-
Thanks to luckybit's suggestion here:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452
"It might be a better idea from a marketing perspective to rename it to "invisible transactions" and call it "invisible mode" or "incognito" mode. Stealth transfers is something which some people might think is quirky. It also has a more militant sound to it.",
I propose changing the name of a Stealth Feature to "Privacy Mode".
I propose that I fund the development and implementation of this feature in full as a private investor and at zero cost to BitShares holders.
************************************************************************************************************************
There has already been preliminary discussion of this by the Community in two threads:
Fee Backed Assets (FBA)
« on: November 27, 2015, 01:44:04 AM »
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20286.0.html
and
Stealth Transfers Worker Proposal
« on: November 19, 2015, 12:48:16 AM »
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.0.html
Much consultation with Stan of Cryptonomex and with several prominent and trusted members of our BitShares Community (rgcrypto, Thom, Riverhead, Xeroc) has lead me to some preliminary conclusions as to how a "Privacy Mode" feature could best be implemented and used in a safe and timely fashion and at no risk to the BitShares Community.
One of the first and thorniest problems we tackled is the nasty fact of "Regulatory Risk". There exists a vocal contingent of Forum members who want very much that an FBA (fee based asset) be created to fund this feature upgrade to the BitShares blockchain. They want that everyone be thus enabled an opportunity to participate in the fee stream originating from future use of the feature by purchasing shares of a "STEALTH" asset.
The conundrum is that whoever creates the FBA and offers it to the public as a means of participation in a fee-based income stream faces a risk of coming under regulatory scrutiny if the project is a success (Satoshi Dice) or even if it is not a success (through some disgruntled investor complaining to a regulatory authority).
For a more in depth look in to Regulatory Risk please see: http://www.cuttingedgecapital.com/what-is-a-security-and-why-does-it-matter/
"What is a security and why does it matter?
If something falls within the definition of a security under applicable law, it will be governed by extensive rules and regulations that can be quite complex and expensive to comply with."
And subject the issuer to a large fine/other penalties if not complied with!!!!
As CoinHoarder has said in this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20431.msg263638.html#msg263638
"I can think of a ton of things that fit one or a few categories but not all, so I will only list things that I think mostly apply to all categories:
Cryptocurrency IPOs
Unregistered securities (operating one or offering an exchange service)
Unregistered money service businesses
Gambling"
***************************************************************************************************************************
Once a "Privacy Mode" feature has been implemented on the blockchain, but not before, it would then be possible for future investor entrepreneurs to create FBAs and crowd fund new features by having a Private Mode account issue the FBA from an unknown jurisdiction that is presumably not subject to securities concerns. Several exist in this world of ours ;D.
As a matter of fact, once the "Private Mode" feature has been implemented on the blockchain and is proven to work........
and once there is a visible and growing fee-based income stream coming from use of the feature...........
I have been informed that there are investors who would be interested in purchasing that fee stream from me and they might then create an FBA and offer shares for sale on the DEX as a way for the Community to participate in that fee stream.
These investors are private and unknown to either me or Cryptonomex. I would simply be selling them the keys to the income stream and then she/they can create an FBA if they so wish. It is beyond the control of myself or Cryptonomex. But they have indicated that this is what they intend.
*************************************************************************************************************************
Here follows a potential contract between myself (onceuponatime) and Cryptonomex:
Stealth "Privacy Mode" feature and Fee Based Assets
Cryptonomex Statement of Work
The purpose of this contract is to develop a Privacy Mode feature, Privacy Mode fee accumulation account, Maintenance Account, Initialization Package, and GUI interface for BitShares scoped for a firm fixed price of $45K. The following requirements apply:
1. The Privacy Mode feature shall be implemented as proposed in https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452 (as amended).
2. It shall provide the following fee based services:
o Transfer from public account to their own private balance
o Transfer from one of their private accounts to one of their private contacts
o Transfer from one of their private accounts to any public account
o Register a new account using a private balance.
o Receive a private transfer from a 3rd party given a transfer receipt.
3. Each of these services shall charge a fee initially set at 3x the standard transfer fee, but which may be adjusted from time to time by the owner(s) of the Privacy Mode fees account
4. Fees shall be automatically distributed by the blockchain to the following accounts:
o 20% to the BitShares network.
o 20% to a Maintenance Account.
o 60% to holder(s) of the Privacy Mode Fees accumulation account
5. The Maintenance Account shall be controlled by five specified manager accounts in a 3 of 5 multisig configuration. These managers will control the allocation of this fund to future maintenance and upgrade tasks.
6. The Initialization Package shall modify the blockchain to make the Privacy Mode feature available to users.
7. The Initialization Package shall make provision for the creation of generic Fee Based Assets (FBA) and set the fee for such
8. A GUI shall be provided in the OpenLedger and Light wallets to allow ordinary users to easily use the Privacy Mode features.
9. Documentation of the Privacy Mode feature and Maintenance and Fee Accumulation account shall be provided on the appropriate reference web sites.
10. Resulting software patch to the Graphene library shall have the same license as the rest of Graphene subject to the condition that the results of the Initialization package and fee distribution mechanisms are not modified.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Road Map:
- Feedback and discussion of this thread: December 8 to December 10, 2015
- Presentation of an amended Cryptonomex Worker Proposal: Dec 11, 2015
This worker proposal should include Milestones of what is intended to be
accomplished by the end of week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4 and week 5 so that the
Community can follow progress in the github.
- Voting for Worker Proposal: Dec 11 to January 1, 2016
- onceuponatime forwards $45,000 to Cryptonomex: Jan.2, 2016
_ Cryptonomex does the development and testing of the feature: (4 to 6 weeks)
- Hard fork for implementation of the feature: Monday Feb, 15th (Louis Riel Day)
************************************************************************************************************************
What can YOU (BitShares holders) do?
- over the next two days please discuss any insight you may have as to potential weaknesses or missed opportunities in the plan as outlined. Post your comments in this thread.
- when the Worker Proposal comes out in a couple of days, PLEASE VOTE!!
My offer to fund the development of a Privacy Mode feature is contingent upon the
Worker Proposal having been voted in by January 1st, 2016 (preferably much sooner!).
-
Thanks for the proposal. I like the name Privacy Mode.
I think the main concern I have is that the community was most likely going to vote this feature in within 6 months to 1yr anyways. The $45,000 cost for the network was most likely not the biggest issue, it was just the feature's priority. There are probably a handful of people that really want to implement this feature now and don't want to wait, but it does not mean that they should have access to 60% lifetime royalties when it was planned to be implemented anyways.
If we have royalties capped at $67,500-$90,000 so investors get up to twice their investment that seems more appropriate. The community could have an option to buy out the feature via worker proposal in 1yr or 2yrs at those amounts. Also what about competing Privacy Modes? If this is not exclusive, then the royalties would be less of an issue and at least the platform would be open to competition, innovation and lower cost privacy solutions.
My expectation was always that this would be a core feature, and so the cost to the Bitshares ecosystem is the opportunity cost of the revenue stream this feature would have generated.
Note: I'm less concerned about other non-core features that people want to introduce and 'privatize'. Stealth transactions was expected to be implemented at 2.0 or soon after.
Note2: I don't think those that introduce the feature will be exposed to regulatory risk. There may be more scrutiny if a private individual or company is making money out of it. I was just thinking about that issue now with Privatized bitAssets.
-
Thanks for the proposal. I like the name Privacy Mode.
I think the main concern I have is that the community was most likely going to vote this feature in within 6 months to 1yr anyways. The $45,000 cost for the network was most likely not the biggest issue, it was just the feature's priority. There are probably a handful of people that really want to implement this feature now and don't want to wait, but it does not mean that they should have access to 60% lifetime royalties when it was planned to be implemented anyways.
If we have royalties capped at $67,500-$90,000 so investors get up to twice their investment that seems more appropriate. The community could have an option to buy out the feature via worker proposal in 1yr or 2yrs at those amounts. Also what about competing Privacy Modes? If this is not exclusive, then the royalties would be less of an issue and at least the platform would be open to competition, innovation and lower cost privacy solutions.
My expectation was always that this would be a core feature, and so the cost to the Bitshares ecosystem is the opportunity cost of the revenue stream this feature would have generated.
Note: I'm less concerned about other non-core features that people want to introduce and 'privatize'. Stealth transactions was expected to be implemented at 2.0 or soon after.
Note2: I don't think those that introduce the feature will be exposed to regulatory risk. There may be more scrutiny if a private individual or company is making money out of it. I was just thinking about that issue now with Privatized bitAssets.
I don't see anything in my proposal that precludes competition. Go for it!
-
I think technologically it might be a bit more complicated to deal with. Someone can create an innovative solution from scratch and that is fine. However people can also improve/simplify/innovate or simply copy an existing design & code base based off a fork. That would create redundancy and would also be disadvantageous to you and the FBA creators. An option to purchase the feature is probably the better direction.
-
Are the private accounts fully multisig? Can there for example be "private corporations", where you have a hierarchy of multi-sig private accounts? Does it produce anonymous corporations like described here:
https://www.ted.com/talks/charmian_gooch_my_wish_to_launch_a_new_era_of_openness_in_business?language=en
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyOVMqAIFw8
I think there needs to be an explanation for what exactly this technology can do. I think there are both risks and opportunities. Be aware that there are organized political groups on both sides and fully explore both the risks and opportunities in these discussions.
-
Note: I'm less concerned about other non-core features that people want to introduce and 'privatize'. Stealth transactions was expected to be implemented at 2.0 or soon after.
Note2: I don't think those that introduce the feature will be exposed to regulatory risk. There may be more scrutiny if a private individual or company is making money out of it. I was just thinking about that issue now with Privatized bitAssets.
There are risks no matter what. The question is whether everyone is aware of those risks, are they quantified? If people know the risks then they can choose to take the risks or not.
Regulatory risk isn't a big risk unless there is an actual company behind it. Tokens on a blockchain aren't securities and the SEC never has gone after that. The SEC has gone after Satoshi Dice because Satoshi Dice wasn't a virtual company or a blockchain entity, but was an actual business. So for companies then you do have regulatory risk but I see no evidence that privatized bitAssets are of much risk since if it were then Counterparty and a bunch of others would have faced crack down. I would say it's more that Cryptonomex would be the only company involved so the only risk would be on them getting sued by the SEC somehow if they issue CNX or something similar.
-
Thanks for the proposal. I like the name Privacy Mode.
I think the main concern I have is that the community was most likely going to vote this feature in within 6 months to 1yr anyways. The $45,000 cost for the network was most likely not the biggest issue, it was just the feature's priority. There are probably a handful of people that really want to implement this feature now and don't want to wait, but it does not mean that they should have access to 60% lifetime royalties when it was planned to be implemented anyways.
If we have royalties capped at $67,500-$90,000 so investors get up to twice their investment that seems more appropriate. The community could have an option to buy out the feature via worker proposal in 1yr or 2yrs at those amounts. Also what about competing Privacy Modes? If this is not exclusive, then the royalties would be less of an issue and at least the platform would be open to competition, innovation and lower cost privacy solutions.
My expectation was always that this would be a core feature, and so the cost to the Bitshares ecosystem is the opportunity cost of the revenue stream this feature would have generated.
Note: I'm less concerned about other non-core features that people want to introduce and 'privatize'. Stealth transactions was expected to be implemented at 2.0 or soon after.
Note2: I don't think those that introduce the feature will be exposed to regulatory risk. There may be more scrutiny if a private individual or company is making money out of it. I was just thinking about that issue now with Privatized bitAssets.
Another way to look at it is:
1. We should reserve worker funds for that which can't be funded some other way. To turn down outside investment is penny wise and bitshare foolish.
2. BitShares needs to grow its capabilities as quickly as possible. Waiting for next year when we might be able to afford to build it ourselves is not a wise strategy. Its first and foremost about network effect. Grow the pie, don't fight over each slice.
Applying these two principles will do more for the wealth of BitShares holders than trying to take more upside away from entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are scarce and hard to attract. We want a thousand new features to bloom. Fee Backed Assets could become THE killer reason to use BitShares, but only if there are lots of them.
Imagine an "App Store" where you can invest and trade shares in the Apps.
-
+5% thank you onceuponatime!
-
One of the first and thorniest problems we tackled is the nasty fact of "Regulatory Risk". There exists a vocal contingent of Forum members who want very much that an FBA (fee based asset) be created to fund this feature upgrade to the BitShares blockchain. They want that everyone be thus enabled an opportunity to participate in the fee stream originating from future use of the feature by purchasing shares of a "STEALTH" asset.
The conundrum is that whoever creates the FBA and offers it to the public as a means of participation in a fee-based income stream is virtually certain to come under regulatory scrutiny if the project is a success (Satoshi Dice) or even if it is not a success (through some disgruntled investor complaining to a regulatory authority).
And you offer absolutely not statistical evidence of the "virtual certainty" of regulatory scrutiny except Satoshi Dice? Satoshi Dice wasn't a DAC and didn't get in trouble until it became a company.
Bitcoin company acquisitions begin: Gambling site SatoshiDice sells for $11.5 Million (126,315 BTC)
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-company-acquisitions-begin-gambling-site-satoshidice-sells-for-11-5m-126315-btc/
An FBA isn't a company. The only company involved is CNX. The individual involved would be in no more risk from the SEC than any individual associated with any other asset. The risk isn't really from the SEC though.
The risks are that it's of questionable legality all the way around, and many national governments could decide to crack down on anonymity in general. In addition there is no way to know what politicians will think or how they'll react, how transparency activists will react, how the tax agencies will react, or law enforcement. The risk is based on the fact that the political consequences are unknown but the SEC in my opinion isn't likely to take exceptional interest in this feature unless anonymous crowd funded companies or something similar start to form behind this feature.
You are right that whomever issues this particular FBA is taking a risk which is why they should get the reward in exchange. The reward in exchange would pay for the legal fees associated with the risk.
My own guess is that the tax agencies will be most concerned about this. The fair thing to do is to have everyone be aware of the risks prior to their participation.
-
Another factor to keep in mind is that under this proposal, besides getting what many consider to be a necessary feature for greater capital inflow in the short term, there would be no downward pressure on BTS market cap. Cryptonomex would receive the feature's development funding in $US, which they can use to pay their bills. The alternative is to wait for quite an extended period for the community to pay for a Worker Proposal and thyen Cryptonomex receiving the funding in BTS. They would have to sell BTS on the market to pay their real world bills. Big downward pressure on our market cap.
-
Thanks for the proposal. I like the name Privacy Mode.
I think the main concern I have is that the community was most likely going to vote this feature in within 6 months to 1yr anyways. The $45,000 cost for the network was most likely not the biggest issue, it was just the feature's priority. There are probably a handful of people that really want to implement this feature now and don't want to wait, but it does not mean that they should have access to 60% lifetime royalties when it was planned to be implemented anyways.
If we have royalties capped at $67,500-$90,000 so investors get up to twice their investment that seems more appropriate. The community could have an option to buy out the feature via worker proposal in 1yr or 2yrs at those amounts. Also what about competing Privacy Modes? If this is not exclusive, then the royalties would be less of an issue and at least the platform would be open to competition, innovation and lower cost privacy solutions.
My expectation was always that this would be a core feature, and so the cost to the Bitshares ecosystem is the opportunity cost of the revenue stream this feature would have generated.
Note: I'm less concerned about other non-core features that people want to introduce and 'privatize'. Stealth transactions was expected to be implemented at 2.0 or soon after.
Note2: I don't think those that introduce the feature will be exposed to regulatory risk. There may be more scrutiny if a private individual or company is making money out of it. I was just thinking about that issue now with Privatized bitAssets.
Another way to look at it is:
1. We should reserve worker funds for that which can't be funded some other way. To turn down outside investment is penny wise and bitshare foolish.
2. BitShares needs to grow its capabilities as quickly as possible. Waiting for next year when we might be able to afford to build it ourselves is not a wise strategy. Its first and foremost about network effect. Grow the pie, don't fight over each slice.
Applying these two principles will do more for the wealth of BitShares holders than trying to take more upside away from entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are scarce and hard to attract. We want a thousand new features to bloom. Fee Backed Assets could become THE killer reason to use BitShares, but only if there are lots of them.
Imagine an "App Store" where you can invest and trade shares in the Apps.
@Stan
In response to this, it's also a risk that those who make wealth might not be able to keep it. It's about creating wealth that people can actually keep. The main risk is that people associated with this particular feature make wealth, then lose it all in court, or lose it in taxes. So I would say the risk of backing this feature is also the risk that somehow in the future whatever wealth you do get could be confiscated.
It's best left as a private asset than a worker proposal in my opinion because not everyone wants to gamble their life savings on this feature. The people who do are the people who are willing to buy the STEALTH asset. In that way the rewards would go directly to the people who take the risks.
-
Thanks for the proposal. I like the name Privacy Mode.
I think the main concern I have is that the community was most likely going to vote this feature in within 6 months to 1yr anyways. The $45,000 cost for the network was most likely not the biggest issue, it was just the feature's priority. There are probably a handful of people that really want to implement this feature now and don't want to wait, but it does not mean that they should have access to 60% lifetime royalties when it was planned to be implemented anyways.
Isn't the purpose of voting for the upcoming Worker Prroposal exactly for the purpose of determining this?
Most of the feedback that I have been receiving, and what motivates me to risk my capital, is the determination that many BitShares holders agree with me that this feature will draw in capital to our system and boost our market cap.
Only those who actually want to use the feature will likely do so. At current rates of transactions occurring on our blockchain it would take me lifetimes to recoup my investment. I am betting that this feature will greatly enhance the popularity of our blockchain and that Privacy Mode transactions will increase sufficiently rapidly for me to recoup my investment during my lifetime.
-
Thanks for the proposal. I like the name Privacy Mode.
I think the main concern I have is that the community was most likely going to vote this feature in within 6 months to 1yr anyways. The $45,000 cost for the network was most likely not the biggest issue, it was just the feature's priority. There are probably a handful of people that really want to implement this feature now and don't want to wait, but it does not mean that they should have access to 60% lifetime royalties when it was planned to be implemented anyways.
If we have royalties capped at $67,500-$90,000 so investors get up to twice their investment that seems more appropriate. The community could have an option to buy out the feature via worker proposal in 1yr or 2yrs at those amounts. Also what about competing Privacy Modes? If this is not exclusive, then the royalties would be less of an issue and at least the platform would be open to competition, innovation and lower cost privacy solutions.
My expectation was always that this would be a core feature, and so the cost to the Bitshares ecosystem is the opportunity cost of the revenue stream this feature would have generated.
Note: I'm less concerned about other non-core features that people want to introduce and 'privatize'. Stealth transactions was expected to be implemented at 2.0 or soon after.
Note2: I don't think those that introduce the feature will be exposed to regulatory risk. There may be more scrutiny if a private individual or company is making money out of it. I was just thinking about that issue now with Privatized bitAssets.
Another way to look at it is:
1. We should reserve worker funds for that which can't be funded some other way. To turn down outside investment is penny wise and bitshare foolish.
2. BitShares needs to grow its capabilities as quickly as possible. Waiting for next year when we might be able to afford to build it ourselves is not a wise strategy. Its first and foremost about network effect. Grow the pie, don't fight over each slice.
Applying these two principles will do more for the wealth of BitShares holders than trying to take more upside away from entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are scarce and hard to attract. We want a thousand new features to bloom. Fee Backed Assets could become THE killer reason to use BitShares, but only if there are lots of them.
Imagine an "App Store" where you can invest and trade shares in the Apps.
I'm fine with the privatized model in general, but there is a balance between what is considered a core feature and what is not. There is a balance between what is on the road map that will likely be funded and what is unlikely to be funded. There is a balance between supporting the integration of a feature from a private entity with outside money and being needy. I don't think we should use the FBA model for stealth transactions. Other features that are niche are better to start FBA's with. The referral program should be the predominant incentive structure to build the network effect. If the referral system is not compelling enough we have bigger problems with the core product, not the incentive structure.
-
Just make it so that it's fair for everyone. I don't think that your risk is very high Onceuponatime. Merivercap is right when he says that it would have been done anyway.
First I thought it doesn't matter if Onceuponatime will get all the income, just do it, ..
Now I see all the contract making and ..
I would have liked if Onceuponatime would just send the money and that's it. That's how I would do it. Why make such a contract, bytemaster proved that he is a good man.
I don't really have the knowledge to write here, but why not make it 33% for everyone? Just make it fair. I don't know what numbers would be fair.
-
on the first proposal from bytemaster it was stated
Stealth transfers cannot participate in the referral program. The fee for a stealth transfer can be higher (premium service) at about $0.50, with $0.10 going to the network and $0.40 going to the individual who funds this improvement to the GUI. After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.
i can't find it anymore in your proposal. so it will not reverse after the first 20 million BTS anymore?
i would prefer the FBA solution, because it will give bitshare a new asset.
you are aware that you are creating with the multisig account a security as well with your arguments? in BTS 2.0 a account is transferable so this multisig accounts are worth something and can be sold, so this is a security as well.
point is - i don't mind your local jurisdication arguments, they only apply to you and Cryptonomex, because it seems you are also in the US.
-
on the first proposal from bytemaster it was stated
Stealth transfers cannot participate in the referral program. The fee for a stealth transfer can be higher (premium service) at about $0.50, with $0.10 going to the network and $0.40 going to the individual who funds this improvement to the GUI. After the first 20 Million BTS worth of fees have been paid to this individual, the split would reverse, with $0.10 going to him and $0.40 going to the network.
i can't find it anymore in your proposal. so it will not reverse after the first 20 million BTS anymore?
i would prefer the FBA solution, because it will give bitshare a new asset.
you are aware that you are creating with the multisig account a security as well with your arguments? in BTS 2.0 a account is transferable so this multisig accounts are worth something and can be sold, so this is a security as well.
point is - i don't mind your local jurisdication arguments, they only apply to you and Cryptonomex, because it seems you are also in the US.
I am purchasing software from Cryptonomex if and only if the Community votes to implement the software on the blockchain by voting in a Worker Proposal. I am the sole investor in this. No asset is created by implementation of the Privacy Mode feature at time of implementation. I do not propose to myself create an asset. Neither Cryptonomex nor I would be or indeed could offer shares in the feature, at time of implementation, to the public. Hence no security.
The idea behind the multi-sig Maintenance account is to give to trusted Community members a 3 of 5 voting authority over funds accumulated for upgrading or extending the capabilities of the feature if and as necessary. Three of five signatories helps compensate for sickness, accident or death risks and provides me with an advisory board to compensate for my skill deficiencies. I would be only one of five. Therefore I can be very easily outvoted on use of these funds.
Bytemaster has other ideas of how this could be accomplished. Perhaps he will be able to explain them here when he gets time.
-
Thanks for the proposal. I like the name Privacy Mode.
I think the main concern I have is that the community was most likely going to vote this feature in within 6 months to 1yr anyways. The $45,000 cost for the network was most likely not the biggest issue, it was just the feature's priority. There are probably a handful of people that really want to implement this feature now and don't want to wait, but it does not mean that they should have access to 60% lifetime royalties when it was planned to be implemented anyways.
If we have royalties capped at $67,500-$90,000 so investors get up to twice their investment that seems more appropriate. The community could have an option to buy out the feature via worker proposal in 1yr or 2yrs at those amounts. Also what about competing Privacy Modes? If this is not exclusive, then the royalties would be less of an issue and at least the platform would be open to competition, innovation and lower cost privacy solutions.
My expectation was always that this would be a core feature, and so the cost to the Bitshares ecosystem is the opportunity cost of the revenue stream this feature would have generated.
Note: I'm less concerned about other non-core features that people want to introduce and 'privatize'. Stealth transactions was expected to be implemented at 2.0 or soon after.
Note2: I don't think those that introduce the feature will be exposed to regulatory risk. There may be more scrutiny if a private individual or company is making money out of it. I was just thinking about that issue now with Privatized bitAssets.
Another way to look at it is:
1. We should reserve worker funds for that which can't be funded some other way. To turn down outside investment is penny wise and bitshare foolish.
2. BitShares needs to grow its capabilities as quickly as possible. Waiting for next year when we might be able to afford to build it ourselves is not a wise strategy. Its first and foremost about network effect. Grow the pie, don't fight over each slice.
Applying these two principles will do more for the wealth of BitShares holders than trying to take more upside away from entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are scarce and hard to attract. We want a thousand new features to bloom. Fee Backed Assets could become THE killer reason to use BitShares, but only if there are lots of them.
Imagine an "App Store" where you can invest and trade shares in the Apps.
@Stan
In response to this, it's also a risk that those who make wealth might not be able to keep it. It's about creating wealth that people can actually keep. The main risk is that people associated with this particular feature make wealth, then lose it all in court, or lose it in taxes. So I would say the risk of backing this feature is also the risk that somehow in the future whatever wealth you do get could be confiscated.
It's best left as a private asset than a worker proposal in my opinion because not everyone wants to gamble their life savings on this feature. The people who do are the people who are willing to buy the STEALTH asset. In that way the rewards would go directly to the people who take the risks.
I agree that most new features should be financed by entrepreneurs, not paid as BitShares workers.
Not sure how owning a FBA would have risk of confiscation beyond that of more ancient coins like a denarius or a bitcoin.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/olympians/images/b/b5/Tiberian_denarius.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121113035554)
-
That regulatory bs is not going to work, especially with a global blockchain. Downward pressure on price bs is not going to work either as this feature should add value long term.
Looking at the numbers. If stealth transfers are charged $0.50 per transaction and you get $0.30 per transaction, then your $45,000 investment will be worth $157,680 in one year at a tx rate of just 1tx per minute. At 1tx/sec (about half of bitcoins tx rate) that is $9,460,800 per year for a $45,000 investment. I realize current rates are much lower but that is huge opportunity cost for the community. At the very least this should be capped as others have said.
Otherwise, I say UIA for development. Some of the rest of us may want to get in on it. This may even help to find a true market rate for this feature. If you want the same exact deal, then you can just buy up all the shares.
-
That regulatory bs is not going to work, especially with a global blockchain. Downward pressure on price bs is not going to work either as this feature should add value long term.
Looking at the numbers. If stealth transfers are charged $0.50 per transaction and you get $0.30 per transaction, then your $45,000 investment will be worth $157,680 in one year at a tx rate of just 1tx per minute. At 1tx/sec (about half of bitcoins tx rate) that is $9,460,800 per year for a $45,000 investment. I realize current rates are much lower but that is huge opportunity cost for the community. At the very least this should be capped as others have said.
Otherwise, I say UIA for development. Some of the rest of us may want to get in on it. This may even help to find a true market rate for this feature. If you want the same exact deal, then you can just buy up all the shares.
#sharebits "Helikopterben" 5 PERCENT
The counterargument I see to this is that other developers are free to make their own BitShares compatible wallet/exchange, which could burn all the stealth fees if that party wanted to. Am I understanding that correctly?
-
Hey merockstar, here are the results of your tips...
- Helikopterben (http://sharebits.io/Home/Dashboard?username=Helikopterben): has been credited 5 PERCENT
Curious about ShareBits? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20499.msg264590/topicseen.html#msg264590
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
Thanks for the proposal. I like the name Privacy Mode.
I think the main concern I have is that the community was most likely going to vote this feature in within 6 months to 1yr anyways. The $45,000 cost for the network was most likely not the biggest issue, it was just the feature's priority. There are probably a handful of people that really want to implement this feature now and don't want to wait, but it does not mean that they should have access to 60% lifetime royalties when it was planned to be implemented anyways.
Isn't the purpose of voting for the upcoming Worker Prroposal exactly for the purpose of determining this?
Most of the feedback that I have been receiving, and what motivates me to risk my capital, is the determination that many BitShares holders agree with me that this feature will draw in capital to our system and boost our market cap.
Only those who actually want to use the feature will likely do so. At current rates of transactions occurring on our blockchain it would take me lifetimes to recoup my investment. I am betting that this feature will greatly enhance the popularity of our blockchain and that Privacy Mode transactions will increase sufficiently rapidly for me to recoup my investment during my lifetime.
Do you mean your current Worker Proposal or the Worker Proposal that was offered before? Either way if you are connected enough you can probably get the votes regardless of what people think.
That brings more of a governance issue that we should be mindful of. We have to be careful of FBA's and the potential for cronyism, self-dealing, favoritism when we consider our DPOS governance structure. 51% of stakeholders determine the outcome of any organization and those with majority influence can always vote to shift the balance of value between the rest of the 49% to themselves. That's the nature of DPOS. The transparency of worker proposals does help minimize problems but we still need those in the 49% to speak out.
Anyways stealth transactions can eventually generate interest. Maybe sooner than later, but probably later. A larger userbase will make stealth more valuable rather than the other way around. We're doing a mainstream hosted wallet and stealth transactions are on the road map. It may be needed sooner than later, but the focus is more on customer acquisition rather than features so I don't think a single feature is something that will just attract people on it's own. Bitshares has to be attractive by itself before people want to use stealth transactions on it. It seems the Bitcoin/crypto crowd would probably rather use Bytecoin/Monero/Darkcoin/sidechains than Bitshares. You have to convince crypto people of DPOS before you even talk about stealth transactions.
BTW I really want stealth transactions to happen sooner than later and think it's worth voting YES for in 6 - 12 months. If you want it in sooner, I think the community will benefit, but it will probably be better if there is just a buy-back option. That way it's not just you having the incentive to promote the Private Mode feature but many other individuals, businesses and hosted wallet providers. Do you have a business plan since you are pretty much going to be in control of the Private Mode feature?
Lastly what other options are you open to? Here are couple:
1. I think the community will approve the original worker proposal sooner with just a little bit more convincing. There are some that are afraid of short-term dilution. (I'm not one of them.) However if you purchase $45,000 worth of BTS to offset the dilution, that might convince the anti-dilution crowd to move forward sooner than later. You'll have more BTS and take on less of the risk of a single feature. It will be far less complicated to do and you'll still get Privacy Mode earlier than later.
2 If people still want to defer the original worker proposal, why not allow the community to have a buyout option after 1yr of $67,500 and after 2yrs of $90,000. That will give you a 50% return over one year and 100% over two if the community wants to take back control over the feature.
-
That regulatory bs is not going to work, especially with a global blockchain. Downward pressure on price bs is not going to work either as this feature should add value long term.
Looking at the numbers. If stealth transfers are charged $0.50 per transaction and you get $0.30 per transaction, then your $45,000 investment will be worth $157,680 in one year at a tx rate of just 1tx per minute. At 1tx/sec (about half of bitcoins tx rate) that is $9,460,800 per year for a $45,000 investment. I realize current rates are much lower but that is huge opportunity cost for the community. At the very least this should be capped as others have said.
Otherwise, I say UIA for development. Some of the rest of us may want to get in on it. This may even help to find a true market rate for this feature. If you want the same exact deal, then you can just buy up all the shares.
"regulatory bs"
There is no bs in my reasoning. If I wire $45,000 to Cryptnomex, first there is a mandatory report filed to a regulatory agency (anything over $10,000). If I broke it up into several payments, I would be reported by my financial institution for possible "structuring" and my account frozen.
So, the payment to Cryptonomex automatically is under scrutiny. You can understand, can't you, that Privacy Mode is not going to be popular with those in power? If either Cryptonomex or I create an asset and offer it for sale to the public it may fall under the definition of "security" by some gung ho regulator. Cryptonomex or I then must expend resources on defending against any such allegations.
If the feature is a success, there will be a pool of funds that may excite the jealous attention of many government authorities. That will be costly to counter.
If either the feature or BTS overall is not a success, then some disgruntled investor in an asset might complain to Big Brother, and I am not willing to take on that risk.
"Looking at the numbers"
You're living in LaLa Land. My proposal is that the fee be 3x the regular transaction fee. How much is the transaction fee for a lifetime member again? And who do you think other than lifetime members is going to use such a feature? Private Mode transactions could be a tiny percentage of all transactions. And transactions now are very very few. I am risking a significant part of my life savings to help bootstrap BitShares. What are you doing?
"Otherwise, I say UIA for development. Some of the rest of us may want to get in on it."
Go ahead and organize it! ::)
-
Once a "Privacy Mode" feature has been implemented on the blockchain, but not before, it would then be possible for future investor entrepreneurs to create FBAs and crowd fund new features by having a Private Mode account issue the FBA from an unknown jurisdiction that is presumably not subject to securities concerns. Several exist in this world of ours ;D.
In this scenario would you then have the problem of whoever is building the business they will have to hide who they are? For example the devs could not go out and promote their business they are building with the funds from the crowdfund?
-
Once a "Privacy Mode" feature has been implemented on the blockchain, but not before, it would then be possible for future investor entrepreneurs to create FBAs and crowd fund new features by having a Private Mode account issue the FBA from an unknown jurisdiction that is presumably not subject to securities concerns. Several exist in this world of ours ;D.
In this scenario would you then have the problem of whoever is building the business they will have to hide who they are? For example the devs could not go out and promote their business they are building with the funds from the crowdfund?
Anyone who buys shares in the FBA can promote use of its feature to their own benefit (a share in fee revenue). The creator of the FBA simply hires a development company, such as Cryptonomex or Bitsaphire, to produce the feature.
-
Looking at the numbers. If stealth transfers are charged $0.50 per transaction and you get $0.30 per transaction, then your $45,000 investment will be worth $157,680 in one year at a tx rate of just 1tx per minute. At 1tx/sec (about half of bitcoins tx rate) that is $9,460,800 per year for a $45,000 investment.
"Looking at the numbers"
You're living in LaLa Land. My proposal is that the fee be 3x the regular transaction fee. How much is the transaction fee for a lifetime member again? And who do you think other than lifetime members is going to use such a feature? Private Mode transactions could be a tiny percentage of all transactions. And transactions now are very very few. I am risking a significant part of my life savings to help bootstrap BitShares.
on the first proposal from bytemaster it was stated
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.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I take this to mean that lifetime members will pay the same fee as everyone else. If so, then the numbers are correct unless you can prove otherwise.
What are you doing?
Not trying to get something for nothing.
-
What are you doing?
Not trying to get something for nothing.
You missed the best part of my answer to you:
"Otherwise, I say UIA for development. Some of the rest of us may want to get in on it."
Go ahead and organize it! ::)
-
You missed the best part of my answer to you:
"Otherwise, I say UIA for development. Some of the rest of us may want to get in on it."
Go ahead and organize it! ::)
So you are admitting my numbers are correct?
Looking at the numbers. If stealth transfers are charged $0.50 per transaction and you get $0.30 per transaction, then your $45,000 investment will be worth $157,680 in one year at a tx rate of just 1tx per minute. At 1tx/sec (about half of bitcoins tx rate) that is $9,460,800 per year for a $45,000 investment.
-
You missed the best part of my answer to you:
"Otherwise, I say UIA for development. Some of the rest of us may want to get in on it."
Go ahead and organize it! ::)
So you are admitting my numbers are correct?
Looking at the numbers. If stealth transfers are charged $0.50 per transaction and you get $0.30 per transaction, then your $45,000 investment will be worth $157,680 in one year at a tx rate of just 1tx per minute. At 1tx/sec (about half of bitcoins tx rate) that is $9,460,800 per year for a $45,000 investment.
"Looking at the numbers"
You're living in LaLa Land. My proposal is that the fee be 3x the regular transaction fee. How much is the transaction fee for a lifetime member again? And who do you think other than lifetime members is going to use such a feature? Private Mode transactions could be a tiny percentage of all transactions. And transactions now are very very few. I am risking a significant part of my life savings to help bootstrap BitShares. What are you doing?
"Otherwise, I say UIA for development. Some of the rest of us may want to get in on it."
Go ahead and organize it! ::)
-
Thanks for the proposal. I like the name Privacy Mode.
I think the main concern I have is that the community was most likely going to vote this feature in within 6 months to 1yr anyways. The $45,000 cost for the network was most likely not the biggest issue, it was just the feature's priority. There are probably a handful of people that really want to implement this feature now and don't want to wait, but it does not mean that they should have access to 60% lifetime royalties when it was planned to be implemented anyways.
If we have royalties capped at $67,500-$90,000 so investors get up to twice their investment that seems more appropriate. The community could have an option to buy out the feature via worker proposal in 1yr or 2yrs at those amounts. Also what about competing Privacy Modes? If this is not exclusive, then the royalties would be less of an issue and at least the platform would be open to competition, innovation and lower cost privacy solutions.
My expectation was always that this would be a core feature, and so the cost to the Bitshares ecosystem is the opportunity cost of the revenue stream this feature would have generated.
Note: I'm less concerned about other non-core features that people want to introduce and 'privatize'. Stealth transactions was expected to be implemented at 2.0 or soon after.
Note2: I don't think those that introduce the feature will be exposed to regulatory risk. There may be more scrutiny if a private individual or company is making money out of it. I was just thinking about that issue now with Privatized bitAssets.
Another way to look at it is:
1. We should reserve worker funds for that which can't be funded some other way. To turn down outside investment is penny wise and bitshare foolish.
2. BitShares needs to grow its capabilities as quickly as possible. Waiting for next year when we might be able to afford to build it ourselves is not a wise strategy. Its first and foremost about network effect. Grow the pie, don't fight over each slice.
Applying these two principles will do more for the wealth of BitShares holders than trying to take more upside away from entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are scarce and hard to attract. We want a thousand new features to bloom. Fee Backed Assets could become THE killer reason to use BitShares, but only if there are lots of them.
Imagine an "App Store" where you can invest and trade shares in the Apps.
@Stan
In response to this, it's also a risk that those who make wealth might not be able to keep it. It's about creating wealth that people can actually keep. The main risk is that people associated with this particular feature make wealth, then lose it all in court, or lose it in taxes. So I would say the risk of backing this feature is also the risk that somehow in the future whatever wealth you do get could be confiscated.
It's best left as a private asset than a worker proposal in my opinion because not everyone wants to gamble their life savings on this feature. The people who do are the people who are willing to buy the STEALTH asset. In that way the rewards would go directly to the people who take the risks.
I agree that most new features should be financed by entrepreneurs, not paid as BitShares workers.
Not sure how owning a FBA would have risk of confiscation beyond that of more ancient coins like a denarius or a bitcoin.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/olympians/images/b/b5/Tiberian_denarius.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121113035554)
The risk I'm talking about is we don't know how tax authorities or politicians will crack down. France is talking about banning Tor. They want to ban encryption. There are many people who hate anonymity and secrecy.
So there are risks but we would hope the rewards outweigh the risks. In the case of Satoshi Dice the rewards did outweigh the risks. I would say in the current environment it's not particularly risky but the tax authority might confiscate retroactively or use some sort of retroactive law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
-
"Looking at the numbers"
You're living in LaLa Land. My proposal is that the fee be 3x the regular transaction fee. How much is the transaction fee for a lifetime member again? And who do you think other than lifetime members is going to use such a feature? Private Mode transactions could be a tiny percentage of all transactions. And transactions now are very very few. I am risking a significant part of my life savings to help bootstrap BitShares. What are you doing?
That proves nothing. Can someone else prove my numbers wrong and actually use real numbers to do it.
Stealth transfers cannot participate in the referral program. The fee for a stealth transfer can be higher (premium service) at about $0.50
Looking at the numbers. If stealth transfers are charged $0.50 per transaction and you get $0.30 per transaction, then your $45,000 investment will be worth $157,680 in one year at a tx rate of just 1tx per minute. At 1tx/sec (about half of bitcoins tx rate) that is $9,460,800 per year for a $45,000 investment.
Otherwise the numbers are correct.
-
There is no bs in my reasoning. If I wire $45,000 to Cryptnomex, first there is a mandatory report filed to a regulatory agency (anything over $10,000). If I broke it up into several payments, I would be reported by my financial institution for possible "structuring" and my account frozen.
This part is true. The IRS will likely expect you to pay any sort of taxes and follow any sort of regulations. This is proven by the fact that the IRS has gone after people for that.
But you have to remember to actually find out the probability that an event will happen. Any event could happen but not every event is certain or likely to happen. Use a risk matrix to determine what the likely consequences are.
(https://sydney.edu.au/whs/docs/Risk%20Matrix_Potential%20Consequences.png)
Don't use the word "severe" unless the risk includes fatalities. Don't use the word "certain" unless it is something which happens 100% of the time. Almost certain means it's an extremely frequent occurrence but you have to understand that regulators and law enforcement have limited resources. If they want to get you then they can get you on something, but it's unlikely they will come to get you in the current atmosphere.
Of course the political atmosphere can change.
So, the payment to Cryptonomex automatically is under scrutiny. You can understand, can't you, that Privacy Mode is not going to be popular with those in power? If either Cryptonomex or I create an asset and offer it for sale to the public it may fall under the definition of "security" by some gung ho regulator. Cryptonomex or I then must expend resources on defending against any such allegations.
It's not that simple. Some of those in power will like privacy mode and some wont. The government is not a monolith. Tor was funded by the Navy and government operatives have used Tor.
Also the "security" risk is non-exisent. if it is a risk then the risk matrix would force you to conclude that it's low. There has never once been a case which claimed any UIA, or digital asset, is a "security" by how you're defining it. Of course it could happen but you're assuming that if it does happen that it would happen to you?
Until the SEC starts prosecuting hundreds of people, I doubt you'd be on the radar but even if you are among the first then if it does happen you'd still end up paying a fine but so would a lot of others. This is why perhaps you would want to share the risks with the others.
If the feature is a success, there will be a pool of funds that may excite the jealous attention of many government authorities. That will be costly to counter.
If it's a success you'll have the money to counter. Right now the risk is low but the political climate can change depending on what happens and news coverage. In either case I doubt it's going to be treated as a security overnight.
If either the feature or BTS overall is not a success, then some disgruntled investor in an asset might complain to Big Brother, and I am not willing to take on that risk.
Couldn't someone inform on you for taxes? It's the tax risk which is actually higher.
In any case, this is why a group of people would have to fund the development instead of just you. Why should you take on all the risk? At the same time the witnesses are talking risks too. We simply don't know how the political climate will be in the future.
-
I fully support this proposal.
I am disappointed by the one dimensional thinking that seems to surround arguments around the entrepreneur profiting from its development.
Everyone seems to not realize that if you want to have a similar feature to profit from you can certainly spend the money to have it done and profit it from it for yourself.
I think this is where the 'something for nothing' argument comes from. If you really are serious about wanting to profit from a feature like this, you can certainly have a competing feature that does so.
Just to weigh in on this numbers debate. Once again, it assumes only one option will ever exist. It also assumes massive growth from where we are now, and that every transaction will be stealth. So I tend to agree it's weighing on the lala land side of having any semblance of accuracy as far as projections go. I believe there is a higher probability it will take him years to recover just his investment.
-
There is no bs in my reasoning. If I wire $45,000 to Cryptnomex, first there is a mandatory report filed to a regulatory agency (anything over $10,000). If I broke it up into several payments, I would be reported by my financial institution for possible "structuring" and my account frozen.
This part is true. The IRS will likely expect you to pay any sort of taxes and follow any sort of regulations. This is proven by the fact that the IRS has gone after people for that.
But you have to remember to actually find out the probability that an event will happen. Any event could happen but not every event is certain or likely to happen. Use a risk matrix to determine what the likely consequences are.
(https://sydney.edu.au/whs/docs/Risk%20Matrix_Potential%20Consequences.png)
Don't use the word "severe" unless the risk includes fatalities. Don't use the word "certain" unless it is something which happens 100% of the time. Almost certain means it's an extremely frequent occurrence but you have to understand that regulators and law enforcement have limited resources. If they want to get you then they can get you on something, but it's unlikely they will come to get you in the current atmosphere.
Of course the political atmosphere can change.
So, the payment to Cryptonomex automatically is under scrutiny. You can understand, can't you, that Privacy Mode is not going to be popular with those in power? If either Cryptonomex or I create an asset and offer it for sale to the public it may fall under the definition of "security" by some gung ho regulator. Cryptonomex or I then must expend resources on defending against any such allegations.
It's not that simple. Some of those in power will like privacy mode and some wont. The government is not a monolith. Tor was funded by the Navy and government operatives have used Tor.
Also the "security" risk is non-exisent. if it is a risk then the risk matrix would force you to conclude that it's low. There has never once been a case which claimed any UIA, or digital asset, is a "security" by how you're defining it. Of course it could happen but you're assuming that if it does happen that it would happen to you?
Until the SEC starts prosecuting hundreds of people, I doubt you'd be on the radar but even if you are among the first then if it does happen you'd still end up paying a fine but so would a lot of others. This is why perhaps you would want to share the risks with the others.
If the feature is a success, there will be a pool of funds that may excite the jealous attention of many government authorities. That will be costly to counter.
If it's a success you'll have the money to counter. Right now the risk is low but the political climate can change depending on what happens and news coverage. In either case I doubt it's going to be treated as a security overnight.
If either the feature or BTS overall is not a success, then some disgruntled investor in an asset might complain to Big Brother, and I am not willing to take on that risk.
Couldn't someone inform on you for taxes? It's the tax risk which is actually higher.
In any case, this is why a group of people would have to fund the development instead of just you. Why should you take on all the risk? At the same time the witnesses are talking risks too. We simply don't know how the political climate will be in the future.
If you read my OP again, I think that you will see that I want to sell the income stream to an unknown private investor(s) once the fee stream has proven to exist and be growing. I am free to sell that without any consequences that I can think of, and will pay any tax due. The Private Investor intends then to issue an FBA and offer it for purchase to the Community. All this is possible once the Privacy Mode exists, but not before.
-
I fully support this proposal.
I am disappointed by the one dimensional thinking that seems to surround arguments around the entrepreneur profiting from its development.
Everyone seems to not realize that if you want to have a similar feature to profit from you can certainly spend the money to have it done and profit it from it for yourself.
I think this is where the 'something for nothing' argument comes from. If you really are serious about wanting to profit from a feature like this, you can certainly have a competing feature that does so.
Just to weigh in on this numbers debate. Once again, it assumes only one option will ever exist. It also assumes massive growth from where we are now, and that every transaction will be stealth. So I tend to agree it's weighing on the lala land side of having any semblance of accuracy as far as projections go. I believe there is a higher probability it will take him years to recover just his investment.
+5% We're in the free market now, boys.
-
I support privacy on the blockchain.
I don't care how it's accomplished.
https://youtu.be/ZXsQAXx_ao0 (https://youtu.be/ZXsQAXx_ao0)
-
@onceuponatime I've always respected you and this proposal shows why. I wish I had time to chime in on the conversation but, please re-think the multi sig threshold and increase it to something like 2 of 10 or 3 of 20. When I was skimming through the proposal this was the one thing that I don't feel good about.
Otherwise, I'll vote on this knowing you've thoroughly thought this through and feel comfortable pushing this forward and putting your money on the line.
-
@onceuponatime I've always respected you and this proposal shows why. I wish I had time to chime in on the conversation but, please re-think the multi sig threshold and increase it to something like 2 of 10 or 3 of 20. When I was skimming through the proposal this was the one thing that I don't feel good about.
Otherwise, I'll vote on this knowing you've thoroughly thought this through and feel comfortable pushing this forward and putting your money on the line.
Can you tell me why it would be advantageous to do that? Since I plan on compensating my advisers (co-signatories) on the Maintenance Fund for their efforts and advice, increasing the number makes it both unwieldy to have meetings and expensive to run. What are the advantages?
-
@onceuponatime I've always respected you and this proposal shows why. I wish I had time to chime in on the conversation but, please re-think the multi sig threshold and increase it to something like 2 of 10 or 3 of 20. When I was skimming through the proposal this was the one thing that I don't feel good about.
Otherwise, I'll vote on this knowing you've thoroughly thought this through and feel comfortable pushing this forward and putting your money on the line.
Can you tell me why it would be advantageous to do that? Since I plan on compensating my advisers (co-signatories) on the Maintenance Fund for their efforts and advice, increasing the number makes it both unwieldy to have meetings and expensive to run. What are the advantages?
My thinking was kind of what you've already mentioned, death, sickness, lost wallets or M.I.A persons. I certainly agree with you when you say it'll be easier to maintain with fewer involved but, in the long term, I think having a few more names to call in the phone book as back ups will be beneficial should the need arise.
-
@onceuponatime I've always respected you and this proposal shows why. I wish I had time to chime in on the conversation but, please re-think the multi sig threshold and increase it to something like 2 of 10 or 3 of 20. When I was skimming through the proposal this was the one thing that I don't feel good about.
Otherwise, I'll vote on this knowing you've thoroughly thought this through and feel comfortable pushing this forward and putting your money on the line.
Can you tell me why it would be advantageous to do that? Since I plan on compensating my advisers (co-signatories) on the Maintenance Fund for their efforts and advice, increasing the number makes it both unwieldy to have meetings and expensive to run. What are the advantages?
My thinking was kind of what you've already mentioned, death, sickness, lost wallets or M.I.A persons. I certainly agree with you when you say it'll be easier to maintain with fewer involved but, in the long term, I think having a few more names to call in the phone book as back ups will be beneficial should the need arise.
You're on my list should the need arise! ;D
-
Thanks to onceuponatime for sponsoring the development of the 'privacy mode' feature, drafting up the steps to fulfill the implementation while staying clear of regulatory trouble, and opening up a thread now to gather feedback from the community.
I can see some valid concerns voiced eg cap & community buy-back option, dev schedule prority, custodians of the Maintenance account, and they are being addressed by onceuponatime. Nice work!
-
@onceuponatime I've always respected you and this proposal shows why. I wish I had time to chime in on the conversation but, please re-think the multi sig threshold and increase it to something like 2 of 10 or 3 of 20. When I was skimming through the proposal this was the one thing that I don't feel good about.
Otherwise, I'll vote on this knowing you've thoroughly thought this through and feel comfortable pushing this forward and putting your money on the line.
Can you tell me why it would be advantageous to do that? Since I plan on compensating my advisers (co-signatories) on the Maintenance Fund for their efforts and advice, increasing the number makes it both unwieldy to have meetings and expensive to run. What are the advantages?
My thinking was kind of what you've already mentioned, death, sickness, lost wallets or M.I.A persons. I certainly agree with you when you say it'll be easier to maintain with fewer involved but, in the long term, I think having a few more names to call in the phone book as back ups will be beneficial should the need arise.
You're on my list should the need arise! ;D
I'll be honored to help if called[emoji3]
Correct me if I'm wrong, am I getting this multi sig thing confused?
So if you designate 2 of 5 to complete the release of accumulated funds, are those 5 fixed, or are they variable? I figure if 5 are assigned at creation that they could never change or be reassigned later on???
I'm on my phone...So hope this question makes sense.
-
@onceuponatime I've always respected you and this proposal shows why. I wish I had time to chime in on the conversation but, please re-think the multi sig threshold and increase it to something like 2 of 10 or 3 of 20. When I was skimming through the proposal this was the one thing that I don't feel good about.
Otherwise, I'll vote on this knowing you've thoroughly thought this through and feel comfortable pushing this forward and putting your money on the line.
Can you tell me why it would be advantageous to do that? Since I plan on compensating my advisers (co-signatories) on the Maintenance Fund for their efforts and advice, increasing the number makes it both unwieldy to have meetings and expensive to run. What are the advantages?
My thinking was kind of what you've already mentioned, death, sickness, lost wallets or M.I.A persons. I certainly agree with you when you say it'll be easier to maintain with fewer involved but, in the long term, I think having a few more names to call in the phone book as back ups will be beneficial should the need arise.
You're on my list should the need arise! ;D
I'll be honored to help if called[emoji3]
Correct me if I'm wrong, am I getting this multi sig thing confused?
So if you designate 2 of 5 to complete the release of accumulated funds, are those 5 fixed, or are they variable? I figure if 5 are assigned at creation that they could never change or be reassigned later on???
I'm on my phone...So hope this question makes sense.
They would have to be variable. And I am suggesting 3 of 5. I will be one of the five They are to be paid a percentage of the income stream for their services.
When I sell the income stream to a private investor(s), it is my sugggestion that when they issue an FBA and sell it to Community members, then the top 5 asset holders on each anniversary date would have signing authority for the following year.
Make sense?
-
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.msg264270.html#msg264270
bytemaster
Re: Stealth Transfers Worker Proposal
« Reply #157 on: December 07, 2015, 09:25:16 PM »
Quote
I have put together some mock up interface ideas for adding confidential transfers to the user interface. This is a draft for community review.
https://files.zenhub.io/5665f8501bd9a6596812de50
-
I think this is great.
You have my vote onceuponatime +5%
Thank you :)
-
I think bytemasters proposal would have been voted immediately. Most of the people are here because of stealth. Onceuponatime only reacted to the proposal and that is not very proactive. I also don't like how he treated me. Complains about 40 Euro and has 45000 dollar, while I fold and distribute 200 flyers 12 hours on the street and he sends me a 5 dollar tip.
There is no need to portrait him as someone who is generous. He wants so much kickback, it has nothing to do with generosity. You do what you want, I don't like the taste!
-
There is no need to portrait him as someone who is generous.
I don't want generous, I want entrepreneurs willing to take a gamble on potential future profits. I support Onceuponatime's proposal.
-
Me too, but he is not gambling, the risk is low. The 'potential' profits are coming anyway, otherwise this grumpy and greedy man would not send a dollar.
-
Me too, but he is not gambling, the risk is low. The 'potential' profits are coming anyway, otherwise this grumpy and greedy man would not send a dollar.
Lol! You think the risk is low?!? He's investing in a feature of a microcap crypto currency that has lost 90% of its market cap. The risk is insanely high. Even if bts succeeds this feature may not. If he wanted low risk he would buy tbills or a CD.
It really just sounds like your jealous that he has 50k to invest in something...
-
Me too, but he is not gambling, the risk is low. The 'potential' profits are coming anyway, otherwise this grumpy and greedy man would not send a dollar.
Risk is high. It's hardly certain to make a profit.
-
If you read my OP again, I think that you will see that I want to sell the income stream to an unknown private investor(s) once the fee stream has proven to exist and be growing. I am free to sell that without any consequences that I can think of, and will pay any tax due. The Private Investor intends then to issue an FBA and offer it for purchase to the Community. All this is possible once the Privacy Mode exists, but not before.
this puts an interesting new spin on things.i will gnaw on that
-
It really doesn't matter whether the risks and rewards are high or low or whether @onceuponatime is generous or just being an entrepreneur, etc. What matters is that many of us feel that we've already invested in this and other 2.0 features that it turns out have yet to be developed. Fine, reasonable people can understand the funding challenges we've faced. And if we're still here, we've mostly wrapped our minds around the fact that further investment is necessary. But why should those of us willing to invest further now be cut out if it?
I think some in the community will not stand for it. Sure, there's a strong possibility that it could get rammed down our throats anyway. But the potential consequences of that should be considered very carefully. The last thing we should want right now is for a chunk of the community to vote with their feet. So let's not screw this up royally. We've stumbled upon a very smart and powerful, new model that will allow for the immediate funding of features that not everyone is willing and/or ready to pay for. So let's get it done without cutting out the people who ARE ready and willing to pay for it now.
Having said that, I think this proposal really only has one problem. And that's the "private, unknown investor" who "might create an FBA and offer shares for sale on the DEX as a way for the Community to participate in that fee stream". I'm sure most here can read between the lines, but I doubt anyone is comfortable with the idea of signing away 80% of stealth transfer fees forever based on "might" or "they have indicated that this is what they intend". So let's build into the proposal some caps to make it VERY unattractive for the "private, unknown investor" NOT to sell shares to members of the community who are interested in investing. That way everyone can feel comfortable moving forward with this ASAP.
-
The proposal and the initiative from onceuponatime is +5%
My only proposal would be to adjust the fees in stealth transfers. We should have very low fees when visible transfers 10-30 bts irrespective of amounts as currently but when someone wants to make stealth transfers fees should be % and competitive to external exchanges. It doesn't make sense to make stealth transfer of 1 mil bts and pay a fee of 30 bts but it makes sense to have a fee of 0.1% i.e. 1000bts..
-
...There is no need to portrait him as someone who is generous. He wants so much kickback, it has nothing to do with generosity. You do what you want, I don't like the taste!
To be fair, OnceUp originally proposed to do this for very little return - extremely generous.
My original comment was that he deserved more than that to offset his risks. I told him to think of a business model like building a parking garage at a mall and the investor should have to pay a percentage of earnings to the mall for the rights to use the mall's infrastructure.
My goal was to set a precedent for something that would motivate all kinds of entrepreneurs to come out of the woodwork. (Few would do such things as generously as OnceUp's original offer. We are always about designing incentives to bring about desired behavior. There are LOTs of new features to develop, so this precedent needs to be highly motivating for others.)
OnceUp's advisory group eventually converged on recommending the same standard we have always used from sharedrops to referrals. 20% to the network and the rest is up to the entrepreneur.
OnceUp then simply adopted that consensus and agreed to be the precedent setting example for the rest of us.
-
It really doesn't matter whether the risks and rewards are high or low or whether @onceuponatime is generous or just being an entrepreneur, etc. What matters is that many of us feel that we've already invested in this and other 2.0 features that it turns out have yet to be developed. Fine, reasonable people can understand the funding challenges we've faced. And if we're still here, we've mostly wrapped our minds around the fact that further investment is necessary. But why should those of us willing to invest further now be cut out if it?
I think some in the community will not stand for it. Sure, there's a strong possibility that it could get rammed down our throats anyway. But the potential consequences of that should be considered very carefully. The last thing we should want right now is for a chunk of the community to vote with their feet. So let's not screw this up royally. We've stumbled upon a very smart and powerful, new model that will allow for the immediate funding of features that not everyone is willing and/or ready to pay for. So let's get it done without cutting out the people who ARE ready and willing to pay for it now.
Having said that, I think this proposal really only has one problem. And that's the "private, unknown investor" who "might create an FBA and offer shares for sale on the DEX as a way for the Community to participate in that fee stream". I'm sure most here can read between the lines, but I doubt anyone is comfortable with the idea of signing away 80% of stealth transfer fees forever based on "might" or "they have indicated that this is what they intend". So let's build into the proposal some caps to make it VERY unattractive for the "private, unknown investor" NOT to sell shares to members of the community who are interested in investing. That way everyone can feel comfortable moving forward with this ASAP.
But in the general case, we want to attract investors who have a business model that is simply "pay to add a new feature and reap the profits from that feature" like any other businessman starts any other business. Nice and clean.
With that as the base case, then all other kinds of deals can build on that. The entrepreneur certainly has a right to sell the business he built to others, or not. And such a buyer has the right to subdivide the asset if she feels it is legally safe for her to do so, or not.
If there is a market demand for shares in such revenue streams, the owner of the asset will be incentivized to meet that demand. But we shouldn't try to force it by writing, eewww, "govenment rules" to make sure they do so.
BitShares is a free enterprise zone. It was founded by people who don't really like all kinds of extra rules and regulations. Let's not spend a lot of time on this thread thinking up how many fiendishly confiscatory and restrictive community regulations we can put on this new class of entrepreneurs.
-
Since @onceuponatime is paying we will do things how he wants.
I just wanted to chime in on the regulatory issue. Those who have followed us for a long time know I am very careful and have become increasingly so. That said, based upon the SWARM working paper (http://www.scribd.com/doc/255347578/SWARM-Working-Paper-Distributed-Networks-and-the-Law) produced by Members of policy group Coin Center, law firm Perkins Coie as well as Harvard and MIT we now have a much clearer idea on what constitutes a security and high risk.
My proposed solution of implementing the feature and giving onceuponatime 100% of the STEALTH asset that gets bought back by the network over time. If he is the only owner, then it is clearly not a security. It just gives him a different way to claim the fees to his account (by order) as well as a way of dividing up control (by dividing his STEALTH among multiple accounts). So from the perspective of the law, no security has been offered to the public and everything is merely an accounting system on the blockchain for a single user.
If onceuponatime wished to sell his revenue stream he could do so by transferring the stealth asset. This is much more powerful than transferring control over an account and/or requiring a bot to automatically forward payments. It creates a far more trust free transfer of revenue (or fraction thereof) to a 3rd party. Once again, this wouldn't be a security by any stretch of the imagination when selling to private parties because there was no PUBLIC offering.
At this point I have believe I have demonstrated that we can design the feature to buy back a STEALTH asset while being so far away from regulatory issues that it wouldn't make sense to do it any other way.
All of that said, I believe that the STEALTH asset could be sold to the public AFTER the feature has been implemented and accepted by the network. This is based upon the Howey Test.
The tests for a security require *ALL* of the following properties:
1. Investment of money - token buyers pay money for their tokens. 80%
2. Common Enterprise - the funds received by the sale of STEALTH are not pooled, they become the private property of the seller. Thus clearly not a common enterprise. 20% risk
3. Reasonable Expectation of Profit - buyers purchase it for speculative purposes in the belief that the value of the token will rise. 90% risk of being a security.
4. Derived Mainly from the Efforts of Others - the value of STEALTH depends upon users of an existing system. No effort is required nor promised of other individuals for the token to receive automatic repurchases from the use of the system. In other words, the value of the token does not depend upon onceuponatime to take further actions. 10% risk
The combined risk for STEALTH is therefore less than 2% chance of being classified as a security and that is with me over estimating and then rounding up.
The penalty risk is $35,000 (what satoshi dice paid + disgorgement of profits). When discounting the penalty for the risk you can price the cost at $500. Any profits would be calculated after recovering his $45,000 investment.
The risk is so low (in my estimation) that CNX will probably use this model to fund future features.
So I am going to argue strongly that we implement this feature as a STEALTH asset, and then leave it to onceuponatime to determine whether or not to SELL the asset except for the purpose of claiming fees from the automatic buyback.
-
Do I understand right that 20% of all income from this feature is automatically burned?*
And all shareholders share this benefit without having to do or pay anything other than approving your proposal?
*well technically recycled (as network fees) but illiquid nonetheless. could still be burned though!
-
It really doesn't matter whether the risks and rewards are high or low or whether @onceuponatime is generous or just being an entrepreneur, etc. What matters is that many of us feel that we've already invested in this and other 2.0 features that it turns out have yet to be developed. Fine, reasonable people can understand the funding challenges we've faced. And if we're still here, we've mostly wrapped our minds around the fact that further investment is necessary. But why should those of us willing to invest further now be cut out if it?
I think some in the community will not stand for it. Sure, there's a strong possibility that it could get rammed down our throats anyway. But the potential consequences of that should be considered very carefully. The last thing we should want right now is for a chunk of the community to vote with their feet. So let's not screw this up royally. We've stumbled upon a very smart and powerful, new model that will allow for the immediate funding of features that not everyone is willing and/or ready to pay for. So let's get it done without cutting out the people who ARE ready and willing to pay for it now.
Having said that, I think this proposal really only has one problem. And that's the "private, unknown investor" who "might create an FBA and offer shares for sale on the DEX as a way for the Community to participate in that fee stream". I'm sure most here can read between the lines, but I doubt anyone is comfortable with the idea of signing away 80% of stealth transfer fees forever based on "might" or "they have indicated that this is what they intend". So let's build into the proposal some caps to make it VERY unattractive for the "private, unknown investor" NOT to sell shares to members of the community who are interested in investing. That way everyone can feel comfortable moving forward with this ASAP.
Why not just make an FBA from the start? I don't see why we need anyone to completely fund it and then turn it into an FBA after the fact. Put the UIA on the market from the start?
But if not, then okay the last resort is to have the anonymous group of investors buy and issue it anonymously.
-
Do I understand right that 20% of all income from this feature is automatically burned?*
And all shareholders share this benefit without having to do or pay anything other than approving your proposal?
*well technically recycled (as network fees) but illiquid nonetheless. could still be burned though!
It probably should be burned.
-
Hi, I am sorry. I have some anger issues especially after waking up and regret it the rest of the day. Onceuponatime, sorry for the personal attacks, I never met you and I sometimes just shout out things. Your hurtful posts in the brownie thread made me angry.
I don't want to be an obstacle here and go with the flow. I support Stan he was always friendly and knows what is good for everyone.
-
Do I understand right that 20% of all income from this feature is automatically burned?*
And all shareholders share this benefit without having to do or pay anything other than approving your proposal?
*well technically recycled (as network fees) but illiquid nonetheless. could still be burned though!
It is not BURNED, it is used to purchase MAKER and the MAKER is burned.
-
Why not just make an FBA from the start? I don't see why we need anyone to completely fund it and then turn it into an FBA after the fact. Put the UIA on the market from the start?
But if not, then okay the last resort is to have the anonymous group of investors buy and issue it anonymously.
I don't understand this either. It seems to me that the FBA can be put forward from the start. I don't see why we need the private funding first. It seems like a bit of extra complexity and wiggling around for no real benefit.
The only thing I get from this is that the pre funding guarantees they keep as much of it as they desire and only IF they desire, will they sell the FBA to the public.
There could easily be an alternative worker proposal, identical in every way, except the FBA is offered from the start with no private pre funding. I wonder which would have greater support. If its publicly funded, are these private investors still interested.
-
Question.
If someone wanted to create a competing Privacy Mode solution, what would be the steps required?
I assume confidential transactions already work in the CLI?
The additional blockchain code required is to allow the Privacy Mode owners to take a fee? What else is required?
What part of this is UI/UX? I assume a lot of the cost will be for that.
If you guys are all for providing the best solution to the consumers, competition is good. However for those that want to compete to provide the service they should be ready to compete. The question is what is the real cost and exclusive nature of this worker proposal? Will the voters in control vote to keep this particular Privacy Mode exclusive or open to competition? It comes down to cost-benefit for businesses. If it's cheaper to rebuild our own Privacy Mode (esp because UI/UX is probably the brunt of it) we'll probably build our own anyways.
I rather have a blockchain API for Privacy Mode businesses to build their own UI/UX on and earn fees. That opens it more, doesn't limit innovation and reduces @onceuponatime 's risk. I don't want to just come in there and start from scratch and outcompete. That seems to me a waste of resources. We will most likely enter the Privacy Mode business so it's your call.
-
The 4-6 weeks to accomplish this stealth feature...does it means that basically all other works (DEX's core features) would be put in pause?
Bytemaster just made a post about the prediction market, that is available in the cli/blockchain, but not on the GUI yet.
I personally think that the Prediction Market could bring a lot more users than stealth, and I would prefer to head efforts on Prediction Market or others DEX's core feautures instead, at least for the time being.
-
The 4-6 weeks to accomplish this stealth feature...does it means that basically all other works (DEX's core features) would be put in pause?
Bytemaster just made a post about the prediction market, that is available in the cli/blockchain, but not on the GUI yet.
I personally think that the Prediction Market could bring a lot more users than stealth, and I would prefer to head efforts on Prediction Market or others DEX's core feautures instead, at least for the time being.
If you've ever run a business, you know that you need a backlog of funded work to hire more people and then you hire more people to work off the backlog. It's an endless growth cycle you try to sustain.
So, ask not how much work the current team can do.
Ask instead, how to fund a team big enough to do everything.
Get a backlog of work in the pipeline and let the entrepreneurs figure out how to get it done.
"If you fund it, they will come."
-
The proposal and the initiative from onceuponatime is +5%
My only proposal would be to adjust the fees in stealth transfers. We should have very low fees when visible transfers 10-30 bts irrespective of amounts as currently but when someone wants to make stealth transfers fees should be % and competitive to external exchanges. It doesn't make sense to make stealth transfer of 1 mil bts and pay a fee of 30 bts but it makes sense to have a fee of 0.1% i.e. 1000bts..
@mf-tzo
Yes, I like your idea. But I think it should be smaller. Say 3x the regular fee plus 0.01% of the amount of the transfer.
-
So this guy clearly isn't Satoshi, but when the value skyrockets, privacy is going to be absolutely essential... As is fairly obvious by the below... Which might also be why there hasn't been a big influx of capital thus far.
http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/
Some impressive coincidence eh?
Very disappointing that this has to be privately funded to get done. Thankful to Onceaponatime to funding it of course but disappointed in the overall lack of foresight.
-
Since @onceuponatime is paying we will do things how he wants.
I just wanted to chime in on the regulatory issue. Those who have followed us for a long time know I am very careful and have become increasingly so. That said, based upon the SWARM working paper (http://www.scribd.com/doc/255347578/SWARM-Working-Paper-Distributed-Networks-and-the-Law) produced by Members of policy group Coin Center, law firm Perkins Coie as well as Harvard and MIT we now have a much clearer idea on what constitutes a security and high risk.
My proposed solution of implementing the feature and giving onceuponatime 100% of the STEALTH asset that gets bought back by the network over time. If he is the only owner, then it is clearly not a security. It just gives him a different way to claim the fees to his account (by order) as well as a way of dividing up control (by dividing his STEALTH among multiple accounts). So from the perspective of the law, no security has been offered to the public and everything is merely an accounting system on the blockchain for a single user.
If onceuponatime wished to sell his revenue stream he could do so by transferring the stealth asset. This is much more powerful than transferring control over an account and/or requiring a bot to automatically forward payments. It creates a far more trust free transfer of revenue (or fraction thereof) to a 3rd party. Once again, this wouldn't be a security by any stretch of the imagination when selling to private parties because there was no PUBLIC offering.
At this point I have believe I have demonstrated that we can design the feature to buy back a STEALTH asset while being so far away from regulatory issues that it wouldn't make sense to do it any other way.
All of that said, I believe that the STEALTH asset could be sold to the public AFTER the feature has been implemented and accepted by the network. This is based upon the Howey Test.
The tests for a security require *ALL* of the following properties:
1. Investment of money - token buyers pay money for their tokens. 80%
2. Common Enterprise - the funds received by the sale of STEALTH are not pooled, they become the private property of the seller. Thus clearly not a common enterprise. 20% risk
3. Reasonable Expectation of Profit - buyers purchase it for speculative purposes in the belief that the value of the token will rise. 90% risk of being a security.
4. Derived Mainly from the Efforts of Others - the value of STEALTH depends upon users of an existing system. No effort is required nor promised of other individuals for the token to receive automatic repurchases from the use of the system. In other words, the value of the token does not depend upon onceuponatime to take further actions. 10% risk
The combined risk for STEALTH is therefore less than 2% chance of being classified as a security and that is with me over estimating and then rounding up.
The penalty risk is $35,000 (what satoshi dice paid + disgorgement of profits). When discounting the penalty for the risk you can price the cost at $500. Any profits would be calculated after recovering his $45,000 investment.
The risk is so low (in my estimation) that CNX will probably use this model to fund future features.
So I am going to argue strongly that we implement this feature as a STEALTH asset, and then leave it to onceuponatime to determine whether or not to SELL the asset except for the purpose of claiming fees from the automatic buyback.
@bytemaster
Could you please explain how/by whom the STEALTH asset is to be created?
I like the idea of being a modern day Prometheus and bringing to BitShares the equivalent of the fire it needs for combustion. But I do value what is left of my liver :)
I am ready to go with your suggestion. I would just like to understand the mechanics a little better.
-
So this guy clearly isn't Satoshi, but when the value skyrockets, privacy is going to be absolutely essential... As is fairly obvious by the below... Which might also be why there hasn't been a big influx of capital thus far.
http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/
Some impressive coincidence eh?
Very disappointing that this has to be privately funded to get done. Thankful to Onceaponatime to funding it of course but disappointed in the overall lack of foresight.
You mean this kind of lack of foresight?
What if BitShares could have perfect privacy? (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16905.msg216168.html#msg216168)
-
So this guy clearly isn't Satoshi, but when the value skyrockets, privacy is going to be absolutely essential... As is fairly obvious by the below... Which might also be why there hasn't been a big influx of capital thus far.
http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/
Some impressive coincidence eh?
Very disappointing that this has to be privately funded to get done. Thankful to Onceaponatime to funding it of course but disappointed in the overall lack of foresight.
You mean this kind of lack of foresight?
What if BitShares could have perfect privacy? (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16905.msg216168.html#msg216168)
+5% on the doublespeak Stan. You mean like the "foresight" that is 4 days after the BIG announcement on June 8 of what BitShares 2.0 would include upon launch, which did NOT include any privacy, where everyone's balance was out in the open? Or perhaps you're referring to the "foresight" that was in the making while TITAN was the king of privacy features back in the 0.9X era?
Lots of "gee whiz" features, actually great innovations ... if only they were real rather than ideas that CNX will implement ... eventually, when not dreaming up other neat innovations rather than finding ways to finish up with the last set.
-
So this guy clearly isn't Satoshi, but when the value skyrockets, privacy is going to be absolutely essential... As is fairly obvious by the below... Which might also be why there hasn't been a big influx of capital thus far.
http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/
Some impressive coincidence eh?
Very disappointing that this has to be privately funded to get done. Thankful to Onceaponatime to funding it of course but disappointed in the overall lack of foresight.
You mean this kind of lack of foresight?
What if BitShares could have perfect privacy? (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16905.msg216168.html#msg216168)
Exactly that... BM was on board, it was supposed to come a couple of weeks after 2.0 launch i recall, but then priorities changed due to community pressure and now we have onceaponatime funding it because it needs to be done.
I should have clarified i guess, Lack of foresight from the community.
-
So this guy clearly isn't Satoshi, but when the value skyrockets, privacy is going to be absolutely essential... As is fairly obvious by the below... Which might also be why there hasn't been a big influx of capital thus far.
http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/
Some impressive coincidence eh?
Very disappointing that this has to be privately funded to get done. Thankful to Onceaponatime to funding it of course but disappointed in the overall lack of foresight.
You mean this kind of lack of foresight?
What if BitShares could have perfect privacy? (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16905.msg216168.html#msg216168)
Exactly that... BM was on board, it was supposed to come a couple of weeks after 2.0 launch i recall, but then priorities changed due to community pressure and now we have onceaponatime funding it because it needs to be done.
I should have clarified i guess, Lack of foresight from the community.
That thread clearly stated that:
a) BM had a plan to add stealth
b) It would have to be funded by the community.
Cryptonomex does not have infinite resources. Yet.
The community, of course, is sovereign and we can't control its decisions or priorities.
Ascribing "foresight" to a diverse group of people is an iffy proposition.
Dictatorships can have "foresight".
Communities can only aspire to "consensus".
-
So this guy clearly isn't Satoshi, but when the value skyrockets, privacy is going to be absolutely essential... As is fairly obvious by the below... Which might also be why there hasn't been a big influx of capital thus far.
http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/
Some impressive coincidence eh?
Very disappointing that this has to be privately funded to get done. Thankful to Onceaponatime to funding it of course but disappointed in the overall lack of foresight.
You mean this kind of lack of foresight?
What if BitShares could have perfect privacy? (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16905.msg216168.html#msg216168)
+5% on the doublespeak Stan. You mean like the "foresight" that is 4 days after the BIG announcement on June 8 of what BitShares 2.0 would include upon launch, which did NOT include any privacy, where everyone's balance was out in the open? Or perhaps you're referring to the "foresight" that was in the making while TITAN was the king of privacy features back in the 0.9X era?
Lots of "gee whiz" features, actually great innovations ... if only they were real rather than ideas that CNX will implement ... eventually, when not dreaming up other neat innovations rather than finding ways to finish up with the last set.
Yep. A man's reach should exceed his grasp.
We are learning as we go. Do you really hold us to some standard that requires us to know everything up front?
Who learns and adapts faster than BM?
During that time, BM became aware of the work done in the Bitcoin universe and had a blinding flash of how to incorporate it into BitShares. It was beyond our budget, so he made it clear it would have to be funded by others.
Bottom line: BM is a very powerful piece on the chess board. But he is not all powerful.
Be thankful he is on our chessboard and quit complaining that he is not simultaneously a knight and a rook.
-
no fucking shit.
so haters quit hating and either give up some love to our rich uncle onceuponatime or go code your own "super-secret-stealth-mode BTS GUI"
this is a free community and you are free to compete, but bitching about free money will land a giant middle fucking finger in your face
for free
bite the hand that feeds, and you will undoubetedly get the finger first
-
So this guy clearly isn't Satoshi, but when the value skyrockets, privacy is going to be absolutely essential... As is fairly obvious by the below... Which might also be why there hasn't been a big influx of capital thus far.
http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/
Some impressive coincidence eh?
Very disappointing that this has to be privately funded to get done. Thankful to Onceaponatime to funding it of course but disappointed in the overall lack of foresight.
You mean this kind of lack of foresight?
What if BitShares could have perfect privacy? (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16905.msg216168.html#msg216168)
+5% on the doublespeak Stan. You mean like the "foresight" that is 4 days after the BIG announcement on June 8 of what BitShares 2.0 would include upon launch, which did NOT include any privacy, where everyone's balance was out in the open? Or perhaps you're referring to the "foresight" that was in the making while TITAN was the king of privacy features back in the 0.9X era?
Lots of "gee whiz" features, actually great innovations ... if only they were real rather than ideas that CNX will implement ... eventually, when not dreaming up other neat innovations rather than finding ways to finish up with the last set.
Yep. A man's reach should exceed his grasp.
We are learning as we go. Do you really hold us to some standard that requires us to know everything up front?
Who learns and adapts faster than BM?
During that time, BM became aware of the work done in the Bitcoin universe and had a blinding flash of how to incorporate it into BitShares. It was beyond our budget, so he made it clear it would have to be funded by others.
Bottom line: BM is a very powerful piece on the chess board. But he is not all powerful.
Be thankful he is on our chessboard and quit complaining that he is not simultaneously a knight and a rook.
First, for the record, I am not opposed to moving forward with OnceUp's plan to *finally* get stealth implemented. Quite the contrary, it is an incredibly bold and brave move, as well as generous. He wouldn't have invited me to participate in it's planning if I was opposed to it. It is plain to see from a review of the history of this forum that I have been very vocal about the need for stealth and privacy. I pushed back against the lack of it when 2.0 was announced. My minimal resistance to it has to do with its priority among other current objectives, and how it may impact their delivery.
The reason for my objections are primarily due to the spin being put on the record of events and the continuing attitude that CNX management is not at fault. I was here in May and June, I saw it all transpire. It wasn't until you were challenged that you admitted the true and accurate picture. Stan, the quoted post above is exactly right about how and when BM came up with stealth, but you didn't lead with that, no you tried to paint the picture of how it was all part of your grand plan, your omniscient "foresight". Now you want to lay responsibility for the lack of privacy on the community, who has only recently been given any real control. Sorry, not buying it.
I get dizzy from all your spinning. Call it what you will, hype, spin, coolaid; it's all the same.
-
If you need to spin something to fit your narrative, call Stan. He's the best in the biz...
-
Since @onceuponatime is paying we will do things how he wants.
I just wanted to chime in on the regulatory issue. Those who have followed us for a long time know I am very careful and have become increasingly so. That said, based upon the SWARM working paper (http://www.scribd.com/doc/255347578/SWARM-Working-Paper-Distributed-Networks-and-the-Law) produced by Members of policy group Coin Center, law firm Perkins Coie as well as Harvard and MIT we now have a much clearer idea on what constitutes a security and high risk.
My proposed solution of implementing the feature and giving onceuponatime 100% of the STEALTH asset that gets bought back by the network over time. If he is the only owner, then it is clearly not a security. It just gives him a different way to claim the fees to his account (by order) as well as a way of dividing up control (by dividing his STEALTH among multiple accounts). So from the perspective of the law, no security has been offered to the public and everything is merely an accounting system on the blockchain for a single user.
If onceuponatime wished to sell his revenue stream he could do so by transferring the stealth asset. This is much more powerful than transferring control over an account and/or requiring a bot to automatically forward payments. It creates a far more trust free transfer of revenue (or fraction thereof) to a 3rd party. Once again, this wouldn't be a security by any stretch of the imagination when selling to private parties because there was no PUBLIC offering.
At this point I have believe I have demonstrated that we can design the feature to buy back a STEALTH asset while being so far away from regulatory issues that it wouldn't make sense to do it any other way.
All of that said, I believe that the STEALTH asset could be sold to the public AFTER the feature has been implemented and accepted by the network. This is based upon the Howey Test.
The tests for a security require *ALL* of the following properties:
1. Investment of money - token buyers pay money for their tokens. 80%
2. Common Enterprise - the funds received by the sale of STEALTH are not pooled, they become the private property of the seller. Thus clearly not a common enterprise. 20% risk
3. Reasonable Expectation of Profit - buyers purchase it for speculative purposes in the belief that the value of the token will rise. 90% risk of being a security.
4. Derived Mainly from the Efforts of Others - the value of STEALTH depends upon users of an existing system. No effort is required nor promised of other individuals for the token to receive automatic repurchases from the use of the system. In other words, the value of the token does not depend upon onceuponatime to take further actions. 10% risk
The combined risk for STEALTH is therefore less than 2% chance of being classified as a security and that is with me over estimating and then rounding up.
The penalty risk is $35,000 (what satoshi dice paid + disgorgement of profits). When discounting the penalty for the risk you can price the cost at $500. Any profits would be calculated after recovering his $45,000 investment.
The risk is so low (in my estimation) that CNX will probably use this model to fund future features.
So I am going to argue strongly that we implement this feature as a STEALTH asset, and then leave it to onceuponatime to determine whether or not to SELL the asset except for the purpose of claiming fees from the automatic buyback.
@bytemaster
Could you please explain how/by whom the STEALTH asset is to be created?
I like the idea of being a modern day Prometheus and bringing to BitShares the equivalent of the fire it needs for combustion. But I do value what is left of my liver :)
I am ready to go with your suggestion. I would just like to understand the mechanics a little better.
The STEALTH asset will be issued by the "management account" for this feature as part of the hard fork. You will just be the initial owner of the issued asset (not the issuer). This management account will have multi-sig authority assigned to the 5 largest STEALTH holders weighted proportional to stake and will have the power to set the fee.
-
Since @onceuponatime is paying we will do things how he wants.
I just wanted to chime in on the regulatory issue. Those who have followed us for a long time know I am very careful and have become increasingly so. That said, based upon the SWARM working paper (http://www.scribd.com/doc/255347578/SWARM-Working-Paper-Distributed-Networks-and-the-Law) produced by Members of policy group Coin Center, law firm Perkins Coie as well as Harvard and MIT we now have a much clearer idea on what constitutes a security and high risk.
My proposed solution of implementing the feature and giving onceuponatime 100% of the STEALTH asset that gets bought back by the network over time. If he is the only owner, then it is clearly not a security. It just gives him a different way to claim the fees to his account (by order) as well as a way of dividing up control (by dividing his STEALTH among multiple accounts). So from the perspective of the law, no security has been offered to the public and everything is merely an accounting system on the blockchain for a single user.
If onceuponatime wished to sell his revenue stream he could do so by transferring the stealth asset. This is much more powerful than transferring control over an account and/or requiring a bot to automatically forward payments. It creates a far more trust free transfer of revenue (or fraction thereof) to a 3rd party. Once again, this wouldn't be a security by any stretch of the imagination when selling to private parties because there was no PUBLIC offering.
At this point I have believe I have demonstrated that we can design the feature to buy back a STEALTH asset while being so far away from regulatory issues that it wouldn't make sense to do it any other way.
All of that said, I believe that the STEALTH asset could be sold to the public AFTER the feature has been implemented and accepted by the network. This is based upon the Howey Test.
The tests for a security require *ALL* of the following properties:
1. Investment of money - token buyers pay money for their tokens. 80%
2. Common Enterprise - the funds received by the sale of STEALTH are not pooled, they become the private property of the seller. Thus clearly not a common enterprise. 20% risk
3. Reasonable Expectation of Profit - buyers purchase it for speculative purposes in the belief that the value of the token will rise. 90% risk of being a security.
4. Derived Mainly from the Efforts of Others - the value of STEALTH depends upon users of an existing system. No effort is required nor promised of other individuals for the token to receive automatic repurchases from the use of the system. In other words, the value of the token does not depend upon onceuponatime to take further actions. 10% risk
The combined risk for STEALTH is therefore less than 2% chance of being classified as a security and that is with me over estimating and then rounding up.
The penalty risk is $35,000 (what satoshi dice paid + disgorgement of profits). When discounting the penalty for the risk you can price the cost at $500. Any profits would be calculated after recovering his $45,000 investment.
The risk is so low (in my estimation) that CNX will probably use this model to fund future features.
So I am going to argue strongly that we implement this feature as a STEALTH asset, and then leave it to onceuponatime to determine whether or not to SELL the asset except for the purpose of claiming fees from the automatic buyback.
@bytemaster
Could you please explain how/by whom the STEALTH asset is to be created?
I like the idea of being a modern day Prometheus and bringing to BitShares the equivalent of the fire it needs for combustion. But I do value what is left of my liver :)
I am ready to go with your suggestion. I would just like to understand the mechanics a little better.
The STEALTH asset will be issued by the "management account" for this feature as part of the hard fork. You will just be the initial owner of the issued asset (not the issuer). This management account will have multi-sig authority assigned to the 5 largest STEALTH holders weighted proportional to stake and will have the power to set the fee.
Thank you. I agree with your ideasl as to how to structure the implementation of the Privacy Mode feature.
Would the next step be for Cryptonomex to release an amended and more detailed "Stealth Transfers in Web Interface ($45,000) #452" https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452 and for voting to begin?
If the Worker Proposal is voted in quickly, the January 2nd estimated dated for me to wire funds to Cryptonomex could be shifted forward.
-
Next week I will put together a revised proposal structured in the following steps:
Phase 1: Implement the STEALTH asset + hard fork for tracking the fees. This is the least work and gets the "funding portion" of the equation solved as early as possible. I would then transfer the STEALTH asset to onceuponatime after receiving $45,000. In this way he has the full value of the future revenue stream locked in prior to our implementation of the GUI.
Phase 2: Implement the GUI
-
#sharebits "bytemaster" 5 PERCENT
-
Hey 38PTSWarrior, here are the results of your tips...
- bytemaster (http://sharebits.io/Home/Dashboard?username=bytemaster): has been credited 5 PERCENT
Curious about ShareBits? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20499.msg265158/topicseen.html#msg265158
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
-
haven't read the full thread yet, just the OP, but wanted to give my perspective.
As I see, some aspects may need to be discussed for the social contract to it get signed by a majority, but this is a huge feature, brought probably by the most capable coders to develop it at the moment, also an FBA proof of concept, and a good precedent for further worker proposals.
Combined with account permissions, asset rules and what not, this could be the most functional and beautiful example of a social smart contract so far.
just my +(private)%
INFP here
-
If you need to spin something to fit your narrative, call Stan. He's the best in the biz...
actually this made my day... it made me smile for 6h on ...whenever I remembered it...
The best example in my mind is when Stan posted a pic of 6-9 rockets launching at the same time (to prove his point)... not even 6h later he posted a pic 'proving' why launching 1 rocket is the best way to go...
PS
The 6 vs 1 rocket [both of course undeniable truths in themselves] was just before the time when the grand merger was announced....wish someone can find them damn post....
-
If you need to spin something to fit your narrative, call Stan. He's the best in the biz...
I'm sorry to interrupt, but ... where is the outcry here?!
@fav dafuq man! He just insulted "a founder" and you're going to let this slide?
Do I need to get Ben in here to complain?
Ben IS the "community" for gawd's sake!
Somebody do sumthin! muh eyes! muh safe space!
such feelings. very emotion. much pc.
</10% sarc+90%notcereal>
-
+5% thank you onceuponatime!
Agreed.
+5% thank you onceuponatime! - I think we should keep the name Stealth though. Branding is everything and when the media talks about what Bitshares is capable of, the phrase "stealth transactions" is pretty self-explanatory.
If we want whales and savers to start storing wealth in the Bitshares system then they DEFINITELY want some privacy. They don't want their assets displayed all over cryptofresh. The private banking folks will really love to go stealth.
-
If you need to spin something to fit your narrative, call Stan. He's the best in the biz...
actually this made my day... it made me smile for 6h on ...whenever I remembered it...
The best example in my mind is when Stan posted a pic of 6-9 rockets launching at the same time (to prove his point)... not even 6h later he posted a pic 'proving' why launching 1 rocket is the best way to go...
PS
The 6 vs 1 rocket [both of course undeniable truths in themselves] was just before the time when the grand merger was announced....wish someone can find them damn post....
(http://i.gyazo.com/4accf8293b0e919802955b99994fe6f0.png)
(http://zdnet2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/08/12/eb5b0a65-2208-11e4-8c7f-00505685119a/thumbnail/770x578/32ab6cc0cbbc00b013628386341652fe/to-the-moon-boeing-the-rocket-foundry.jpg)
-
"Looking at the numbers"
You're living in LaLa Land. My proposal is that the fee be 3x the regular transaction fee. How much is the transaction fee for a lifetime member again? And who do you think other than lifetime members is going to use such a feature? Private Mode transactions could be a tiny percentage of all transactions. And transactions now are very very few. I am risking a significant part of my life savings to help bootstrap BitShares. What are you doing?
That proves nothing. Can someone else prove my numbers wrong and actually use real numbers to do it.
Stealth transfers cannot participate in the referral program. The fee for a stealth transfer can be higher (premium service) at about $0.50
Looking at the numbers. If stealth transfers are charged $0.50 per transaction and you get $0.30 per transaction, then your $45,000 investment will be worth $157,680 in one year at a tx rate of just 1tx per minute. At 1tx/sec (about half of bitcoins tx rate) that is $9,460,800 per year for a $45,000 investment.
Otherwise the numbers are correct.
I apologize. I have checked further and my understanding was flawed. Here is the feedback I got from Stan and Dan:
"The referral program does not play with Privacy mode transfers (because it is private, we don't know who the parties are or who referred them). This means that even if the fee were the same as the basic transfer, on average the lifetime member would be paying 5x more a Private Transfer than a Public Transfer. If you charge 3x the basic transfer fee, then life time members will pay 15x more for a Private transfer than a Public transfer.
Percentage based fees are not possible with Private Transfers because the amount being transferred is Private!
Dan"
So, if the Privacy Mode charges a fee 3x the base fee of 30BTS, that will be 3 x 30 = 90BTS
At current prices, that is approximately 90 x .0039 US$ or about 35 cents US for a Private transaction. This would adjust with our BTS market cap as the Committee adjusts the base transaction fee.
Once we have recouped our investment, I presume there will be pressure on the owners of a STEALTH Asset to lower the 3x fee in order to not be undercut by potential competition.
Or, STEALTH Asset owners may use a goodly portion of our fees to enhance our service in order to stay competitive.
-
If you need to spin something to fit your narrative, call Stan. He's the best in the biz...
actually this made my day... it made me smile for 6h on ...whenever I remembered it...
The best example in my mind is when Stan posted a pic of 6-9 rockets launching at the same time (to prove his point)... not even 6h later he posted a pic 'proving' why launching 1 rocket is the best way to go...
PS
The 6 vs 1 rocket [both of course undeniable truths in themselves] was just before the time when the grand merger was announced....wish someone can find them damn post....
(http://i.gyazo.com/4accf8293b0e919802955b99994fe6f0.png)
(http://zdnet2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/08/12/eb5b0a65-2208-11e4-8c7f-00505685119a/thumbnail/770x578/32ab6cc0cbbc00b013628386341652fe/to-the-moon-boeing-the-rocket-foundry.jpg)
I enjoyed the trip down memory lane looking for the above pictures for Tonyk.
I ran across this one posted in that same epoch, just after Dan's Vegas Keynote address.
I leave it to those who are still hanging in there to identify themselves, as they choose.
Forum Heroes you know and love...
(http://i.gyazo.com/1de2086d97cfd0b22923e64c38b2684c.png)
-
Why not just make an FBA from the start? I don't see why we need anyone to completely fund it and then turn it into an FBA after the fact. Put the UIA on the market from the start?
But if not, then okay the last resort is to have the anonymous group of investors buy and issue it anonymously.
I don't understand this either. It seems to me that the FBA can be put forward from the start. I don't see why we need the private funding first. It seems like a bit of extra complexity and wiggling around for no real benefit.
The only thing I get from this is that the pre funding guarantees they keep as much of it as they desire and only IF they desire, will they sell the FBA to the public.
There could easily be an alternative worker proposal, identical in every way, except the FBA is offered from the start with no private pre funding. I wonder which would have greater support. If its publicly funded, are these private investors still interested.
If I understand this right, this is a problem mainly for Cryptonomex. It wants to minimize all risks with jurisdiction, which is understandable. Solution would be to move Cryptonomex to some other country where laws regarding securities are better.
But if somebody else wants to implement some other feature, they can issue FBA at first if they think it's a good idea. That somebody might be even totally anonymous to remove all legal risks. The product is just code so there is no need for DAC to know the identity of the coder.
-
OK now that this [explicit] is set in stone, I have nothing more I can do but open a poll:
what will be the average market cap loss for BTS between now and the time the stealth is out [my guess is about April].
It is ridiculous but I do think you guys are willingly taking a 2.5 to more likely 4 mil USD market cap hit, so CNX can cash 45K immediately, and onceaponaprivacydream can make this 45K suicidal investment.[the one he brakes even in about 3-5 years?]
---------
weighted market cap per CMC
Dec 13 '15 - 9,602,798
till 7 days before the stealth release is announced.
-
People seem to trust STEALTH (https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/market/STEALTH_BTS) more than MAKER (https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/market/MAKER_BTS). Total bids are 1625550 vs 45000 right now.
-
OK now that this [explicit] is set in stone, I have nothing more I can do but open a poll:
what will be the average market cap loss for BTS between now and the time the stealth is out [my guess is about April].
It is ridiculous but I do think you guys are willingly taking a 2.5 to more likely 4 mil USD market cap hit, so CNX can cash 45K immediately, and onceaponaprivacydream can make this 45K suicidal investment.[the one he brakes even in about 3-5 years?]
---------
weighted market cap per CMC
Dec 13 '15 - 9,602,798
till 7 days before the stealth release is announced.
Tony, you are extremely short sighted. How much of a market cap hit would BTS take if we weren't working on BTS at all? How much of a hit would it take if we diluted BTS by 30K per month to fund features?
-
OK now that this [explicit] is set in stone, I have nothing more I can do but open a poll:
what will be the average market cap loss for BTS between now and the time the stealth is out [my guess is about April].
It is ridiculous but I do think you guys are willingly taking a 2.5 to more likely 4 mil USD market cap hit, so CNX can cash 45K immediately, and onceaponaprivacydream can make this 45K suicidal investment.[the one he brakes even in about 3-5 years?]
---------
weighted market cap per CMC
Dec 13 '15 - 9,602,798
till 7 days before the stealth release is announced.
Tony, you are extremely short sighted. How much of a market cap hit would BTS take if we weren't working on BTS at all? How much of a hit would it take if we diluted BTS by 30K per month to fund features?
How much it will gain if you fund ANY of the other good features you suggested*?
What market are you exactly trying to get with stealth?
Some imaginary already in crypto audience that have found only things to dislike in BTS up till now, all of a sudden jumping on BTS train for stealth?
*
1. Bond Market (Poloniex Style Lending)
2. Prediction Market (Auger Style)
3. Ethereum (or something similar) VM integration
4. Liquidity Incentivisation
5. Gambling Systems
-
This is one of the great threads. Put it up along with the "merger proposal" thread.
The irony of this proposal and that thing called dpos.
Hey what happened to the whole Stock market side of BTS? Overstock just got ok to issue shares on the BTC blockchain with Medici or whatever. I guess BTS will be a second mover in that department. And stealth won't be usable for a stock market that is legit.
-
This is one of the great threads.
what happened to the whole Stock market side of BTS? Overstock just got ok to issue shares on the BTC blockchain with Medici or whatever. I guess BTS will be a second mover in that department
That part of BTS is done already.
Anyone can issue a UIA backed by a share of Berkshire and open a market up and make money like Overstock is doing with their "trust us" version of blockchain based security sales. This is very old news man.
google "user issued asset". and it will completely blow your f'n mind
(but not knowing where you are currently in terms of base knowledge, you might need to google "google" first)
-
If you need to spin something to fit your narrative, call Stan. He's the best in the biz...
Fuck you Stan for being an optimist. Only pessimists are allowed in this forum!
You must dwell only on the dark side!!!
OK now that this [explicit] is set in stone, I have nothing more I can do but open a poll:
what will be the average market cap loss for BTS between now and the time the stealth is out [my guess is about April].
It is ridiculous but I do think you guys are willingly taking a 2.5 to more likely 4 mil USD market cap hit, so CNX can cash 45K immediately, and onceaponaprivacydream can make this 45K suicidal investment.[the one he brakes even in about 3-5 years?]
---------
weighted market cap per CMC
Dec 13 '15 - 9,602,798
till 7 days before the stealth release is announced.
OK since we are taking bets on the future price of BTS in USD terms, and i fully expect the price of bitcoin to rise now that both the bottom and base are in, and there will be zero tax loss selling this year (what caused last years low price in all crypto). I would have to predict that the BTS price drops -20% after the official announcement that VC money and requests for future construction (development) are now entering BTS.
oops. i forgot about the bitcoin halving. when does that happen again?
-
This is one of the great threads. Put it up along with the "merger proposal" thread.
The irony of this proposal and that thing called dpos.
what happened to the whole Stock market side of BTS? Overstock just got ok to issue shares on the BTC blockchain with Medici or whatever. I guess BTS will be a second mover in that department
That part of BTS is done already.
Anyone can issue a UIA backed by a share of Berkshire and open a market up and make money like Overstock is doing with their "trust us" version of blockchain based security sales. This is very old news man.
google "user issued asset". and i will completely blow you. f'n mind
(but not knowing where you are currently in terms of base knowledge, you might need to google "google" first)
I know you've only been around a few months and you spend most of your time juggling your multiple accounts here, but there was this event that happened over a year ago that sent this submarine on an uncontrolled unrecoverable dive. Don't edit my quote, unless you like it being done to you.
-
6. The Initialization Package shall modify the blockchain to make the Privacy Mode feature available to users.
7. The Initialization Package shall make provision for the creation of generic Fee Based Assets (FBA) and set the fee for such
Could you elaborate on the "Initialization Package" and the statement above?
8. A GUI shall be provided in the OpenLedger and Light wallets to allow ordinary users to easily use the Privacy Mode features.
If a GUI is to be developed for OpenLedger specifically, why wouldn't you ask
for fund from them as well? Either they take part in the funding, or you should
replace OpenLedger with "web wallet". In the end, OL is free to use the feature
implemented, but I don't see why they should be part of the contract between YOU
and CNX!
Cheers
-
6. The Initialization Package shall modify the blockchain to make the Privacy Mode feature available to users.
7. The Initialization Package shall make provision for the creation of generic Fee Based Assets (FBA) and set the fee for such
Could you elaborate on the "Initialization Package" and the statement above?
8. A GUI shall be provided in the OpenLedger and Light wallets to allow ordinary users to easily use the Privacy Mode features.
If a GUI is to be developed for OpenLedger specifically, why wouldn't you ask
for fund from them as well? Either they take part in the funding, or you should
replace OpenLedger with "web wallet". In the end, OL is free to use the feature
implemented, but I don't see why they should be part of the contract between YOU
and CNX!
Cheers
@Stan
This wording is from Stan. Perhaps he can give an elaboration of his intention.
-
6. The Initialization Package shall modify the blockchain to make the Privacy Mode feature available to users.
7. The Initialization Package shall make provision for the creation of generic Fee Based Assets (FBA) and set the fee for such
Could you elaborate on the "Initialization Package" and the statement above?
8. A GUI shall be provided in the OpenLedger and Light wallets to allow ordinary users to easily use the Privacy Mode features.
If a GUI is to be developed for OpenLedger specifically, why wouldn't you ask
for fund from them as well? Either they take part in the funding, or you should
replace OpenLedger with "web wallet". In the end, OL is free to use the feature
implemented, but I don't see why they should be part of the contract between YOU
and CNX!
Cheers
@Stan
This wording is from Stan. Perhaps he can give an elaboration of his intention.
Initialization Package is just whatever software implements the change and initializes the FBA parameters.
"Web wallet" would be more precise way of saying it.
-
6. The Initialization Package shall modify the blockchain to make the Privacy Mode feature available to users.
7. The Initialization Package shall make provision for the creation of generic Fee Based Assets (FBA) and set the fee for such
Could you elaborate on the "Initialization Package" and the statement above?
8. A GUI shall be provided in the OpenLedger and Light wallets to allow ordinary users to easily use the Privacy Mode features.
If a GUI is to be developed for OpenLedger specifically, why wouldn't you ask
for fund from them as well? Either they take part in the funding, or you should
replace OpenLedger with "web wallet". In the end, OL is free to use the feature
implemented, but I don't see why they should be part of the contract between YOU
and CNX!
Cheers
@Stan
This wording is from Stan. Perhaps he can give an elaboration of his intention.
Which wording was mine? (I hardly ever say "cheers".)
The bolded part above that Xeroc is quoting.
-
See edit to this prior post
-
4. Fees shall be automatically distributed by the blockchain to the following accounts:
o 20% to the BitShares network.
o 20% to a Maintenance Account.
o 60% to holder(s) of the Privacy Mode Fees accumulation account
what is the fee if using STEALTH transfer by CLI wallet ?
I think it must same as normal ?
I don`t think it is a priority feature , but I cannot oppose this feature because block chain can contain many things ,
but I oppose change the fee if using STEALTH transfer by CLI wallet
-
OK now that this [explicit] is set in stone, I have nothing more I can do but open a poll:
what will be the average market cap loss for BTS between now and the time the stealth is out [my guess is about April].
It is ridiculous but I do think you guys are willingly taking a 2.5 to more likely 4 mil USD market cap hit, so CNX can cash 45K immediately, and onceaponaprivacydream can make this 45K suicidal investment.[the one he brakes even in about 3-5 years?]
---------
weighted market cap per CMC
Dec 13 '15 - 9,602,798
till 7 days before the stealth release is announced.
Tony, you are extremely short sighted. How much of a market cap hit would BTS take if we weren't working on BTS at all? How much of a hit would it take if we diluted BTS by 30K per month to fund features?
With the current BTS feature , it's not really hard to maintain a marketcap lower than Dogecoin with zero features .
If you stop working now , and if BTS going lower , then I think people will have no doubt that BTS is indeed centralized and worthless than Dogecoin .
You have 100X the feature than what Dogecoin has already . If BTS is not going anywhere , it's not because lack of some feature .
The only reason that will affect BTS marketcap after you stop working on it is because it's not finished/centralized/rely on people to keep it running just like a manual device/it may render useless if BM on a boat trip.....And one day , if BM changed his mind about working on BTS because of(but not limited to) change of personality/political believes/different view of the world /suddenly hate C++ and love Java/suddenly love painting than programming/....... , then all of their investment will go to zero .....In either case , it's not really comforting for people to use it regardless of how many new features is being developed .
-
4. Fees shall be automatically distributed by the blockchain to the following accounts:
o 20% to the BitShares network.
o 20% to a Maintenance Account.
o 60% to holder(s) of the Privacy Mode Fees accumulation account
what is the fee if using STEALTH transfer by CLI wallet ?
I think it must same as normal ?
I don`t think it is a priority feature , but I cannot oppose this feature because block chain can contain many things ,
but I oppose change the fee if using STEALTH transfer by CLI wallet
well that is the logical thing just for you and me...
but you should just study a bit of American history...so you know how BM is historically programed to think of freedoms, liberty, equality and words of that nature
their logic goes like this.... if I build a better looking house on your land I can claim the land as mine. After all they claimed a whole continent as 'theirs' following this tactic, what are a feature or two on BTS.
-
4. Fees shall be automatically distributed by the blockchain to the following accounts:
o 20% to the BitShares network.
o 20% to a Maintenance Account.
o 60% to holder(s) of the Privacy Mode Fees accumulation account
what is the fee if using STEALTH transfer by CLI wallet ?
I think it must same as normal ?
I don`t think it is a priority feature , but I cannot oppose this feature because block chain can contain many things ,
but I oppose change the fee if using STEALTH transfer by CLI wallet
well that is the logical thing just for you and me...
but you should just study a bit of American history...so you know how BM is historically programed to think of freedoms, liberty, equality and words of that nature
their logic goes like this.... if I build a better looking house on your land I can claim the land as mine. After all they claimed a whole continent as 'theirs' following this tactic, what are a feature or two on BTS.
KO him
-
4. Fees shall be automatically distributed by the blockchain to the following accounts:
o 20% to the BitShares network.
o 20% to a Maintenance Account.
o 60% to holder(s) of the Privacy Mode Fees accumulation account
what is the fee if using STEALTH transfer by CLI wallet ?
I think it must same as normal ?
I don`t think it is a priority feature , but I cannot oppose this feature because block chain can contain many things ,
but I oppose change the fee if using STEALTH transfer by CLI wallet
If you have some stakes, vote with them. Else your opinion won't be taken into consideration.
-
OK now that this [explicit] is set in stone, I have nothing more I can do but open a poll:
what will be the average market cap loss for BTS between now and the time the stealth is out [my guess is about April].
It is ridiculous but I do think you guys are willingly taking a 2.5 to more likely 4 mil USD market cap hit, so CNX can cash 45K immediately, and onceaponaprivacydream can make this 45K suicidal investment.[the one he brakes even in about 3-5 years?]
---------
weighted market cap per CMC
Dec 13 '15 - 9,602,798
till 7 days before the stealth release is announced.
Tony, you are extremely short sighted. How much of a market cap hit would BTS take if we weren't working on BTS at all? How much of a hit would it take if we diluted BTS by 30K per month to fund features?
With the current BTS feature , it's not really hard to maintain a marketcap lower than Dogecoin with zero features .
If you stop working now , and if BTS going lower , then I think people will have no doubt that BTS is indeed centralized and worthless than Dogecoin .
You have 100X the feature than what Dogecoin has already . If BTS is not going anywhere , it's not because lack of some feature .
The only reason that will affect BTS marketcap after you stop working on it is because it's not finished/centralized/rely on people to keep it running just like a manual device/it may render useless if BM on a boat trip.....And one day , if BM changed his mind about working on BTS because of(but not limited to) change of personality/political believes/different view of the world /suddenly hate C++ and love Java/suddenly love painting than programming/....... , then all of their investment will go to zero .....In either case , it's not really comforting for people to use it regardless of how many new features is being developed .
I think you are giving cnx and bm too much credit as far as influence goes. From what I've seen they own less than 10% of bts. And I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
-
... I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
It certainly could, though. Interesting this is being brought up today.
Just this morning I was skyped by a whale friend of mine in China who asked me...
[1:48:56 AM] : Do you know how to fork BTS ?
[1:48:56 AM] : we want to fork BTS
[1:48:56 AM] : :)
[1:48:56 AM] : For stock market use
[1:48:56 AM] : In China
[1:49:06 AM] : may need some help
If CNX doesn't keep their nose to the grindstone, the next fork might just hurt a bit more..
-
OK now that this [explicit] is set in stone, I have nothing more I can do but open a poll:
what will be the average market cap loss for BTS between now and the time the stealth is out [my guess is about April].
It is ridiculous but I do think you guys are willingly taking a 2.5 to more likely 4 mil USD market cap hit, so CNX can cash 45K immediately, and onceaponaprivacydream can make this 45K suicidal investment.[the one he brakes even in about 3-5 years?]
---------
weighted market cap per CMC
Dec 13 '15 - 9,602,798
till 7 days before the stealth release is announced.
Tony, you are extremely short sighted. How much of a market cap hit would BTS take if we weren't working on BTS at all? How much of a hit would it take if we diluted BTS by 30K per month to fund features?
With the current BTS feature , it's not really hard to maintain a marketcap lower than Dogecoin with zero features .
If you stop working now , and if BTS going lower , then I think people will have no doubt that BTS is indeed centralized and worthless than Dogecoin .
You have 100X the feature than what Dogecoin has already . If BTS is not going anywhere , it's not because lack of some feature .
The only reason that will affect BTS marketcap after you stop working on it is because it's not finished/centralized/rely on people to keep it running just like a manual device/it may render useless if BM on a boat trip.....And one day , if BM changed his mind about working on BTS because of(but not limited to) change of personality/political believes/different view of the world /suddenly hate C++ and love Java/suddenly love painting than programming/....... , then all of their investment will go to zero .....In either case , it's not really comforting for people to use it regardless of how many new features is being developed .
I think you are giving cnx and bm too much credit as far as influence goes. From what I've seen they own less than 10% of bts. And I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
Glad to see.. but where is this "any programmer"? It's claimed by a lot of people on this forum that only code written by or reviewed by CNX is acceptable.
-
OK now that this [explicit] is set in stone, I have nothing more I can do but open a poll:
what will be the average market cap loss for BTS between now and the time the stealth is out [my guess is about April].
It is ridiculous but I do think you guys are willingly taking a 2.5 to more likely 4 mil USD market cap hit, so CNX can cash 45K immediately, and onceaponaprivacydream can make this 45K suicidal investment.[the one he brakes even in about 3-5 years?]
---------
weighted market cap per CMC
Dec 13 '15 - 9,602,798
till 7 days before the stealth release is announced.
Tony, you are extremely short sighted. How much of a market cap hit would BTS take if we weren't working on BTS at all? How much of a hit would it take if we diluted BTS by 30K per month to fund features?
With the current BTS feature , it's not really hard to maintain a marketcap lower than Dogecoin with zero features .
If you stop working now , and if BTS going lower , then I think people will have no doubt that BTS is indeed centralized and worthless than Dogecoin .
You have 100X the feature than what Dogecoin has already . If BTS is not going anywhere , it's not because lack of some feature .
The only reason that will affect BTS marketcap after you stop working on it is because it's not finished/centralized/rely on people to keep it running just like a manual device/it may render useless if BM on a boat trip.....And one day , if BM changed his mind about working on BTS because of(but not limited to) change of personality/political believes/different view of the world /suddenly hate C++ and love Java/suddenly love painting than programming/....... , then all of their investment will go to zero .....In either case , it's not really comforting for people to use it regardless of how many new features is being developed .
I think you are giving cnx and bm too much credit as far as influence goes. From what I've seen they own less than 10% of bts. And I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
According to http://cryptofresh.com/ballots,
bytemaster 11 / 25 / 3 11 4.99%
angel 11 / 30 / 7 5 4.61%
...
Active voting stake: 21.0%
A 10% voting power (and keeps raising) is somewhat of "dictatorship" right now.
-
The bytemaster account has 0 bts in it. The angel account is also not all Bm. So 10% is mostly from others voting to follow Bm. Even with all of that he still controls less than 50% of active voting stake.
-
The bytemaster account has 0 bts in it. The angel account is also not all Bm. So 10% is mostly from others voting to follow Bm. Even with all of that he still controls less than 50% of active voting stake.
That says everything. No matter what BM says or does, those people just agree. It's even worse than BM owns all the stakes.
On the opposite, it's likely that most people who don't agree with BM have voted with their feet.
-
How much of a market cap hit would BTS take if we weren't working on BTS at all? How much of a hit would it take if we diluted BTS by 30K per month to fund features?
I have to agree here.
...and to think, all we need is another 19K and we will instantly have over 50K businesses (like supermarket chains!) with the ability to process Smartcoin transactions at every cash register at every one of their locations:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20762.0.html
-
... I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
It certainly could, though. Interesting this is being brought up today.
Just this morning I was skyped by a whale friend of mine in China who asked me...
[1:48:56 AM] : Do you know how to fork BTS ?
[1:48:56 AM] : we want to fork BTS
[1:48:56 AM] : :)
[1:48:56 AM] : For stock market use
[1:48:56 AM] : In China
[1:49:06 AM] : may need some help
If CNX doesn't keep their nose to the grindstone, the next fork might just hurt a bit more..
I think you should push him to use the current bts platform and develop on our chain instead of forking it.
What will you advise him to do?
-
... I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
It certainly could, though. Interesting this is being brought up today.
Just this morning I was skyped by a whale friend of mine in China who asked me...
[1:48:56 AM] : Do you know how to fork BTS ?
[1:48:56 AM] : we want to fork BTS
[1:48:56 AM] : :)
[1:48:56 AM] : For stock market use
[1:48:56 AM] : In China
[1:49:06 AM] : may need some help
If CNX doesn't keep their nose to the grindstone, the next fork might just hurt a bit more..
I think you should push him to use the current bts platform and develop on our chain instead of forking it.
What will you advise him to do?
Why?
The businessman might not be too keen to building his proverbial garage in a unfinished mall, mall that has a good chance to be the headquarters of the union of the young alcoholics in 3 mo or less... or something else altogether.
-
How much of a market cap hit would BTS take if we weren't working on BTS at all? How much of a hit would it take if we diluted BTS by 30K per month to fund features?
I have to agree here.
...and to think, all we need is another 19K and we will instantly have over 50K businesses (like supermarket chains!) with the ability to process Smartcoin transactions at every cash register at every one of their locations:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20762.0.html
You will not get something instantly. If you integrate bitshares into odoo pos, this will be very cool, but this does not mean that all 50K odoo users will instantly start to use this feature.
-
... I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
It certainly could, though. Interesting this is being brought up today.
Just this morning I was skyped by a whale friend of mine in China who asked me...
[1:48:56 AM] : Do you know how to fork BTS ?
[1:48:56 AM] : we want to fork BTS
[1:48:56 AM] : :)
[1:48:56 AM] : For stock market use
[1:48:56 AM] : In China
[1:49:06 AM] : may need some help
If CNX doesn't keep their nose to the grindstone, the next fork might just hurt a bit more..
I think you should push him to use the current bts platform and develop on our chain instead of forking it.
What will you advise him to do?
I know how to fork BTS .
There is a "fork" button on Github . +5% +5%
Can you send me his skype ? I'll talk him through it .
-
their logic goes like this.... if I build a better looking house on your land I can claim the land as mine. After all they claimed a whole continent as 'theirs' following this tactic, what are a feature or two on BTS.
CLI users are (and always will be) a very small fraction of Bitshares' user base. Sorry, but you are not that important. It is more important that the masses be able to use said feature than you get "robbed" of it. Anyways, the appreciation of the value of the BTS token, if we are able to further adoption, will in effect remedy the "profit" you could of made from Stealth transfers (or any feature for that matter.) Adoption has always been the end game goal for Bitshares- if it is widely adopted everyone wins, regardless of who owns X, Y or Z feature. Making Stealth transfers available to the masses rather than just CLI users is a good step in that direction. It will take many more steps, but every step is worth taking.
You guys should of realized early on that Bytemaster will heavily influence the direction the Bitshares project will take. If you don't like that, then please just sell your stake and go somewhere else because your negativity is toxic to the community.
-
Democracy doesn't mean that majoraty should be able to rob minority. Not only CLI but also other GUI users (for example moonstone) would have to pay the fee. Graphene GUI is not and should not be the only GUI of BTS.
-
The fee doesnt change for cli users ... effectively .. only what would have been paid to the referral program now goes to the fba .. BUT since the referral program CANNOT work together with stealth, these funds never would have went to the referal program in the first place ... so in the end it does change much for the end user but a fraction of bts profits is redirected to a fba
I'll try to make it more clear in the bsip after the holidays
-
their logic goes like this.... if I build a better looking house on your land I can claim the land as mine. After all they claimed a whole continent as 'theirs' following this tactic, what are a feature or two on BTS.
CLI users are (and always will be) a very small fraction of Bitshares' user base. Sorry, but you are not that important. It is more important that the masses be able to use said feature than you get "robbed" of it. Anyways, the appreciation of the value of the BTS token, if we are able to further adoption, will in effect remedy the "profit" you could of made from Stealth transfers (or any feature for that matter.) Adoption has always been the end game goal for Bitshares- if it is widely adopted everyone wins, regardless of who owns X, Y or Z feature. Making Stealth transfers available to the masses rather than just CLI users is a good step in that direction. It will take many more steps, but every step is worth taking.
You guys should of realized early on that Bytemaster will heavily influence the direction the Bitshares project will take. If you don't like that, then please just sell your stake and go somewhere else because your negativity is toxic to the community.
+5% - The community is way more tolerant than it needs to be IMHO. It's like people coming into your home and calling you a bum and your wife a whore...and screaming FREE SPEECH when you tell them to STFU and get out.
(my Christmas message. ;D)
-
JESUS F'N CHRIST!
BM HAS A STAKE IN BTS????
WTF?!?!?!?
-
... I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
It certainly could, though. Interesting this is being brought up today.
Just this morning I was skyped by a whale friend of mine in China who asked me...
[1:48:56 AM] : Do you know how to fork BTS ?
[1:48:56 AM] : we want to fork BTS
[1:48:56 AM] : :)
[1:48:56 AM] : For stock market use
[1:48:56 AM] : In China
[1:49:06 AM] : may need some help
If CNX doesn't keep their nose to the grindstone, the next fork might just hurt a bit more..
I think you should push him to use the current bts platform and develop on our chain instead of forking it.
What will you advise him to do?
I know the whale, even met him last week. :)
"forking BTS" is a little hotly discussed these days in China.
most people agree that the BTS2.0 development is amazing, but the operation is not in good status.
seldom believe to run business in BTS is a good choice, people would rather adopt the technology developed by CNX.
this is the case...
-
... I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
It certainly could, though. Interesting this is being brought up today.
Just this morning I was skyped by a whale friend of mine in China who asked me...
[1:48:56 AM] : Do you know how to fork BTS ?
[1:48:56 AM] : we want to fork BTS
[1:48:56 AM] : :)
[1:48:56 AM] : For stock market use
[1:48:56 AM] : In China
[1:49:06 AM] : may need some help
If CNX doesn't keep their nose to the grindstone, the next fork might just hurt a bit more..
I think you should push him to use the current bts platform and develop on our chain instead of forking it.
What will you advise him to do?
I know the whale, even met him last week. :)
"forking BTS" is a little hotly discussed these days in China.
most people agree that the BTS2.0 development is amazing, but the operation is not in good status.
seldom believe to run business in BTS is a good choice, people would rather adopt the technology developed by CNX.
this is the case...
Devs, especially @bytemaster and @Stan should take this seriously IMHO.
How can we improve or fix the bad management? If we fix this problem, will they build their businesses on current BTS ecosystem?
-
Devs, especially @bytemaster and @Stan should take this seriously IMHO.
How can we improve or fix the bad management? If we fix this problem, will they build their businesses on current BTS ecosystem?
+1
-
their logic goes like this.... if I build a better looking house on your land I can claim the land as mine. After all they claimed a whole continent as 'theirs' following this tactic, what are a feature or two on BTS.
CLI users are (and always will be) a very small fraction of Bitshares' user base. Sorry, but you are not that important. It is more important that the masses be able to use said feature than you get "robbed" of it. Anyways, the appreciation of the value of the BTS token, if we are able to further adoption, will in effect remedy the "profit" you could of made from Stealth transfers (or any feature for that matter.) Adoption has always been the end game goal for Bitshares- if it is widely adopted everyone wins, regardless of who owns X, Y or Z feature. Making Stealth transfers available to the masses rather than just CLI users is a good step in that direction. It will take many more steps, but every step is worth taking.
You guys should of realized early on that Bytemaster will heavily influence the direction the Bitshares project will take. If you don't like that, then please just sell your stake and go somewhere else because your negativity is toxic to the community.
+5%
-
... I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
It certainly could, though. Interesting this is being brought up today.
Just this morning I was skyped by a whale friend of mine in China who asked me...
[1:48:56 AM] : Do you know how to fork BTS ?
[1:48:56 AM] : we want to fork BTS
[1:48:56 AM] : :)
[1:48:56 AM] : For stock market use
[1:48:56 AM] : In China
[1:49:06 AM] : may need some help
If CNX doesn't keep their nose to the grindstone, the next fork might just hurt a bit more..
I think you should push him to use the current bts platform and develop on our chain instead of forking it.
What will you advise him to do?
I know the whale, even met him last week. :)
"forking BTS" is a little hotly discussed these days in China.
most people agree that the BTS2.0 development is amazing, but the operation is not in good status.
seldom believe to run business in BTS is a good choice, people would rather adopt the technology developed by CNX.
this is the case...
Devs, especially @bytemaster and @Stan should take this seriously IMHO.
How can we improve or fix the bad management? If we fix this problem, will they build their businesses on current BTS ecosystem?
Even Muse(no developer,easy function) is on a different chain . Why would you expect serious businesses build their app on BTS chain instead of their own ? Serious business does not like to be choked by some developer . If they want the tech , at best is to hire BM like Muse .
-
... I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
It certainly could, though. Interesting this is being brought up today.
Just this morning I was skyped by a whale friend of mine in China who asked me...
[1:48:56 AM] : Do you know how to fork BTS ?
[1:48:56 AM] : we want to fork BTS
[1:48:56 AM] : :)
[1:48:56 AM] : For stock market use
[1:48:56 AM] : In China
[1:49:06 AM] : may need some help
If CNX doesn't keep their nose to the grindstone, the next fork might just hurt a bit more..
I think you should push him to use the current bts platform and develop on our chain instead of forking it.
What will you advise him to do?
I know the whale, even met him last week. :)
"forking BTS" is a little hotly discussed these days in China.
most people agree that the BTS2.0 development is amazing, but the operation is not in good status.
seldom believe to run business in BTS is a good choice, people would rather adopt the technology developed by CNX.
this is the case...
Devs, especially @bytemaster and @Stan should take this seriously IMHO.
How can we improve or fix the bad management? If we fix this problem, will they build their businesses on current BTS ecosystem?
Even Muse(no developer,easy function) is on a different chain . Why would you expect serious businesses build their app on BTS chain instead of their own ? Serious business does not like to be choked by some developer . If they want the tech , at best is to hire BM like Muse .
If they have the devs to run a fork, why dont they propose hard forks for bts and INTEGRATE rather than SEPARATE?
If people dont like how cnx is "managing" BTS, then they havent understood that the committee members are those that manage bts .. not CNX .. not ok how they do it? Replace them! Not the with the development process? Then fork the development ..
-
... I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
It certainly could, though. Interesting this is being brought up today.
Just this morning I was skyped by a whale friend of mine in China who asked me...
[1:48:56 AM] : Do you know how to fork BTS ?
[1:48:56 AM] : we want to fork BTS
[1:48:56 AM] : :)
[1:48:56 AM] : For stock market use
[1:48:56 AM] : In China
[1:49:06 AM] : may need some help
If CNX doesn't keep their nose to the grindstone, the next fork might just hurt a bit more..
I think you should push him to use the current bts platform and develop on our chain instead of forking it.
What will you advise him to do?
I know the whale, even met him last week. :)
"forking BTS" is a little hotly discussed these days in China.
most people agree that the BTS2.0 development is amazing, but the operation is not in good status.
seldom believe to run business in BTS is a good choice, people would rather adopt the technology developed by CNX.
this is the case...
Devs, especially @bytemaster and @Stan should take this seriously IMHO.
How can we improve or fix the bad management? If we fix this problem, will they build their businesses on current BTS ecosystem?
Even Muse(no developer,easy function) is on a different chain . Why would you expect serious businesses build their app on BTS chain instead of their own ? Serious business does not like to be choked by some developer . If they want the tech , at best is to hire BM like Muse .
Actually, that logic is like jumping to your weaker backup plan immediately rather than take advantage of the combined network effect of multiple businesses on a single network. This means you have to negotiate all your support infrastructure and on/off ramps all over again.
Look at how easy it is to switch to a separate chain later, if it turns out one of your hypothetical worries does materialize:. MUSE started out as an asset on BitShares and then switched to its own chain when they decided they needed to for sound business reasons. Even BitShares 1.0 easily switched to 2.0 when the time came. Chains are not a long term commitment and it will become common place for them to move to the best new technology from time to time.
So, you always have a fork as an easy backup plan if the main chain doesn't work out for you for any reason. But prematurely throwing out the other advantages of a ready built supporting community because you have theoretical worries is not something to be considered lightly. You don't just miss out on the network effect we have now, you miss out on what everybody adds to it over time.
The network effect doesn't come with the code.
Unless you want to take centralized control of a chain to ensure that you have "better management", what would you do differently now that BitShares is managed by its owners? I guess a whale could keep enough shares for herself to ensure that she always retains voting control. :)
-
Building businesses on separate chains and forking BTS seems just like the same thing happening with Bitcoin and Banks (ignore the problems with bitcoin that's not the point). There just won't be interoperability and that will limit all the chains.
Everyone wants to create THE chain nowadays and parts in different directions when if they worked together, that chain might have being built/started already.
This is just like every IT company in the world having their own separate Operative System.
In the future - unless there's a way for the chains to communicate, which will have it's own bottlenecks and restrictions - most will be extinguished.
Everyone's just being greedy as hell trying to build the next big thing instead of working together smh. It seems people didn't learn from the past yet, with the OS, intranets, etc
If someone isn't happy with the path BTS is taking, they can "fork it" simply by having committee members so they can convince people why that path is better and if everyone agrees, we can take it. That's like abandoning an argument and remain in ignorance and/or be mad instead of having a proper discussion and find common ground or try to understand each other and learn something
-
... I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project. It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.
It certainly could, though. Interesting this is being brought up today.
Just this morning I was skyped by a whale friend of mine in China who asked me...
[1:48:56 AM] : Do you know how to fork BTS ?
[1:48:56 AM] : we want to fork BTS
[1:48:56 AM] : :)
[1:48:56 AM] : For stock market use
[1:48:56 AM] : In China
[1:49:06 AM] : may need some help
If CNX doesn't keep their nose to the grindstone, the next fork might just hurt a bit more..
I think you should push him to use the current bts platform and develop on our chain instead of forking it.
What will you advise him to do?
I know the whale, even met him last week. :)
"forking BTS" is a little hotly discussed these days in China.
most people agree that the BTS2.0 development is amazing, but the operation is not in good status.
seldom believe to run business in BTS is a good choice, people would rather adopt the technology developed by CNX.
this is the case...
Devs, especially @bytemaster and @Stan should take this seriously IMHO.
How can we improve or fix the bad management? If we fix this problem, will they build their businesses on current BTS ecosystem?
Even Muse(no developer,easy function) is on a different chain . Why would you expect serious businesses build their app on BTS chain instead of their own ? Serious business does not like to be choked by some developer . If they want the tech , at best is to hire BM like Muse .
Actually, that logic is like jumping to your weaker backup plan immediately rather than take advantage of the combined network effect of multiple businesses on a single network. This means you have to negotiate all your support infrastructure and on/off ramps all over again.
Look at how easy it is to switch to a separate chain later, if it turns out one of your hypothetical worried does materialize:. MUSE started out as an asset on BitShares and then switched to its own chain when they decided they needed to for sound business reasons. Even BitShares 1.0 easily switched to 2.0 when the time came. Chains are not a long term commitment and it will become common place for them to move to the best new technology from time to time.
So, you always have a fork as an easy backup plan if the main chain doesn't work out for you for any reason. But prematurely throwing out the other advantages of a ready built supporting community because you have theoretical worries is not something to be considered lightly. You don't just miss out on the network effect we have now, you miss out on what everybody adds to it over time.
The network effect doesn't come with the code.
Unless you want to take centralized control of a chain to ensure that you have "better management", what would you do differently now that BitShares is managed by its owners? I guess a whale could keep enough shares for herself to ensure that she always retains voting control. :)
If switching between chains is that easy , then the chain is not really a public chain , but a private chain mirrored on public chain . So no decentralization
-
Building businesses on separate chains and forking BTS seems just like the same thing happening with Bitcoin and Banks (ignore the problems with bitcoin that's not the point). There just won't be interoperability and that will limit all the chains.
Everyone wants to create THE chain nowadays and parts in different directions when if they worked together, that chain might have being built/started already.
This is just like every IT company in the world having their own separate Operative System.
In the future - unless there's a way for the chains to communicate, which will have it's own bottlenecks and restrictions - most will be extinguished.
Everyone's just being greedy as hell trying to build the next big thing instead of working together smh. It seems people didn't learn from the past yet, with the OS, intranets, etc
If someone isn't happy with the path BTS is taking, they can "fork it" simply by having committee members so they can convince people why that path is better and if everyone agrees, we can take it. That's like abandoning an argument and remain in ignorance and/or be mad instead of having a proper discussion and find common ground or try to understand each other and learn something
Yes. We'd love to see a proposal to implement whatever changes your whale thinks are needed bad enough to justify starting over again with a new chain.
Bytemaster has been trying to encourage other leaders to step forward for many months now.
An experienced, aggressive Chinese businessman could be just what we need.
By the way, I know of at least one business application that is considering building on the BitShares chain with a completely different brand - ordinary customers don't even know they are using the BitShares chain, while other businesses can take advantage of that knowledge to offer all kinds of bridge and infrastructure services.
This gives all the benefits of being on an interoperable network while retaining complete control of brand and messaging.
-
If switching between chains is that easy , then the chain is not really a public chain , but a private chain mirrored on public chain . So no decentralization
Not true. You would just be doing then what you think you need to do now:
Making a centralized decision to launch a new decentralized chain.
-
If switching between chains is that easy , then the chain is not really a public chain , but a private chain mirrored on public chain . So no decentralization
Not true. You would just be doing then what you think you need to do now:
Making a centralized decision to launch a new decentralized chain.
have you talk to big banks about using the BitShares chain ? anyone interested at that ? or they insist on private chain ?
-
The fee doesnt change for cli users ... effectively .. only what would have been paid to the referral program now goes to the fba .. BUT since the referral program CANNOT work together with stealth, these funds never would have went to the referal program in the first place ... so in the end it does change much for the end user but a fraction of bts profits is redirected to a fba
I'll try to make it more clear in the bsip after the holidays
It's obvious that the fees will increase a lot.
Current fees:
Transfer 30 BTS 6 BTS 20 BTS
...
Transfer to blind 20 BTS 4 BTS -
- Price per output 20 BTS 4 BTS -
Transfer from blind 20 BTS 4 BTS -
New fees in the proposal:
2. It shall provide the following fee based services:
* Transfer from public account to their own private balance
* Transfer from one of their private accounts to one of their private contacts
* Transfer from one of their private accounts to any public account
* Register a new account using a private balance.
* Receive a private transfer from a 3rd party given a transfer receipt.
3. Each of these services shall charge a fee initially set at 3x the standard
transfer fee, but which may be adjusted from time to time by the owner(s) of
the Privacy Mode's management account (see [BSIP-0008](bsip-0008.md))
-
If switching between chains is that easy , then the chain is not really a public chain , but a private chain mirrored on public chain . So no decentralization
Not true. You would just be doing then what you think you need to do now:
Making a centralized decision to launch a new decentralized chain.
have you talk to big banks about using the BitShares chain ? anyone interested at that ? or they insist on private chain ?
Ripple is negotiating with banks for two years or so with no results. Neither big nor small banks like open blockchains for two main reasons: they need privacy and they don't like cryptotokens like XRP.
-
their logic goes like this.... if I build a better looking house on your land I can claim the land as mine. After all they claimed a whole continent as 'theirs' following this tactic, what are a feature or two on BTS.
CLI users are (and always will be) a very small fraction of Bitshares' user base. Sorry, but you are not that important. It is more important that the masses be able to use said feature than you get "robbed" of it. Anyways, the appreciation of the value of the BTS token, if we are able to further adoption, will in effect remedy the "profit" you could of made from Stealth transfers (or any feature for that matter.) Adoption has always been the end game goal for Bitshares- if it is widely adopted everyone wins, regardless of who owns X, Y or Z feature. Making Stealth transfers available to the masses rather than just CLI users is a good step in that direction. It will take many more steps, but every step is worth taking.
You guys should of realized early on that Bytemaster will heavily influence the direction the Bitshares project will take. If you don't like that, then please just sell your stake and go somewhere else because your negativity is toxic to the community.
+5% - The community is way more tolerant than it needs to be IMHO. It's like people coming into your home and calling you a bum and your wife a whore...and screaming FREE SPEECH when you tell them to STFU and get out.
(my Christmas message. ;D)
Sounds like a plan... gotten tired of brown nosing forum defense not thinking for themselves crowds, anyway.
-
I've added a shareholders summary and a discussion about the fees with respect to the already implemented cli-wallet:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/commit/02b7162ccd3dc14c006b26dd32dbcc99b49afa14
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/commit/00e673050c6b341f9df8a1b6ebf1f176c755b416
Feedback appreciated
-
So... a few greedy people whining just made Stealth transfers 2/5 more expensive for everyone... great! :-X
-
I've added a shareholders summary and a discussion about the fees with respect to the already implemented cli-wallet:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/commit/02b7162ccd3dc14c006b26dd32dbcc99b49afa14
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/commit/00e673050c6b341f9df8a1b6ebf1f176c755b416
Feedback appreciated
From the first one:
"All fees in BitShares2 are actually burned"
What this means? Doesn't burning mean that the asset is made unusable forever? Isn't Bitshares 2 supposed to put money made from fees to the reserve pool where it can be used again?
-
If the market cap stays constant .. a reduced supply (burning of shares) results in a higher price for the other shares
-
So... a few greedy people whining just made Stealth transfers 2/5 more expensive for everyone... great! :-X
More expensive than what? What do stealth transfers cost currently?
-
If the market cap stays constant .. a reduced supply (burning of shares) results in a higher price for the other shares
But what about the reserve pool? Isn't it going to be used anymore?
-
So... a few greedy people whining just made Stealth transfers 2/5 more expensive for everyone... great! :-X
More expensive than what? What do stealth transfers cost currently?
Scroll up to: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20499.msg268421.html#msg268421