BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: karnal on March 14, 2018, 09:15:07 pm
-
That Bitshares is never going to have private transactions.
Dan has gone off the deep end about the privacy topic, Stan is all about regulation and playing nice with the SEC now, and kenCode who with his team was supposed to deliver on this months ago, has to the best of my knowledge been remarkably quiet about the subject for quite some time now.
Could it be that I'm just out of the loop?
-
> Dan has gone off the deep end about the privacy topic,
Dan is not involved in BTS anymore, so who cares?
> Stan is all about regulation and playing nice with the SEC now
One can certainly have private transactions whilst still being SEC compliant.
> Could it be that I'm just out of the loop?
Yes. https://t.me/Agorise
-
Confidential Transactions / Confidential Assets is an item in the new core worker proposal recently approved: http://www.bitshares.foundation/worker/budget/2018-03-bitshares-core
i think @fox is in conversations with @kencode in order to continue the development. don't have the details but i will not discard this feature.
-
This will ultimately raise a few questions about the STEALTH token which is a FeeBacked Asset that has been given by Dan for the development of Stealth. If the backend devs where to continue its development using funds from the reserves, it would only be fair to re-evaluate how well those that currently hold STEALTH (those that have interest in its development and usage), performed in the last 2-3 years.
For me, it never made sense to work on STEALTH only so that some other people (STEALTH holders) can earn money of it.
-
This will ultimately raise a few questions about the STEALTH token which is a FeeBacked Asset that has been given by Dan for the development of Stealth. If the backend devs where to continue its development using funds from the reserves, it would only be fair to re-evaluate how well those that currently hold STEALTH (those that have interest in its development and usage), performed in the last 2-3 years.
For me, it never made sense to work on STEALTH only so that some other people (STEALTH holders) can earn money of it.
thanks for the clarification, i didn't know it was like this.
also, with the new efforts from the BBF in being legally in order, i am unsure of the implications of full private transactions in that field.
i think @fox and the core team will have to review this item in the worker roadmap.
-
This will ultimately raise a few questions about the STEALTH token which is a FeeBacked Asset that has been given by Dan for the development of Stealth. If the backend devs where to continue its development using funds from the reserves, it would only be fair to re-evaluate how well those that currently hold STEALTH (those that have interest in its development and usage), performed in the last 2-3 years.
For me, it never made sense to work on STEALTH only so that some other people (STEALTH holders) can earn money of it.
If solely implemented by the bitshares-core dev worker proposal then non-FBA is appropriate, otherwise fair enough. There'd be nothing stopping the copy/pasting of the stealth code without the FBA though right?
-
This will ultimately raise a few questions about the STEALTH token which is a FeeBacked Asset that has been given by Dan for the development of Stealth. If the backend devs where to continue its development using funds from the reserves, it would only be fair to re-evaluate how well those that currently hold STEALTH (those that have interest in its development and usage), performed in the last 2-3 years.
For me, it never made sense to work on STEALTH only so that some other people (STEALTH holders) can earn money of it.
If solely implemented by the bitshares-core dev worker proposal then non-FBA is appropriate, otherwise fair enough. There'd be nothing stopping the copy/pasting of the stealth code without the FBA though right?
In a hardfork, yes.
But that requires (as usual) a BSIP and the approval of BTS holders.
-
This will ultimately raise a few questions about the STEALTH token which is a FeeBacked Asset that has been given by Dan for the development of Stealth. If the backend devs where to continue its development using funds from the reserves, it would only be fair to re-evaluate how well those that currently hold STEALTH (those that have interest in its development and usage), performed in the last 2-3 years.
For me, it never made sense to work on STEALTH only so that some other people (STEALTH holders) can earn money of it.
If solely implemented by the bitshares-core dev worker proposal then non-FBA is appropriate, otherwise fair enough. There'd be nothing stopping the copy/pasting of the stealth code without the FBA though right?
In a hardfork, yes.
But that requires (as usual) a BSIP and the approval of BTS holders.
In this case, not only need approval of BTS holders but also STEALTH holders. There is a somewhat "social contract".
-
This will ultimately raise a few questions about the STEALTH token which is a FeeBacked Asset that has been given by Dan for the development of Stealth. If the backend devs where to continue its development using funds from the reserves, it would only be fair to re-evaluate how well those that currently hold STEALTH (those that have interest in its development and usage), performed in the last 2-3 years.
For me, it never made sense to work on STEALTH only so that some other people (STEALTH holders) can earn money of it.
If solely implemented by the bitshares-core dev worker proposal then non-FBA is appropriate, otherwise fair enough. There'd be nothing stopping the copy/pasting of the stealth code without the FBA though right?
In a hardfork, yes.
But that requires (as usual) a BSIP and the approval of BTS holders.
In this case, not only need approval of BTS holders but also STEALTH holders. There is a somewhat "social contract".
A social contract between some parties who no longer associate with BTS, ultimately the only social contract which should have been established is a worker proposal.
-
I agree with abit that thisbis a delicate matter. Those that 'invested' in stealth to some extend expect a profit from the investment. However, they have also been the ones asked to actually deliver, which hasnt happen. Ultimately, the stealth holders have been given a chance to profit from a feature that has already existed before they 'obtained' stealth tokens.
I would argue that todays stealth holders were granted the right to deliver and gain from a feature that existed on chain before they obtained them. Didnt delivery, so why would they benefit?
@kencode .. What's your take on this?