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.

Messages - chamber

Pages: [1] 2 3
General Discussion / Privacy-first Bitshares fork?
« on: February 02, 2018, 12:30:40 am »
Would anyone else be interested in a "privacy-first" Bitshares fork?   As I see it, privacy oriented features have languished with Bitshares.  I'm not sure there's much desire on the part of the current community to support better privacy protections.  Given Daniel Larimer's recent pronouncements, I don't expect proper privacy protections with EOS either.    Therefore, a privacy-centric fork might be the best path forward. 

Here's some of the features I'd like:

1.  Monero-level privacy protections:  sender, receiver, amount, IP address.
2.  All transactions private by default. (Like Monero)
3.  Privacy-centric communication channels (such as
4.  Regularly scheduled hardforks (every 6 months). 
5.  100 trillion total supply with tail emission (0.5%/year).  (100 trillion USD is roughly equivalent to the global broad money supply, which includes coins, banknotes, money market accounts, savings, checking). 
6.  Daily Dutch auctions for the first 10 years (to insure a widespread, fair distribution).   Similar to EOS token distribution, but extended over 10 years instead of 1 year. 
7.  10% of the total supply reserved for investors, development team, marketing, governance, testing, lobbying (similar to Zcash)
8.  Governance by a non-profit foundation  (similar to Zcash Foundation)
9.  All code open source, under same license as Bitshares (MIT)
10.  Share drop to existing Bitshares owners
11.  Steempower-like token which give long-term HODL'ers greater influence over the governance of the ecosystem.
12.  Fee Backed Assets fully implemented
13.  Social policy bond like bounty system:

I'm sympathetic to your concerns, karnal.   FWIW, Ken Code says the UI for blinded transactions is complete, and needs to be incorporated by a Bitshares core dev:

"minimal security Blinded transactions, yes. true Stealth as defined on the Agorise steemit blog, no.
the ui and ux for blinded transactions was finished about a month or so ago. a bitshares core dev just needs to grab our code from the Agorise repos and implement it (
the testnet and roadmap is almost always pinned up at the top in the group chat: @Agorise 
As for the additional Stealth features that we want, the Stealth core dev is having a baby right now and will return to work on that as soon as is comfortable."

The bitshares development and deployment process is pretty opaque to me--is someone already on incorporating the Stealth UI into the main codebase?  If not, who would need to do that? 

General Discussion / Allowing numbers in UIA, smartcoin symbols?
« on: January 17, 2018, 12:03:21 am »
Any chance we could allow numbers into the symbols for UIA's, smartcoins?  For example, if there were an MPA pegged to the S&P500, it would be nice if it could be given the symbol "SP500". 

I agree with your analysis.   Not sure how best to get this to the attention of the whales that can make it happen.  +5%

To buy one bitUSD will cost about $1.00 (the actual cost will fluctuate above or below this about, depending on how well the peg is holding).

To short sell one bitUSD, you first have to put up at least $1.75 worth of BTS as collateral.  The BTS network then issues you one bitUSD, which you can then sell.   You have to maintain your collateral above a certain level (currently 175% of the value of your bitUSD short positions), or you will face a margin call.

You buy bitUSD when you want a currency whose value and volatility will closely follow the dollar.

You short sell bitUSD when you're bullish on the prospects of Bitshares, and you think that BTS will be worth more in the future--relative  to the dollar--than it is now.   

To illustrate, let's suppose that you borrow one bitUSD from the network, and put up $2 worth of BTS as collateral.  Once issued, you sell that bitUSD for $1.  Now suppose that BTS rises in price so much that a dollar is now worth only 1% of the BTS it was worth before.  You can buy back bitUSD to close out your short position using only $0.01 worth of BTS.  In other words, you've bought low ($0.01) and sold high ($1.00), thereby making $0.99 for each bitUSD you shorted. 

General Discussion / Re: Smart Coins - Where are we headed?
« on: December 30, 2017, 10:04:56 pm »
Witnesses should post price feeds and all these tokens will get alive.

Is this the recommended procedure for setting up a witness?  Is there already a MPA for the S&P500?  If so, what's the symbol name?

There is a developers telegram channel but only by invitation, not hard to get in,  hang around in BitsharesDEX channel, describe your project/issue/interest  and you will get invited by some of the devs.

Okay, thank you!

I'm aware of the following forums: 

BitsharesDEX Telegram (daytrading chatter) (general discussion)
Bitshares reddit (general discussion)
Bitshares github (code repository, bug reports)

However, there doesn't seem to be a public forum intended primarily for technical discussion for developers, such as a Bitshares Slack channel.   Does such a thing exist yet?  If so, could someone point it out to me? 

Thanks in advance for any assistance!

FBA is a lot more complicated to implement and requires additional work on top of the integration of Smart Assets in both bitshares and openbazaar. So I think it will cost much more to shareholders, and from fav answer I suppose we are not ready to pay a lot for that. I'm not convinced this complexity worth the effort. We should Keep It Simple, Stupid (

I suppose you don't have the developper in charge of the implementation yet. So what we need is to be able to go to the OB community and say, "Bitshares is ready to give you X  (bit)USD and help you integrate SmartAssets". This is what I call a bounty and is a special type of worker: a worker with a multisig escrow account, that will release the funds when the implementation is finished.
In your worker proposal you can spread the "bounty" in mulitple tasks: specification, implementation,  management.

* nods *  Yeah, a bounty / worker as you described seems to be the way to go for right now.  I thought FBA's actually existed as they were originally spec'ed, with a working example (the STEALTH token).   

Perhaps this development could be integrated into Bitshares?

"Finally, a new paper was released on efficient zk-SNARKs without trusted setup. Earlier work on zk-SNARKs required trusted parties, and some coins already use this. Monero's philosophy of privacy means that a trusted setup is an automatic no-no, which makes the new paper so interesting since it assumes no trusted parties. I have been working through the whitepaper and plan to write up a simulation if it continues to show promise. A comprehensive analysis of the potential space and computation costs is also in order, and this will continue into next month. Again, there are no immediate plans to switch to a zk-SNARK setup in Monero, but the technology is interesting and merits ongoing investigation."

General Discussion / Re: Lifetime Membership fee
« on: December 29, 2017, 09:14:58 am »
I was told that the committee needs to update it.

I submitted a github request to make the LTM fee adjust dynamically.    Consider giving it a thumbs up:

The current iteration was launched in November, 2014

That's wrong. Current feature-rich version you speak of was launched into production on October 15, 2015. 1st year was BitSharesX which ceased all operation on that same day.

Okay, thanks for the correction!

The primary implementer (Daniel Larimer) decided to alter the FBA design to prohibit the distribution of fees collected to the owners of the FBA token. When all this came to light I asked Daniel to explain. He said the idea of distribution of fees collected wouldn't scale and such assets fail the "Howie" test, a legal ruling made by courts in the U.S.A. to identify when an asset is a security in the eyes of the US gov. He instead changed it to some type of token buyback scheme and that was never documented or discussed publicly.

Well, that's unfortunate.  Sounds like we need a worker-proposal to change the FBA mechanism to work as originally described. 

I'm less convinced by the Fee Backet Asset idea.

Why not offering a bounty paid by the reserve fund for the integration of Smart Assets in Open Bazaar?

If a bounty can get it done better that's cool with me.  I suggested a FBA because that seemed like it would be more appealing to the people putting up the money.   Why do you think bounties rather than FBA's would work better?

1)  Is there support within the Bitshares community for funding a Fee Backed Asset (let's call it OBI, for "Open Bazaar Integration") to fund the development costs of replacing Bitcoin with Bitshares in the OpenBazaar ecosystem?

Why not just create a worker proposal instead?

Pushing smartcoins instead of BTS would be smarter, imo.

I agree that the Smartcoins are the killer feature for OpenBazaar.  The idea is that Bitshares would be integrated such that any Bitshares asset could be traded from within OpenBazaar.

I'm up for it being a worker-proposal instead--I simply proposed a Fee Backed Asset as that allows people who can't necessarily code to benefit from helping to create the feature (such as writing the spec, promoting the idea, gathering feedback) .   It also allows one to offer some of the FBA's to the OpenBazaar devs/leads to incentivize them to cooperate.  However, whatever funding mechanism gets it done.   

Thanks for the response!  If not bitshares, what would you recommend instead? 

Pages: [1] 2 3