Danno, at same time I agree n disagree with you.

I agree,
4) make more coins born in graphene bitshares blockchain, it is pretty great we have peerplays, muse here.....if we could patner with more projects to born here with support that is pretty good way to grow this is pretty much make a decentrilised ecosystem grow from bottom to top, a plataform for projetcs n a exchange for them, decentrilised, top tech. Is there a lot projetcs borning everiday in crypto space, huge market.

I Disagree
2) In my opinion our partnership with openledger is a bless, they are promoting our tech, our bts, they are making it happen for them n for us......open.assets is the way the world works right now......you dont cut it because so you are out of game.....we have to join togheter n grow togheter try to bring transparency for open.assets....good volume for them, better for us, better for our tech, I know bad things can happen but we have to educate people about it

Sidechains I do not understand fully but it only makes sense if it can improve our game, but in a decentrilised way, if we are talking about multisig we could partner with supernet to bring a new player, a new option to people, but Im not sure that is the point but I would be glad to hear more about this.

Quote from: tbone on June 19, 2016, 05:16:41 pm

I think you are mistaking what is being suggested here.  At least in my mind, the idea is to have a simplified interface for users to easily exchange one asset for another.  It should be something like what Coinbase offers in their standard interface e.g. you choose how many BTC you want to buy and it tells you how much it will cost in dollars, and you click ok to complete the order. 

Obviously in the Bitshares wallet it would be more complex than that because it should be possible to trade any supported asset for any other supported asset, provided there is enough liquidity.  This would require a Blocktrades- or Shapeshift-like interface, but I don't see why there would be a need for multi-hop, atomic transactions. 

What are you going to do if there is no direct liquid market between two assets, but there is liquidity between each of them and some third asset?

In fact, this actually happens now on DEX. Not much  trade other than assetX:BTS.

Quote from: Chris4210 on June 18, 2016, 08:28:53 am

Quote from: yvv on June 14, 2016, 03:07:08 pm

For average Joe, bitshares is missing something like ripple path finding. It makes automatic currency conversions smart way. For example, suppose you save in bitGold and you want to make a payment to online shop which accepts bitUSD, but is no market between bitGold and bitUSD. The system goes and checks different order books, and finds a cheapest path for you like BitGold -> BTS -> BitBTC -> bitUSD. This is a killer feature of ripple and must have in bitshares in order to be accepted by merchants and by general public. It is not trivial to implement though.

I am afraid that this is a little bit more complex than UI tweaking.

What if we could have different skins or themes for regular and advanced users? The Ripple wallet was already very clear and had both.

I am currently looking for a graphic designer who would like to create some mockups for the BitShares Exchange.

It should have:

a) a simple interface for regular users, clear buttons, clear buy/sell/deposit/withdraw/ overview over assets
b) an advanced interface for traders, charts, order books, charting tools
c) a management interface for UIA creators etc.

Please don´t forget Voting needs to be integrated into all interfaces. It is an essential feature for our platform.

Please reach out to a designer who could help us. I would pay a bounty for a good lead.

I am afraid that this is a little bit more complex than tweaking UI. A multi hop transaction  has to be atomic, otherwise results can be unpredictable.

As for UIA, they are crippled in bitshares. If done right, the same loan principle should be applied, as with MPA, but based on trust instead of collateral. This would allow to create LETS societies in bitshares, which would be amazingly cool.

Xeroc if you access x.makerdao.com you will see that there is only eth:makerdao market......mpa....open...etc is not listed......
If orderbooks are shared that pretty good.....if we could dvelop togheter better yet.......

not re-producable here unfortunatelly .. but it happens quite often on my steem cli-wallet ..
the usualy behavior is something like this

> unlock xxxxx
> list_my_accounts
> transfer x y "z STEEM" "" true
or
> transfer_to_vesting ..

If I keep the cli-wallet open for a few minutes doing nothing with it .. then the call after it will return the error message above

I noticed that error also from time to time ... no clue how to fix this ..
@dannotestein, do you have an explanation for this?

Quote from: dannotestein on June 09, 2016, 02:43:11 pm

BM after he decided that the current GUI implementation of stealth was too problematic, I came to the conclusion that what we really need at the moment is simply "blinded transactions" and I think this should be the immediate focus.

I think the problem was money and time. He is way too focused on Steem right now guys to work on Stealth which is why BitShares Munich team is going to finish that project. Chris and Rodrigo are bringing whales, and whales want privacy. Marketing such an important product like Stealth however will need to include all the things that the competition, media and trolls in the comments would fire at us saying "hahaha look they are releasing a half assed product!" Instead, I'm choosing to take a bit more time and do it right the first time.
 
First Mover Advantage. Give the world something that it so sorely desires, do it right the first time, and market the hell out of it so that when the world sees it, they shut the f*ck up and say "ok, now this is cool". Total anonymity, total untraceability, ring sig, automated backups via ipfs/ipns, super tight integration with graphene-ui and ease of use, so easy in fact that Savers and Whales actually WANT to use it. I will not settle for anything less. I can take us a long way with this even with a little bit of funding so it only makes sense to spend the funds on the proper path instead of a "just do it this way for now" approach.

Quote from: dannotestein on June 09, 2016, 05:11:01 am

Quote from: arhag on June 09, 2016, 04:57:26 am

Quote from: dannotestein on June 09, 2016, 04:52:12 am

I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but Eric and I worked out a way earlier today to do a fully-decentralized version of sidechains that doesn't require multi-sig authorities, which from my limited reading would overcome the major objection originally expressed about sidechains in the OP. It wasn't prompted by this post, but by interest in linking graphene-based chains to ethereum (the original impetus being to link to ethereum as part of a move to get DAO support for peerplays). There's a fair amount of work involved in the implementation, but not an insurmountable amount by any means. So if peerplays is successful in getting DAO funding, it looks like we'll make this happen.

I find that very hard to believe, because I had convinced myself this is fundamentally impossible. Very interested to see what your solution is, what its limitations are, and whether it actually addresses any of the concerns of the OP.

There's lots of details I don't have time to go into now, but the essence of the technique is to extract sufficient data from one blockchain to create a proof-of-burn (or proof-of-lock) that the other blockchain will accept if published to that blockchain. On etherium, a smart contract would serve as the arbiter for that proof. On a graphene blockchain, the validation would be built into the blockchain protocol. Most of the details lie in how to efficiently construct such proofs. Part of the proof is information that indicates the owner on the blockchain accepting the proof.

It's hard if not impossible for one chain to trust something happened on another chain. Even if every node validates every block of both chains, it still doesn't make much sense to trust a non-trustless chain.

Bitcoin has the most potentiality to be considered as trustless;
Eth is perhaps trustless, but I doubt smart contracts are (there is always an image in my head that most of if not all smart contracts aren't trustless);
Graphene based chains are definitely not trustless.

Am I missing something?

//Update: I must be drunk..