BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: karnal on March 19, 2016, 11:30:52 am

Title: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: karnal on March 19, 2016, 11:30:52 am
Was just wondering why the BTC:{USD,EUR,CNY} markets have 0.00 volume and that led to finding the shortest way to convert BTC to BitBTC at this moment.

Metaexchange used to have it but it seems to not be there anymore?

Likewise, Blocktrades no longer seems to offer the pair either.. (only to OPEN.BSD and TRADE.BTC)


How do you flip your BTC to BitBTC?

Wouldn't this be an excellent path into the ecosystem? Hundreds of thousands are already familiar with BTC.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: fav on March 19, 2016, 02:08:58 pm
no one uses it. even long before 2.0 - there's simply no demand
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: Samupaha on March 19, 2016, 02:20:33 pm
BitBTC is useful only for traders. Anyone else doesn't need it so it's unlikely that it will have any meaningful demand in the near future.

You have to remember that it's only a derivative that tracks the value of BTC and it's not the real thing. You can't use it anywhere to buy stuff, it's just a financial instrument.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: karnal on March 19, 2016, 03:04:47 pm
Well, if there was a working BTC/BitBTC gateway then people could pay with it, just withdraw (from the bts wallet) to the destination address being requested by the merchant.

I think there is value having BitBTC vs the real deal, namely it enables trading it in a decentralized way against fiat (BTS-style) in a much more streamlined way, without either going back and forth between the legacy system and the crypto world, or going in/out of 3rd party exchanges.

Also, with STEALTH on the horizon, arguably it's more private to hold BitBTC (particularly if the gateway itself had the option to send via STEALTH, otherwise by sending to oneself) rather than BTC in its present incarnation.


Maybe I give SmartCoins too much credibility? It's always been one of the most appealing aspects of this whole BitShares thing to me..
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: yvv on March 19, 2016, 04:02:55 pm
I don't understand what OP means. There are UIAs in bitshares which are hard pegged to BTC. They are useful to deposit/withdraw funds into/from bitshares. Unfortunately, there is no market between bitBTC and BTC pegged UIAs. To deposit/withdraw you need to go through BTS.
 
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: Shentist on March 19, 2016, 04:20:01 pm
I don't understand what OP means. There are UIAs in bitshares which are hard pegged to BTC. They are useful to deposit/withdraw funds into/from bitshares. Unfortunately, there is no market between bitBTC and BTC pegged UIAs. To deposit/withdraw you need to go through BTS.

we are providing liquidity also to the market METAEX.BTC /bitBTC on the bitshares exchange. https://bitshares.org/wallet/#/market/METAEX.BTC_BTC

in the past we run directly bitBTC/BTC on metaexchange.info, but the demand was not really there, so we changed the provided pairs into the internal exchange. so you
can go from BTC-->METEX.BTC-->bitBTC and visaversa. at the moment the provided liquidity is low, but if you look into our pairs it is enough for the current demand.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: Samupaha on March 19, 2016, 05:26:06 pm
Maybe I give SmartCoins too much credibility? It's always been one of the most appealing aspects of this whole BitShares thing to me..

Smartcoins are the real deal, but it's not a solution for every problem.

There are lots of possibilities for everybody who is interested in Bitcoin trading. So far there hasn't been much demand for decentralized exchange. Most of the traders seem to be happy with centralized ones. So why we should go to that market? There is lots of competition so it will require a lot of work to get some meaningful traction.

Probably it would be much better to focus on markets that don't exist yet or at least don't have many other competitors.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: karnal on March 19, 2016, 05:39:30 pm
Here's what I don't get then.

If UIAs are preferred, then really, what is the advantage to get OPEN.EUR, TRADE.EUR or META.EUR (if it exists) versus simply leaving an EUR balance at a centralized exchange and not buying any crypto with it?

One might answer "these tokens are on the blockchain!" .. to which I'd answer, yeah but so what?
Now everyone knows my balance instead of just the centralized service.

It seems clear to me that if we have all these UIAs floating around, and they're (much) easier to get than the Smartcoin, then people will just hold these instead of the Smartcoins.. we are then left in a situation where there are dozens of tokens representing pretty much the same thing, they don't trade against each other (wanna get in through A and out through B? sorry, not possible, at least not in a straightforward way)

Is any of this then that much different from Paypal? I don't think so.

And note that I'm not saying metaexchange and blocktrades etc shouldn't exist.. but do you see the point?

From what I'm reading here, the DEX is not used and smartcoins are not used and holding centralized tokens that'll be worthless should the company behind them decide to disappear tomorrow ..  is seen as perfectly acceptable indefinitely rather than a temporary necessary evil (if I got the gist of the replies right... correct me if that's not the case)

What's the appeal for the platform, then?
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: mf-tzo on March 19, 2016, 05:52:05 pm
Unfortunately I agree with Karnal here...I believe that if there is no action in bitbtc then bitshares eventually will be worthless. The most important that bitshares has to offer are the bitassets and yet apparently most people prefer the IOU assets. bitbtc and bitgold should be the most important bitassets in our blockchain. More important than bitusd or bitcny or anything else.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: Samupaha on March 19, 2016, 06:05:02 pm
Eventually BitBTC will be worthless because it's pegged to BTC, which is pretty much certainly going to fail. That's why I've been selling my bitcoins and buying other cryptoassets (mostly BTS, of course). And that is the reason why I don't own any BitBTC. I don't do anything with it and I'm quite sure that it will lose it's value on a long term.

Only group that benefits from BitBTC are active traders.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: karnal on March 19, 2016, 06:19:17 pm
Unfortunately I agree with Karnal here...I believe that if there is no action in bitbtc then bitshares eventually will be worthless. The most important that bitshares has to offer are the bitassets and yet apparently most people prefer the IOU assets. bitbtc and bitgold should be the most important bitassets in our blockchain. More important than bitusd or bitcny or anything else.

It just seems so painfully obvious to me.

If we're relying on 3rd parties to ensure the tokens are worth anything, then Bitshares is no better than any other 3rd party centralized service.
In fact, it's worse, because at least with these giant regulated companies, you're pretty much guaranteed not to lose your funds.

I mean, just imagine the madness.. having to keep track of the financial health of half a dozen bridges (one for CENTRALIZED.EUR, one for CENTRALIZED.CNY, yet another one for CENTRALIZED.SILVER, etc) 24/7/365!

Well, you say, they'll grow! They'll become giant! And regulated!.... well, then we would've come full circle, would we not? Why go through all this trouble? Just stick with the big banks and the paypals and skip the whole drama.

Only group that benefits from BitBTC are active traders.

I strongly disagree. That's the same as saying BitUSD is only useful for active traders.

I'm not saying in most cases it wouldn't make more sense to hold actual BTC rather than BitBTC (mainly because of the small but present risk of going in/out of BitBTC via a gateway), but with respect, you have to be blind to not see the advantages of being able to trade BitBTC against fiat on a whim.



I just don't see what's so special about Bitshares if users are expected to store their wealth (be it BitBTC or BitSOMEFIAT) using centralized services on the blockchain. In that case we're talking about a giant circle to end up at the same place.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: tonyk on March 19, 2016, 06:27:14 pm
[member=33020]karnal[/member] Strongly agree!

+ 1
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: puppies on March 19, 2016, 07:24:18 pm
I am also in agreement with karnal.  I think we should start calling UIA's trust based assets.  Theres nothing wrong with trust based assets.  I think smartcoins are much better though.  The issue is that we don't have nearly enough users willing to short these smartcoins into existence.  Side chains will help alleviate this issue, but I think we should also be providing interest to those willing to lock up their bts to create smartcoins.  I think shorting is currently under incentivized. 
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: tonyk on March 19, 2016, 07:50:21 pm
The issue is that we don't have nearly enough users willing to short these smartcoins into existence.  Side chains will help alleviate this issue, but I think we should also be providing interest to those willing to lock up their bts to create smartcoins.  I think shorting is currently under incentivized.

Yes. My current hopes are that the 'liquidity subsidy program' will be structured/funded in such a way that it helps a lot with this issue as well:
- First  by giving a piece of mind to the shorters i.e. knowing they can buy back at will at any time close to the peg in enough quality, will ease their mind and they will be willing to short more
-Second - the liquidity providers will get enough reward to justify they themselves shorting more smartcoins in times of needs just to stay in business and get the liquidity reward.

//Edit How this program is structured and funded and so its effectiveness in this regard is yet to be seen though... I fear we go for a half backed effort that does not help.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: Stan on March 20, 2016, 12:03:42 am
Here's what I don't get then.

If UIAs are preferred, then really, what is the advantage to get OPEN.EUR, TRADE.EUR or META.EUR (if it exists) versus simply leaving an EUR balance at a centralized exchange and not buying any crypto with it?

One might answer "these tokens are on the blockchain!" .. to which I'd answer, yeah but so what?
Now everyone knows my balance instead of just the centralized service.

It seems clear to me that if we have all these UIAs floating around, and they're (much) easier to get than the Smartcoin, then people will just hold these instead of the Smartcoins.. we are then left in a situation where there are dozens of tokens representing pretty much the same thing, they don't trade against each other (wanna get in through A and out through B? sorry, not possible, at least not in a straightforward way)

Is any of this then that much different from Paypal? I don't think so.

And note that I'm not saying metaexchange and blocktrades etc shouldn't exist.. but do you see the point?

From what I'm reading here, the DEX is not used and smartcoins are not used and holding centralized tokens that'll be worthless should the company behind them decide to disappear tomorrow ..  is seen as perfectly acceptable indefinitely rather than a temporary necessary evil (if I got the gist of the replies right... correct me if that's not the case)

What's the appeal for the platform, then?

Well, as Marty McFly once said, "History is gonna change."

Just because most people are content to trust centralized tokens now, does not mean that will continue to be true in the coming collapse.  When the flight to safety starts, the value proposition of autonomously tracking the value of external assets without counterparty risk goes through the roof.

Patience.

In the meantime, the chain does need other reasons for people to use it.  Lots are being discussed. 

One of my favorites is the concept of DPOS sidechains that BM has spent the past three Mumbles discussing.

If DPOS nodes are collectively trusted enough to secure a single asset then they can hold all coins just like a single exchange does.  This is the true exchange on a block chain.  Right now we are using only half of the concept:

Half 1:  The trading engine and native tokens are secured on the chain.
Half 2:  Actual BTC, DOGE, etc. are still held by centralized exchanges.  Why?

The new side chain concept uses those existing witness nodes to do Half 2 as well.  Why not?  We trust them under DPOS consensus to secure the most important digital asset in the world, BTS. Why can't we trust them to do the centralized exchanges job of collectively holding our BTC and DOGE for us too? 

Only then will be have a fully decentralized exchange... and unification of all blockchains on a financial superhighway as a byproduct.

With this approach the uber-trusted witness nodes themselves can issue light-speed "claim check" tokens for all the other real chain token they are holding in multi-sig escrow.  Just like banks used to issue much more portable receipts for gold in their vaults.  People quit redeeming those receipts for real metal and just kept passing them around - trusting paper because they new the could redeem them if they wanted to.

DPOS lets us do this traditional bank function so much better!  And we have real BTC and Doge in our witness vaults!

This is the holy grail that takes BitShares to the next level.  It is the killer meta-app that only BitShares is in a position to offer.

As this catches on, BitShares witnesses will become the most trusted and therefore biggest holders of all other currencies. 

What?  You're trusting your coins to the owner of a single exchange company with no supervision by other independent cosigners?  Really?





Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: Empirical1.2 on March 20, 2016, 01:08:53 am
Quote
What?  You're trusting your coins to the owner of a single exchange company with no supervision by other independent cosigners?  Really?

They're trusting registered & highly regulated companies in countries with relatively strong & effective legal systems. Their owners are also making millions of dollars and so have a financial incentive to keep making money and not go to jail.

DPOS currently has neither the same legal fallback & delegates who make only a few hundred bucks a month. While the delegates ability to damage and profit from harming BTS is limited. They could get full value from other blockchain tokens.

By increasing the incentive for delegates to misbehave and therefore the trust required in them you increase the fragility of BTS. Blockchain competition is also reducing fees to near zero so the value centre of BTS is BTS collateralised SmartCoins, UIA tokens not collateralised with BTS are much less attractive, see MaidSafe, Synereo & Agoras, collectively worth >$50 million on an Omni blockchain worth <$1.4 million...

So I don't see the value in there myself. For me the way to make BTS useful and popular now & massively grow the value of BTS is by focusing on market maker & yield subsidies to create useful liquidity & demand around the peg so that bridges can convert fairly close to 1-1.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: tonyk on March 20, 2016, 02:03:53 am
I also have this nagging thought/feeling that it should probably not be done by the witnesses...

Some sort of bonded authorities(s)/guilds?

One who wants to be a 'side-chain signer' puts a BTS bond in a special bond account  and gets proportional (to the amount put) signing power for those side chain transfers .[otherwise the bond account is controlled by everyone (aka every BTS holder) and requires 50% approval to be spend[ for the case it is needed as an insurance bond], otherwise it is a vesting balance maturing back to the person who made it for say 9 mo.

Another interesting twist is those bonds to be in bitSideChainToken and to actually be also used for the token received by such cross-chain transfers.... so when you transfer from ETH you get bitETH from this bond fund and people having put those bitETH now control ETH on the eth blockchain.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: CryptoPrometheus on March 20, 2016, 02:26:50 am
Quote
What?  You're trusting your coins to the owner of a single exchange company with no supervision by other independent cosigners?  Really?

They're trusting registered & highly regulated companies in countries with relatively strong & effective legal systems. Their owners are also making millions of dollars and so have a financial incentive to keep making money and not go to jail.

DPOS currently has neither the same legal fallback & delegates who make only a few hundred bucks a month. While the delegates ability to damage and profit from harming BTS is limited. They could get full value from other blockchain tokens.

By increasing the incentive for delegates to misbehave and therefore the trust required in them you increase the fragility of BTS. Blockchain competition is also reducing fees to near zero so the value centre of BTS is BTS collateralised SmartCoins, UIA tokens not collateralised with BTS are much less attractive, see MaidSafe, Synereo & Agoras, collectively worth >$50 million on an Omni blockchain worth <$1.4 million...

So I don't see the value in there myself. For me the way to make BTS useful and popular now & massively grow the value of BTS is by focusing on market maker & yield subsidies to create useful liquidity & demand around the peg so that bridges can convert fairly close to 1-1.

I agree that multi-sig should be real world "dox able" entities, if we want to be able to "sell" it to the rest of the world. That said, if we make it easy enough, and they are paid well enough, I don't see too many challenges with obtaining 20 or eventually even 50+ independent entities willing to become potential multi-signatories. Again, ease of use and getting paid sufficiently are 2 things that will make becoming a multi-sig authority attractive to people. All of that said, the exchanges would be acting against their own self interest by promoting another exchange, so they might not be the best parties to approach. But independent businesses, for example, could be good. And I still think there should be a stake voting election process to choose all of them. So they can be hired or fired on the spot, like witnesses.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: Empirical1.2 on March 20, 2016, 02:49:48 am
Quote
What?  You're trusting your coins to the owner of a single exchange company with no supervision by other independent cosigners?  Really?

They're trusting registered & highly regulated companies in countries with relatively strong & effective legal systems. Their owners are also making millions of dollars and so have a financial incentive to keep making money and not go to jail.

DPOS currently has neither the same legal fallback & delegates who make only a few hundred bucks a month. While the delegates ability to damage and profit from harming BTS is limited. They could get full value from other blockchain tokens.

By increasing the incentive for delegates to misbehave and therefore the trust required in them you increase the fragility of BTS. Blockchain competition is also reducing fees to near zero so the value centre of BTS is BTS collateralised SmartCoins, UIA tokens not collateralised with BTS are much less attractive, see MaidSafe, Synereo & Agoras, collectively worth >$50 million on an Omni blockchain worth <$1.4 million...

So I don't see the value in there myself. For me the way to make BTS useful and popular now & massively grow the value of BTS is by focusing on market maker & yield subsidies to create useful liquidity & demand around the peg so that bridges can convert fairly close to 1-1.

I agree that multi-sig should be real world "dox able" entities, if we want to be able to "sell" it to the rest of the world. That said, if we make it easy enough, and they are paid well enough, I don't see too many challenges with obtaining 20 or eventually even 50+ independent entities willing to become potential multi-signatories. Again, ease of use and getting paid sufficiently are 2 things that will make becoming a multi-sig authority attractive to people. All of that said, the exchanges would be acting against their own self interest by promoting another exchange, so they might not be the best parties to approach. But independent businesses, for example, could be good. And I still think there should be a stake voting election process to choose all of them. So they can be hired or fired on the spot, like witnesses.

Another problem is say the good 'doxable' entities voted for by shareholders controlled $150 million worth of Alt-Coins & BTS was valued at $10 million. Then an anonymous attacker just needs a few $million to gain enough BTS to vote in bad witnesses and gain a very big payoff?
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: CryptoPrometheus on March 20, 2016, 04:45:30 am
Quote
What?  You're trusting your coins to the owner of a single exchange company with no supervision by other independent cosigners?  Really?

They're trusting registered & highly regulated companies in countries with relatively strong & effective legal systems. Their owners are also making millions of dollars and so have a financial incentive to keep making money and not go to jail.

DPOS currently has neither the same legal fallback & delegates who make only a few hundred bucks a month. While the delegates ability to damage and profit from harming BTS is limited. They could get full value from other blockchain tokens.

By increasing the incentive for delegates to misbehave and therefore the trust required in them you increase the fragility of BTS. Blockchain competition is also reducing fees to near zero so the value centre of BTS is BTS collateralised SmartCoins, UIA tokens not collateralised with BTS are much less attractive, see MaidSafe, Synereo & Agoras, collectively worth >$50 million on an Omni blockchain worth <$1.4 million...

So I don't see the value in there myself. For me the way to make BTS useful and popular now & massively grow the value of BTS is by focusing on market maker & yield subsidies to create useful liquidity & demand around the peg so that bridges can convert fairly close to 1-1.

I agree that multi-sig should be real world "dox able" entities, if we want to be able to "sell" it to the rest of the world. That said, if we make it easy enough, and they are paid well enough, I don't see too many challenges with obtaining 20 or eventually even 50+ independent entities willing to become potential multi-signatories. Again, ease of use and getting paid sufficiently are 2 things that will make becoming a multi-sig authority attractive to people. All of that said, the exchanges would be acting against their own self interest by promoting another exchange, so they might not be the best parties to approach. But independent businesses, for example, could be good. And I still think there should be a stake voting election process to choose all of them. So they can be hired or fired on the spot, like witnesses.

Another problem is say the good 'doxable' entities voted for by shareholders controlled $150 million worth of Alt-Coins & BTS was valued at $10 million. Then an anonymous attacker just needs a few $million to gain enough BTS to vote in bad witnesses and gain a very big payoff?

Using your example, at today's prices ($15 million cap) It would cost about $3.5 million to vote out all the witnesses and insert your own, assuming you were even able to purchase the almost 600 million BTS needed on the open market without driving the market cap to astronomical heights. In reality, I bet it would cost at least 10 times that (or more) to accumulate almost 1/4 of all BTS in existence into your personal possession.

Aside from that, I was actually thinking that escrow agents should be a separate voting process from witnesses. I know it seems like a bad idea to give shareholders more things they need to vote for, but perhaps there could be safeguards like for example the amount allowed to be held (total) in escrow could increase corresponding with thresholds of votes acquired (meaning total votes needed to unseat a quorum of agents).

Also, I wonder if it is possible to automatically (programatically) fire someone if they broadcast a "hostile signature" on the corresponding side chain network? Like if someone initiates a hostile multi-sig transaction (one that does not correspond to a valid withdrawal request), if they can be immediately and automatically fired from the multi-sig pool of trustees. Sure, it wouldn't matter if they were able to make off with the funds, but it does introduce an interesting dynamic. Imagine that 15 signatures are needed, so 15 parties need to collude. If even 1 party decided to withhold their signature, the entire rest of the colluders would be fired and the multi-sig could then revert to something like TonyK's idea (above) where the network would gain access with a 50% threshold required to release. That way, collusion plans could be thwarted by a single good actor pretending to go along and then betraying the bad guys at the very end.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: clemahieu on March 20, 2016, 05:24:57 am
I think something that's been insufficiently considered with bit assets is the obligation to participate. Usually the price of a traded commodity is determined by the intersection of the price at which people want to sell versus the price at which others want to buy.

A pegged asset is saying: regardless of what you want to pay or receive, this is the price. So for a seller where the price is lower than what they want, they'll refuse to participate. For a buyer where the price is higher than what they want, they'll refuse to participate.

If we ignore all the feel-good analogies and just-around-the-corner promises, the fundamental reason why bit assets don't have liquidity is because no one is participating because a bit asset isn't the same as the real asset.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: karnal on March 20, 2016, 07:31:04 am
Stan, I'll address your points inline:

Just because most people are content to trust centralized tokens now, does not mean that will continue to be true in the coming collapse.  When the flight to safety starts, the value proposition of autonomously tracking the value of external assets without counterparty risk goes through the roof.

If a collapse comes, I very much doubt people will come searching for safety on the Bitshares network, with its ~$10 mil market cap, which almost nobody uses.

I even doubt people in general will go for the king of cryptos, Bitcoin.

No. They'll buy gold and silver, real estate, as they always do. I think it's very unrealistic to think that Joe Sixpack is suddenly going to think "Fake internet money" is a good idea if the world around him is collapsing.

It's a very, very tiny minority that would use things like Bitcoin as a safe haven in troubled times.
The people who would use Bitshares? We can count them on one forum.

Quote from: Stan
In the meantime, the chain does need other reasons for people to use it.  Lots are being discussed.

Maybe we should focus on two of the biggest features that still stand us apart from everyone else, altough that gap is rapidly closing ... ethereum is bringing decentralized exchanges online as well as we speak. And they already have far more market traction that Bitshares.

Who do you think most people (still a very tiny minority) will choose? This Ethereum thing everyone is talking about nonstop, or the unknown Bitshares?

Quote from: Stan
One of my favorites is the concept of DPOS sidechains that BM has spent the past three Mumbles discussing.

Can't comment on sidechains, never really looked into it. But....

Quote from: Stan
If DPOS nodes are collectively trusted enough to secure a single asset then they can hold all coins just like a single exchange does.  This is the true exchange on a block chain.  Right now we are using only half of the concept:

Not sure if I buy this. Just like if the ECB is trusted to issue EUR, it doesn't suddenly mean everyone else is ok with them issuing and managing the policy of every other currency. Pretty sure China wouldn't be happy with that.

Quote from: Stan
Half 1:  The trading engine and native tokens are secured on the chain.
Half 2:  Actual BTC, DOGE, etc. are still held by centralized exchanges.  Why?

The new side chain concept uses those existing witness nodes to do Half 2 as well.  Why not?  We trust them under DPOS consensus to secure the most important digital asset in the world, BTS. Why can't we trust them to do the centralized exchanges job of collectively holding our BTC and DOGE for us too?

*WE* trust them, because we're Bitshares fans. I don't think anyone else will.

Quote from: Stan
With this approach the uber-trusted witness nodes themselves can issue light-speed "claim check" tokens for all the other real chain token they are holding in multi-sig escrow.  Just like banks used to issue much more portable receipts for gold in their vaults.  People quit redeeming those receipts for real metal and just kept passing them around - trusting paper because they new the could redeem them if they wanted to.

In general I don't think uber-trust is the way to go. Also, it seems there would be WAY too much incentive for witnesses to misbehave in this scenario.

Quote from: Stan
DPOS lets us do this traditional bank function so much better!  And we have real BTC and Doge in our witness vaults!

No comment (related to sidechains, see above)


Quote from: Stan
This is the holy grail that takes BitShares to the next level.  It is the killer meta-app that only BitShares is in a position to offer.

Wasn't the holy grail the dex and smartcoins? Maybe we ought to focus on one or two holy grails at a time, and get these working first.

Quote from: Stan
As this catches on, BitShares witnesses will become the most trusted and therefore biggest holders of all other currencies. 

If it catches on.

Quote from: Stan
What?  You're trusting your coins to the owner of a single exchange company with no supervision by other independent cosigners?  Really?

I'm not so sure it's not better to do this rather than relying on witnesses who will suddenly have an astronomical incentive to misbehave, potentially without many consequences.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: Empirical1.2 on March 20, 2016, 10:10:37 am
Quote
What?  You're trusting your coins to the owner of a single exchange company with no supervision by other independent cosigners?  Really?

They're trusting registered & highly regulated companies in countries with relatively strong & effective legal systems. Their owners are also making millions of dollars and so have a financial incentive to keep making money and not go to jail.

DPOS currently has neither the same legal fallback & delegates who make only a few hundred bucks a month. While the delegates ability to damage and profit from harming BTS is limited. They could get full value from other blockchain tokens.

By increasing the incentive for delegates to misbehave and therefore the trust required in them you increase the fragility of BTS. Blockchain competition is also reducing fees to near zero so the value centre of BTS is BTS collateralised SmartCoins, UIA tokens not collateralised with BTS are much less attractive, see MaidSafe, Synereo & Agoras, collectively worth >$50 million on an Omni blockchain worth <$1.4 million...

So I don't see the value in there myself. For me the way to make BTS useful and popular now & massively grow the value of BTS is by focusing on market maker & yield subsidies to create useful liquidity & demand around the peg so that bridges can convert fairly close to 1-1.

I agree that multi-sig should be real world "dox able" entities, if we want to be able to "sell" it to the rest of the world. That said, if we make it easy enough, and they are paid well enough, I don't see too many challenges with obtaining 20 or eventually even 50+ independent entities willing to become potential multi-signatories. Again, ease of use and getting paid sufficiently are 2 things that will make becoming a multi-sig authority attractive to people. All of that said, the exchanges would be acting against their own self interest by promoting another exchange, so they might not be the best parties to approach. But independent businesses, for example, could be good. And I still think there should be a stake voting election process to choose all of them. So they can be hired or fired on the spot, like witnesses.

Another problem is say the good 'doxable' entities voted for by shareholders controlled $150 million worth of Alt-Coins & BTS was valued at $10 million. Then an anonymous attacker just needs a few $million to gain enough BTS to vote in bad witnesses and gain a very big payoff?

Using your example, at today's prices ($15 million cap) It would cost about $3.5 million to vote out all the witnesses and insert your own, assuming you were even able to purchase the almost 600 million BTS needed on the open market without driving the market cap to astronomical heights. In reality, I bet it would cost at least 10 times that (or more) to accumulate almost 1/4 of all BTS in existence into your personal possession.

If demand for such little BTS would drive up the price 10x you should implement the yield proposal immediately :)

The point is that there's no direct relationship between a UIA and the value of BTS, so as the value of the AltCoins held by witnesses increase a hostile BTS takeover to sell off the more valuable pieces becomes +EV. 

Stan, I'll address your points inline:

Just because most people are content to trust centralized tokens now, does not mean that will continue to be true in the coming collapse.  When the flight to safety starts, the value proposition of autonomously tracking the value of external assets without counterparty risk goes through the roof.

If a collapse comes, I very much doubt people will come searching for safety on the Bitshares network, with its ~$10 mil market cap, which almost nobody uses.

I even doubt people in general will go for the king of cryptos, Bitcoin.

No. They'll buy gold and silver, real estate, as they always do. I think it's very unrealistic to think that Joe Sixpack is suddenly going to think "Fake internet money" is a good idea if the world around him is collapsing.

It's a very, very tiny minority that would use things like Bitcoin as a safe haven in troubled times.
The people who would use Bitshares? We can count them on one forum.

Gold & Silver will rapidly rise ofc. But money will also rush into BTC/Other and they will increase in percentage terms higher than Gold/Silver because of their low capitalisations. See BTC response to small contained events like Cyprus/Greek banking crisis as well as the BTC premium on Euro based exchanges at the time.

Joe six-pack might not have a good grasp of BTC/crypto but those in finance do. Gold & Silver will be heavily taxed and possibly confiscated and there will be many other capital controls. Private, global, instant, limited, digital money will explode as will SmartCoins like BitGold & Silver.  (Provided we establish SmartCoins before then which requires dedicated focus and effort.)
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: karnal on March 20, 2016, 04:49:00 pm
Don't you think in a crisis scenario, collapse-style, banks, if they are still around / responsive to customers, will not get orders to blacklist transfers to/from crypto exchanges?

It's already too late by then.

As for BitGold and BitSilver, and metals ETFs in general, if you don't own the real deal it doesn't amount to much.

There are jurisdictions out there where it's incredibly unlikely the confiscation scenario would pan out. I agree with you, to a certain extent -- namely, keeping precious metals in your own country is a bad idea.

If a country is in crisis, the last thing they want is to go and loot the possessions of nonresident noncitizens, that'd finish their reputation off internationally.

This post is a bit of an offtopic one really, just wanted to state that for trading purposes bitGold and bitSilver are alright, for hodling over decades maybe not so much.



I'm sure many people would flock to BTC if they perceived certain conditions forming.
But to Bitshares? Come on. At least not at the moment, not the way things are. And I speak as a supporter and user of bitshares when I say that's nearly delusional.



If, on the other hand, one could get into BTS, an ecosystem where not only can you get exposure to the price of BTC should it skyrocket, but you can also trade BTC and BTS itself against other fiat currencies (perhaps from countries with an economic policy a bit more sensible than ones' home country), and have the ability to, through a gateway, trade the smartcoin for actual fiat which then can be deposited at a bank anywhere in the world .. then, and only then, is it a different matter.

Not all government is bad, and not all bankers are banksters. This platforms' true value lies in enabling people to sidestep local troubles, put their wealth in a global, secure, private system, which allows them to reallocate their savings/investments in a way they deem the most benificial, sidestepping any hungry actors on the way, for their own personal benefit.

True (economic) freedom.
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: Empirical1.2 on March 20, 2016, 06:01:05 pm
Don't you think in a crisis scenario, collapse-style, banks, if they are still around / responsive to customers, will not get orders to blacklist transfers to/from crypto exchanges?

It's already too late by then.

Yes they will implement capital controls and blacklist transfers to/from major exchanges but they will be largely ineffective in any collapse style scenario & a black market will rapidly form for a range of alternative forms of money.

Quote
The Argentinian market, which experienced a complete economic meltdown in 2001/02, has quickly adapted. Many businesses, including hotels and restaurants, will accept US dollars. Some will work to the blue rate, even though that is illegal, or they will come close to it. When a shopkeeper recognises you are a tourist, you are likely to be offered an upfront deal: "We accept dollars at 12 pesos", or something similar.

http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2014/jan/24/argentina-peso-devaluation-blue-dollar-tourism

Given they are deliberately attempting to reduce physical cash,Bitcoin/other may very well be the currency of choice and even more successful than even I imagine in a collapse.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-11/war-cash-central-banks-survival-campaign

Quote
As for BitGold and BitSilver, and metals ETFs in general, if you don't own the real deal it doesn't amount to much.
There are jurisdictions out there where it's incredibly unlikely the confiscation scenario would pan out. I agree with you, to a certain extent -- namely, keeping precious metals in your own country is a bad idea.

Yeah, traditional gold derivatives are pretty worthless because they may completely default or at best be redeemable for fiat at a time when it is rapidly depreciating. BitGold on the other hand will maintain it's value, collateralized by a token that benefits from financial instability and can be easily converted to Bitcoin/other when needed. You can cross borders, transfer it to family/friends in need, make emergency long distance/online payments etc. So while yes most of your holdings will be physical & vaulted gold/silver in diversified safe haven jurisdictions, keeping a small portion in BitGold makes a lot of sense too imo.


Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: emailtooaj on March 21, 2016, 04:01:12 am
In another buried thread there was a suggestion that I'd made in regards to how I would like to see this BTC to bitBTC setup.
Below you'll see that I took some crappy photos (showcasing my sh!tty hand writing) of my quick white board drawings  :P
I'm not sure if this layout could work, but essentially it's take the witness out of "collusion" and basically turns them into a "relay" for TX requests.
The idea is having random "open and running" BTS wallets mine the TX request and hand over to the witness to process.
Again, not sure if this is even feasible... but if we could come up with a similar ideas that work??!!.......

Receiving Bitcoin to BitShares,
(http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a485/emailtooaj/20160320_225308_zps8pv5i65u.jpg) (http://s1280.photobucket.com/user/emailtooaj/media/20160320_225308_zps8pv5i65u.jpg.html)


Withdrawing Bitcoin from BitShares,
(http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a485/emailtooaj/20160320_232618_zpsupjvfo50.jpg) (http://s1280.photobucket.com/user/emailtooaj/media/20160320_232618_zpsupjvfo50.jpg.html)
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: bitsharesbrazil on May 15, 2016, 07:34:32 am
I cannot understand too why bibtc bitusd are not used n people Choos centralization of openbtc

Very good topic... I hope bytemaster can use his wise mind n work outros to make this beautiful thing trully decentrilised
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: merivercap on May 16, 2016, 04:02:02 am
Hey guys.   Didn't notice this thread, but we created CASH.BTC.  It is a smartcoin without a counterparty.  The plan is for people to trade CASH.BTC for BTC. 1:1 and for other people to create their own supply of CASH.BTC.  We also plan to set up a bridge so it's easy to go between the two.    We have an alpha website for the exchange at:  https://bts.bitcash.org

Check out our post here: ** [ANN] BitCash MegaX: Counterparty-Free Smartcoin Exchange (alpha) ** (https://steemit.com/bitshares/@officialbitcash/-ann-bitcash-megax-counterparty-free-smartcoin-exchange-alpha-)

Have a good day!
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: mf-tzo on May 18, 2016, 11:42:56 am
I haven't checked this yet so appologize in advance for the stupid question. Can I send bts from OL web wallet to bitcash wallet?
Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: ivglavas on May 18, 2016, 01:24:57 pm
Hi guys!
I like what Stan said about centralized institution that withdrawals and deposits tokens on trusted network bitshares. The thing he maybe missed to say is that at the same moment, all deposit funds should be transparent to the whole world, but only the owner should be able to check and see his assets on that list. No one else should be able to connect them with owner but the owner himself with some password or sth like that.

One thing bitshares community need to start talking is a transparency as its weapon. There is so big difference between all other exchanges and bitshares exchange in this space. If you look it from investors perspective, we are the exchange they want and need. Polo, Bittrex, Yunbi... They do not provide data on orderbook participants, trade participants, ownership structure... This is where we need to attack. First thing to do for liquidity increase is to make data readable to investors. It is very hard now to track everything on bitshares network and it is the reason why we are losing traders. Second thing to do is to make dpos people in charge for deposit-withdrawal (just like a wallet) and make them as a director board of exchange. They can act as exchange and acceptall other exchanges as their brokers. That way all exchanges will merge their orderbook orders and market will gain liquidity. We should just make a template of rules that can exchange like polo, gatecoin or any other exchange fill and be able to join ther orderbook. Exchanges should become gateways for fiat and coins to bitshares network which can combine all orderbooks from all exchanges in one place...

I do have a technical specification for all this what I said, but have exactly 0 developer knowledge. I need help to transfer this kind of ideas into bitshares network and if there is anyone who likes this and is willing to start workig on it with me, feel free to pm me so we can start working on our assets..

Ps. Great job guys, really, bitshares is going into marvelous direction! Do not bother on price dump at the moment, look at the whole graph and see how trading volume is growing! Well done people!!

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: Pheonike on May 18, 2016, 03:06:47 pm
I haven't checked this yet so appologize in advance for the stupid question. Can I send bts from OL web wallet to bitcash wallet?
Yes, it's the same chain.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: BTC/BitBTC bridge?
Post by: merivercap on May 18, 2016, 06:44:49 pm
I haven't checked this yet so appologize in advance for the stupid question. Can I send bts from OL web wallet to bitcash wallet?
Yes, it's the same chain.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Sure.  It's built using the same graphene-ui code and as [member=12185]Pheonike[/member] mentioned it's on the Bitshares 2.0 blockchain.  The GUI is just adjusted to limit the trade screen to three markets right now.  You can even use the OL GUI if you want.  You just have to find:
CASH.BTC : BTS
CASH.USD : BTS (counterparty-free USD Bitshares exchange)
CASH.BTC : CASH.USD ( counterparty-free USD Bitcoin exchange)

Hope you and others start trading on it them!  Again we'll try to spur activity soon with some market making.  Thx!