-
I have been approached by a community member who has offered to cover the $45,000 to implement stealth transfers in the GUI *IF* he can get his money back through stealth transfer fees.
Stealth transfers cannot participate in the referral program. The fee for a stealth transfer can be higher (premium service) at about $0.50, with $0.10 going to the network and $0.40 going to the individual who funds this improvement to the GUI. After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.
The bottom line is that rather than diluting to pay for this feature, it will be entirely funded from future revenue generated by the feature itself. As fees are set in terms of BTS, we would allow the individual who paid for this feature to set the fee until the first 20M BTS have been paid, then the committee members would take over setting this particular fee.
Without paying for this work there would be few transfers of this type. So the network doesn't lose much nor take much risk.
I have put this as a $1000 worker proposal because it requires a hard fork to add the fee splitting and it requires stakeholder approval. $1000 is a token amount to show that the stakeholders standby this decision.
I am still working through the details with the individual who has made the offer, but we cannot do this unilaterally.
-
I like the approach ..
but I do not like that the core devs are working on it right now ..
I'd rather see the API improved .. but at the end of the day, you need to make money and your time is limited .. so I could understand your decision to prioritize stealth over API.
-
Beautiful, if there is a will there is also a way.
-
I don't mind us paying for it, it's just that I don't see a priority in optional stuff until we got a working product.
edit: what's the status on the referral bug?
-
A bold move by this individual and a very long term bet. What would happen if before they recovered their $45k in fees a new worker proposal is submitted and approved to build a better stealth transfer mechanism?
The 25% royalty on the stealth transfer fees for life leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps it's the precedent it would set for future proposals.
-
After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.
Are we talking about 20% of that fee going to this person for lifetime?
Or only untill, just saying, he got his initial investment + 20% ?
As fees are set in terms of BTS, we would allow the individual who paid for this feature to set the fee until the first 20M BTS have been paid, then the committee members would take over setting this particular fee.
Are we talking about let this person to actually have the power to set and change the fee, or just the promise by the community/committee (present and future) to comply with the agreement and so keep the fee as previously agreed?
-
This is a good solution, since its more capitalistic than the structure we had before. Risks are being taken by an individual (Capitalism), instead of being socialized by the entire community. We want more features and functions in the future to be introduced in this manner. Its a Win-Win.
-
+5% In general, I'm a big supporter of this kind of approach.
BTS could potentially enjoy major blockchain improvements without having to pay for them or take the risk that they are duds by creating a revenue sharing model that incentivises external developers and investors.
At first glance the deal itself looks fairly reasonable to me.
How long it takes and where it's likely to come on the development timeline should be covered too though I think.
-
the way is ok, I am not sure about the price, please devs advice.
and $45000 can be funded by 112500 transfers if each transfer contribute $0.4.
suppose 100 stealth transfers each day, need about 3 years to cover...
I hope below change can be implemented with high priority:
1. Prevent margin call from being triggered unless the price feed is less than call price (popular demand)
-
We should crowdfund the bond market after this. Those who bought into the bond market will get a % fee.
-
After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.
Are we talking about 20% of that fee going to this person for lifetime?
Or only untill, just saying, he got his initial investment + 20% ?
I think 20%/other negotiated amount, lifetime is fine personally. Investors don't want their upside limited.
Though once he's been paid the 20 million BTS/other negotiated amount, then BTS should regain the power to price the feature. So we could drop the price to for example $0.2 if we wanted with $0.04 going to him.
-
holy shit
take it before she changes her mind!
(http://www.thedealer.ie/uploads/large/1422191204.jpg)
-
We should crowdfund the bond market after this. Those who bought into the bond market will get a % fee.
great idea, count me in
that is, of course, unless someone here wants to pay for it:
anyone
anyone
(http://blogs.uvu.edu/engagedreading/files/2014/09/bueller.jpg)
-
So because you cant track stealth transfer fees to referrers, you want to hardcode an individual to receive all stealth fees (albeit for a limited time)? What a horrible nasty hack. It reminds me of hardcoding AE to receive millions.
If he wants to pay for it then a better way is to make the worker proposal for $45K of BTS dependent on that generous individual buying $45k worth of BTS on the market. That is a way more elegant solution.
Every single time you hardcode your buddys' usernames into the BitShares source code, you make the whole project look more centralized.
-
After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.
Are we talking about 20% of that fee going to this person for lifetime?
Or only untill, just saying, he got his initial investment + 20% ?
As fees are set in terms of BTS, we would allow the individual who paid for this feature to set the fee until the first 20M BTS have been paid, then the committee members would take over setting this particular fee.
Are we talking about let this person to actually have the power to set and change the fee, or just the promise by the community/committee (present and future) to comply with the agreement and so keep the fee as previously agreed?
Good questions id like being answered.
It seems a nice idea. Im surprised by the fact someone is willing to risl that amount of money, that only shows bitshares potential and the kind of supporters it has.
Idk why but it seems to me cnx has been pushing for stealth transfdrs because of plasmaOS given private blockchains are a thing now and Stan has given a good hint one of these last days.
Só in the end e see a good motive for cnx wanting to go forward with this. I tjink we should have other priorities short term lile the API but since im in it ffor the long run and start to see there might be something here...
-
So because you cant track stealth transfer fees to referrers, you want to hardcode an individual to receive all stealth fees (albeit for a limited time)? What a horrible nasty hack. It reminds me of hardcoding AE to receive millions.
If he wants to pay for it then a better way is to make the worker proposal for $45K of BTS dependent on that generous individual buying $45k worth of BTS on the market. That is a way more elegant solution.
Every single time you hardcode your buddys' usernames into the BitShares source code, you make the whole project look more centralized.
How else do you get people to build DApps on Bitshares? If they can't profit, what value can they bring? A community based DApp is always going to be worse than a independent venture because they care about their risks more.
-
What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.
Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.
-
I don't mind us paying for it, it's just that I don't see a priority in optional stuff until we got a working product.
edit: what's the status on the referral bug?
on the other hand: if it's just 1k go and get it done. I guess you need it anyways for your other customers (banks) and you have to add manpower to it regardless of our demands/priorities.
I'd vote for it.
also, still waiting for an update on the ref bug :)
-
In order to get a sense for whether this is a good deal for BTS holders , it would help to express the deal in known terms/concepts. I hope others can help to make the below more accurate:
The suggested deal offers a funding for a 75% royalty until the investment is recovered and a 25% life long royalty once the investment is recovered.
Does anyone know what (more or less) "standard" funding conditions for royalty deals are?
The royalty is basically a third option for compensation of the opportunity costs of capital besides interest (loans) or equity. Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue-based_financing
-
I have been approached by a community member who has offered to cover the $45,000 to implement stealth transfers in the GUI *IF* he can get his money back through stealth transfer fees.
Interesting. I suppose if they are willing to pay for the creation, the whole $45,000, then I guess it's worth it to them. I also think it's a very interesting business model that has never been done before but this could actually work.
Stealth transfers cannot participate in the referral program. The fee for a stealth transfer can be higher (premium service) at about $0.50, with $0.10 going to the network and $0.40 going to the individual who funds this improvement to the GUI.
Considering the novelty of the feature I think the fee could be higher than that. You could probably set it to $1 per transfer. I doubt people would be using it all the time so unless it's used frequently I don't know how it would pay for itself in fees.
Blockchain.info used to have a similar feature, a sort of stealth transfer based on Coinjoin or something like that, and maybe based on how popular that was we could try to figure out how popular stealth transactions could be for Bitshares?
After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.
Is he going to get paid in BTS or in USD? If it's in USD and the price of BTS crashes, then he could end up with more BTS than we might expect or want. Although I don't think it's a bad model, it's very different.
The bottom line is that rather than diluting to pay for this feature, it will be entirely funded from future revenue generated by the feature itself. As fees are set in terms of BTS, we would allow the individual who paid for this feature to set the fee until the first 20M BTS have been paid, then the committee members would take over setting this particular fee.
Okay I can go for that. All fees in BTS is cool. If it were in USD then I would think hell no.
Without paying for this work there would be few transfers of this type. So the network doesn't lose much nor take much risk.
I have put this as a $1000 worker proposal because it requires a hard fork to add the fee splitting and it requires stakeholder approval. $1000 is a token amount to show that the stakeholders standby this decision.
I am still working through the details with the individual who has made the offer, but we cannot do this unilaterally.
If there is demand for it, and someone is willing to pay for it, then do it. What do you lose?
On the other hand I'm more interested in the bond market and prediction markets, and while I do know privacy is essential, it's kind of like having privacy built before we have the playground with which to attract people in the first place.
If he's going to bring people to Bitshares because that feature has been built then it could be interesting.
-
After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.
Are we talking about 20% of that fee going to this person for lifetime?
Or only untill, just saying, he got his initial investment + 20% ?
As fees are set in terms of BTS, we would allow the individual who paid for this feature to set the fee until the first 20M BTS have been paid, then the committee members would take over setting this particular fee.
Are we talking about let this person to actually have the power to set and change the fee, or just the promise by the community/committee (present and future) to comply with the agreement and so keep the fee as previously agreed?
Good questions id like being answered.
It seems a nice idea. Im surprised by the fact someone is willing to risk that amount of money, that only shows bitshares potential and the kind of supporters it has.
I personally doubt BTS has supporters willing to step up with $45k at this stage. If you cross-referenced forum members who were pro stealth worker, pro high fees and pro making it the next priority, it would probably leave you with a very small pool of potentials.
So it might be BM/CNX are doing this feature next for Graphene anyway and this creates a way for them to profit from it as the initial worker proposal wasn't going to fly.
As I said I'm a big fan of this approach vs. dilution so it's still an improvement to me, regardless.
-
In order to get a sense for whether this is a good deal for BTS holders , it would help to express the deal in known terms/concepts. I hope others can help to make the below more accurate:
The suggested deal offers a funding for a 75% royalty until the investment is recovered and a 25% life long royalty once the investment is recovered.
Does anyone know what (more or less) "standard" funding conditions for royalty deals are?
The royalty is basically a third option for compensation of the opportunity costs of capital besides interest (loans) or equity. Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue-based_financing
It's really interesting. It's a privatized feature. That is a first because I don't recall seeing that happen before or if it has it's very rare. Maybe once or twice Bitcoin has done something like this but it's unusual for a private investor to fund a new feature, but if we can standardize the process, maybe we can use this process over and over again and let people suggest new features, crowd fund them privately, and then pay up front to have it implemented while pocketing the fees to reward investors in the private crowd fund.
-
What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.
Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.
I say give them 100% of the fees indefinitely. If they funded it then they deserve 100% of the fees indefinitely unless they decide they don't want the fees and in that case burn the fees.
Is there any rational reason why they shouldn't get 100% of the fees indefinitely if they privately funded the feature? By giving them that we could encourage new efforts to privately fund features, like the bond market or prediction markets.
A bold move by this individual and a very long term bet. What would happen if before they recovered their $45k in fees a new worker proposal is submitted and approved to build a better stealth transfer mechanism?
The 25% royalty on the stealth transfer fees for life leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps it's the precedent it would set for future proposals.
I think it should be 100% on the stealth transfer fees for life. What is the argument for keeping it at 25% If they paid for it they own it entirely don't they?
If all of us did it through a worker proposal we would get lifetime royalties, so if they do it privately I don't see why they can't get lifetime royalties. I don't see why it's at 25% other than that is what they agreed to.
What is gained by not having lifetime royalties vs what you gain by having it? For a feature like this, it might require lifetime royalties to get it funded immediately. It's interesting and perhaps the economics can be given more thought, but I think lifetime royalties are a good idea and would even go as far as 100% fees.
The thing is if you don't want to keep giving them royalties then anyone could just build an alternative implementation at some point in the future, if that became such a big deal. I doubt it will be a big deal though and with crowd funding it's possible they have a bunch of people who pooled $45,000 to get it done.
-
What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.
Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.
Everyone wants a free lunch, but nobody wants to pay for it. Why shouldn't he get lifetime royalties? Its a privatized feature and they put in the money to get it running.
Do you not like it because its a maximally good deal for you? How much do you think in value terms is it worth for them to take this big risk.
-
If there will be a lifetime fee going to the "individual", I would also like to put some money on the table.... and, I guess, I am not the only one. Let's do it via some form of kickstarter initiative then! Crowdfund it! More angeles!
-
We should crowdfund the bond market after this. Those who bought into the bond market will get a % fee.
You will be surprised at how quickly the bond market fund raiser would max out if it's set like that.
-
What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.
Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.
I say give them 100% of the fees indefinitely. If they funded it then they deserve 100% of the fees indefinitely unless they decide they don't want the fees and in that case burn the fees.
Is there any rational reason why they shouldn't get 100% of the fees indefinitely if they privately funded the feature? By giving them that we could encourage new efforts to privately fund features, like the bond market or prediction markets.
A bold move by this individual and a very long term bet. What would happen if before they recovered their $45k in fees a new worker proposal is submitted and approved to build a better stealth transfer mechanism?
The 25% royalty on the stealth transfer fees for life leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps it's the precedent it would set for future proposals.
I think it should be 100% on the stealth transfer fees for life. What is the argument for keeping it at 25% If they paid for it they own it entirely don't they?
If all of us did it through a worker proposal we would get lifetime royalties, so if they do it privately I don't see why they can't get lifetime royalties. I don't see why it's at 25% other than that is what they agreed to.
What is gained by not having lifetime royalties vs what you gain by having it? For a feature like this, it might require lifetime royalties to get it funded immediately.
And the blockchain will never earn anything from them... Lifetime royalties is a no for me.
The point is that this feature will be made, sooner or later, with or without this private investment.
Making it now, with this person, the community/blockchain will earn nothing from it (speaking of fees and so revenue for future worker proposals)
Edit: refering to a 100% lifetime royalties
-
Nothing lasts forever.. I also say NO to lifetime fees!
-
1. Trading fee refunding proposal
2. Tading referral fee
3. Fix the API for bots and trading platforms
This stealth thing seems like it's going to take a lot longer to do than any of the above. Please do 1-3 first and then focus on something different like this stealth transfer proposal.
-
What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.
Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.
I say give them 100% of the fees indefinitely. If they funded it then they deserve 100% of the fees indefinitely unless they decide they don't want the fees and in that case burn the fees.
Is there any rational reason why they shouldn't get 100% of the fees indefinitely if they privately funded the feature? By giving them that we could encourage new efforts to privately fund features, like the bond market or prediction markets.
A bold move by this individual and a very long term bet. What would happen if before they recovered their $45k in fees a new worker proposal is submitted and approved to build a better stealth transfer mechanism?
The 25% royalty on the stealth transfer fees for life leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps it's the precedent it would set for future proposals.
I think it should be 100% on the stealth transfer fees for life. What is the argument for keeping it at 25% If they paid for it they own it entirely don't they?
If all of us did it through a worker proposal we would get lifetime royalties, so if they do it privately I don't see why they can't get lifetime royalties. I don't see why it's at 25% other than that is what they agreed to.
What is gained by not having lifetime royalties vs what you gain by having it? For a feature like this, it might require lifetime royalties to get it funded immediately.
And the blockchain will never earn anything from them... Lifetime royalties is a no for me.
The point is that this feature will be made, sooner or later, with or without this private investment.
Making it now, with this person, the community/blockchain will earn nothing from it (speaking of fees and so revenue for future worker proposals)
Edit: refering to a 100% lifetime royalties
A private feature doesn't even require your money to be built yet you want to say no to it because it's not funding "the blockchain" which didn't fund the feature? I don't get your argument.
You don't mind the feature, and you don't want to pay for the feature, but you don't want someone else to profit from it?
-
What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.
Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.
I say give them 100% of the fees indefinitely. If they funded it then they deserve 100% of the fees indefinitely unless they decide they don't want the fees and in that case burn the fees.
Is there any rational reason why they shouldn't get 100% of the fees indefinitely if they privately funded the feature? By giving them that we could encourage new efforts to privately fund features, like the bond market or prediction markets.
A bold move by this individual and a very long term bet. What would happen if before they recovered their $45k in fees a new worker proposal is submitted and approved to build a better stealth transfer mechanism?
The 25% royalty on the stealth transfer fees for life leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps it's the precedent it would set for future proposals.
I think it should be 100% on the stealth transfer fees for life. What is the argument for keeping it at 25% If they paid for it they own it entirely don't they?
If all of us did it through a worker proposal we would get lifetime royalties, so if they do it privately I don't see why they can't get lifetime royalties. I don't see why it's at 25% other than that is what they agreed to.
What is gained by not having lifetime royalties vs what you gain by having it? For a feature like this, it might require lifetime royalties to get it funded immediately.
And the blockchain will never earn anything from them... Lifetime royalties is a no for me.
The point is that this feature will be made, sooner or later, with or without this private investment.
Making it now, with this person, the community/blockchain will earn nothing from it (speaking of fees and so revenue for future worker proposals)
Edit: refering to a 100% lifetime royalties
Why? Who says it will be made sooner or later. Your arguing for socializing costs which is anti-volunteerism. We're forced as the community to pay for this project..... Your arguing for a system that got us into this financial mess in the first place after 2008.
Whereas here, someone pays for it and get to profit from their investments. You dont have to use that feature. Nobody is forcing you. But when you do, you just pay the person who took the biggest risk to bring it to market. He's getting rewarded appropriately.
Additionally, if they're providing cash for this, this would benefit bitshares since BM doesn't have to liquidate in this thin market. Its entirely a Win-Win. So we can have lifetime referrals, but not lifetime feature use?
-
What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.
Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.
I say give them 100% of the fees indefinitely. If they funded it then they deserve 100% of the fees indefinitely unless they decide they don't want the fees and in that case burn the fees.
Is there any rational reason why they shouldn't get 100% of the fees indefinitely if they privately funded the feature? By giving them that we could encourage new efforts to privately fund features, like the bond market or prediction markets.
A bold move by this individual and a very long term bet. What would happen if before they recovered their $45k in fees a new worker proposal is submitted and approved to build a better stealth transfer mechanism?
The 25% royalty on the stealth transfer fees for life leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps it's the precedent it would set for future proposals.
I think it should be 100% on the stealth transfer fees for life. What is the argument for keeping it at 25% If they paid for it they own it entirely don't they?
If all of us did it through a worker proposal we would get lifetime royalties, so if they do it privately I don't see why they can't get lifetime royalties. I don't see why it's at 25% other than that is what they agreed to.
What is gained by not having lifetime royalties vs what you gain by having it? For a feature like this, it might require lifetime royalties to get it funded immediately.
And the blockchain will never earn anything from them... Lifetime royalties is a no for me.
The point is that this feature will be made, sooner or later, with or without this private investment.
Making it now, with this person, the community/blockchain will earn nothing from it (speaking of fees and so revenue for future worker proposals)
Edit: refering to a 100% lifetime royalties
A private feature doesn't even require your money to be built yet you want to say no to it because it's not funding "the blockchain" which didn't fund the feature? I don't get your argument.
You don't mind the feature, and you don't want to pay for the feature, but you don't want someone else to profit from it?
+5
-
as for referrals:
how about you payout referrals the normal tx fee, and the topping to the investor?
-
If there will be a lifetime fee going to the "individual", I would also like to put some money on the table.... and, I guess, I am not the only one. Let's do it via some form of kickstarter initiative then!
maybe have a UIA or NIA(network issued asset) that the network pays the holders the 80% fee till re-payed + some % profit. though I guess this individual could simply buy the entire UIA offering and it would be the same as a private deal.
My initial thought on lifetime 100% fee is no, but im not against the drop to 20% after payed off. I think it might be better to define the profit to be payed out up front. Then after payed off, it becomes like any other feature.
Ultimately either way, I just want the feature and I don't care too much who gets pays and how much.
-
First, I said no to LIFETIME royalties, not to a revenue for him.
I would highly prefer give him a 1000% ROI than a lifetime one.
Second, this feature will be made eventually.
The community now seems to doesn't want to pay for it, just because there are other proposals that are more important/requested.
This doesn't mean that the community will never vote for a worker proposal for stealth transfers.
Plus, this seems very important for CNX, so they would want to implement it in graphene anyway.
-
In my opinion this is free money. We get someone who need this feature so much that he is ready to risk $45k to get it done.
This private party deserve to receive a royalty in the future of this feature, just like the when the shareholder pays for a feature. It's no different in my opinion.
I say take that money and get it done!
-
First, I said no to LIFETIME royalties, not to a revenue for him.
I would highly prefer give him a 1000% ROI than a lifetime one.
Second, this feature will be made eventually.
The community now seems to doesn't want to pay for it, just because there are other proposals that are more important/requested.
This doesn't mean that the community will never vote for a worker proposal for stealth transfers.
Plus, this seems very important for CNX, so they would want to implement it in graphene anyway.
That's what I'm saying. Even though the Community wants to pay for it, they can't. They can't afford it at these liquidity rates. imagine if we dry up our liquidity for stealth addresses, how much left would we have (before the price drops even further) for other projects? Not much I'd say.
What if we crowdfunded the bond / pm market to the community? Would you say that those who invested wouldn't get lifetime fees? Then nobody would want to crowdfund.
This could be a potential new source of funding for Bitshares. It could accelerate our development if we allowed for this.
-
In my opinion this is free money. We get someone who need this feature so much that he is ready to risk $45k to get it done.
This private party deserve to receive a royalty in the future of this feature, just like the when the shareholder pays for a feature. It's no different in my opinion.
I say take that money and get it done!
Take the money and get it done!
-
Sounds great! As I said in the earlier stealth transfer worker topic, people who appreciate privacy are great early adopters for Bitshares. I didn't expect anything like this, but this is a nice example of a person who is willing to put his own skin in the game. Yeah, we really need these kind of people as our early adopters.
What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.
Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.
Haven't thought this over yet, but this might be a good counterproposal. Lifetime royalties do not sound very good idea.
It's really interesting. It's a privatized feature. That is a first because I don't recall seeing that happen before or if it has it's very rare. Maybe once or twice Bitcoin has done something like this but it's unusual for a private investor to fund a new feature, but if we can standardize the process, maybe we can use this process over and over again and let people suggest new features, crowd fund them privately, and then pay up front to have it implemented while pocketing the fees to reward investors in the private crowd fund.
Absolutely, this is great idea!
I say give them 100% of the fees indefinitely. If they funded it then they deserve 100% of the fees indefinitely unless they decide they don't want the fees and in that case burn the fees.
Bitshares is offering a platform for this feature so of course it should benefit from it too. Transactions use resources of the blockchain and it has to be compensated.
-
What if we crowdfunded the bond / pm market to the community? Would you say that those who invested wouldn't get lifetime fees? Then nobody would want to crowdfund.
This could be a potential new source of funding for Bitshares. It could accelerate our development if we allowed for this.
So a 1000% ROI would not be enough to join the crowfund?! Where esle you can find such a deal?
This could also bring to big whales funding features and taking all the revenues for lifetime, leaving the blockchain with nothing and without the possibility to have community worker proposals.
-
1. Trading fee refunding proposal
2. Tading referral fee
3. Fix the API for bots and trading platforms
This stealth thing seems like it's going to take a lot longer to do than any of the above. Please do 1-3 first and then focus on something different like this stealth transfer proposal.
I agree. Out of interest does anyone know what is the projected cost and development time of getting 1-3 done?
First, I said no to LIFETIME royalties, not to a revenue for him.
I would highly prefer give him a 1000% ROI than a lifetime one.
Second, this feature will be made eventually.
The community now seems to doesn't want to pay for it, just because there are other proposals that are more important/requested.
This doesn't mean that the community will never vote for a worker proposal for stealth transfers.
Plus, this seems very important for CNX, so they would want to implement it in graphene anyway.
That's what I'm saying. Even though the Community wants to pay for it, they can't. They can't afford it at these liquidity rates. imagine if we dry up our liquidity for stealth addresses, how much left would we have (before the price drops even further) for other projects? Not much I'd say.
What if we crowdfunded the bond / pm market to the community? Would you say that those who invested wouldn't get lifetime fees? Then nobody would want to crowdfund.
This could be a potential new source of funding for Bitshares. It could accelerate our development if we allowed for this.
Fully agree.
I don't believe highly illiquid start-ups can afford to pay very much at all in immediately tradeable equity. Even vested shares would negatively effect the share price because of their future cost and the fact that there are still 300 million merger shares vesting over the following year.
So what if CNX crowdfunded for a BTS prediction or bond market? They could potentially raise a lot more than the blockchain would ever be able to pay directly.
Also just like BitSapphire said we'll open source (or whatever I forget) if we raise X. CNX could also say we'll do this other (not directly profitable) blockchain addition for free if we raise $X for a bond market or prediction market.
That way BTS like Ethereum gets those beneficial blockchain additions without having to pay for them directly but perhaps in a way that shares a more of the revenue from those additions with BTS than Augur might share with Ethereum.
I wonder if we agreed to his revenue terms as is whether he'd put a little towards developments 1-3 & agree they should be prioritised above stealth transfers.
-
1. Trading fee refunding proposal
2. Tading referral fee
3. Fix the API for bots and trading platforms
This stealth thing seems like it's going to take a lot longer to do than any of the above. Please do 1-3 first and then focus on something different like this stealth transfer proposal.
Agreed. Please fully focus on exchange stuffs first and make it our cash cow. Then we can discuss other features.
-
I'm not a big fan of lifetime fees but it's the way the referral prog works and it's actually brilliant to incentive people to promote and develop on BitShares.
That could be a nice way to accelerate our product dévelopment without hurting our small market cap.
That could bring deep pockets to look closely what can be done and the potential ROI on future features.
I had my doubts when I started to read this thread but the more I think about it, the more I like it.
That said, I would prefer to have other things done first. Mainely enhance the user experience with the wallet and have a trading plateform that can really attract traders (better UI, charts, API, ...)
-
This could be a potential new source of funding for Bitshares.
This is not potential way of funding. This is the only way of funding, the other thing is just inflating the supply. It can be done but the payout must be bigger and the vesting longer - 3 years min.
On this note I like the funding model a lot..... BUT I am with the rest who think that changing the priority of what is important is big no No.
xeroc, fav and those 2 guys
1. Trading fee refunding proposal
2. Tading referral fee
3. Fix the API for bots and trading platforms
This stealth thing seems like it's going to take a lot longer to do than any of the above. Please do 1-3 first and then focus on something different like this stealth transfer proposal.
I agree. Out of interest does anyone know what is the projected cost and development time of getting 1-3 done?
-
Is this proposal on Github?
(http://i.imgur.com/moWNvl8.jpg)
-
So what if CNX crowdfunded for a BTS prediction or bond market? They could potentially raise a lot more than the blockchain would ever be able to pay directly.
Augur raised over 5 Million. If we allowed crowdfunding and profitsharing-- we can immediately inject 5 Million into Bitshares+ all the value added that comes from putting the two features together (Bitshares + some new feature) . This is why its important to protect the lifetime revenues.
-
This could be a potential new source of funding for Bitshares.
This is not potential way of funding. This is the only way of funding, the other thing is just inflating the supply. It can be done but the payout must be bigger and the vesting longer - 3 years min.
On this note I like the funding model a lot..... BUT I am with the rest who think that changing the priority of what is important is big no No.
xeroc, fav and those 2 guys
1. Trading fee refunding proposal
2. Tading referral fee
3. Fix the API for bots and trading platforms
This stealth thing seems like it's going to take a lot longer to do than any of the above. Please do 1-3 first and then focus on something different like this stealth transfer proposal.
I agree. Out of interest does anyone know what is the projected cost and development time of getting 1-3 done?
Glad you guys agree. I agree the above should be done first. But aren't they already halfway done / in the works?
-
Nice +100% !!
-
In my opinion this is free money. We get someone who need this feature so much that he is ready to risk $45k to get it done.
This private party deserve to receive a royalty in the future of this feature, just like the when the shareholder pays for a feature. It's no different in my opinion.
I say take that money and get it done!
Take the money and get it done!
Git 'er done!
(http://s1.ticketm.net/tm/en-us/dbimages/46411a)
-
To extend on my thought on funding...
an instrument can be created and sold by the devs doing the worker proposal. Instead of being 20mil BTS (using 100$/rate), the worker payment is 35mil BTS and vests after 3 years of completion. The devs get their money immediately (selling the instrument), the real investors get their payment after 3 years as all the money from the worker pay go into this instrument [collateralized bond of sorts]
PS
I think I am actually ready to pay for this to be build into the system, instead of using UIA for it. Can we have a quote from the devs? I will not insist to be into top 3 or so priorities if it will take more than 7-14 days.
-
A simple way to think about it.
A group of investors owns a shopping mall. Someone approaches them and offers to build a parking garage on their property. She offers to pay the mall owners a never-ending share of her garage's profits (after expenses) and give them the benefit of her garage making the mall more attractive for everybody's customers.
It's not about the mall owners paying her "royalties" forever, it's about her paying the mall a share of her revenue forever in exchange for rights to build on the mall's property.
Meanwhile, she has established a wonderful precedent for the mall owners who start looking for more ways to apply this model to generate more revenue and attractive features for the mall.
And yes, other projects could be crowd-funded using the same model, where those who donate are guaranteed a lifetime share of the revenue generator they helped to fund.
-
Go for it!
-
I say give them 100% of the fees indefinitely. If they funded it then they deserve 100% of the fees indefinitely unless they decide they don't want the fees and in that case burn the fees.
Is there any rational reason why they shouldn't get 100% of the fees indefinitely if they privately funded the feature? By giving them that we could encourage new efforts to privately fund features, like the bond market or prediction markets.
I think it should be 100% on the stealth transfer fees for life. What is the argument for keeping it at 25% If they paid for it they own it entirely don't they?
The flaw in this is that it overlooks the cost to the network. Granted, that isn't much compared to the non-stealth transfer volume but it isn't zero.
For this reason I am not in favor of giving this investor 100% of the stealth transfer fees. However, I think the investor is entitled to lifetime royalties, which is some percentage of the transfer fees. This is the payoff for the risk being taken.
IMO the deal is about setting a reasonable % to cover ongoing support overhead of the feature. Perhaps that should be padded to cover unknown costs, not sure about that or how much padding is reasonable. In the end it's about dividing up the transfer fees between the investor and the network. The investor has unknowns in the rate and amount of return on their investment and the network has unknowns in support / overhead costs. It's a matter of balancing those unknowns to the satisfaction of both parties and if that's possible a deal should be established.
Hypothetically, if a lifetime % of all stealth transfers are on the table, why couldn't this be crowdfunded? Lets say for example that overhead / support will require 25% of the transfer fees. That leaves 75% to be split by all of those contributing to the crowdfund. Each contributor would receive whatever cut of that 75% based on how much they contributed. If only 1 investor contributed they would receive 75% of the transfer fees for life and 25% would be held for support costs.
If there were a way to provide equal opportunity to crowd funders, such as no one person could buy more than X% of the $45K, would enough people buy in to make this happen? I seriously doubt it, so the idea that a crowdfunding for this effort limited this way seems highly unlikely. $45K @ $0.003 is 150M BTS, if BTS were even an option to fund this work.
And yes, I forgot to mention, that as important a feature as I believe stealth is, it should not be a higher priority than making our exchange UX competitive. It should NOT divert any CNX personnel away from that effort. The OP sends a message he is willing to shift priorities, and this is exactly the kind of thing that the community is saying SHOULD NOT be done. STAY FOCUSED!
-
To extend on my thought on funding...
an instrument can be created and sold by the devs doing the worker proposal. Instead of being 20mil BTS (using 100$/rate), the worker payment is 35mil BTS and vests after 3 years of completion. The devs get their money immediately (selling the instrument), the real investors get their payment after 3 years as all the money from the worker pay go into this instrument [collateralized bond of sorts]
This was one of our original strategies, but has one flaw: 100% of the risk is transferred to BTS holders and it consumes our limited dilution budget. Under this model the investor would be guaranteed 35M bts in 3 years even if the feature never generated 35M of value. This means that the community has to socialize the risk and estimation of profit. Having private parties invest in features and have unbounded upside means they will also invest in MARKETING the features.
I also think it is important to introduce a precedent for people to independently fund and build features for BTS that don't depend upon CNX to implement them. CNX should not be a bottleneck. If someone can build a business around a feature then we should allow them to profit from their business. The network should charge a small fee to cover operation costs and profit for BTS holders, and the remaining profits should go to the individuals building a business. The alternative is for them to create their own blockchain.
This is a very good model and everyone wins and the supply does not grow.
I have talked with some other people who are interested in building out different features if they can get a revenue share for operations executed under their business model.
-
i like the idea
but would suggest some changes
1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.
With this we can finance many more project in the pipline
you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded
with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.
-
So what if CNX crowdfunded for a BTS prediction or bond market? They could potentially raise a lot more than the blockchain would ever be able to pay directly.
Augur raised over 5 Million. If we allowed crowdfunding and profitsharing-- we can immediately inject 5 Million into Bitshares+ all the value added that comes from putting the two features together (Bitshares + some new feature) . This is why its important to protect the lifetime revenues.
This is how we push development forward while bringing new people into our system.
-
How does this model affect the issues around open sourcing graphene?
For example are these investor going to say "oh no my code cant be used in muse because i dont have access to the revenues"
Thus they might be completely against GPLing graphnee etc?
-
i like the idea
but would suggest some changes
1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.
With this we can finance many more project in the pipline
you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded
with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.
This is exactly what we discussed over lunch today. It seems like a great way to crowdfund features. After all the value of a feature is the present value of its projected future revenue to the network. With a few small changes it could even be set up such that a minimum amount of funding must be achieved or the BTS are returned. Very much like an automated kickstarter.
-
i like the idea
but would suggest some changes
1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.
With this we can finance many more project in the pipline
you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded
with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.
This is exactly what we discussed over lunch today. It seems like a great way to crowdfund features. After all the value of a feature is the present value of its projected future revenue to the network. With a few small changes it could even be set up such that a minimum amount of funding must be achieved or the BTS are returned. Very much like an automated kickstarter.
Now THIS has my attention as a high priority item. I like where this is headed.
edit: Would it also be possible for an outside investor to contribute using Bitcoin (for example, the system automatically converts to BTS). Something like the bond or prediction market would attract others (like Augur) outside out immediate area.
-
i like the idea
but would suggest some changes
1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.
With this we can finance many more project in the pipline
you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded
with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.
This is a compelling idea. So do this, but also create a UIA for the investor to sell to the market if they want to go public. That way we can buy into the project if the investor wants.
Although the investor can do this on their own by pushing the funds to a multi-sig account, or setting up a holding fund that distributes dividends every so often.
-
How does this model affect the issues around open sourcing graphene?
For example are these investor going to say "oh no my code cant be used in muse because i dont have access to the revenues"
Thus they might be completely against GPLing graphnee etc?
I think that our tight fisted licensing stance has been holding back BTS by triggering people's gut reaction to flee from anything that even smells proprietary. I apologize for getting weak and attempting to rely upon IP to build a business. We are looking at new business models that allow us to relax the IP restrictions and I think I can convince any potential feature investor that GPL is the minimum standard we should accept into the blockchain and that it must be BSD/MIT for use with BitShares (GPL for all other uses).
-
How does this model affect the issues around open sourcing graphene?
For example are these investor going to say "oh no my code cant be used in muse because i dont have access to the revenues"
Thus they might be completely against GPLing graphnee etc?
Once an investor has paid to develop a blockchain DAPP plug-in, why shouldn't they be able to offer ALL compatible block chains the same deal? This is the killer DAPP model that encourages free-lance developers (or investor-developer teams) to build out the whole DAC universe feature by feature, DAPP by DAPP.
-
Suddenly, there is a blossoming of many valid new ways to fund everything. No reason to choose just one. This is the free market. Let a thousand profit models bloom!
"Marty, do you know what this means?"
(http://nitku.net/blog/blogcontent/uploads/2015/10/doesnt-work-at-all.jpg)
-
Suddenly, there is a blossoming of many valid new ways to fund everything. No reason to choose just one. This is the free market. Let a thousand profit models bloom!
Let's use Brownie.PTS to pay for it! ;)
-
i like the idea
but would suggest some changes
1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.
With this we can finance many more project in the pipline
you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded
with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.
+ 1
I like it. I like it better than my own idea in many ways. Maybe we need both system.
Why?
The 'improve the API' worker will not generate any direct fees in the future. and it will not be the only such case.
So we have/need a solution for both kind of jobs.
-
Hats off to this anon! +5%
-
i like the idea
but would suggest some changes
1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.
With this we can finance many more project in the pipline
you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded
with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.
Best suggestion so far!
-
How does this model affect the issues around open sourcing graphene?
For example are these investor going to say "oh no my code cant be used in muse because i dont have access to the revenues"
Thus they might be completely against GPLing graphnee etc?
I think that our tight fisted licensing stance has been holding back BTS by triggering people's gut reaction to flee from anything that even smells proprietary. I apologize for getting weak and attempting to rely upon IP to build a business. We are looking at new business models that allow us to relax the IP restrictions and I think I can convince any potential feature investor that GPL is the minimum standard we should accept into the blockchain and that it must be BSD/MIT for use with BitShares (GPL for all other uses).
Would not be the other graphene blockchains have a an advantage over BTS chain in this way if GPL is required ?
In this way all profits from stealth transfers in muse go to the MUSE chain, whereas the
profits in BTS of stealth transfers go to the investor. Seem to be not a right balance of things.
-
i like the idea
but would suggest some changes
1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.
With this we can finance many more project in the pipline
you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded
with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.
Best suggestion so far!
The automatic payback that BM mentioned if it's not funded at minimum levels opens up some new interesting areas of a decentralized kickstarter.
-
I think that our tight fisted licensing stance has been holding back BTS by triggering people's gut reaction to flee from anything that even smells proprietary. I apologize for getting weak and attempting to rely upon IP to build a business. We are looking at new business models that allow us to relax the IP restrictions and I think I can convince any potential feature investor that GPL is the minimum standard we should accept into the blockchain and that it must be BSD/MIT for use with BitShares (GPL for all other uses).
+5%
Once an investor has paid to develop a blockchain DAPP plug-in, why shouldn't they be able to offer ALL compatible block chains the same deal? This is the killer DAPP model that encourages free-lance developers (or investor-developer teams) to build out the whole DAC universe feature by feature, DAPP by DAPP.
What you are describing works if a dapp is built on top of graphene and its not intertwined. The second its intertwined if it needs to be licensed differently its going to be a mess down the road is all i was saying
Its like google saying "we increased the energy efficency of linux but if you want to use this feature contact our sales department" They increased energy efficency by improving the core of linux and thus its 100% intertwined with linux and its not a browser or some other app built on top of linux. their improvement to the core benefits all companies using the core equally.
-
Developers try hard to push for stealth feature even though most understand that bond or prediction market would be better for Bitshares.
Forum members figure out that the stealth feature is going to be developed by them for their own use and they are trying to get it funded by Bitshares.
With no hope of getting funded by Bitshares suddenly a mysterious benefactor comes in and offers to fund it in exchange for $1000 and lifetime fees.
My question is, how come this 'benefactor' be so dumb as to not understand that there is more money in getting the developers to build bond or prediction market.
-
I thought it might be better to separate the general discussion of how to use this kind of development model so I made a new thread for it: The General Theory of Privately Funded Blockchain Features (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20207.0.html)
-
i like the idea
but would suggest some changes
1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.
With this we can finance many more project in the pipline
you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded
with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.
Best suggestion so far!
I like this option too. Open it up to everyone to participate. The donor can buys up as much as they want. I guess donor wants remain anonymous. Funny scenario, anonymous investor wants to fund stealth transactions but would have to become known to do it. Nice irony in that.
-
I disagree with this proposal and it sets a bad precedent. There are much better ways to accomplish stealth transactions that do not require lifetime fees and creating a Frankenstein blockchain via custom requests to Cryptonomex. I believe most people want stealth transactions, but it's just not a priority for the community so to saddle the ecosystem with some 'lifetime' structure to one connected individual just to get it done sooner would set a bad precedent for the very foundation of how the community works and improves the blockchain. I think you can put this proposal out for a vote and technically it would still be still using the DPOS voting protocol, but why can't we just wait for stealth transactions to be approved by the simple worker proposal protocol? We would be introducing a very unusual structure that not only takes weeks to understand and debate, but would distract us from even testing out our existing worker proposal protocol. Let's learn to crawl before we run.
-
I disagree with this proposal and it sets a bad precedent. There are much better ways to accomplish stealth transactions that do not require lifetime fees and creating a Frankenstein blockchain via custom requests to Cryptonomex. I believe most people want stealth transactions, but it's just not a priority for the community so to saddle the ecosystem with some 'lifetime' structure to one connected individual just to get it done sooner would set a bad precedent for the very foundation of how the community works and improves the blockchain. I think you can put this proposal out for a vote and technically it would still be still using the DPOS voting protocol, but why can't we just wait for stealth transactions to be approved by the simple worker proposal protocol? We would be introducing a very unusual structure that not only takes weeks to understand and debate, but would distract us from even testing out our existing worker proposal protocol. Let's learn to crawl before we run.
Let's wait for others to innovate faster than us. Let's wait while people are looking for opportunities to put their money. Let's wait while we get enough liquidity (if that ever happens) to fund our products.
This is just the first DAPP on the bitshares blockchain. We have many other entrepreneurs wanting to put other Game changing DAPPS on Bitshares, but with only the right incentive structures.
The more diverse our funding models are, the more opportunities and investors we can attract. This is what we want. To find people of all types of risk profiles and appetites.
-
What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.
Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.
Something like this would be much easier to do with less uncertainty. Structure it more like a loan with a return.
-
I disagree with this proposal and it sets a bad precedent. There are much better ways to accomplish stealth transactions that do not require lifetime fees and creating a Frankenstein blockchain via custom requests to Cryptonomex. I believe most people want stealth transactions, but it's just not a priority for the community so to saddle the ecosystem with some 'lifetime' structure to one connected individual just to get it done sooner would set a bad precedent for the very foundation of how the community works and improves the blockchain. I think you can put this proposal out for a vote and technically it would still be still using the DPOS voting protocol, but why can't we just wait for stealth transactions to be approved by the simple worker proposal protocol? We would be introducing a very unusual structure that not only takes weeks to understand and debate, but would distract us from even testing out our existing worker proposal protocol. Let's learn to crawl before we run.
Let's wait for others to innovate faster than us. Let's wait while people are looking for opportunities to put their money. Let's wait while we get enough liquidity (if that ever happens) to fund our products.
This is just the first DAPP on the bitshares blockchain. We have many other entrepreneurs wanting to put other Game changing DAPPS on Bitshares, but with only the right incentive structures.
The more diverse our funding models are, the more opportunities and investors we can attract. This is what we want. To find people of all types of risk profiles and appetites.
yes, but at least the price should be auctioned. Some other investor might be interested to pay more
for lifetime fees of certain feature. CNX gets paid for the work and the rest of the auctioned money
are burned or used to fund other features.
-
Developers try hard to push for stealth feature even though most understand that bond or prediction market would be better for Bitshares.
Forum members figure out that the stealth feature is going to be developed by them for their own use and they are trying to get it funded by Bitshares.
With no hope of getting funded by Bitshares suddenly a mysterious benefactor comes in and offers to fund it in exchange for $1000 and lifetime fees.
My question is, how come this 'benefactor' be so dumb as to not understand that there is more money in getting the developers to build bond or prediction market.
I don't care about the motivation. If we can figure out a way to bring in investors to help fund projects and it makes sense to the BTS holders, I'm all for it. There was a recommendation about creating a UIA for the bond and prediction market. Cool. I don't care about the why they want to fund it, I care how it's structured. I don't know if calling them dumb helps us move forward with investors.
I'd like the bond and prediction markets as well. With some of the ideas floating in this thread, it sounds like we can build a structure which attracts those outside investments. I don't agree with lifetime fees, but I like where the conversation is heading.
-
i like the idea
but would suggest some changes
1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.
With this we can finance many more project in the pipline
you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded
with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.
+ 1
I like it. I like it better than my own idea in many ways. Maybe we need both system.
Why?
The 'improve the API' worker will not generate any direct fees in the future. and it will not be the only such case.
So we have/need a solution for both kind of jobs.
I do think the "improve the API worker" will generate direct fees. It will allow 3rd parties to build trading platforms, which will interact with the wallet and generate fee's via trading.
-
Would like to see this become a habit. It shows great confidence in the project. Also the fact this person is willing to pay so much money for this should mean they (1) have a need for this (2) have to market this.
I would say give the extra cost since it would be a more expensive transaction. It can have lifetime royalties and it should. Just as long as BTS can get a % too, even if small.
For example:
Normal Transaction: 30 BTS
Stealth Transaction: 50/60BTS
Split the difference (50 or 60 - 30) and give it to the person funding this.
I would like to know, however, the amount of time that it will take to develop as we have other important tasks atm too
-
i like the idea
but would suggest some changes
1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.
With this we can finance many more project in the pipline
you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded
with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.
+ 1
I like it. I like it better than my own idea in many ways. Maybe we need both system.
Why?
The 'improve the API' worker will not generate any direct fees in the future. and it will not be the only such case.
So we have/need a solution for both kind of jobs.
I do think the "improve the API worker" will generate direct fees. It will allow 3rd parties to build trading platforms, which will interact with the wallet and generate fee's via trading.
The question is how you gonna collect those 'more fees' to give them to whoever made the great API possible (by paying for it to be build)?
Collect fees from anyone using the api? I do not like this approach.
-
i like the idea
but would suggest some changes
1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.
With this we can finance many more project in the pipline
you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded
with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.
+ 1
I like it. I like it better than my own idea in many ways. Maybe we need both system.
Why?
The 'improve the API' worker will not generate any direct fees in the future. and it will not be the only such case.
So we have/need a solution for both kind of jobs.
I do think the "improve the API worker" will generate direct fees. It will allow 3rd parties to build trading platforms, which will interact with the wallet and generate fee's via trading.
The question is how you gonna collect those 'more fees' to give them to whoever made the great API possible (by paying for it to be build)?
Collect fees from anyone using the api? I do not like this approach.
I see, what you mean... I was thinking the API would be built via worker proposal, not individual investors. Then the API would be used by third parties and they would get paid by being the referrer of the traders that they get to use the DEX. The network would then profit via the trading fees as well.
-
some features good be create with this idea some core features not
- who will buy into API functions??
- but we can create something like StealthUIA and a AUGURUIA to move faster
if we can come up with a way it is automated and trustless as possible we can create great projects with it.
the problem with will benefit all bitshares people approach, is that no one cares because his or her stake is to low, but if i invested a lot in a StealthUIA we can fund this without the
need to dilute and maybe CNX as the developer will agree that if this feature will get used on a different graphene chain the user has to buy this feature and CNX will buy some of
the UIA back with this amount.
- i have a feeling that this will help to create new features faster
- the bitshares exchange will end with a lot of automated UIAs with profits
- the whole bitshares ecosystem will be much better
at the moment we can do everything manually, like creating the UIA, giving some accounts the rights to issue the shares etc.
- the fundraiser could be also be done with openledger, blocktrades and metaexchange then we can offer multiple currencies to buy in the features
-
i like the idea
but would suggest some changes
1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.
With this we can finance many more project in the pipline
you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded
with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.
+ 1
I like it. I like it better than my own idea in many ways. Maybe we need both system.
Why?
The 'improve the API' worker will not generate any direct fees in the future. and it will not be the only such case.
So we have/need a solution for both kind of jobs.
I do think the "improve the API worker" will generate direct fees. It will allow 3rd parties to build trading platforms, which will interact with the wallet and generate fee's via trading.
The question is how you gonna collect those 'more fees' to give them to whoever made the great API possible (by paying for it to be build)?
Collect fees from anyone using the api? I do not like this approach.
I see, what you mean... I was thinking the API would be built via worker proposal, not individual investors. Then the API would be used by third parties and they would get paid by being the referrer of the traders that they get to use the DEX. The network would then profit via the trading fees as well.
There is no reason the trading API cannot be hosted on a centralized server where traders "pay to access it". It isn't like the API is intrinsic to the protocol or anything.
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
What are you waiting for?
-
What would stop BM from creating a fund raiser similar to Augur for the bond market? I love the idea if minimums aren't reached, money is refunded. It would need to be real easy with someone with BTS as well as BTC to participate. Does the UIA approach discussed above allow this to happen?
I didn't care that Augur was on the Ethereum blockchain, I cared that the prediction market proposal made sense to me. We need the ability to raise funds from outsiders that aren't exactly married to BitShares. They are interested in a great idea that happens to run on BitShares that has a good chance of a nice return.
-
This is excellent news. Much better than inflating a bunch of BTS.
Also, we now have a whale who is highly invested in a significant number of stealth transfers occuring in bitshares' future, who will hopefulyl take some action to help make that happen.
Hopefully we can do stealth transfers quickly and get on to adding the bond market / margin / lending.
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
This is so misguided in so many ways. There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back. So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside. How fair is that?
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
This is so misguided in so many ways. There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back. So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside. How fair is that?
project succeeds and blows up. for 45,000 this person bought millions of dollars from bitshares' profits every year forever.
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
This is so misguided in so many ways. There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back. So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside. How fair is that?
project succeeds and blows up. for 45,000 this person bought millions of dollars from bitshares' profits every year forever.
What would be a reasonable amount of money you would recommend capping the profit at? 4x the amount?
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
This is so misguided in so many ways. There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back. So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside. How fair is that?
project succeeds and blows up. for 45,000 this person bought millions of dollars from bitshares' profits every year forever.
What would be a reasonable amount of money you would recommend capping the profit at? 4x the amount?
I mean yea it IS a risk, and it would be a HUGE favor to the community, so that should be considered. I'd be okay with 10x or even 20x. Just not a one time buy in gets mass residual income for eternity.
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
This is so misguided in so many ways. There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back. So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside. How fair is that?
project succeeds and blows up. for 45,000 this person bought millions of dollars from bitshares' profits every year forever.
So what? As long as BTS gets a cut what's the problem with that? Because that person will bring in something unvaluable that you will never be able to put a price on. It's not about the feature, you have to see through that, it's about all the costumers, exposure, marketing BitShares will get that woldn't get otherwise + help creating a brand. You can't put a price on that.
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
This is so misguided in so many ways. There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back. So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside. How fair is that?
project succeeds and blows up. for 45,000 this person bought millions of dollars from bitshares' profits every year forever.
What would be a reasonable amount of money you would recommend capping the profit at? 4x the amount?
What if someone comes up with a better/cheaper option before the investor has recouped 1/4 of her investment? What should her loss be capped at?
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
This is so misguided in so many ways. There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back. So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside. How fair is that?
project succeeds and blows up. for 45,000 this person bought millions of dollars from bitshares' profits every year forever.
So what happens when there is a stronger privacy standard? Maybe happens a month later after this one is implemented. What then? He lost all his money. Of course he should get lifetime fees given that there will be always a newer standard in the future that will threaten his lifetime revenues stream.
-
What if ROI was capped at $5 Million. Would the investor be dissuaded? ... $5 Mil is far short of lifetime, IF Bts is a big success...
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
This is so misguided in so many ways. There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back. So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside. How fair is that?
project succeeds and blows up. for 45,000 this person bought millions of dollars from bitshares' profits every year forever.
So what happens when there is a stronger privacy standard? Maybe happens a month later after this one is implemented. What then? He lost all his money. Of course he should get lifetime fees given that there will be always a newer standard in the future that will threaten his lifetime revenues stream.
Good way to think about the market and how his revenue stream isnt guaranteed forever +5%
He would have to update the feature at his own expense in order to secure his position overtime.
In my opinion, if someone is paying 100% and risking 100% of his money, he/she should deserve the maximum return he can get from it.
Even if that feature isn't a killer app for our marketcap, at least we got a new feature...for FREE.
Now making an offering of STEALTH (UIA) and doing something like METAFEE would help get the community support, get free marketing and early adopter of his product or service.
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
Nothing is ever good enough in BTS land
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
This is so misguided in so many ways. There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back. So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside. How fair is that?
project succeeds and blows up. for 45,000 this person bought millions of dollars from bitshares' profits every year forever.
What would be a reasonable amount of money you would recommend capping the profit at? 4x the amount?
Here is my take on it:
1. The revenue split must be high during the "pay back period" and low during the "profit period".
2. $45,000 only buys so much UI work. Eventually others will want to fund additional improvements (QR integration, etc). The network can only reallocate its own cut of the revenue stream and therefore should make sure it has something left to allocate for future generations.
3. Each feature is like a MINI-DAC within a DAC. If there is a UIA issued for the feature, owners of that UIA should be able to vote to issue new shares and fund improvements to their feature. This would be the ideal long-term solution for many different "rounds" of funds being used to enhance the same feature.
4. The Risk/Reward profile means that capping the reward will make some projects not worth the risk. In other words, it has significant impact on the potential funding.
If you think that there is a 1:4 chance that bitshares reaches 200 stealth transactions per day and maintains its current valuation for the next 3 years then a 4x return is "even odds" and doesn't even make the speculator any money. In other words, rolling the dice over and over again will result in them breaking even. A game that isn't even worth playing. Expecting BTS to appreciate is not compensation for someone who could just buy BTS and hold who has the added benefit of liquidity. Only the possibility of unlimited upside potential even if it is only 1% of all relevant fees is interesting to most investors at this stage in the game. Later, if BitShares were as successful as Bitcoin then the odds of winning are greater and thus it becomes possible to limit the upside and still attract investors.
One last point, raising money for new features via the issuance of a UIA must be done very carefully to avoid creating a security. By encoding the payback methods into the blockchain and holding the funds hostage until the feature is delivered the value of the UIA can be arranged to never depend upon the actions of another and thus not a security. Spending the funds prior to delivering the feature can create a security.
A prediction market asset can be used to "pre-fund" the feature. Anyone who wants to participate in the fundraiser can lock funds in collateral for the UIA and then transfer the UIA lent into circulation with the caveat that once borrowed you cannot cover your position until after the cut-off date (refund date). If the desired level of funding is reached then you can never close your position except by selling the asset on the market. The funds held as collateral get transferred to the company that produced the feature and the UIA get bought back over time from fees. Anyway, there are a few small rule changes to the asset management code and a new operation or two and we can have a system in place whereby committee members can jointly act as escrow agents on the crowd fund (releasing the funds to the proper person only upon completion of the work).
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
-
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
#sharebits "onceuponatime" 1000 FISTBUMP
#sharebits "onceuponatime" 1 HIGHFIVE
#sharebits "onceuponatime" 1 THANKYOU
^ it may be awhile until those kick in, the bot has been down most of the day from what I can tell.
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates.
#sharebits "onceuponatime" 1 IFEELYABRO
-
This is a most exiting development! i think the terms are reasonable given the risks and the evolutionary nature of the technology.
You have my support onceuponatime.
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
Any reason you prefer stealth transfer over bond or prediction market? Is it because you think it is more important or you feel that the developers are intent on doing this first?
Will you be open to a crowd funding where you dont have to put up the whole $45,000?
Only curious, dont attribute anything to my questions.
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
I got you in as one of my 3 !!!!! :)
the third one was Bunker indeed BM.
and yes I posted already, I do not get those no lifetime-fee people.
EDIT
I am in full support for you!
I assume you will not mind the crowd sale idea, with you buying so that it indeed gets fully funded.[That is just an assumption, I support your offer regardless]
My only request - do not insist or rushing it in front of other important stuff - API, the % fee change for traders, some essential GUI stuff still not in the gui.
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
Guess it's a matter of knowing how much you want to get per transaction as lifetime royalties and make a worker proposal to see if it will get approved.
Only thing I dont know, as it was mentioned, is what if it comes someone else and does the same and improves stealth transactions? what percentage will they get? I don't know how this would be managed knowing BTS already has a commitment with onceuponatime (if this goes forward)
And I'm very impressed by the fact you're going in with your life savings... really. If this happens, I really hope you get rich. It's not every day someone places the money where their mouth is this way, I admire you for that.
Remember, remember, the 23rd of November
-
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
Thanks to you for this generous offer. As you can see, it is unleashing a discussion of how BitShares can open itself to these kinds of 'cash advances' to fund needed work in a way that will both pay back your investment and vastly improve the BitShares ecosystem. If anyone wants to crowdfund ('community-fund?') any other features with a strong certainty of being reimbursed down the road, I certainly would be willing to participate.
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
Wow, what an offer from a community member! Support & Respect!!
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
Guess it's a matter of knowing how much you want to get per transaction as lifetime royalties and make a worker proposal to see if it will get approved.
Only thing I dont know, as it was mentioned, is what if it comes someone else and does the same and improves stealth transactions? what percentage will they get? I don't know how this would be managed knowing BTS already has a commitment with onceuponatime (if this goes forward)
And I'm very impressed by the fact you're going in with your life savings... really. If this happens, I really hope you get rich. It's not every day someone places the money where their mouth is this way, I admire you for that.
I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general. We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution.
What we have learned is this:
1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.
Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful.
So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000? On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure. On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.
So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains. If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price.
My bet is that onceuponatime is right.
I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy. I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites. By being equal opportunity we should auction it off. Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest. This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.
Just some ideas.
-
I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general. We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution.
What we have learned is this:
1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.
Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful.
So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000? On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure. On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.
So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains. If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price.
My bet is that onceuponatime is right.
I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy. I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites. By being equal opportunity we should auction it off. Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest. This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.
Just some ideas.
Why are you so keen on stealth transfers and not bond or prediction markets?
Shareholders were not averse to diluting to fund it, they were unhappy to do it now when there are more pressing concerns. Those concerns remain even if one individual or crowd fund pays for it, the net result is your team wont be working on features they think are more important.
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
Any reason you prefer stealth transfer over bond or prediction market? Is it because you think it is more important or you feel that the developers are intent on doing this first?
Will you be open to a crowd funding where you dont have to put up the whole $45,000?
Only curious, dont attribute anything to my questions.
I am all in favor of bond and prediction markets. My thinking was that if I pay for the stealth transfer myself, then the other funds can be used for those. With a $45,000 up front cash infusion CNX would have the stability and wherewithall to expand and produce more and more quickly.
Crowdfunding would be great, but I am a technically challenged person and am still grappling with the 2.0 release which I have only just recently gotten set up. I suppose that I could try to hire Cryptonomex to take care of that for me (Stan?).
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought that I fund the whole Stealth Worker proposal for $45,000to to get CNX working on it and get the ball rolling. This was for several reasons, among them that Dan stated that he thought that it could be a valuable boost to our ecosystem, and also that I personally am uncomfortable with current levels of privacy.
Stan and I tossed the idea back and forth a couple of times with Stan actually seeing the opportunities for entrpreneurs much faster and more thoroughly than me. He came up with the analogy of building a parking garage attached to someone else's mall. And then Bytemaster put it out here in the forum for public discussion.
I would gladly be responsible for less than the full $45,000 if others want to join in.
For me to put up $45,000 in an effort to get BitShares out of the doldrums and kickstarted is a huge risk. IT REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE SAVINGS. The risks are huge. But I believe in what we are attempting to do with BitShares, and I am trying to do everything in my power and within my limited skill set to make BitShares a success as a way to safeguard life liberty and property in face of the enormous economic disruptions that are headed our way as the legacy financial system reaps what it has sown.
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
This is so misguided in so many ways. There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back. So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside. How fair is that?
project succeeds and blows up. for 45,000 this person bought millions of dollars from bitshares' profits every year forever.
So what? It sounds like an extreme case of envy to me.
I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general. We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution.
What we have learned is this:
1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.
Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful.
So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000? On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure. On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.
So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains. If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price.
My bet is that onceuponatime is right.
I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy. I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites. By being equal opportunity we should auction it off. Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest. This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.
Just some ideas.
This sounds great. All I can say is WOW! to oneuponatime, and thank you of course. Major kudos dude!
With this crowdfunding approach will other participants receive a portion of the fees collected for life as well? How does that work exactly?
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
This is so misguided in so many ways. There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back. So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside. How fair is that?
project succeeds and blows up. for 45,000 this person bought millions of dollars from bitshares' profits every year forever.
So what? It sounds like an extreme case of envy to me.
It's more about it being an extremely bad business decision for the bitshares platform. There's no need to give away the house when there are better options. Stealth transactions are a core feature and will inevitably be added. Most people in the worker proposal thread was in favor of stealth transactions, just not immediately. You can raise $45,000 through 'crowdfunding' or a 'loan' with a return of $15,000 over one year period using a UIA. By that time I'm sure the community would vote to reimburse the $60,000 for the feature.
-
Let's do it. Give Onceuponatime all the reward. Just make clear plans and stick to it because he will not understand easily if you fail or do things differently than the plan was (own experience. I failed but I also made it good again by giving everything on the street). Just do it quick and let's not talk forever. I am sure the forum is also populated by people who want to slow down BitShares, shills or how you call that in English and they give everything to distract and split.
I like that you think anonymity is important and that you do this Onceuponatime. Respect maximum. The people need this more than anything else and it's the best sales argument.
-
I remember someone mentioning this solution wasn't as secure as Monero rings. Is this something that would be implemented and as someone mentioned above, if we change up the stealth implementation down the road, how would it effect the payout?
-
Mark me down as in favor of this anonymous lender being allowed to recoup their investment plus a generous amount.
Alternatively, and even better in my opinion, create a UIA, crowdsource the funding, then use future stealth fees to buy back the UIA.
Mark me down as 100% firmly opposed to them having lifetime royalties forever. In fact, mark me down as insulted by the proposal,.
This is so misguided in so many ways. There is absolutely no gaurentee that the investor will recoup his money back. So you want him to to be exposed to all the downside (losing his initial investment) while you get all the upside. How fair is that?
project succeeds and blows up. for 45,000 this person bought millions of dollars from bitshares' profits every year forever.
So what? It sounds like an extreme case of envy to me.
It's more about it being an extremely bad business decision for the bitshares platform. There's no need to give away the house when there are better options. Stealth transactions are a core feature and will inevitably be added. Most people in the worker proposal thread was in favor of stealth transactions, just not immediately. You can raise $45,000 through 'crowdfunding' or a 'loan' with a return of $15,000 over one year period using a UIA. By that time I'm sure the community would vote to reimburse the $60,000 for the feature.
+5%
-
I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general. We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution.
What we have learned is this:
1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.
Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful.
So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000? On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure. On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.
So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains. If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price.
My bet is that onceuponatime is right.
I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy. I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites. By being equal opportunity we should auction it off. Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest. This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.
Just some ideas.
I think the crowd-funding approach solves this perceived issue nicely!
If you think the feature is great income producer you change part of your BTS into the UIA (or mixed asset as you suggested) getting that fee stream.
If you think it is an OK feature to have but the income that BTS gets is enough in your mind - you just keep your BTS and let the stronger believers fund the proposal.
Market at one of its finest moments.
-
I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy. I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites. By being equal opportunity we should auction it off. Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest. This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.
Just some ideas.
+5% +5% +5%
-
As a shareholder, the thought of a lifetime uncapped percentage cut from core protocol is about the worst proposal I think I've heard on this forum ever :(
It's limiting the potential value of the BTS market cap.
A decentralised system full of toll roads.
This is bad PR in the same way as copywrited code is.
Like if BTC had a recurring fee to the original inventor!
This is exactly the type of thing the Reserve fund is for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If we want people to privatise features only reasonable way surely would be with a scripting language? otherwise you've got a lock in that can't be changed.
I would definitely not vote for this :(
I think it's a bad business model, and value long term for BTS.
(But I would vote for funding the feature in the usual way.)
-
First, I said no to LIFETIME royalties, not to a revenue for him.
I would highly prefer give him a 1000% ROI than a lifetime one.
Second, this feature will be made eventually.
The community now seems to doesn't want to pay for it, just because there are other proposals that are more important/requested.
This doesn't mean that the community will never vote for a worker proposal for stealth transfers.
Plus, this seems very important for CNX, so they would want to implement it in graphene anyway.
That's what I'm saying. Even though the Community wants to pay for it, they can't. They can't afford it at these liquidity rates. imagine if we dry up our liquidity for stealth addresses, how much left would we have (before the price drops even further) for other projects? Not much I'd say.
What if we crowdfunded the bond / pm market to the community? Would you say that those who invested wouldn't get lifetime fees? Then nobody would want to crowdfund.
This could be a potential new source of funding for Bitshares. It could accelerate our development if we allowed for this.
How do we know the private investor didn't crowd fund to get the $45,000? Maybe they asked their friends to pool money together to come up with that? We don't even know.
We should treat it as if it was crowd funded. In a private crowd fund, for a private feature, since the feature isn't being paid for by the blockchain or by the community as a whole, the community has no right to profit from this implementation. If the community eventually has the money, the community can simply use a worker proposal to put a community funded and even better version of the same feature and that is when the community has a right to transaction fees.
As far as I'm concerned the community has a right to 0% transaction fees because it's not being paid for by the blockchain. I think the precedent is a good one. Not every feature will be funded by the blockchain, and not every feature has to be. If private entities fund private features they should get private profits, until a worker proposal decides to pay $45,000 to implement the feature.
As far as I'm concerned, competing implementations is not a bad thing. It can result in multiple implementations of a feature, so that you have multiple bond markets, multiple prediction markets, with significantly different features. Some would be private, some would be blockchain funded, some would be done because some developer just does it.
What if we crowdfunded the bond / pm market to the community? Would you say that those who invested wouldn't get lifetime fees? Then nobody would want to crowdfund.
This could be a potential new source of funding for Bitshares. It could accelerate our development if we allowed for this.
So a 1000% ROI would not be enough to join the crowfund?! Where esle you can find such a deal?
This could also bring to big whales funding features and taking all the revenues for lifetime, leaving the blockchain with nothing and without the possibility to have community worker proposals.
There should be unlimited ROI. When people invest in anything else there isn't a cap on the ROI so why for this?
What if ROI was capped at $5 Million. Would the investor be dissuaded? ... $5 Mil is far short of lifetime, IF Bts is a big success...
I can't believe "capitalists" are here talking about ROI caps. I do not support ROI caps for something like Bitshares. That is straight communism.
This would be fine if Bitshares were marketed as communism but it's called Bitshares, and shareholders don't want to hear that there ROI is capped. Do you want a cap on your ROI as a holder of BTS? I didn't think so.
So if someone privately funds and pays for a new feature even if it's not entirely paid for by them, they should get 100% of the fees of the part they paid for. Which means if you use the GUI they paid for, you pay them, and if you want to avoid paying them then you use a worker proposal to build a community version of the GUI.
Stealth transfers already exist and have been paid for by community funding so that isn't the issue. The issue is the interface. Nothing stops the community from creating a UIA at some point in the future to create a new interface feature if people see millions of dollars flowing to an anonymous person.
But at this point in time it's so risky that most people don't even want to put up a UIA. So why don't you offer a counter proposal where there is a bidding contest between a UIA and the anonymous person? If you can raise $45,000 then the more decentralized version wins?
-
Sounds great! As I said in the earlier stealth transfer worker topic, people who appreciate privacy are great early adopters for Bitshares. I didn't expect anything like this, but this is a nice example of a person who is willing to put his own skin in the game. Yeah, we really need these kind of people as our early adopters.
What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.
Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.
Haven't thought this over yet, but this might be a good counterproposal. Lifetime royalties do not sound very good idea.
It's really interesting. It's a privatized feature. That is a first because I don't recall seeing that happen before or if it has it's very rare. Maybe once or twice Bitcoin has done something like this but it's unusual for a private investor to fund a new feature, but if we can standardize the process, maybe we can use this process over and over again and let people suggest new features, crowd fund them privately, and then pay up front to have it implemented while pocketing the fees to reward investors in the private crowd fund.
Absolutely, this is great idea!
I say give them 100% of the fees indefinitely. If they funded it then they deserve 100% of the fees indefinitely unless they decide they don't want the fees and in that case burn the fees.
Bitshares is offering a platform for this feature so of course it should benefit from it too. Transactions use resources of the blockchain and it has to be compensated.
Bitshares benefits because we'd get a new UI for a feature. If we really want we can use the Cli so we don't actually need this. This is why I would say let them have 100% of the profit until someone decides to make a community version. Honestly I think private features is not a bad thing for stuff like this.
I don' t care who gets the transaction fees to stealth transfers. I don't think it's going to be a lot of money but even if it is, it's also a lot of risk to take. Whoever is willing to take that risk at this time in my opinion deserves 100% of the profit because in my opinion profit should reflect the risk.
Other low risk features might not need such a high reward but this is not a low risk feature. The investors don't know if this feature will be used. The investors don't know if they'll get their ROI. The investors don't know if there will be a crackdown on the feature itself by the EU, or how the feature will be used.
It's a controversial feature, it's a risky time to implement it, but because of that it should be the maximum reward for the person or group willing to stick their neck out there. This is why I would say give 100% of the fees to them.
In the future with the bond market or prediction markets we could use a UIA and formally crowdfund the feature if the worker proposal process fails. This allows us to get what we want without having to deal with the gatekeepers if the gatekeepers are either too afraid, or if the feature is controversial, or if there just isn't enough money to do it any other way.
-
I think most of community members didn't say it is wrong. They just said "not now". BM, if you can justify why this feature should be developed first, I will vote for the 45k worker proposal.
-
As a shareholder, the thought of a lifetime uncapped percentage cut from core protocol is about the worst proposal I think I've heard on this forum ever :(
It's limiting the potential value of the BTS market cap.
A decentralised system full of toll roads.
This is bad PR in the same way as copywrited code is.
Like if BTC had a recurring fee to the original inventor!
This is exactly the type of thing the Reserve fund is for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If we want people to privatise features only reasonable way surely would be with a scripting language? otherwise you've got a lock in that can't be changed.
I would definitely not vote for this :(
I think it's a bad business model, and value long term for BTS.
(But I would vote for funding the feature in the usual way.)
This is the complete screwed up logic, one can ever come up with.
So you want going into an restaurant and having no choices - just get the "normal salad" and the "normal meal" with exactly the prescribed amount of salt , oil and bread, everyone else gets?
Why? For what purpose? So each expense is communized? Is communized expenses and reducing choses really a goal?
We had to go with it up to now because no one has discovered anything better. Now that we have, to argue against choice???
-
Thank you onceuponatime, very awesome of you to make such an offer! And it has opened a new way of looking at the issue of how to fund features.. IMO it feels strange to have "privately funded" features on a public chain but I do see the merits of it
-
Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...
- onceuponatime (http://sharebits.io/Home/Dashboard?username=onceuponatime): has been credited 1000 FISTBUMP
- onceuponatime (http://sharebits.io/Home/Dashboard?username=onceuponatime): has been credited 1 HIGHFIVE
- onceuponatime: Insufficient funds for asset 1.3.673
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20205.msg260206/topicseen.html#msg260206
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy. I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites. By being equal opportunity we should auction it off. Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest. This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.
Just some ideas.
+5% +5% +5%
If I can get a direct stream of revenue from STEALTH...
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/61201659.jpg)
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
Guess it's a matter of knowing how much you want to get per transaction as lifetime royalties and make a worker proposal to see if it will get approved.
Only thing I dont know, as it was mentioned, is what if it comes someone else and does the same and improves stealth transactions? what percentage will they get? I don't know how this would be managed knowing BTS already has a commitment with onceuponatime (if this goes forward)
And I'm very impressed by the fact you're going in with your life savings... really. If this happens, I really hope you get rich. It's not every day someone places the money where their mouth is this way, I admire you for that.
I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general. We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution.
What we have learned is this:
1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.
Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful.
So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000? On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure. On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.
So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains. If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price.
My bet is that onceuponatime is right.
I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy. I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites. By being equal opportunity we should auction it off. Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest. This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.
Just some ideas.
I agree with the UIA and suggested it several times before for the bond market and prediction markets. I say we should go with the UIA but let Onceuponatime put $45,000 into it, and see if we can raise it much higher, and depending on how high we go would determine stuff like whether it's compeltely private or whether some of the fees go back to the blockchain via burning, or whether the bond market and prediction market can be added to it, sort of like Kickstarter.
Either that or we have 3 separate UIAs from the start. 1) UIA for Stealth Transfers. 2) UIA for Prediction Markets. 3) UIA for bond markets. All could be private features with any revenue split that the holders of UIA desire with the risk being that if it's very successful a worker proposal can come along and eventually reimplement these features and take the revenue stream.
So the lifetime revenue stream is not even guaranteed. It's just promised until the worker proposals decide that it's worth it to take the revenue stream with a reimplementation because there isn't any rule which says there can only be one implementation in the GUI.
-
I remember someone mentioning this solution wasn't as secure as Monero rings. Is this something that would be implemented and as someone mentioned above, if we change up the stealth implementation down the road, how would it effect the payout?
Myself, Bytemaster and many others have determined it's more secure. The point is practical security not theoretical security, and in terms of practical security it's very secure even if you can find some theoretically more secure alternative. A lot of the time something which is theoretically secure is only secure on paper and no implementation of it can live up to the academic literature or math. It's also possible people confuse this with the previous method used in Bitshares 1.0 because of the name.
My understanding of the Stealth Transfers is that it combines stealth transactions with confidentiality, where the amounts are encrypted along with the sender and receiver. Bytemaster might know the code and terminology a bit better than me but conceptually if you don't know the amounts, and you don't know the sender or receiver, it's invisible.
Maybe for marketing we might want to call it "invisible transactions" instead of stealth transfers.
-
For those that don't like the proposal... Counter offer cnx to build it for you instead.
Raise the bid to what you think it's worth
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
Any reason you prefer stealth transfer over bond or prediction market? Is it because you think it is more important or you feel that the developers are intent on doing this first?
Will you be open to a crowd funding where you dont have to put up the whole $45,000?
Only curious, dont attribute anything to my questions.
I am all in favor of bond and prediction markets. My thinking was that if I pay for the stealth transfer myself, then the other funds can be used for those. With a $45,000 up front cash infusion CNX would have the stability and wherewithall to expand and produce more and more quickly.
Crowdfunding would be great, but I am a technically challenged person and am still grappling with the 2.0 release which I have only just recently gotten set up. I suppose that I could try to hire Cryptonomex to take care of that for me (Stan?).
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought that I fund the whole Stealth Worker proposal for $45,000to to get CNX working on it and get the ball rolling. This was for several reasons, among them that Dan stated that he thought that it could be a valuable boost to our ecosystem, and also that I personally am uncomfortable with current levels of privacy.
Stan and I tossed the idea back and forth a couple of times with Stan actually seeing the opportunities for entrpreneurs much faster and more thoroughly than me. He came up with the analogy of building a parking garage attached to someone else's mall. And then Bytemaster put it out here in the forum for public discussion.
I would gladly be responsible for less than the full $45,000 if others want to join in.
For me to put up $45,000 in an effort to get BitShares out of the doldrums and kickstarted is a huge risk. IT REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE SAVINGS. The risks are huge. But I believe in what we are attempting to do with BitShares, and I am trying to do everything in my power and within my limited skill set to make BitShares a success as a way to safeguard life liberty and property in face of the enormous economic disruptions that are headed our way as the legacy financial system reaps what it has sown.
I missed this post. Thanks for your support for the ecosystem @onceuponatime! Great to hear you are that dedicated to supporting the ecosystem. We can probably put a crowdfunding campaign together so you don't take so much of the risk yourself. However, since you'll probably be the main funder, we can start with what would satisfy your return requirements. My feeling is that the worker proposal will be approved in 6 months to 1 year so what would be a good payback amount for you in 1yr?
-
Thank you onceuponatime, very awesome of you to make such an offer! And it has opened a new way of looking at the issue of how to fund features.. IMO it feels strange to have "privately funded" features on a public chain but I do see the merits of it
This points out the role of BitShares as a Generation 3 Platform - Supporting multiple independent profit-making businesses on a single platform for low economic friction between them.
Remember when BitShares was just a Generation 2 Platform - a complete, but single, exchange business all contained on a blockchain! Think back now... when did BitShares first become a platform for hosting more than one business?
< Spoiler > (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,14019.msg182308.html#msg182308)
-
This is a neat way to fund development. I support this initiative and a big TY to the person who put up the BTS. +5% +5%
-
So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains. If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price.
My bet is that onceuponatime is right.
I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy. I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites. By being equal opportunity we should auction it off. Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest. This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.
Just some ideas.
I will admit I didn't read every single msg in this thread.. but even as I was reading what @bytemaster said here at the end was precisely the idea I had swirling in my head about how this would better proceed.
I know @onceuponatime and for those that may have questions about his motives in this.. you are speaking of someone who has been and will continue to be BitShares most stoic supporter. He just happens to really love privacy and so he sees this as a priority.
I think the most elegant format for this proposal is to attach it to a UIA with the $45k originally invested attached to the shares. Open it up for everyone to be able to buy in.. I am sure Onceupon will have no problem sitting back and letting everyone else take up as much of the tab as possible. Once the $45k is reached the market will be empty and all that is left is the worker being voted in as proposed here. I would recommend 9 days to allow the buy in.
I would propose that the fees will go to the UIA asset holder. The holders of the UIA can decide how those funds will be released via the UIA market as a buy back of the UIA. It is clear that those that choose to hold longer are going to have a greater value for their shares in the UIA. Those that choose to sell early simply get their money back.
- This allows all those who want in on the action to get some.
- This means it's decentralized.
- This allows BitShares members in the future to have some of the action as well.. holders of the UIA have a market and I am sure there will be some infrequent buy/sell activity on owning one of Bitshares tollbooths.
- Future option for Bitshares as a network to buyout all the UIAs if they so choose to return it back to the network.
These are just my thoughts on this matter. It's now up to Onceupon how he would like to see things proceed and how much support we will see.
Looks like @luckybit is thinking along the same lines too.
I'm excited about this! +5% to @onceuponatime for lighting the fire.
-
Thank you onceuponatime, very awesome of you to make such an offer! And it has opened a new way of looking at the issue of how to fund features.. IMO it feels strange to have "privately funded" features on a public chain but I do see the merits of it
This points out the role of BitShares as a Generation 3 Platform - Supporting multiple independent profit-making businesses on a single platform for low economic friction between them.
Remember when BitShares was just a Generation 2 Platform - a complete, but single, exchange business all contained on a blockchain! Think back now... when did BitShares first become a platform for hosting more than one business?
< Spoiler > (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,14019.msg182308.html#msg182308)
BTSX would have the capacity to do exactly this imo.
In fact the referral programme and crowdfunding features in this manner demonstrate how little competitors will need to use share dilution and mergers as a means to improving their blockchain.
Also vs. BTC, BTSX was the fastest growing blockchain in crypto so may well have bee able to pay for many features out of profits and not give up any revenue.
-
I think this is a really interesting idea for funding a new feature. Particularly if it ends up as a crowdfund UIA. I am a little concerned over the potential loss of revenue for the block chain and bts holders. While I completely agree the funder should be rewarded, I think we should think carefully over what option (outright funding, or private funding) of this feature would be best for bts in the long term. Personally I would probably vote for the 45k worker proposal outright to secure the future revenue for the blockchain, but I would support this one as well. Either way, kudos to onceuponatime for stepping up.
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
Guess it's a matter of knowing how much you want to get per transaction as lifetime royalties and make a worker proposal to see if it will get approved.
Only thing I dont know, as it was mentioned, is what if it comes someone else and does the same and improves stealth transactions? what percentage will they get? I don't know how this would be managed knowing BTS already has a commitment with onceuponatime (if this goes forward)
And I'm very impressed by the fact you're going in with your life savings... really. If this happens, I really hope you get rich. It's not every day someone places the money where their mouth is this way, I admire you for that.
I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general. We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution.
What we have learned is this:
1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.
Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful.
So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000? On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure. On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.
So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains. If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price.
My bet is that onceuponatime is right.
I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy. I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites. By being equal opportunity we should auction it off. Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest. This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.
Just some ideas.
it is a very good idea , onceuponatime offer fund, I support it
but I do not agree with you said
So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains. If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price.
I think I understood what you said ， if onceuponatime is right , I think he deserve more than he pay , and BTS holder do not lose anything , opposite , bts holder gain base transfer and user ,
and the more important is BTS must been a platform that make people gain if he want to pay for developing
-
I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy. I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites. By being equal opportunity we should auction it off. Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest. This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.
Kudos to onceuponatime for raising up to help CNX and save bts from the dilution dilemma. The "equal opportunity crowdfunding” for privatised features is a fantastic idea! I think this will attract future investments of similar kind.
For the high risk that onceuponatime (his life saving) is taking, I do not mind him taking a percentage of the revenue for life-time. However, bts shareholders should have access to a percentage of the revenue too because bts shareholders contributed to the bitshares foundation platform.
We can take this as a join-venture between bitshares and the private investors (with onceuponatime being the main private investor possibly) sharing the risk-reward in a 50%-50% manner.
-
Thank you @onceuponatime for your commitment to BitShares and your willingness to risk so much for its success. This is certainly an innovative option for funding development of worthy features that stakeholders may not otherwise be ready to dilute for. Personally, I have yet to move my funds onto OpenLedger due to privacy concerns. So I'm excited by this development.
We clearly need to work out some of the details in terms of how this would all take place. For starters, I believe we should have the right of first refusal. In other words, assuming stakeholders believe a feature is worthy to begin with, we should decide whether we want to fund the feature through dilution or allow it to be funded by willing participants. If the latter, then participation based on issuance of a UIA seems to make a lot of sense.
As for fees, I would not vote to give up anything close to 100%. But I have no problem with the idea of lifetime royalties. Something like an 80/20 split until break-even and then 20/80 thereafter (as suggested by Dan) seems sensible, at least in the case of stealth transfers. But generally speaking, I'm sure the fee split can and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
Any reason you prefer stealth transfer over bond or prediction market? Is it because you think it is more important or you feel that the developers are intent on doing this first?
Will you be open to a crowd funding where you dont have to put up the whole $45,000?
Only curious, dont attribute anything to my questions.
I am all in favor of bond and prediction markets. My thinking was that if I pay for the stealth transfer myself, then the other funds can be used for those. With a $45,000 up front cash infusion CNX would have the stability and wherewithall to expand and produce more and more quickly.
Crowdfunding would be great, but I am a technically challenged person and am still grappling with the 2.0 release which I have only just recently gotten set up. I suppose that I could try to hire Cryptonomex to take care of that for me (Stan?).
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought that I fund the whole Stealth Worker proposal for $45,000to to get CNX working on it and get the ball rolling. This was for several reasons, among them that Dan stated that he thought that it could be a valuable boost to our ecosystem, and also that I personally am uncomfortable with current levels of privacy.
Stan and I tossed the idea back and forth a couple of times with Stan actually seeing the opportunities for entrpreneurs much faster and more thoroughly than me. He came up with the analogy of building a parking garage attached to someone else's mall. And then Bytemaster put it out here in the forum for public discussion.
I would gladly be responsible for less than the full $45,000 if others want to join in.
For me to put up $45,000 in an effort to get BitShares out of the doldrums and kickstarted is a huge risk. IT REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE SAVINGS. The risks are huge. But I believe in what we are attempting to do with BitShares, and I am trying to do everything in my power and within my limited skill set to make BitShares a success as a way to safeguard life liberty and property in face of the enormous economic disruptions that are headed our way as the legacy financial system reaps what it has sown.
While this might benefit my BTS investment...
As a general rule, unless you are under 30 and have a very secure profession, I would advise against risking the majority of your life savings on any investment.
In this calculator http://www.albionresearch.com/kelly/ input your savings under bankroll and input what you think your return and odds of being successful are.
This is the same question that a business owner, investor, or speculator has to ask themself: what proportion of my capital should I stake on a risky venture?
This will return the upper bound/maximum you should mathematically risk & most would reccomend much lower.
Many investors including Warren Buffett[8] and Bill Gross[9] use Kelly methods.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
Any reason you prefer stealth transfer over bond or prediction market? Is it because you think it is more important or you feel that the developers are intent on doing this first?
Will you be open to a crowd funding where you dont have to put up the whole $45,000?
Only curious, dont attribute anything to my questions.
I am all in favor of bond and prediction markets. My thinking was that if I pay for the stealth transfer myself, then the other funds can be used for those. With a $45,000 up front cash infusion CNX would have the stability and wherewithall to expand and produce more and more quickly.
Crowdfunding would be great, but I am a technically challenged person and am still grappling with the 2.0 release which I have only just recently gotten set up. I suppose that I could try to hire Cryptonomex to take care of that for me (Stan?).
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought that I fund the whole Stealth Worker proposal for $45,000to to get CNX working on it and get the ball rolling. This was for several reasons, among them that Dan stated that he thought that it could be a valuable boost to our ecosystem, and also that I personally am uncomfortable with current levels of privacy.
Stan and I tossed the idea back and forth a couple of times with Stan actually seeing the opportunities for entrpreneurs much faster and more thoroughly than me. He came up with the analogy of building a parking garage attached to someone else's mall. And then Bytemaster put it out here in the forum for public discussion.
I would gladly be responsible for less than the full $45,000 if others want to join in.
For me to put up $45,000 in an effort to get BitShares out of the doldrums and kickstarted is a huge risk. IT REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE SAVINGS. The risks are huge. But I believe in what we are attempting to do with BitShares, and I am trying to do everything in my power and within my limited skill set to make BitShares a success as a way to safeguard life liberty and property in face of the enormous economic disruptions that are headed our way as the legacy financial system reaps what it has sown.
While this might benefit my BTS investment...
As a general rule, unless you are under 30 and have a very secure profession, I would advise against risking the majority of your life savings on any investment.
In this gambling calculator http://www.albionresearch.com/kelly/ input your savings under bankroll and input what you think your return and odds of being successful.
This will return the upper bound/maximum you should mathematically risk & most would reccomend much lower.
This is the same question that a business owner, investor, or speculator has to ask themself: what proportion of my capital should I stake on a risky venture?
Many investors including Warren Buffett[8] and Bill Gross[9] use Kelly methods.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
"If you want to take the island burn the boats"
I am way over 30 :) and I am quite cognizant of the risks. However, having spent many many years studying monetary theory I know what is about to befall the world economic system and so I hope that BitShares, or something like it, will succeed.
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker. In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them. Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .
I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.
Any reason you prefer stealth transfer over bond or prediction market? Is it because you think it is more important or you feel that the developers are intent on doing this first?
Will you be open to a crowd funding where you dont have to put up the whole $45,000?
Only curious, dont attribute anything to my questions.
I am all in favor of bond and prediction markets. My thinking was that if I pay for the stealth transfer myself, then the other funds can be used for those. With a $45,000 up front cash infusion CNX would have the stability and wherewithall to expand and produce more and more quickly.
Crowdfunding would be great, but I am a technically challenged person and am still grappling with the 2.0 release which I have only just recently gotten set up. I suppose that I could try to hire Cryptonomex to take care of that for me (Stan?).
I approached Stan and Dan with the thought that I fund the whole Stealth Worker proposal for $45,000to to get CNX working on it and get the ball rolling. This was for several reasons, among them that Dan stated that he thought that it could be a valuable boost to our ecosystem, and also that I personally am uncomfortable with current levels of privacy.
Stan and I tossed the idea back and forth a couple of times with Stan actually seeing the opportunities for entrpreneurs much faster and more thoroughly than me. He came up with the analogy of building a parking garage attached to someone else's mall. And then Bytemaster put it out here in the forum for public discussion.
I would gladly be responsible for less than the full $45,000 if others want to join in.
For me to put up $45,000 in an effort to get BitShares out of the doldrums and kickstarted is a huge risk. IT REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE SAVINGS. The risks are huge. But I believe in what we are attempting to do with BitShares, and I am trying to do everything in my power and within my limited skill set to make BitShares a success as a way to safeguard life liberty and property in face of the enormous economic disruptions that are headed our way as the legacy financial system reaps what it has sown.
While this might benefit my BTS investment...
As a general rule, unless you are under 30 and have a very secure profession, I would advise against risking the majority of your life savings on any investment.
In this calculator http://www.albionresearch.com/kelly/ input your savings under bankroll and input what you think your return and odds of being successful are.
This is the same question that a business owner, investor, or speculator has to ask themself: what proportion of my capital should I stake on a risky venture?
This will return the upper bound/maximum you should mathematically risk & most would reccomend much lower.
Many investors including Warren Buffett[8] and Bill Gross[9] use Kelly methods.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
Warren Buffet is already rich. Poor people should not invest like him if they want to ever get rich.
Getting rich requires you take big risks. Odds are you'll never get rich if you don't risk your life savings trying. Not saying everyone wants to gamble like that but we don't want to discourage risk taking or else why would anyone start a business at all?
In a UIA you distribute the risks but you socialize the rewards. On the other hand centralized risk should produce centralized rewards unless the risk taker decides they want to socialize the rewards through some mechanism. In any case, the UIA or an individual can fund it and get the rewards.
Dilution in my opinion isn't worth it for this and most people don't want to wait 6 months or a year for it.
-
@onceuponatime +5% for your offer!
I also like the crowdfunding idea very much .. this feature can be marketet quite nicely (take a look at obits) ..
-
@onceuponatime +5% for your offer!
I also like the crowdfunding idea very much .. this feature can be marketet quite nicely (take a look at obits) ..
I bought obits ;)
-
Warren Buffet is already rich. Poor people should not invest like him if they want to ever get rich.
Getting rich requires you take big risks. Odds are you'll never get rich if you don't risk your life savings trying.
I like Warren Buffet's investment approach too. However, contrary to common belief, Buffet does not take "big" risks. In fact, he is a very careful man who takes well-researched and well-calculated risk for most of his investment decisions.
"The basic ideas of investing are to look at stocks as business, use the market's fluctuations to your advantage, and seek a margin of safety. That's what Ben Graham taught us. A hundred years from now they will still be the cornerstones of investing. -- Warren Buffett"
-
Warren Buffet is already rich. Poor people should not invest like him if they want to ever get rich.
Getting rich requires you take big risks. Odds are you'll never get rich if you don't risk your life savings trying.
You can get rich by risking your life savings on a 1000-1 dice spin if you want. Even if the odds are tilted highly in your favour, it's still incorrect to make such a large bet as your risk of ruin is so high.
If I gave you 20-1 odds on rolling a 6 with a dice for a 1000 spins. Would you get wealthier by risking your life savings on one spin or by betting 10% on each spin? The person who bet his life savings has an 83% chance of going broke, he's guaranteed to, if he keeps betting. However the person who bets 10% per spin is likely to become wealthier than you could imagine.
In this industry, from an investment POV there are multiple high risk, higher reward plays so putting your eggs in one basket is uneccessary.
He's said he's considered his decision and he's happy with it. That's fine. I agree we as BTS shareholders will likely benefit.
-
You can get rich by risking your life savings on a 1000-1 dice spin if you want. Even if the odds are tilted highly in your favour, it's still incorrect to make such a large bet as your risk of ruin is so high.
If I gave you 20-1 odds on rolling a 6 with a dice for a 1000 spins. Would you get wealthier by risking your life savings on one spin or by betting 10% on each spin? The person who bet his life savings has an 83% chance of going broke, he's guaranteed to, if he keeps betting. However the person who bets 10% per spin is likely to become wealthier than you could imagine.
In this industry, from an investment POV there are multiple high risk, higher reward plays so putting your eggs in one basket is uneccessary.
He's said he's considered his decision and he's happy with it. That's fine. I agree we as BTS shareholders will likely benefit.
I wouldn't compare business opportunities with dice rolls.
In the end you have no influence in the outcome when rolling a
dice, but you can influence a business, support its ideas and help it grow.
Else, I agree. From probability POV, you better put your effs in multiple baskets.
-
You can get rich by risking your life savings on a 1000-1 dice spin if you want. Even if the odds are tilted highly in your favour, it's still incorrect to make such a large bet as your risk of ruin is so high.
If I gave you 20-1 odds on rolling a 6 with a dice for a 1000 spins. Would you get wealthier by risking your life savings on one spin or by betting 10% on each spin? The person who bet his life savings has an 83% chance of going broke, he's guaranteed to, if he keeps betting. However the person who bets 10% per spin is likely to become wealthier than you could imagine.
In this industry, from an investment POV there are multiple high risk, higher reward plays so putting your eggs in one basket is uneccessary.
He's said he's considered his decision and he's happy with it. That's fine. I agree we as BTS shareholders will likely benefit.
I wouldn't compare business opportunities with dice rolls.
In the end you have no influence in the outcome when rolling a
dice, but you can influence a business, support its ideas and help it grow.
Else, I agree. From probability POV, you better put your effs in multiple baskets.
Yes, I agree, it makes a difference.
The ability you have to influence outcomes results in a higher probability of being successful, you would as an investor estimate that advantage (increase your odds of winning in the calculation) & work out your optimum investment size in the same way as a dice roll/any risk return scenario.
-
You can get rich by risking your life savings on a 1000-1 dice spin if you want. Even if the odds are tilted highly in your favour, it's still incorrect to make such a large bet as your risk of ruin is so high.
If I gave you 20-1 odds on rolling a 6 with a dice for a 1000 spins. Would you get wealthier by risking your life savings on one spin or by betting 10% on each spin? The person who bet his life savings has an 83% chance of going broke, he's guaranteed to, if he keeps betting. However the person who bets 10% per spin is likely to become wealthier than you could imagine.
In this industry, from an investment POV there are multiple high risk, higher reward plays so putting your eggs in one basket is uneccessary.
He's said he's considered his decision and he's happy with it. That's fine. I agree we as BTS shareholders will likely benefit.
I wouldn't compare business opportunities with dice rolls.
In the end you have no influence in the outcome when rolling a
dice, but you can influence a business, support its ideas and help it grow.
Else, I agree. From probability POV, you better put your effs in multiple baskets.
He gives you 20-1 odds on his example! I would definitely choose dices over a business opportunity if that would be a real case scenario...
PS you have no influence, but you know "exactly" the outcome... "longterm"...
-
You can get rich by risking your life savings on a 1000-1 dice spin if you want. Even if the odds are tilted highly in your favour, it's still incorrect to make such a large bet as your risk of ruin is so high.
If I gave you 20-1 odds on rolling a 6 with a dice for a 1000 spins. Would you get wealthier by risking your life savings on one spin or by betting 10% on each spin? The person who bet his life savings has an 83% chance of going broke, he's guaranteed to, if he keeps betting. However the person who bets 10% per spin is likely to become wealthier than you could imagine.
In this industry, from an investment POV there are multiple high risk, higher reward plays so putting your eggs in one basket is uneccessary.
He's said he's considered his decision and he's happy with it. That's fine. I agree we as BTS shareholders will likely benefit.
I wouldn't compare business opportunities with dice rolls.
In the end you have no influence in the outcome when rolling a
dice, but you can influence a business, support its ideas and help it grow.
Else, I agree. From probability POV, you better put your effs in multiple baskets.
He gives you 20-1 odds on his example! I would definitely choose dices over a business opportunity if that would be a real case scenario...
PS you have no influence, but you know "exactly" the outcome... "longterm"...
Diversification:
(http://i65.tinypic.com/2mwz0ab.jpg)
-
You can get rich by risking your life savings on a 1000-1 dice spin if you want. Even if the odds are tilted highly in your favour, it's still incorrect to make such a large bet as your risk of ruin is so high.
If I gave you 20-1 odds on rolling a 6 with a dice for a 1000 spins. Would you get wealthier by risking your life savings on one spin or by betting 10% on each spin? The person who bet his life savings has an 83% chance of going broke, he's guaranteed to, if he keeps betting. However the person who bets 10% per spin is likely to become wealthier than you could imagine.
In this industry, from an investment POV there are multiple high risk, higher reward plays so putting your eggs in one basket is uneccessary.
He's said he's considered his decision and he's happy with it. That's fine. I agree we as BTS shareholders will likely benefit.
I wouldn't compare business opportunities with dice rolls.
In the end you have no influence in the outcome when rolling a
dice, but you can influence a business, support its ideas and help it grow.
Else, I agree. From probability POV, you better put your effs in multiple baskets.
He gives you 20-1 odds on his example! I would definitely choose dices over a business opportunity if that would be a real case scenario...
PS you have no influence, but you know "exactly" the outcome... "longterm"...
Diversification:
(http://i65.tinypic.com/2mwz0ab.jpg)
Good one :) The art is to protect the downside.
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-it-is-only-by-being-bold-that-you-get-anywhere-if-you-are-a-risk-taker-then-the-art-richard-branson-70-56-98.jpg)
-
For every Elon Musk there are hundreds of people crying into their beers wonder where it all went wrong :P.
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
So I've been thinking a lot about this and, like most things after further consideration, my opinion is evolving. Stan's parking garage metaphor is good.
I like the idea of crowd funded UIA to pay for features even if it is a crowd of one. It may play out like this (which may have already been posted..this thread really blew up quickly)
1) Someone wants a feature and gets in contact with developers - in this case CNX
2) CNX says they'll do it for $45k and creates a UIA with a market cap of $45k
3) The UIA earns all fees generated by the feature (minus standard network fees) for life
4) The UIA can be bought entirely by one person and they would earn all the royalties.
This gains the following:
1) The person(s) that paid for the feature reap the rewards whenever it is used forever.
2) The engineering resources to maintain the feature going forward are fungible.
3) Since a UIA is liquid it gets away from the "issue" of one person receiving royalties forever.
IMHO this is the perfect solution to crowd funding features, rewarding those that are taking the risk, and leveraging the existing platform to make it all happen.
-
I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.
What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?
If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...
PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.
So I've been thinking a lot about this and, like most things after further consideration, my opinion is evolving. Stan's parking garage metaphor is good.
I like the idea of crowd funded UIA to pay for features even if it is a crowd of one. It may play out like this (which may have already been posted..this thread really blew up quickly)
1) Someone wants a feature and gets in contact with developers - in this case CNX
2) CNX says they'll do it for $45k and creates a UIA with a market cap of $45k
3) The UIA earns all fees generated by the feature (minus standard network fees) for life
4) The UIA can be bought entirely by one person and they would earn all the royalties.
This gains the following:
1) The person(s) that paid for the feature reap the rewards whenever it is used forever.
2) The engineering resources to maintain the feature going forward are fungible.
3) Since a UIA is liquid it gets away from the "issue" of one person receiving royalties forever.
IMHO this is the perfect solution to crowd funding features, rewarding those that are taking the risk, and leveraging the existing platform to make it all happen.
This way would be perfect if automatic-dividend-distribution is implemented.
Anyway thanks to @onceuponatime.
-
One problem I see with the UIA-based crowdfuning is that if you sell your UIA for BTS your will only have to sell your BTS eventually to cover your costs .. that downward pressure aswell ..
otherwise, if you sell your UIA for USD people need to bootstrap the USD markets which will hinder your crowdsale .. but improve liquidity (slowly) and make the crowdsale easier from legal POV .. or am I missing something?
-
One problem I see with the UIA-based crowdfuning is that if you sell your UIA for BTS your will only have to sell your BTS eventually to cover your costs .. that downward pressure aswell ..
otherwise, if you sell your UIA for USD people need to bootstrap the USD markets which will hinder your crowdsale .. but improve liquidity (slowly) and make the crowdsale easier from legal POV .. or am I missing something?
The value of the UIA would be based on the expectation of future revenue. If you sell your UIA for BTS someone had to buy that BTS to purchase the UIA. IMHO that's a wash in terms of market pressures. The issue with the USD market we are betting is short term teething and will eventually be liquid enough to absorb a UIA sale.
-
That's what I am hoping for as well .. a better API could help here :P
-
I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy. I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites. By being equal opportunity we should auction it off. Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest. This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.
This sounds like an ideal plan. My only addition would be work in USD, at least it will make them useful. If you cant use your own price stable product when you are writing all in $ then its pointless expecting others would.
-
First of all a big thank you to onceuponatime. He is a very well known supporter of bitshares and has my full support! +5% +5% +5% for everything you have done to bitshares so far!!
Secondly I like also the idea of UIA. Let everyone who wants to participate in this buy the UIA by supporting the project. This way onceuponatime will share the risks but also the profits. CNX will get it done and the rest will be history. The UIA holders should receive a very big % of the fees. I would say something like 90% at least.
Either way whatever you decide is good for me as long as it is gets done. So I just have one question that I don't see anyone addressed yet...
If CNX gets the $45k funding via onceuponatime or via crowdfunding and various investors, @bytemaster , how long will it take to finish the project?
-
First of all a big thank you to onceuponatime. He is a very well known supporter of bitshares and has my full support! +5% +5% +5% for everything you have done to bitshares so far!!
Secondly I like also the idea of UIA. Let everyone who wants to participate in this buy the UIA by supporting the project. This way onceuponatime will share the risks but also the profits. CNX will get it done and the rest will be history. The UIA holders should receive a very big % of the fees. I would say something like 90% at least.
Either way whatever you decide is good for me as long as it is gets done. So I just have one question that I don't see anyone addressed yet...
If CNX gets the $45k funding via onceuponatime or via crowdfunding and various investors, @bytemaster , how long will it take to finish the project?
I had the same thought that I put to Stan:
5. I would appreciate an ETA on the project if you received advance payment ($45,000) in full. You will of course pad this somewhat ;D, so then a delay penalty should probably kick in for each week over the ETA.
-
i can invest 10%of the cost :) it is a essential feature for financial business :) :) :)
-
CNX should just start the kickstarter.
@onceuponatime could give smaller investors 7 days time to buy equity and then buy the remaining shares.
make sense?
-
I would estimate it would take about 1 month of effort. Allowing for various delays etc, I would guess 6 weeks from the time we start on it.
But it is software, I wouldn't want to be penalized for taking longer than 6 weeks.
-
I would estimate it would take about 1 month of effort. Allowing for various delays etc, I would guess 6 weeks from the time we start on it.
But it is software, I wouldn't want to be penalized for taking longer than 6 weeks.
Would that put a hold on things like updating the API or just remove resources? If it's removing resources, what percentage would other projects suffer? Also, what about an up-front payment and then rest in escrow (if that's possible) once the work is successfully delivered?
-
I would estimate it would take about 1 month of effort. Allowing for various delays etc, I would guess 6 weeks from the time we start on it.
But it is software, I wouldn't want to be penalized for taking longer than 6 weeks.
Would that put a hold on things like updating the API or just remove resources? If it's removing resources, what percentage would other projects suffer? Also, what about an up-front payment and then rest in escrow (if that's possible) once the work is successfully delivered?
This is also something I am discussing with Stan:
2.. I can then wire Cryptonomex $45,000 so that you can begin the process of gathering the materials and personnel to fulfill the (contract?). Hopefully this would involve you adding to capacity such that other worker proposals voted on are not delayed. Otherwise the firestorm in the Forum will be unbearable.
-
We just hired a new developer. We have a lot of customers competing for our attention right now. We are attempting to add capacity responsibly.
If it comes down to prioritization of scarce resources we will do whatever pays the most first (ECON 101).
-
I would estimate it would take about 1 month of effort. Allowing for various delays etc, I would guess 6 weeks from the time we start on it.
But it is software, I wouldn't want to be penalized for taking longer than 6 weeks.
Would that put a hold on things like updating the API or just remove resources? If it's removing resources, what percentage would other projects suffer? Also, what about an up-front payment and then rest in escrow (if that's possible) once the work is successfully delivered?
This is also something I am discussing with Stan:
2.. I can then wire Cryptonomex $45,000 so that you can begin the process of gathering the materials and personnel to fulfill the (contract?). Hopefully this would involve you adding to capacity such that other worker proposals voted on are not delayed. Otherwise the firestorm in the Forum will be unbearable.
#sharebits "onceuponatime" 66 OPENSESAME
-
Onceuponatime may soon have nearly $45,000 worth of UIA crapcoin tips in his wallet!
-
Onceuponatime may soon have nearly $45,000 worth of UIA crapcoin tips in his wallet!
#sharebits "donkeypong" 1 CRAPCOIN
#sharebits "donkeypong" 1 SHITPOST.PTS
:P
-
Onceuponatime may soon have nearly $45,000 worth of UIA crapcoin tips in his wallet!
I may be able to setup a sales page for you and write the copy @onceuponatime and with some help from metaexchange, people will be able to buy directly from the sales page. If I could get the help of someone like @kenCode or @Method-X to promote it, I think it would be worth it in order to attract some eyeballs from the large cryptocurrency crowd...especially on the darknet.
#sharebits "onceuponatime" 1 THANKYOU
Who wouldn't want to get a cut of every stealth transaction made forever on the bitshares blockchain?
-
Onceuponatime may soon have nearly $45,000 worth of UIA crapcoin tips in his wallet!
You may be surprise, I sold FISTBUMP and HIGHFIVE and made 1300BTS from it. But thats beside the point.
I may be able to setup a sales page for you and write the copy @onceuponatime and with some help from metaexchange, people will be able to buy directly from the sales page. If I could get the help of someone like @kenCode or @Method-X to promote it, I think it would be worth it in order to attract some eyeballs from the large cryptocurrency crowd...especially on the darknet.
#sharebits "onceuponatime" 1 THANKYOU
Who wouldn't want to get a cut of every stealth transaction made forever on the bitshares blockchain?
i will PM you.
-
Hey rgcrypto, here are the results of your tips...
- onceuponatime (http://sharebits.io/Home/Dashboard?username=onceuponatime): has been credited 1 THANKYOU
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20205.msg260549/topicseen.html#msg260549
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...
- donkeypong (http://sharebits.io/Home/Dashboard?username=donkeypong): has been credited 1 BTS
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20205.msg260546/topicseen.html#msg260546
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
Hey twitter, here are the results of your tips...
- onceuponatime (http://sharebits.io/Home/Dashboard?username=onceuponatime): has been credited 66 OPENSESAME
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20205.msg260541/topicseen.html#msg260541
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
Onceuponatime may soon have nearly $45,000 worth of UIA crapcoin tips in his wallet!
#sharebits "donkeypong" 1 CRAPCOIN
#sharebits "donkeypong" 1 SHITPOST.PTS
:P
Just so you're aware, if you try tipping an asset that doesn't actually exist (i.e. not that you don't have the asset, but the asset doesn't actually exist by that name) then it defaults to BTS.
-
Just so you're aware, if you try tipping an asset that doesn't actually exist (i.e. not that you don't have the asset, but the asset doesn't actually exist by that name) then it defaults to BTS.
Ya, I posted in the bug testing thread that it should be limited to "1" BTS just in case someone makes an error (unlike mine which is intentional) and tries to send 1000 CRAPCOIN and ends up sending 1000 BTS. ;)
-
hey guys, any idea of when stealth transfers will be available in the wallets?
once that feature is in there, I think you will start seeing more money flowing into the system. right now, that money doesn't want to be revealed on cryptofresh, the big money wants some damn privacy.
-
hey guys, any idea of when stealth transfers will be available in the wallets?
once that feature is in there, I think you will start seeing more money flowing into the system. right now, that money doesn't want to be revealed on cryptofresh, the big money wants some damn privacy.
I share your concern Ken. There are behind the scenes discussions going on right now as to the issuing of a UIA that community members could buy into, and the specifications for a worker proposal must be formulated and then voted on by the community. If the proposal is voted for by the community, the funds will be forwarded to CNX and then Bytemaster estimated 4 to 6 weeks to complete the task. If the proposal is not voted in by the community then this initiative would cease.
However, I expect a positive response from the community as anyone who wants to participate will have the opportunity to buy the UIA that will back the project and participate in the income stream.
-
I like the spirit of this thread +5%
-
I hope the UIA idea also floats to the bond and prediction market. Let's get additional funding coming in so CNX can hire in additional resources and give investors a chance to make some money. Workers are fine, UIA is more exciting and allows us to reach people outside of our immediate system.
-
The lifetime fee % for the person who takes the risk is exactely what we have with referral program.
It encentives people to take risks, to invest time and money in BitShares because they may have, one day, great incomes from that.
We can't refuse this life time % after the investor break even on his investment. It would discourage lots of futures investors and we need them to move forwards faster and keep competitive.
We also, IMHO, need to keep a part of the fees for ouselves because the feature only exist because it can be implemented on the BitShares plateform.
I like the way this thread is going.
That's amazing to know that this community has members like OnceUponATime ready to take risks !
#sharebits "onceuponatime" 1 KUDOS
-
Hey EstefanTT, here are the results of your tips...
- onceuponatime (http://sharebits.io/Home/Dashboard?username=onceuponatime): has been credited 1 KUDOS
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20205.msg260734/topicseen.html#msg260734
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
We just hired a new developer. We have a lot of customers competing for our attention right now. We are attempting to add capacity responsibly.
If it comes down to prioritization of scarce resources we will do whatever pays the most first (ECON 101).
This is nice to hear. Hope things keep up and you can hire a few more. Let's see what's the size of CNX team next year in 2017! *insert missing remind me in one year feature that reddit has*
-
Hey EstefanTT, here are the results of your tips...
- onceuponatime (http://sharebits.io/Home/Dashboard?username=onceuponatime): has been credited 1 KUDOS
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20205.msg260734/topicseen.html#msg260734
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
This is a proposal to put stealth transfers in the Graphene wallet. What about Moonstone and alternative wallets?
I don't like implementing a hard fork to change fee allocation to go to a specific account. It's not very decentralized. Perhaps a UIA-based solution is better.
-
I don't like implementing a hard fork to change fee allocation to go to a specific account. It's not very decentralized. Perhaps a UIA-based solution is better.
Yep it sounds shit.
-
I don't like implementing a hard fork to change fee allocation to go to a specific account. It's not very decentralized. Perhaps a UIA-based solution is better.
Yep it sounds shit.
@Chronos If you could articulate how a UIA would escape the regulatory concern of issuing a "security" it would be helpful.
@oldmine I am having trouble understanding what your contribution is adding to the search for solutions as to how to fund new features..
-
I don't like implementing a hard fork to change fee allocation to go to a specific account. It's not very decentralized. Perhaps a UIA-based solution is better.
Yep it sounds shit.
@Chronos If you could articulate how a UIA would escape the regulatory concern of issuing a "security" it would be helpful.
@oldmine I am having trouble understanding what your contribution is adding to the search for solutions as to how to fund new features..
why a UIA would be considered a "security"? It can simply be a UIA like all the ones people create with no real value like "goodidea" opensesame" ,"brownies" etc..with no strings attached like AGS was in the past. People decide to buy it because they believe it "may" have some value like earning fees from stealth transfers..I don't see any legal binding in all that or any kind of "security"..
1) BM issues the UIA with a fixed amount and price so total market cap is $45k
2) people buy into that via bitusd and bts
3) BM uses converts the bitusd and bts in usd
4) Owners of the UIA "may" receive the fees from the stealth transfers for life
5) Problem solved right?
Everything is based on trust.No legal binding. No "security"
-
This is a proposal to put stealth transfers in the Graphene wallet. What about Moonstone and alternative wallets?
This.. solution is to only split fees generated by Graphene GUI wallet?
-
Oh I thought this was a protocol change. I don't mind how anything on top of that is funded...I don't think we should even create worker proposals for that.. 3rd parties Can implement and make money from services.
If it's a protocol change I Favour BTS reserve paying for. Failing that, an open ICO funding round.
Just my BTS's worth...
-
I don't like implementing a hard fork to change fee allocation to go to a specific account. It's not very decentralized. Perhaps a UIA-based solution is better.
Yep it sounds shit.
@Chronos If you could articulate how a UIA would escape the regulatory concern of issuing a "security" it would be helpful.
@oldmine I am having trouble understanding what your contribution is adding to the search for solutions as to how to fund new features..
why a UIA would be considered a "security"? It can simply be a UIA like all the ones people create with no real value like "goodidea" opensesame" ,"brownies" etc..with no strings attached like AGS was in the past. People decide to buy it because they believe it "may" have some value like earning fees from stealth transfers..I don't see any legal binding in all that or any kind of "security"..
1) BM issues the UIA with a fixed amount and price so total market cap is $45k
2) people buy into that via bitusd and bts
3) BM uses converts the bitusd and bts in usd
4) Owners of the UIA "may" receive the fees from the stealth transfers for life
5) Problem solved right?
Everything is based on trust.No legal binding. No "security"
Legal issues.
-
1) BM issues the UIA with a fixed amount and price so total market cap is $45k
2) people buy into that via bitusd and bts
3) BM uses converts the bitusd and bts in usd
4) Owners of the UIA "may" receive the fees from the stealth transfers for life
5) Problem solved right?
Everything is based on trust.No legal binding. No "security"
I'm not sure the "may" would hold up. If BM refused to distribute any fees, a court may enforce it because the implied expectation was materially relied upon.
-
@oldmine I am having trouble understanding what your contribution is adding to the search for solutions as to how to fund new features..
What was wrong with my previous suggestion?
-You buy $45k of BTS off the market
-You get paid back by a worker proposal that pays you back over a few months
Result is that your added buy pressure helps fund CNX via their worker positions.
-
-You buy $45k of BTS off the market
-You get paid back by a worker proposal that pays you back over a few months
Result is that your added buy pressure helps fund CNX via their worker positions.
Yes, it makes sense to me a worker role would be somehow involved in the solution here. It was designed for this purpose (funding new work).
EDIT: did you miss a "step 1b: burn BTS" or does the investor keep the bought BTS? I want to receive a worker role for buying BTS, haha.
-
1) BM issues the UIA with a fixed amount and price so total market cap is $45k
2) people buy into that via bitusd and bts
3) BM uses converts the bitusd and bts in usd
4) Owners of the UIA "may" receive the fees from the stealth transfers for life
5) Problem solved right?
Everything is based on trust.No legal binding. No "security"
I'm not sure the "may" would hold up. If BM refused to distribute any fees, a court may enforce it because the implied expectation was materially relied upon.
a proper disclaimer associated with the UIA solves any legal issues I think...
I don't think that there is any legal binding with Brownies
"Brownie points in modern usage are a hypothetical social currency, which can be acquired by doing good deeds or earning favor in the eyes of another, often one's superior.
Issued by bytemaster".
Nothing in this statement says anything about any possible future sharedrops but a lot of people in here are buying these Brownies in the expectation and hope of those sharedrops..No matter what happens no one can claim that this is a security because of the implied expectation by some people..
Bitshares is a free society based on free gifts from one to the other. We are building a gift economy here. I don't think you can drive BM to the court if he issues an asset that people buy in with the expectation to receive fees for life and then he refuses to distribute those fees. All you can do in this case is never trust him ever again..I think we overcomplicate things for no reason..
-
1) BM issues the UIA with a fixed amount and price so total market cap is $45k
2) people buy into that via bitusd and bts
3) BM uses converts the bitusd and bts in usd
4) Owners of the UIA "may" receive the fees from the stealth transfers for life
5) Problem solved right?
Everything is based on trust.No legal binding. No "security"
I'm not sure the "may" would hold up. If BM refused to distribute any fees, a court may enforce it because the implied expectation was materially relied upon.
a proper disclaimer associated with the UIA solves any legal issues I think...
I don't think that there is any legal binding with Brownies
"Brownie points in modern usage are a hypothetical social currency, which can be acquired by doing good deeds or earning favor in the eyes of another, often one's superior.
Issued by bytemaster".
Nothing in this statement says anything about any possible future sharedrops but a lot of people in here are buying these Brownies in the expectation and hope of those sharedrops..No matter what happens no one can claim that this is a security because of the implied expectation by some people..
Bitshares is a free society based on free gifts from one to the other. We are building a gift economy here. I don't think you can drive BM to the court if he issues an asset that people buy in with the expectation to receive fees for life and then he refuses to distribute those fees. All you can do in this case is never trust him ever again..I think we overcomplicate things for no reason..
I don't think that your analysis holds true with regards to BROWNIEPTS. Bytemaster was never selling Brownies to raise money for anything. He was freely giving them away.
-
Nothing in this statement says anything about any possible future sharedrops but a lot of people in here are buying these Brownies in the expectation and hope of those sharedrops.
They were sharedropped to 4 times yesterday. ;)
-
@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...
What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?
Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..
-
@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...
What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?
Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..
I'm trying to find out how Ronny is issuing OBITS and selling them for participation in future income streams without being fingered as issuing a security. Same with the ShareBits. If anyone can tell me how they expect to not come under the scrutiny of various regulatory authorities, please let me know.
-
without being fingered
#sharebits "onceuponatime" 1 FISTBUMP
-
Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...
- onceuponatime (http://sharebits.io/Home/Dashboard?username=onceuponatime): has been credited 1 FISTBUMP
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20205.msg261534/topicseen.html#msg261534
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...
What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?
Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..
I'm trying to find out how Ronny is issuing OBITS and selling them for participation in future income streams without being fingered as issuing a security. Same with the ShareBits. If anyone can tell me how they expect to not come under the scrutiny of various regulatory authorities, please let me know.
I don't know about OBITS or METAFEE...but the safest best is to have the blockchain issue the Fee Backed Asset. I see it like a coop distributing the profits to it's members.
-
@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...
What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?
Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..
I'm trying to find out how Ronny is issuing OBITS and selling them for participation in future income streams without being fingered as issuing a security. Same with the ShareBits. If anyone can tell me how they expect to not come under the scrutiny of various regulatory authorities, please let me know.
edit to add: the following analysis is in regards to the usa. it is unclear how these will be regulated by other entities, i.e. the eu.
these uia's are not considered securities. the cftc has ruled that virtual currencies are commodities. in addition, the cftc only has regulatory authority when commodities are being sold for 'future delivery' -- not when a commodity is bought directly at market price and immediate delivery takes place. at least, this is how i understand the various rulings and white papers that the cftc has released regarding regulatory matters of virtual currencies.
one can then consider these uia's as 'interest-bearing commodities.' in a sense, no different than any other PoS coin that is interest-bearing. in other words, unregulated as long as no future contracts are sold.
-
@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...
What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?
Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..
I'm trying to find out how Ronny is issuing OBITS and selling them for participation in future income streams without being fingered as issuing a security. Same with the ShareBits. If anyone can tell me how they expect to not come under the scrutiny of various regulatory authorities, please let me know.
edit to add: the following analysis is in regards to the usa. it is unclear how these will be regulated by other entities, i.e. the eu.
these uia's are not considered securities. the cftc has ruled that virtual currencies are commodities. in addition, the cftc only has regulatory authority when commodities are being sold for 'future delivery' -- not when a commodity is bought directly at market price and immediate delivery takes place. at least, this is how i understand the various rulings and white papers that the cftc has released regarding regulatory matters of virtual currencies.
one can then consider these uia's as 'interest-bearing commodities.' in a sense, no different than any other PoS coin that is interest-bearing. in other words, unregulated as long as no future contracts are sold.
A UIA *CAN* be considered a security as you noted, depending on how they are used.
The issue at the end of the day here is the liability being brought on @onceuponatime in holding/controlling this UIA in how it operates. People are going to buy this UIA with the intent of having something delivered in the future called stealth feature. Following that, those that buy into it are expecting a return on their 'investment'.
It doesn't matter how you word it.. if/when regulatory body looks at this situation where money was taken, and future profits were promised/expected, it won't matter if you say otherwise. The whole setup clearly indicates that this is an investment with a clear path of return.
METAFEES has not been treated as a security, but more like a temporary loan.
OBITS is being treated as an ongoing security and what happens to it in the future will depend on what regulator compliance and/or consideration has been given to it by it's creator.
I made this suggestion in another thread when FBAs was being proposed by Stan.. I think if a new type of FBA function within BitShares comes into existence.. it should be something that once created gets pushed to the committee members as the managers of the asset, and thus decentralizing the assets and limiting the liabilities tremendously.
I hate to say it.. but I would wait for something like that to be implemented, which shouldn't be overly difficult since it involves mostly just re-purposing various elements we already have.
For those that argue that there is no laws now.. you have to really think 5 steps ahead when it comes to these things. Where are things going to end up? In the end, you want to be in the position where you are most likely to be protected. Since we are talking about blockchain functions too, lifetime is a long time to consider. So the best way to approach this IMO is to ensure that this whole thing remains decentralized.
-
METAFEES has not been treated as a security, but more like a temporary loan.
OBITS is being treated as an ongoing security and what happens to it in the future will depend on what regulator compliance and/or consideration has been given to it by it's creator.
Let me know why you consider OBITS to be treated as an ongoing security?
It is being offered to be fully returned to issuer on the base of buyback, and one way for it to be consídered is possibly as a temporary loan as you put it, it is however no more different than any other internet commodity or crypto currency available where the value of the token is based on various set of inner values.
The inner value of OBITS is i parts the acceptance of letting OBITS grow not only on the base of demand and supply but also based on the constantly added projects with each their contribution of value on the base of crypto generated fees.
Most importantly also is that all profits generated are profits generated in crypto on the base of transactions all taking place on blockchain.
When you buy bitcoin as an investor, you buy based on the expectations of a ROI
When you buy OBITS as an investor you also buy based on expectations of a ROI
In Denmark you do not need to pay any taxes on ROI' connected to crypto currencies, you do not need to pay any VAT on crypto either.
Below an official statment from the Danish FSA:
The Danish FSA has estimated that virtual currency is not covered by the existing financial regulation in Denmark. In fact, in a particular case the Danish FSA has approved that a company does not need permission to getting established in this country, with the intention of running a business with the exchange of real money against virtual currency such as Bitcoin among others, and vise versa.
Backing up the decision , the Danish FSA has concluded that the activity does not qualify as issuance of electronic money , the offering of payment services , currency exchange, receiving deposits or investment activity and that the activity is therefore not subject to financial regulation .
Background information on virtual currencies Virtual currencies are a form of unregulated electronic money, and as opposed to real money not issued or guaranteed by a central bank, which in some cases can be used as a method of payment. Virtual currencies have emerged in many different forms, first in the context of on-line gambling and social networks. Subsequently, the virtual currencies developed to be used as an alternative to real currency.
Bitcoin is the most common virtual currency, but also LiteCoin , ZeroCoin and Linden Dollars can be mentioned among the more well known types .
link in danish though: https://www.finanstilsynet.dk/da/Nyhedscenter/Pressemeddelelser/Arkiv-PM/Presse-2013/Advarsel-mod-virtuelle-valutaer-bitcom-mfl-2013.aspx?p=1&p=1
-
@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...
What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?
Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..
I'm trying to find out how Ronny is issuing OBITS and selling them for participation in future income streams without being fingered as issuing a security. Same with the ShareBits. If anyone can tell me how they expect to not come under the scrutiny of various regulatory authorities, please let me know.
edit to add: the following analysis is in regards to the usa. it is unclear how these will be regulated by other entities, i.e. the eu.
these uia's are not considered securities. the cftc has ruled that virtual currencies are commodities. in addition, the cftc only has regulatory authority when commodities are being sold for 'future delivery' -- not when a commodity is bought directly at market price and immediate delivery takes place. at least, this is how i understand the various rulings and white papers that the cftc has released regarding regulatory matters of virtual currencies.
one can then consider these uia's as 'interest-bearing commodities.' in a sense, no different than any other PoS coin that is interest-bearing. in other words, unregulated as long as no future contracts are sold.
A UIA *CAN* be considered a security as you noted, depending on how they are used.
The issue at the end of the day here is the liability being brought on @onceuponatime in holding/controlling this UIA in how it operates. People are going to buy this UIA with the intent of having something delivered in the future called stealth feature. Following that, those that buy into it are expecting a return on their 'investment'.
It doesn't matter how you word it.. if/when regulatory body looks at this situation where money was taken, and future profits were promised/expected, it won't matter if you say otherwise. The whole setup clearly indicates that this is an investment with a clear path of return.
METAFEES has not been treated as a security, but more like a temporary loan.
OBITS is being treated as an ongoing security and what happens to it in the future will depend on what regulator compliance and/or consideration has been given to it by it's creator.
I made this suggestion in another thread when FBAs was being proposed by Stan.. I think if a new type of FBA function within BitShares comes into existence.. it should be something that once created gets pushed to the committee members as the managers of the asset, and thus decentralizing the assets and limiting the liabilities tremendously.
I hate to say it.. but I would wait for something like that to be implemented, which shouldn't be overly difficult since it involves mostly just re-purposing various elements we already have.
For those that argue that there is no laws now.. you have to really think 5 steps ahead when it comes to these things. Where are things going to end up? In the end, you want to be in the position where you are most likely to be protected. Since we are talking about blockchain functions too, lifetime is a long time to consider. So the best way to approach this IMO is to ensure that this whole thing remains decentralized.
point of clarification : i never said there were no laws, i have just been repeating what statements regulatory bodies have themselves stated on the matter.
if you deem UIAs / virtual currencies to be securities, and this appears to fall within the definition as given by the Securities Act of 1933 -- see Sec. 2(a)(1) in https://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf -- then one can make the argument that the unincorporated body of bitshares is the issuer of any of the securities -- be they UIAs or bitshares or FBAs or whatever -- and that the "issuer" on the platform is the "user" selling tokens of their stock on the bitshares platform. alternatively, the `person' (as per the definition of `person') selling UIA could also be considered an `issuer' by definition. see Sec. 2(a)(4) for the definition of 'issuer' as given by the Securities Act of 1933 (previous link).
i would also say that, clearly, the bitshares platform is an exchange, as per the definitions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (see https://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf and Sec. (3)(a)(1). )
regardless of how regulatory bodies will decide how to regulate decentralized exchanges, any 'talk' of being 5 steps ahead requires compliance with existing laws, i.e. registration with the SEC, etc. any other discussion about regulations is a moot point if this is not even done.
so, the question is, do we forge ahead and largely ignore regulations, but have our own internal ones that appear to mimic various international regulatory bodies, or perform an obligatory dance citing definitions, current regulations and law, and attempting to decipher how they apply to bts, users, issuers of UIAs, virtual currencies, etc. before finally mom and dad put a stop to the dance and teach us how to waltz?
basically, i think you can regard any UIA as a stock issued by a(n) (un)registered company and that any `promise of profit' is based on the success of said company, whose business model is in collection of fees, at which point dividends are re-distributed to shareholders. this is no different than investing in any other company that issues common stock for sale.
there are all sorts of ways to interpret the law. why bother? any 'authority' is just going to regulate in a manner that benefits the regulatory agency the most -- be it in monetary gain or in a manner that allows for the maximum power of said 'authority.' in turn, we should do the same. interpret the law in such a way that maximizes our power, monetary gain, etc. then, judges can decide. but ... it becomes an even murkier issue when this is internationally based. which nation-state's laws hold for regulation? nation-states that have the physical presence of a committee member in their jurisdiction or the server that runs the witness or what.
at the end of the day, someone else will come along and regulate us into whatever manner they see fit (probably with the criteria outlined above). the idea is to leave the code modular enough to be able to easily abide by their rules. until then, we should do as we see fit -- which is no different than what we already have been doing.
-
could this be extended to something like having your profile with a stealth mode active as well? So others couldn't see who you voted for, the assets you have, etc? If feasible, that would be an extremely good revenue source for the DAC (and onceuponatime), imagine getting something like Stealth Membership where you would pay a fee to have that the same way you have Life Time Membership.
If LM find it unfair, then get current LM to have it for free and charge the new ones for a Stealth Membership apart. Or make LM more expensive and already including those features once it's released. Since that would be someone most people would get, could be a good revenue source.
So,
Basic Members would get Stealth Transfers for an extra fee
LM would get a Stealth Mode or something that would also hide the assets they have, etc, meaning it would not only be limited to transfers, but extended to their entire account as well.
Would make LM more useful, attractive and increase revenue source.
-
Everyone wants a free lunch, but nobody wants to pay for it. Why shouldn't he get lifetime royalties? Its a privatized feature and they put in the money to get it running.
I would agree with your statement if the investor is not receiving a guaranteed monopoly on the feature. Given the threat of competition, the investor would need to adjust the fees accordingly.
But will the investor allow the feature to be open sourced if the investor isn't granted a monopoly?
-
Btw, I am unclear if this thread is asking for a programmer to help implement superior on chain anonymity, but I have designed anonymity that is equivalent to RingCT in functionality but is based on the more efficient and compact CCT. I could implement either RingCT or my Zero Knowledge Transactions for $45k.
But at this time I am working on my own coin. But if that flops in January, I would be available for programming work.
If anyone is unfamiliar with who I am, refer to these Bitcoin forum threads:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1284083.msg13264616#msg13264616
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13267804#msg13267804
Daniel remembers me from technical discussions on the Bitcoin forum in 2013.
Generally speaking if my current venture flops, I am interested in well paid programming not limited to just anonymity. But it seems that perhaps this thread about paying the existing core devs to do this work?
-
Welcome back Anonymint. I am sure the BTS holders would welcome a Fee Backed Asset for your new improved security provided you also produced a viable GUI to go along with it.
With a FBA you would benefit from the use of your feature / work across the entire ecosystem and would likely profit more than you would be launching your own coin.
More developers are always welcome.
-
Can we have infos about Stealth vs RingCT vs ZKT ?
Differences, cons & pros.
-
Daniel thanks we could get into that then if I am free to work.
I like GUI programming so that is no problem for me assuming the incentives are well aligned.
Can we have infos about Stealth vs RingCT vs ZKT ?
Differences, cons & pros.
Assuming you mean by Stealth what I think you mean Stealth Addresses, which is ECDH exchange so that the payee's address is different on each transaction (but I thought Daniel already implemented that in BTS2.0?), then I explain what the others add to that. Stealth Addresses provides unlinkability but not untraceability. Those two terms are defined in the Cryptonote (CN) white paper.
CN (one-time rings) mixes payer's identities which adds the untraceability.
CT (Blockstream's Confidential Txns) hides the values of the transactions in homeomorphic proof-of-sums and proof-of-positive small values.
CCT is another way of doing CT that appears to be about 10X smaller use of space. Note I have claimed to have eliminated the proof-of-square thus making it even more efficient but my paper is unpublished and thus not vetted yet.
RingCT combines CN and CT.
ZKT is my unpublished paper that combines CN with CCT which I claim was completed before July 15 much earlier than RingCT was invented. So I claimed to be first, but again I chose not to publish because at the time I thought I was reserving it as feature for my coin that I was working on (but since changed my mind on priorities).
I would also suggest considering offering a mixer based on Zerocash because I think that is the holygrail, because it doesn't matter if your IP address is not obfuscated because ZC (not Zerocoin) hides everything. Theoretically all the other anonymity paradigms can be unmasked by correlating IP addresses. That doesn't mean the others are useless, just not as 100% certain as Zerocash. Zerocash has some issues and I made some suggestions on how to overcome them:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290263.msg13269624#msg13269624
Hope that helps you all in your decision process.
-
Hope that helps you all in your decision process.
Thanks for the explanations.
Sorry for the probably stupid question, but about the mixer based on Zerocash...are we still talking about an internat/blockchain/protocol-level feature right?
If so, would it be "easily" addable to the RingCT/ZKT ?
How much would it impact on implementation time&cost?
-
I suggest we implement the lastest-greatest, otherwise we will want to upgrade in a few years. :-X
Anonymint knows his stuff, and ZKT seems to be a superior technology compared to all other solutions to privacy on a blockchain. Zerocoin is nice, but setting up the initial parameters in a transparent way is a tricky thing to do from what I'm told. If we implemented something like ZKT, we would have industry-leading privacy... a better solution than even Monero is able to come up with. Correct me if I'm wrong Anonymint, but I remember from what I've read on Bitcointalk that your solution results in a smaller block size than Monero's solution.
If it is possible set up the Zerocoin parameters in a transparent way then would be awesome too. We would be years ahead of most other coins when it comes to financial privacy. Bitshares needs to consider privacy as being one of its core values, and I think that core value fits together well with the exchange and banking part of Bitshares.
-
This thread just got real interesting; the first competitor to CNX capable of serious development.
Does this mean Anonymint & CNX are going to bid against each other for OnceUpon's $45K?
Is OnceUpon willing to consider Anonymint's bid, and is the timing an issue?
Anonymint, I hope you consider what bytemaster said about the FBA route here in the BitShares ecosystem being more lucrative than launching your own coin and all that entails.
-
Zero coin is overrated.
-
Anonimint is very very smart. Perhaps capable of everything he says. I would still want all code audited by cnx though.
-
This thread just got real interesting; the first competitor to CNX capable of serious development.
Does this mean Anonymint & CNX are going to bid against each other for OnceUpon's $45K?
Is OnceUpon willing to consider Anonymint's bid, and is the timing an issue?
Anonymint, I hope you consider what bytemaster said about the FBA route here in the BitShares ecosystem being more lucrative than launching your own coin and all that entails.
My investment purchase of software and its implementation would be from CNX because I have had years to evaluate the characters of the principals and trust them completely (as I have to because the technology is way over my head). If CNX wants to subcontract the work to Anonymint, or hire him, that is their business.
-
This thread just got real interesting; the first competitor to CNX capable of serious development.
Does this mean Anonymint & CNX are going to bid against each other for OnceUpon's $45K?
Is OnceUpon willing to consider Anonymint's bid, and is the timing an issue?
Anonymint, I hope you consider what bytemaster said about the FBA route here in the BitShares ecosystem being more lucrative than launching your own coin and all that entails.
My investment purchase of software and its implementation would be from CNX because I have had years to evaluate the characters of the principals and trust them completely (as I have to because the technology is way over my head). If CNX wants to subcontract the work to Anonymint, or hire him, that is their business.
That makes perfect sense. So even IF anonymint were to submit a worker proposal and try to compete with CNX, you wouldn't be interested in such an arrangement. I get it, I do see the wisdom in that.
I'm not saying that is anonymint's intention, I just saw it as a possibility.
Puppies is also right, anonymint may be capable of coding such an important and complex feature, but his skills in DPoS / BitShares are more of an unknown. At this stage of BitShares (im)maturity there is added risk in getting a 3rd party involved, so a CNX code review / audit would be prudent.
-
This thread just got real interesting; the first competitor to CNX capable of serious development.
Does this mean Anonymint & CNX are going to bid against each other for OnceUpon's $45K?
Is OnceUpon willing to consider Anonymint's bid, and is the timing an issue?
Anonymint, I hope you consider what bytemaster said about the FBA route here in the BitShares ecosystem being more lucrative than launching your own coin and all that entails.
My investment purchase of software and its implementation would be from CNX because I have had years to evaluate the characters of the principals and trust them completely (as I have to because the technology is way over my head). If CNX wants to subcontract the work to Anonymint, or hire him, that is their business.
That makes perfect sense. So even IF anonymint were to submit a worker proposal and try to compete with CNX, you wouldn't be interested in such an arrangement. I get it, I do see the wisdom in that.
I'm not saying that is anonymint's intention, I just saw it as a possibility.
Puppies is also right, anonymint may be capable of coding such an important and complex feature, but his skills in DPoS / BitShares are more of an unknown. At this stage of BitShares (im)maturity there is added risk in getting a 3rd party involved, so a CNX code review / audit would be prudent.
That would be great if he submitted a worker proposal to implement a competing technology from CNX's on our blockchain.. I might even buy some of his FBA on the DEX if he does to hedge my bet. But I think that CNX would beat him to market by a long shot, and his technology, coming out later, would have to be better and/or less expensive to gain traction, right?
-
That would be great if he submitted a worker proposal to implement a competing technology from CNX's on our blockchain.. I might even buy some of his FBA on the DEX if he does to hedge my bet. But I think that CNX would beat him to market by a long shot, and his technology, coming out later, would have to be better and/or less expensive to gain traction, right?
That would be so awesome .. only because it shows the true nature of decentralized development and it's funding through FBA's
-
FYI, I am currently collecting proposals and have them written down in a github repository:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0008.md -- Privacy Mode
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0007.md -- FBA
Those are still in draft mode @onceuponatime but I would like use them to represent the idea to shareholders to have them vote on the worker, if you agree
-
I think that CNX would beat him to market by a long shot, and his technology, coming out later, would have to be better and/or less expensive to gain traction, right?
Is there a plan for promoting your FBA?
-
For anyone who's interested, CNX proposal lacks the following critical feature:
* Sender and receiver of a transaction can prove a connection between themselves.
This doesn't sound that bad at first, but if you think about some authority confiscating private keys of some service using this system, then they have access to the usernames of all users who sent them transactions. This totally defeats the purpose.
-
For anyone who's interested, CNX proposal lacks the following critical feature:
* Sender and receiver of a transaction can prove a connection between themselves.
This doesn't sound that bad at first, but if you think about some authority confiscating private keys of some service using this system, then they have access to the usernames of all users who sent them transactions. This totally defeats the purpose.
Very good point.
though I think you can still have "plausible deniability", can't you? Why would anyone know that I own a particular private account?
Furthermore, to my understanding, the private account only contains the 'root' private key and the funds are stored in child-keys making it impossible to to link funds to the private account without the private key. (unless of course you add your account name into the memo, which has been the case in BTS1)
-
though I think you can still have "plausible deniability", can't you? Why would anyone know that I own a particular private account?
Furthermore, to my understanding, the private account only contains the 'root' private key and the funds are stored in child-keys making it impossible to to link funds to the private account without the private key. (unless of course you add your account name into the memo, which has been the case in BTS1)
Authorities just cross reference this forum with the usernames, seize the database and get access to personal information which can be used to follow up their investigations.
Authorities will just seize the hardware, within that will be the wallets with all child keys.
-
@AnonyMint you have several options here.
You could produce a feature for Bitshares that includes ZKT + Zerocash mixer and GUI. You can fund this with:
- Basic worker proposal. BTS shareholders will decide by voting if they want this feature or not, and if they accept the price you ask.
- Fee Backed Asset. You produce the feature and issue an FBA for it that will bring revenue for you when the feature is used. Here are some calculations how to value it. (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20649.0.html)
- Crowdfunding. You will issue an FBA, sell it and use those funds for development.
- Mixed funding. You sell some of the FBA and keep the rest for yourself. Maybe the best option, you get money instantly to fund the development and you will get a lot more later when people use the feature.
You will propably have to cooperate with Cryptonomex with this. They can consult you how to implement everything on the blockchain, issue FBA, etc. At least they have to check the code before it is implemented to the blockchain so that shareholders can be sure it is high quality.
Other options are basic GUI stuff, development, etc. You can either be a contractor to Cryptonomex or make your own worker proposal (like svk just did (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20655.0.html))
If you have any other features on mind that require new kind of transaction on the blockchain, you can code that feature and fund it with an FBA.
Anyway, my personal take on anonymous/private transfers is that of course we should implement best option available. Stealth transfers that we now have is good, but not the best. Having the best one is huge marketing advantage for Bitshares.
-
For anyone that doubts the value of blockchain transaction privacy, this interview of Dash's founder Evan Duffield may give you another perspective to consider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-wZr9chPrk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-wZr9chPrk)
-
@AnonyMint you have several options here.
You could produce a feature for Bitshares that includes ZKT + Zerocash mixer and GUI. You can fund this with:
- Basic worker proposal. BTS shareholders will decide by voting if they want this feature or not, and if they accept the price you ask.
- Fee Backed Asset. You produce the feature and issue an FBA for it that will bring revenue for you when the feature is used. Here are some calculations how to value it. (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20649.0.html)
- Crowdfunding. You will issue an FBA, sell it and use those funds for development.
- Mixed funding. You sell some of the FBA and keep the rest for yourself. Maybe the best option, you get money instantly to fund the development and you will get a lot more later when people use the feature.
You will propably have to cooperate with Cryptonomex with this. They can consult you how to implement everything on the blockchain, issue FBA, etc. At least they have to check the code before it is implemented to the blockchain so that shareholders can be sure it is high quality.
Other options are basic GUI stuff, development, etc. You can either be a contractor to Cryptonomex or make your own worker proposal (like svk just did (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20655.0.html))
If you have any other features on mind that require new kind of transaction on the blockchain, you can code that feature and fund it with an FBA.
Anyway, my personal take on anonymous/private transfers is that of course we should implement best option available. Stealth transfers that we now have is good, but not the best. Having the best one is huge marketing advantage for Bitshares.
Would be nice to see the opinion of an outsider on this proposal from someone such as @AnonyMint
Perhaps as others have indicated this can be further revised and improved before moving forward with the 45k investment.
-
I think that CNX would beat him to market by a long shot, and his technology, coming out later, would have to be better and/or less expensive to gain traction, right?
Is there a plan for promoting your FBA?
There are to be five members of the Maintenance Account with 3 of 5 signatory authority who can vote on spending funds from that account to promote the feature far and wide.
Additionally, it would be in the interest of purchasers of a STEALTH FBA to promote the feature (since they participate in the income stream from its use) and in their promotions also use their referral link for an additional lifetime referral income from those who sign up for an account under them.
-
FYI, I am currently collecting proposals and have them written down in a github repository:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0008.md -- Privacy Mode
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0007.md -- FBA
Those are still in draft mode @onceuponatime but I would like use them to represent the idea to shareholders to have them vote on the worker, if you agree
Thank you very much for this awesome organizational work!
As you said, it is still draft mode ( https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0008.md ) and I think the "contract" section (among others) needs to be further clarified by Cryptonomex and myself. I have been expecting a revised Worker Proposal draft from Cryptonomex.
-
For anyone that doubts the value of blockchain transaction privacy, this interview of Dash's founder Evan Duffield may give you another perspective to consider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-wZr9chPrk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-wZr9chPrk)
that initial distribution though... Could someone compare or link me to a comparison if it was done already, between the method BitShares wants to implement via Stealth and the method used by Dash please?
-
Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only under the assumption that no changes would be made to the blockchain. We were comfortable adding a "small" change to reallocate fees paid for stealth transfers.
Introducing something new and unproven to the backend will significantly increase the development costs.
Of the things proposed by anonymint the ones I actually think are worth something are:
1. smaller proofs
2. ring signatures that allow you to combine any random set of outputs.
I do not think the mixing / zerocoin feature is worthwhile because it slows down the transfer rate. You deposit into the mixer, then you must wait until there is enough cover traffic before you withdraw. Zerocoin even requires a fixed size commitment.
The shortest path to privacy is by implementing a GUI on what we have now. Then we can let the other technologies mature a bit first.
The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library. Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.
-
What about monseter's observation concerning the lack of provable transfer between stealth accounts?
On the one hand this would be an element of audit-ability / tracking, which stealth is implemented to overcome or obscure. On the other hand if that audit trail is protected and private it is evidence for ownership. I guess you could think of it as a hidden financial network. Not sure exactly what monsterer was looking for, but I would like to see his concern addressed one way or the other.
-
Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only
...
The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library. Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.
good lord. this is why (for the past 15+ years) i refuse to hire american devs. sorry Dan, I just think that number is ridiculous.
I bet xeroc and Anonymint could do the front and back themselves for just 20% of that amount.
-
Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only
...
The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library. Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.
good lord. this is why (for the past 15+ years) i refuse to hire american devs. sorry Dan, I just think that number is ridiculous.
I bet xeroc and Anonymint could do the front and back themselves for just 20% of that amount.
First point: Good developers are expensive. If Bitshares wants to be something more than a amateur project, we have to be able to attract high quality devs.
Second point: First worker proposals and job contracts can be very valuable. This is a good way to signal every other cryptoexpert that here is money to make. So this is also a marketing tool.
Third point: Not much competition right now. Cryptonomex is basically only party that can do this reliably.
If you can find more developers that can do new features on the blockchain considerably cheaper than Cryptonomex, please bring them in! We are lacking manpower here. Lots of stuff to do but very few devs.
-
Well, I disagree completely on your first 3 points.
As for more developers. Not a problem. Give me even $5K and watch what I/we can build with that.
-
Well, I disagree completely on your first 3 points.
As for more developers. Not a problem. Give me even $5K and watch what I/we can build with that.
easy. make a worker proposal, setup an escrow (not gonna pay you in advance) and you're good to go.
-
Well, I disagree completely on your first 3 points.
As for more developers. Not a problem. Give me even $5K and watch what I/we can build with that.
easy. make a worker proposal, setup an escrow (not gonna pay you in advance) and you're good to go.
actually, for raising money, I'd rather just use a UIA or FBA. this way we don't force stakeholders to pay anything who do not want to pay. make it voluntary for everyone.
-
Introducing something new and unproven to the backend will significantly increase the development costs.
The shortest path to privacy is by implementing a GUI on what we have now. Then we can let the other technologies mature a bit first.
I see this as a strongest argument for going on as planned in the OP. If we change to a totally different technology, it will take time. Although that wouldn't be a surprise – Bitshares is quite well known for discarding current solutions and replacing them with newer ones even when the older haven't even implemented yet. ;D
But anyway, AnonyMint's proposal is still a notable threat for onceuponatime's FBA. If a better privacy tech will be implemented in less than a year, it will be a huge competitor to STEALTH-FBA.
-
Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only
...
The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library. Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.
good lord. this is why (for the past 15+ years) i refuse to hire american devs. sorry Dan, I just think that number is ridiculous.
I bet xeroc and Anonymint could do the front and back themselves for just 20% of that amount.
I definitely couldn't.
Don't think that just because I worked for "almost free" in the BitShares ecospace in the last years means that I can go on like that .. because that certainly is not the case.
Also note that German devs of that quality have AT LEAST the same price. Go find a Valentine, James, or Sigve that works for less and can get the work done as reliably and quick as they can!
-
Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only
...
The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library. Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.
good lord. this is why (for the past 15+ years) i refuse to hire american devs. sorry Dan, I just think that number is ridiculous.
I bet xeroc and Anonymint could do the front and back themselves for just 20% of that amount.
I definitely couldn't.
Don't think that just because I worked for "almost free" in the BitShares ecospace in the last years means that I can go on like that .. because that certainly is not the case.
Also note that German devs of that quality have AT LEAST the same price. Go find a Valentine, James, or Sigve that works for less and can get the work done as reliably and quick as they can!
Also keep in mind that this is for a COMPANY which has other overhead above and beyond an independent contractor. With that you get a MIX of skills and parallel development.
-
As requested by Bytemaster; i have created a worker proposal for ~$300 for one month starting tomorrow to poll the shareholders about the STEALTH proposal.
The worker is 1.14.18 and payed $300 to me for creating and maintaining this particular BSIP. Expect some minor modifications and improvements for this BSIP
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0008.md
This worker serves as a simple "poll" for the shareholders.
Happy voting!
-
I'm a little late to this discussion, but I've been thinking it over and have some questions..
Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.
This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just 13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.
Finally, on an ideological note: we've never seen a true global free market, and we have no idea where it will lead society. It could be really good, it could be really bad. I posit that stealth is only desirable because of short-term/reactionary fear. And when people act out of fear they make bad (I mean truly horrible) decisions.
-
I don't agree with the idea we don't need privacy. I see tracking every purchase you make as a serious threat. The BIG DATA collected by observing your buying habits reveal a HUGE amount about your lifestyle, beliefs, travel, you name it. They have a comprehensive dossier on you via this, even more revealing and invasive that Facebook, which is bad enough.
On your last point concerning there being no true free marketplace, I agree. There is always state influence b/c there is nowhere on the planet you can go where anarchy prevails... yet. I hope you'll see it in your lifetime, you're much younger than I, but it is going to take a major shift in the mind of mankind to expunge or adequately reduce (blind) believe in authority before that happens.
Not even the "black market" is free from government's influence, b/c they influence supply by making things illegal. Similar in the crypto marketplace but less so. It also has tax ramifications for many people.
IMO we need stealth, in part so people have an alternative to store their wealth outside of the mainstream banking cartel and beyond the reach of those who would target you to take it away.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Maker about creating more liquidity, i.e. market makers? I thought when I first heard of it it was abut the "maker" community of electronics hackers, i.e. hackerspace, also a very exciting arena for us geeks and frontier pushers. That's where 3D printing came from.
-
Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.
But hing the amount and not showing involved parties at all is considered WAY
better privacy.
This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the
table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH
market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just
13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.
Great observation.
What the MAKER speculators may not know is that the STEALTH proposal is VERY
VERY important for the Fee Backed Asset idea. even though they are independent
proposals (BSIP7 and BSIP8), creating and issuing a FBA under a STEALTH/PRIVATE
account is very important for regulatory reasons!!!
Otherwise people that want to innovate and have t funded via FBA might run into
legal trouble quickly. Read BSIP7 for more details about it.
Finally, on an ideological note: we've never seen a true global free market, and
we have no idea where it will lead society. It could be really good, it could be
really bad. I posit that stealth is only desirable because of
short-term/reactionary fear. And when people act out of fear they make
bad (I mean truly horrible) decisions.
The Stealth proposal is not only about hiding funds or transfers or privacy. It
is also about making sure not to run into regulatory issues and let more
innovations enter the system more easily.
-
I'm a little late to this discussion, but I've been thinking it over and have some questions..
Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.
This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just 13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.
With STEALTH BitUSD you could conduct business for weeks/months privately and only need to do the rare conversion which wouldn't necessarily have to go through a payment processor or major exchange so that combo would be profitable for BTS. (This a major benefit over using volatile crypto-currency for business which needs to be traded regularly/often simultaneously for fiat in the process making privacy very hard to achieve.)
Without more liquid BitAssets though, or other popular sell-able product first, there will be little demand for STEALTH but as Xeroc says the funding/development of some of those products via FBA's may benefit from/require privacy.
I don't think BTS will really increase in value though until BitAsset liquidity or one of those more sell-able products are developed.
-
As bm mentioned, current implement of STEALTH transfer is lack of unlinkability as well as untraceability. So it's just like TITAN in bts 0.x (although in 2.0 it does more than TITAN by hiding the amount of transfer), which just let people feel like that their have privacy, but their don't really have. It's dangerous to encourage people to use such non-perfect feature. Personally I don't like to use it nor recommend to other people.
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.
Under BitShares 2:
You cannot tell two transfers were to the same recipient.... until they spend them together.
With current API we can't control how to NOT 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.
Of the things proposed by anonymint the ones I actually think are worth something are:
1. smaller proofs
2. ring signatures that allow you to combine any random set of outputs.
CN (one-time rings) mixes payer's identities which adds the untraceability.
-
Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only
...
The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library. Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.
good lord. this is why (for the past 15+ years) i refuse to hire american devs. sorry Dan, I just think that number is ridiculous.
I bet xeroc and Anonymint could do the front and back themselves for just 20% of that amount.
Yeah, that's the same reason I refuse to buy gas when I'm in Europe.
It's cheaper just to abandon a car when the gas runs out and go buy a new one.
-
there is nowhere on the planet you can go where anarchy prevails... yet. I hope you'll see it in your lifetime
Thom, I love you, man.
-
Will I have to pay the new and improved stealth fee for stealth transfers made through the CLI?
I think I should not. I have this feature now, and I will see the 45K as a bribery so this feature is stolen from me (and the rest of BTS holders) and sold to the highest bidder.
Bad precedent all around.
-
Will I have to pay the new and improved stealth fee for stealth transfers made through the CLI?
I think I should not. I have this feature now, and I will see the 45K as a bribery so this feature is stolen from me (and the rest of BTS holders) and sold to the highest bidder.
Bad precedent all around.
You make a good point here Tony.
However, from what BM said that all existing backend infrastructure will be used to support the future stealth GUI, I'm afraid you are correct in your assessment.
I will say this however, that your complaint is more likely than not hollow, because using stealth from the CLI is really rather cumbersome and has inherent risks. If you use it make SURE you write down all keys used in every transfer. Might as well forget the labels, they're transitory and even the wallet doesn't remember them. IMO it's actually a rather crude implementation, more likely than not more of a proof of concept than practical. From what I saw of BM's GUI mockups, the GUI implementation will also be a minimalistic design.
We're talking GUI here, so elegant ... sufficient ... crude operation is quite subjective and in the eye of the beholder. I have no doubt it will get the job done, but how easy / intuitive it will be for users is another matter.
-
Will I have to pay the new and improved stealth fee for stealth transfers made through the CLI?
I think I should not. I have this feature now, and I will see the 45K as a bribery so this feature is stolen from me (and the rest of BTS holders) and sold to the highest bidder.
Bad precedent all around.
Great point if this is changing the blockchain code.
I posit that if applications could charge *ABOVE* blockchain fees, then it would be no issue and would give the applications more freedom.
-
Will I have to pay the new and improved stealth fee for stealth transfers made through the CLI?
I think I should not. I have this feature now, and I will see the 45K as a bribery so this feature is stolen from me (and the rest of BTS holders) and sold to the highest bidder.
Bad precedent all around.
You make a good point here Tony.
However, from what BM said that all existing backend infrastructure will be used to support the future stealth GUI, I'm afraid you are correct in your assessment.
I will say this however, that your complaint is more likely than not hollow, because using stealth from the CLI is really rather cumbersome and has inherent risks. If you use it make SURE you write down all keys used in every transfer. Might as well forget the labels, they're transitory and even the wallet doesn't remember them. IMO it's actually a rather crude implementation, more likely than not more of a proof of concept than practical. From what I saw of BM's GUI mockups, the GUI implementation will also be a minimalistic design.
We're talking GUI here, so elegant ... sufficient ... crude operation is quite subjective and in the eye of the beholder. I have no doubt it will get the job done, but how easy / intuitive it will be for users is another matter.
Like all startups, this project will need to plow back some of the profits into getting better to remain competitive.
That's how it should be.
:)
-
Just out of curiosity..... The 45K or 50K that onceuponatime was willing to put up .....was that in the form of Bitcoin,USD or BTS ?
-
Just out of curiosity..... The 45K or 50K that onceuponatime was willing to put up .....was that in the form of Bitcoin,USD or BTS ?
(http://i.imgur.com/psJOBY6.jpg)
-
Just out of curiosity..... The 45K or 50K that onceuponatime was willing to put up .....was that in the form of Bitcoin,USD or BTS ?
Bank wire transfer of US dollars.
-
@Thom - valid points.. but depending on how deep into the rabbit hole you want to go, some of those fears could be misguided. Stealth could be detrimental to a free society in the long run, and could attract unwanted attention in the medium term.. nobody really knows.. just saying that NOT having stealth has value too.
As bm mentioned, current implement of STEALTH transfer is lack of unlinkability as well as untraceability. So it's just like TITAN in bts 0.x (although in 2.0 it does more than TITAN by hiding the amount of transfer), which just let people feel like that their have privacy, but their don't really have. It's dangerous to encourage people to use such non-perfect feature. Personally I don't like to use it nor recommend to other people.
Yes, this is a very good point, and possibly the core of my concern: no true privacy exists (on the internet), and what little does exist, is complex, imperfect, and expensive.
I'm a little late to this discussion, but I've been thinking it over and have some questions..
Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.
This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just 13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.
With STEALTH BitUSD you could conduct business for weeks/months privately and only need to do the rare conversion which wouldn't necessarily have to go through a payment processor or major exchange so that combo would be profitable for BTS. (This a major benefit over using volatile crypto-currency for business which needs to be traded regularly/often simultaneously for fiat in the process making privacy very hard to achieve.)
Without more liquid BitAssets though, or other popular sell-able product first, there will be little demand for STEALTH but as Xeroc says the funding/development of some of those products via FBA's may benefit from/require privacy.
I don't think BTS will really increase in value though until BitAsset liquidity or one of those more sell-able products are developed.
Interesting.. could actual businesses use stealth and remain compliant?
Also, would stealth USD be worth more than plain USD? It seems like whoever creates stealth balances from a known account takes on some amount of risk which they could pass off as a premium.. For instance, if Blocktrades or Metaexchange could convert BTC to STEALTH-USD, I wonder how much of a premium they could get away with..
Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.
But hing the amount and not showing involved parties at all is considered WAY
better privacy.
This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the
table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH
market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just
13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.
Great observation.
What the MAKER speculators may not know is that the STEALTH proposal is VERY
VERY important for the Fee Backed Asset idea. even though they are independent
proposals (BSIP7 and BSIP8), creating and issuing a FBA under a STEALTH/PRIVATE
account is very important for regulatory reasons!!!
Otherwise people that want to innovate and have t funded via FBA might run into
legal trouble quickly. Read BSIP7 for more details about it.
Finally, on an ideological note: we've never seen a true global free market, and
we have no idea where it will lead society. It could be really good, it could be
really bad. I posit that stealth is only desirable because of
short-term/reactionary fear. And when people act out of fear they make
bad (I mean truly horrible) decisions.
The Stealth proposal is not only about hiding funds or transfers or privacy. It
is also about making sure not to run into regulatory issues and let more
innovations enter the system more easily.
Aah... good point., I forgot that this was sort of a prerequisite for some FBA's. BSIP7 is helpful, thanks. I now understand that even if MAKER doesn't depend on STEALTH, there might be other important/interesting FBA's which could only be released in a 'counterparty-free setting'.
-
Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.
But hing the amount and not showing involved parties at all is considered WAY
better privacy.
This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the
table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH
market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just
13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.
Great observation.
What the MAKER speculators may not know is that the STEALTH proposal is VERY
VERY important for the Fee Backed Asset idea. even though they are independent
proposals (BSIP7 and BSIP8), creating and issuing a FBA under a STEALTH/PRIVATE
account is very important for regulatory reasons!!!
Otherwise people that want to innovate and have t funded via FBA might run into
legal trouble quickly. Read BSIP7 for more details about it.
Finally, on an ideological note: we've never seen a true global free market, and
we have no idea where it will lead society. It could be really good, it could be
really bad. I posit that stealth is only desirable because of
short-term/reactionary fear. And when people act out of fear they make
bad (I mean truly horrible) decisions.
The Stealth proposal is not only about hiding funds or transfers or privacy. It
is also about making sure not to run into regulatory issues and let more
innovations enter the system more easily.
Aah... good point., I forgot that this was sort of a prerequisite for some FBA's. BSIP7 is helpful, thanks. I now understand that even if MAKER doesn't depend on STEALTH, there might be other important/interesting FBA's which could only be released in a 'counterparty-free setting'.
So why not just make a work proposal for FBA only, but made a proposal with 45K$ Graphene-STEALTH-GUI in high priority in a same "package" and which changes the under protocol of STEALTH feature?
1. Anyway, people are already able to do stealth transfer via CLI wallet NOW, although the feature is not currently perfect. Who has big money and wants to keep privacy may be willing to learn how to use CLI, or has a technician help her.
2. If current proposal get approved, users of other GUI products (e.g. moonstone) would have to pay to OnceUpon for using STEALTH feature, but it's likely that OnceUpon won't fund all GUI products for the same feature.
-
As requested by Bytemaster; i have created a worker proposal for ~$300 for one month starting tomorrow to poll the shareholders about the STEALTH proposal.
The worker is 1.14.18 and payed $300 to me for creating and maintaining this particular BSIP. Expect some minor modifications and improvements for this BSIP
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0008.md
This worker serves as a simple "poll" for the shareholders.
Happy voting!
Rejected. Thank you.
-
Will I have to pay the new and improved stealth fee for stealth transfers made through the CLI?
I think I should not. I have this feature now, and I will see the 45K as a bribery so this feature is stolen from me (and the rest of BTS holders) and sold to the highest bidder.
Bad precedent all around.
Stealth supply is now little bit more than 10,000 BTS. That's very clear indicator that most people aren't willing to use the text based client. You might be able to do that but Bitshares is not only for you – are you even using this particular feature?
If we want to grow, we need more users. If we want more users, we need better GUI.
-
the STEALTH proposal have already taken effect.
I really don't like such kind of rush. Many people even have no chance to vote. You can see from http://cryptofresh.com/ballots only 3 accounts vote for it and 2 vote against it.
-
Stealth supply is now little bit more than 10,000 BTS. That's very clear indicator that most people aren't willing to use the text based client. You might be able to do that but Bitshares is not only for you – are you even using this particular feature?
If we want to grow, we need more users. If we want more users, we need better GUI.
Better GUI doesn't mean to change the underlying protocol.
-
the STEALTH proposal have already taken effect.
I really don't like such kind of rush. Many people even have no chance to vote. You can see from http://cryptofresh.com/ballots only 3 accounts vote for it and 2 vote against it.
Well wasn't there a period of 1 or 2 weeks for people to vote? I thought being approved at first didn't mean anything as other people could still vote it down and you would only get the result after that 1 or 2 weeks timeframe
-
Will I have to pay the new and improved stealth fee for stealth transfers made through the CLI?
I think I should not. I have this feature now, and I will see the 45K as a bribery so this feature is stolen from me (and the rest of BTS holders) and sold to the highest bidder.
Bad precedent all around.
Stealth supply is now little bit more than 10,000 BTS. That's very clear indicator that most people aren't willing to use the text based client. You might be able to do that but Bitshares is not only for you – are you even using this particular feature?
If we want to grow, we need more users. If we want more users, we need better GUI.
I do not mind making the fancy GUI [I reject ONLY its timing,]
What is more important I want EXACT answer on the question posted in the quoted post of mine.
In other words - is this proposal evolves changing the protocol so I have to pay extra stealth fees when using the CLI as well?
If yes it is a steal from BTS and a bribery (to the tune of 45K USD) and EXTREAMLY bad precedent of taking existing features from BTS [as in from BTS and out of BTS the core ], wrapping them up in GUI and selling them to the highest bidder.
-
Why not use bitusd ? @onceuponatime
if you use bitUSD , our BTS system can benefit from this deal
Just out of curiosity..... The 45K or 50K that onceuponatime was willing to put up .....was that in the form of Bitcoin,USD or BTS ?
Bank wire transfer of US dollars.
-
Why not use bitusd ? @onceuponatime
if you use bitUSD , our BTS system can benefit from this deal
Just out of curiosity..... The 45K or 50K that onceuponatime was willing to put up .....was that in the form of Bitcoin,USD or BTS ?
Bank wire transfer of US dollars.
first - I don't have 45,000 bitUSD, and I don;t have enough BTS to buy bitUSD (I invested a couple of million BTS into MOONFUND to try and get competition and innovation going in the wallet area - that is still locked up there).
second - Cryptonomex needs fiat USD to pay its ongoing corporate expenses in Virginia (office rent, supplies etc.). By me sending them fiat USD they do not need to sell BTS on the market and hence no downward pressure on our market cap.
-
Bottom line is that STEALTH is the only thing we can fund without selling BTS to cover it right now. Hence it is the best bet.
-
Bottom line is that STEALTH is the only thing we can fund without selling BTS to cover it right now. Hence it is the best bet.
Very sorry to hear this..
-
Bottom line is that STEALTH is the only thing we can fund without selling BTS to cover it right now. Hence it is the best bet.
some of the bottom lines are:
- the bottom line is - BTS has never been (and will not be in the foreseeable future) a bottom-line business.
- the bottom line is - onceUopon would have had a much better bottom line using the 45K to buy BTS sold as a result of CNX choosing the best feature to implement and CNT selling the BTS received to cover its expenses .
- the bottom line is - I will have a much better bottom line (or at least base price for BTS) by the time this is all said and done. [and do not ask me why I prefer my principles over my bottom line... I was just born/gotten that way, I guess]
-
Bottom line is that STEALTH is the only thing we can fund without selling BTS to cover it right now. Hence it is the best bet.
I thought the team is too busy with big banks fighting for the team's attention , I was not expecting that you still have time to spare on BTS for merely 50K USD .
-
Bottom line is that STEALTH is the only thing we can fund without selling BTS to cover it right now. Hence it is the best bet.
I thought the team is too busy with big banks fighting for the team's attention , I was not expecting that you still have time to spare on BTS for merely 50K USD .
Oh snap!