willing to do the work and anything even close to the product we have defined will be well worth whatever we need to spend to pay for it.
The funds we have can take us a long way. Lets prepare this properly, with a clear goal/roadmap, and make it happen.
We need this roadmap to be for bts... Not for cnx.
Does anyone realize that with these worker proposals by cnx, bts is taking all the risk while cnx gets all the benefit by owning the copywrite.
Again, bts is a piggy bank and lab rat for cnx right now.
-
We need this roadmap to be for bts... Not for cnx.
Does anyone realize that with these worker proposals by cnx, bts is taking all the risk while cnx gets all the benefit by owning the copywrite.
Again, bts is a piggy bank and lab rat for cnx right now.
Not happy?
Start your own developers shop or go advertise the opportunity on other forums. (if you care about bitshares at all).
-
We need this roadmap to be for bts... Not for cnx.
Does anyone realize that with these worker proposals by cnx, bts is taking all the risk while cnx gets all the benefit by owning the copywrite.
Again, bts is a piggy bank and lab rat for cnx right now.
Not happy?
Start your own developers shop or go advertise the opportunity on other forums. (if you care about bitshares at all).
Nope won't do that... Just going to vote against any cnx proposals that continue to screw bitshares shareholders (because I do care about bitshares)
-
Those who are investing in CNX have to pick and chose what to spend those investment dollars on. They will of course spend the money on the projects that have the highest payoff.
The reality is that subsidizing development of features for BitShares has a very low payoff without a side business plan.
This is why you have to be Extremely sceptical of any CNX worker proposal. CNX interests are not aligned with BTS.
CNX may overcharge BTS wherever possible, (higher payoff) & they will push worker proposals that have the most benefit to the generic CNX Graphene blockchains instead of ones that are very BTS specific (maximum payoff) If CNX can get BTS to pay for developments they are building anyway, then they really maximise their payoff.
Our current lack of privacy is a turnoff to many in the banking world.
I imagine the privacy feature is one that will benefit all Graphene blockchains and appeal to their banking customers. They may be building it anyway. Hence why it's possibly, suddenly the most important have to have next feature worth $45 000.
yup
and
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.msg259336.html#msg259336
yep.
-
It is a giant conflict of interest... CNX gives us buggy software, makes us pay to fix it and says they are free of all liability. Yet if we want any upgrade we have to pay crazy high prices, but they get to license it to whoever they want. BTS takes all the risk while cnx gets paid and takes no risk.
I strongly recommend not supporting cnx worker proposals until these deals can be put on more level ground. Cnx is using bts as it's piggy bank and lab rat at the expense of the shareholders. Now I have a clearer picture for why the Chinese left and the price tanked.
If bts is ever going to grow, it must break free of any and all licensing cnx has over it.
I kind of agree with you. I'm not whining about the remaining cost to get this done, because the developers have bills to pay during the time we need the work done, and it's not uncommon to have things come in a little late or overbudget when you are talking about complex software. The gun is to our head anyway; we need the software ready for prime time and they are the ones who can get us there.
The remaining chunk isn't that much more time and money in the greater scheme. It's also just a practical reality that developers need to eat and pay rent. But for what we've all paid to support the development of this product, I think they owe us a finished product. Maybe they can do something else to make it up to us.
Another feel-good suggestion would be to cut in the Bitshares community on ownership of a small stake in CNX and/or some of the outside projects they are pursuing. It's their expertise and hard work; they deserve to trade on those skills in the broader marketplace. But it's this community that has supported and helped make possible the development of the backbone blockchain technology upon which all of this will depend.
CNX could float a UIA token like Obits did, sharedrop it to BTS wallets, and then share some profits from their eventual mega-deals with Bank of America and Walmart. I wouldn't call it shares, both legally and because I'm sure they don't want to answer to this community for every CNX corporate decision. But I'll bet a lot of people on this forum would stop the criticism pretty quickly if there were a promise of sharing some of CNX's future rewards. Luckybit's gift economy.
Isn't that what the social consensus requested, given that the BitShares community has some 'ownership' of the blockchain which CNX probably will clone and improve for the highest bidder?
-
though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid. I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.
personally I don't care CNX get paid and this will be used to other projects because currently CNX is the bitshares.
-
though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid. I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.
Huge fund will likely develop a private chain and pay CNX to help them do it unless there is a compelling reason to join the public chain.
personally I don't care CNX get paid and this will be used to other projects because currently CNX is the bitshares.
Exactly. While it looks like CNX makes all the money and takes none of the risk keep in mind that consulting firms live and die by their reputation. As much as Bitshares is their lab it is also the flagship in their portfolio. Every consulting project, or worker proposal in our case, has defined terms. If you don't like CNX's offer then make a counter proposal that's agreeable to them and the community and try and get it voted in.
In business you don't get what you deserve you get what you negotiate.
-
though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid. I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.
personally I don't care CNX get paid and this will be used to other projects because currently CNX is the bitshares.
billions of Huge FUNDs are in transparent blockchain Bitcoin .
Huge Funds don't want to go into BitShares for the very reason that they don't want to be the development ATM for a unfinished product without legal protection .
If Bitcoin was like BitShares today , do you think there could be billions of marketcap to begin with ?
-
though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid. I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.
personally I don't care CNX get paid and this will be used to other projects because currently CNX is the bitshares.
billions of Huge FUNDs are in transparent blockchain Bitcoin .
Huge Funds don't want to go into BitShares for the very reason that they don't want to be the development ATM for a unfinished product without legal protection .
If Bitcoin was like BitShares today , do you think there could be billions of marketcap to begin with ?
Transparent, perhaps... but if you take a few very basic precations, it becomes much more difficult to trace the funds.. in BTS 2.0, it's trivial.
-
though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid.
This isn't the same feature. What we had in 0.x wasn't really private, it only gave a feeling of privacy. This was so dangerous that the feature was removed. Stealth transfers that are used in 2.0 are quite new invention, I don't think any other cryptocurrency uses that yet.
I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.
Do you know that there are funds that are waiting for this feature or is this just a guess?
I have know idea how wanted this feature is for those people who haven't yet claimed their balances. But I'd guess there have to be few of them. So that way this feature would really bring more users to blockchain. And as I said earlier in this thread, these people are propably the best kind of early adopters that we want.
-
Can we also stop insinuate that somehow developers are using bitshares as their ATMs , it is annoying. Corporations pay their CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars as bonuses and here we claim that developers are after few dollars. Actually we should support BM for every initiative he proposes , bitshares can not walk and run before it crawls. Let the guys do their thing , thats what I like about the team, they keep trying until they get it right .We are just delaying the evolution of bitshares by going against his proposals. Get behind the guy and lets move please.
-
Actually we should support BM for every initiative he proposes , bitshares can not walk and run before it crawls.
No. We should evaluate every proposal and do our due diligence as demonstrated in this thread.
-
Actually we should support BM for every initiative he proposes , bitshares can not walk and run before it crawls.
No. We should evaluate every proposal and do our due diligence as demonstrated in this thread.
Could you wait at least until the baby learns to walk and talk. Thats my point . I think BM plunged the baby too early in the middle of politics. I am afraid it will never grow up this way.
-
Actually we should support BM for every initiative he proposes , bitshares can not walk and run before it crawls.
No. We should evaluate every proposal and do our due diligence as demonstrated in this thread.
Could you wait at least until the baby learns to walk and talk. Thats my point . I think BM plunged the baby too early in the middle of politics. I am afraid it will never grow up this way.
I would be willing to pay the high price for feature development by cnx only if we are guaranteed a share drop or some form of reimbursement from each other chain cnx sells it to. Bitshares should own half the copywrite.
Also, payment should be withheld until the feature is working to a level both sides can agree on as being fully functional. Bugs should be fixed for free for a minimum of 3 months.
I would also be willing to push through worker proposals if cnx loosened up the licensing on the code. Bts needs to break free of the cnx collar if you ever want to see other devs come to this ecosystem.
We have around $2.5million in the bank (at current rates). The startups that succeed are the ones that are frugal and don't burn through their seed cash. We need to set a high standard for what is acceptable when working for bitshares
-
though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid. I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.
Huge fund will likely develop a private chain and pay CNX to help them do it unless there is a compelling reason to join the public chain.
personally I don't care CNX get paid and this will be used to other projects because currently CNX is the bitshares.
Exactly. While it looks like CNX makes all the money and takes none of the risk keep in mind that consulting firms live and die by their reputation. As much as Bitshares is their lab it is also the flagship in their portfolio. Every consulting project, or worker proposal in our case, has defined terms. If you don't like CNX's offer then make a counter proposal that's agreeable to them and the community and try and get it voted in.
In business you don't get what you deserve you get what you negotiate.
Well said Riverhead.. words to live by. Although my brain doesn't generally work like this, (get what you negotiate) it's a reality we must contend with.
So the 1,000,000 BTS question is, would anyone like to come forward with a counter-proposal for any of the CNX worker proposals? serious counter proposals only, this is not the place for satire. Start a new thread referencing the OP proposal if you think it best.
-
though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid. I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.
Huge fund will likely develop a private chain and pay CNX to help them do it unless there is a compelling reason to join the public chain.
personally I don't care CNX get paid and this will be used to other projects because currently CNX is the bitshares.
Exactly. While it looks like CNX makes all the money and takes none of the risk keep in mind that consulting firms live and die by their reputation. As much as Bitshares is their lab it is also the flagship in their portfolio. Every consulting project, or worker proposal in our case, has defined terms. If you don't like CNX's offer then make a counter proposal that's agreeable to them and the community and try and get it voted in.
In business you don't get what you deserve you get what you negotiate.
Well said Riverhead.. words to live by. Although my brain doesn't generally work like this, (get what you negotiate) it's a reality we must contend with.
So the 1,000,000 BTS question is, would anyone like to come forward with a counter-proposal for any of the CNX worker proposals? serious counter proposals only, this is not the place for satire. Start a new thread referencing the OP proposal if you think it best.
I like this... See my above post about some of the strings that should be attached to the cnx proposals. I really think loosening the licensing is the most important
-
Actually we should support BM for every initiative he proposes , bitshares can not walk and run before it crawls.
No. We should evaluate every proposal and do our due diligence as demonstrated in this thread.
Could you wait at least until the baby learns to walk and talk. Thats my point . I think BM plunged the baby too early in the middle of politics. I am afraid it will never grow up this way.
I would be willing to pay the high price for feature development by cnx only if we are guaranteed a share drop or some form of reimbursement from each other chain cnx sells it to. Bitshares should own half the copywrite.
Also, payment should be withheld until the feature is working to a level both sides can agree on as being fully functional. Bugs should be fixed for free for a minimum of 3 months.
I would also be willing to push through worker proposals if cnx loosened up the licensing on the code. Bts needs to break free of the cnx collar if you ever want to see other devs come to this ecosystem.
We have around $2.5million in the bank (at current rates). The startups that succeed are the ones that are frugal and don't burn through their seed cash. We need to set a high standard for what is acceptable when working for bitshares
+5% What lil_jay890 wrote would move me to a yes.
-
I'd even be happy with a CNX UIA token where they sharedropped and then shared their profit. See Obits for reference.
-
Getting back to the proposal: stealth functionality currently works in CLI.
How about instead of this costly feature integration, we first expose the command line in the UI, like in the original Bitshares1 client?
Then provide step-by-step instructions for stealth transfers. Post them on bitcointalk, github, wiki, etc.
See if stealth usage picks up and if there's real demand.
It will be easier to get the shareholders to accept the costs if there's usage data to point to.
-
Getting back to the proposal: stealth functionality currently works in CLI.
How about instead of this costly feature integration, we first expose the command line in the UI, like in the original Bitshares1 client?
Then provide step-by-step instructions for stealth transfers. Post them on bitcointalk, github, wiki, etc.
See if stealth usage picks up and if there's real demand.
It will be easier to get the shareholders to accept the costs if there's usage data to point to.
There would be reasons that a CLI console hasn't been included in GUI.
-
Getting back to the proposal: stealth functionality currently works in CLI.
How about instead of this costly feature integration, we first expose the command line in the UI, like in the original Bitshares1 client?
Then provide step-by-step instructions for stealth transfers. Post them on bitcointalk, github, wiki, etc.
See if stealth usage picks up and if there's real demand.
It will be easier to get the shareholders to accept the costs if there's usage data to point to.
There would be reasons that a CLI console hasn't been included in GUI.
The primary reason is that the GUI wallet which has the private keys kept in Javascript would have to transfer the private keys over a websocket connection to a server. Different architecture.
-
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?
-
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'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.
Thank you for the update, I wanted to make sure I didn't miss something linked elsewhere.
-
Eagerly awating developments regarding this. While I don't agree with BM on many of the statements regarding privacy from last weeks' hangout, one thing is certain.. people are indeed not putting funds into BitShares due to the lack of privacy.
-
I am in the process of preparing a much more detailed proposal for onceuponatime with clear milestones.
-
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
-
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
That looks like what we are hoping for in terms of what the feature would be expected to do.
It will make a lot of potential users much more confident in adopting our system!
-
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?
-
I think it might be simpler if the "Create Private Account" dialog only required a user to enter a label for the account and generated the public/private key pair for the account "behind the scenes". I assume the current design is to allow for importing private accounts generated from a different wallet, but it seems like it would be better to have a separate functionality for exporting/importing such accounts.
-
I think it might be simpler if the "Create Private Account" dialog only required a user to enter a label for the account and generated the public/private key pair for the account "behind the scenes". I assume the current design is to allow for importing private accounts generated from a different wallet, but it seems like it would be better to have a separate functionality for exporting/importing such accounts.
The assumption is that it would fill it in automatically, so it is only slightly more informative than necessary.
-
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.
-
Well stealth worker proposal has ended, what happens next?
-
Well stealth worker proposal has ended, what happens next?
That "worker" was only to poll the shareholders if they would allow a hard fork ..
Development goes on as planned and AFAIR, it should be all done by end of february