Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The touch point when it comes to ACH is the delay.
ACH is cheaper because its slower.
It's like attaching a Lamborghini Huracán to a horse and buggy. You can all figure out which one in my analogy is the Huracán.
The 'good news' is that only recently (like a few months ago) they have moved to some transactions being processed 'same day'. Still a bit of a contrast to our 1 second block time.
There are two elements to this.. you need an ODFI and an Operator.
What you want 'ideally' so we can wack the buggy, set the horse free, and put a Lamborghini Veneno along side the Huracán is to have the ODFI and Operator to be one and the same... because ultimately its the clearing house that will determine the speed it gets to the RDFI.
Currently there are only a few Operators used by everyone and thus impacts the timing.
This is going to put the ODFI/Operator to the the BitShares network in a liability position that needs to be handled correctly, not just for compliance, but for security. Keep in mind when the banks mess up, they just need to make some phone calls to whom ever was on the other end and reverse the mistake. In interfacing with BitShares though.. that's not an option.. and that creates a significantly higher risk profile. Which is why so many of the current solutions work with mega delay. HOWEVER... we are anticipating a solution that could be engineered to minimize this liability thanks in part to some 2.0 features coupled with a little more engineering on our part. We cannot confirm any of this of course until we got 2.0.
You also have to consider the costs. It will double up on the transaction charges since there will be BitShares charging and then the ACH processing.
Not saying it can't be done or it will be too expensive.. just depends what degree of service will be expected and how much it will take to deliver on it.
I only know all this because of the work we are doing in regards to what BunkerDEX is offering and our Rewards and another yet announced product.
I am not saying that we have the final solution 'now'... but I am working on it. There are some creative ways this can be accomplished.
This will be necessary in the mean time until we can close the loop (ie. all transactions in the DEX).
FYI ACH includes US, it's territories, and Canada.
I am sure you got lots of peeps to talk with now Stan... but I would be happy to help out however I can if the need arises.
@Shentist - Yes.. ACH is US own inter-bank transfer system.. while most of the rest of the world uses SWIFT. Kinda like how we all use metric and US still uses imperialCanadian banks use SWIFT also.. so Canada is uniquely positioned to be able to talk to both networks and provide BitShares on/off ramp for both... and nuclear bunker hardened security to boot if we have anything to do with it.
Oh and Holy Shanaynay this is awesome!
1. why not. but that can be done by blockchain sites.
2. we got proxy voting, and that's okay for me. the wallet shouldn't give recommendations on votes.
Can we use storj and use bts as a storjx replacement..? If so then yea thats pretty much a working solution ootb. Use bts as the internal currency and have delegates host some storage space to kickstart the usability... once people use it and it needs scaling up then either more delegates can be voted in or ppl can sell their storage space as a peer(if we build it into bts core)I like the concept of allowing people to store data on some peers, and letting the market decide the rate at which the storage costs. This is in contrast to storing on chain or in the cloud, both of which are inefficient or undesired in the later case.I don't see why you would want to bother when Storj will handle it all and you can just use their network. Bitshares can simply integrate with Storj.
Redundancy becomes a major issue so I'd like to hear about this new idea of using delegates perhaps as redundant data servers incase peers shutdown and data "shards" need to be reconstructed.
It actually takes a lot of code to get crowd storage right and two teams are already working on it for years.
I like the concept of allowing people to store data on some peers, and letting the market decide the rate at which the storage costs. This is in contrast to storing on chain or in the cloud, both of which are inefficient or undesired in the later case.I don't see why you would want to bother when Storj will handle it all and you can just use their network. Bitshares can simply integrate with Storj.
Redundancy becomes a major issue so I'd like to hear about this new idea of using delegates perhaps as redundant data servers incase peers shutdown and data "shards" need to be reconstructed.
nanomsg is a real zero-copy msg serverQuoteZero-Copyand it support mode "bus", http://tim.dysinger.net/posts/2013-09-16-getting-started-with-nanomsg.html
While ZeroMQ offers a "zero-copy" API, it's not true zero-copy. Rather it's "zero-copy till the message gets to the kernel boundary". From that point on data is copied as with standard TCP. nanomsg, on the other hand, aims at supporting true zero-copy mechanisms such as RDMA (CPU bypass, direct memory-to-memory copying) and shmem (transfer of data between processes on the same box by using shared memory). The API entry points for zero-copy messaging are nn_allocmsg and nn_freemsg functions in combination with NN_MSG option passed to send/recv functions.
so I write a simple demo for howto implement a p2p network based this.
https://github.com/pch957/nanomsg_p2pnode
wish this can help improve the p2p network's efficient.
"A global marketplace of public opinion."
http://digitalasset.com/static/documents/PRESS_RELEASE_Pivit_Digital_Asset.pdf
BM, thoughts on this? Digital Asset seems to be sticking with the permissioned ledger for this one.
Impressive $5MM for a prediction market startup.
I agree that having politicians on the side of BitShares IS desirable.. when a bill gets introduced that wants to bring in some new act or legislation against crypto and/or bitshares specific, we want people there who will positively represent bitshares.. BTMs are one way to say hello.. but in the end it won't convince them that it will secure them more votes.Politicians are human beings. They use apps, they have iPhones, they drink Coke and Pepsi, and there is no reason why they can't use Bitshares. Just introduce to them the whitelisted most compliant form of Bitshares so that it doesn't risk their reputation to use it.
That narative needs to be developed.. I am not going to pretend to know what that might be right now.. it will reveal itself more so as we see mass adoption.
Also we should not forget what really drives the political process in the USA is actually money.. contributions from organizations. We all talk about this in regards to the big banks.. I wonder what a politician does when one bigger supporter of theirs wants them to do something to another one of their smaller supporters. Does he do a Mexican standoff... or do as the bigger money tells him to do? I think no matter what.. at least being 'on the books' as a supporter gives you some degree of security vs. none at all.
Sigh... I'm starting to see we are going to have to attend more pretentious dinner parties. I am referring to USA in particular.. I don't imagine most govs being too far off from that as the standard. Most populations like to think there are other reasons/motives that propel them, but at the end of the day 99% can really be boiled down to all operating for their own security and power... So I think a lot of what I have said applies to most situations worldwide.
However.. in the pubic eye.. if we are seen being aligned in some way supporting the new Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations.. that might indirectly garner some support from politicians as an easy way for them to show their alignment to that as well where it is favorable to do so for their base (ie. wouldn't work in US Republican ridings).
would you give your votes to someone that will deliberately harm the network and make your shares be worth less?Maybe not but I could see how easily it would be for corporations to buy votes. Not every corporation is going to be evil or bad for the network. IBM, Google and other companies pay for a lot of Linux development. Most Linux developers have jobs and don't work for free, but they work for companies like IBM, Oracle, etc.
Also, you can, at any point in time, see which proxy has how much voting power.
How about sharedropping on major politicians? Imagine hundreds of congress and senate delegates who hold bitshares and other Graphene assets.
.
This suggestion is made with what I consider the very valid assumption that any alliance with governments will require negotiation that will necessarily include technical and functional compromise -
I do not think any government involvement at this point of time - or anytime soon (excluding FMV), will offer any ROI for what our goals should be - which would be little more than subsidizing the 2nd vacation homes, mistresses and drug addictions of a few lobbyists and politicos at great financial and political/value cost.
