We just need something similar on the bitcoin end too...

Why don't you just hold the GATEBTC until you get a signed message telling you where to send it?

The default Bitcoin client can sign a message with private key corresponding to its address.  So you could just have the person send you a signed message from the Bitcoin client saying "send GATEBTC from <bitcoin_txid> to <account>, sincerely, <signer>".  Then check:

- <bitcoin_txid> represents a transaction that exists
- And is sufficiently confirmed
- And is sending BTC to your ingress address
- And has not yet had its GATEBTC claimed
- And has at least one input controlled by <signer>

Then you issue GATEBTC (or whatever your gateway's BTC IOU UIA is) to the corresponding address.

The message could be published somewhere on the blockchain, but it's easier (and doesn't require them to pay a fee) if you just have an HTTP(S) interface on your webserver to submit the message.

You could also have semantics to remember the association between a BTC address and account, i.e. the message could instead be:

"if your ingress address gets any BTC from <my_address>, please send the GATEBTC to <titan_account>, sincerely, <signer>"

Then you just check that <signer> controls <my_address>.  The user can then send you BTC in any number of transactions, past or future.  As long as the user has at least one tx input from <my_address>, it will all go to the right place.  If the user forgets and you get BTC from unknown addresses, you can just hang onto it until one of the addresses files a signed message claiming the new GATEBTC.  Of course, with the way Bitcoin makes a new change address by default and de-prioritizes recent balances, it may be a little extra work to make sure <my_address> always has a balance that is included.

In theory we should be moving away from using the memo field all together

What's the replacement?  Mail?

It would be nice to have a utopia where robots can produce enough food / clothing / shelter / infrastructure for everybody to live without anybody having to work.

But there are two problems:

- How do we deal with the inevitable economic disruption of intermediate states between the status quo (~90%+ of the population has to work) and the end game (~0% of the population has to work).  When, say, ~50% of the population has to work, how do we determine which 50% ends up working without creating a class divide that tears society apart?

- Are we really sure that a utopia is the inevitable outcome of superintelligent machines?  Since having resources is an instrumental goal that is a useful stepping stone to many different final goals, what would keep superintelligent machines from appropriating for their own ends resources humanity needs to live?  Eliezer Yudkowsky, a person who has thought a lot about this issue, summarizes it as follows:  "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made of atoms it can use for something else."

Here are some use cases to get started:

- Register a new account with funds from an existing account
- Sort margin call orders by margin call price
- Sort margin call orders by expiration date
- Buy market pegged BitAsset with BTS
- Sell market pegged BitAsset for BTS
- Short market pegged BitAsset with no price limit
- Short market pegged BitAsset with a price limit
- Create a UIA
- Issue UIA shares
- Buy UIA with BTS
- Sell UIA for BTS
- Buy UIA with another UIA
- Sell UIA for another UIA
- Make sure price feed display updates for market asset
- Make sure all is well (display fully up-to-date, reasonable memory usage) after leaving market page open overnight

Nice. BTW why btc/bitusd pair is in btc market on bter?  It should be in USD market

Neither pair member is USD, so it shouldn't.  Putting it in the BTC market category makes sense (until they have enough BitUSD markets to justify a separate category for them!)

or the order should be reversed.

The reason for the order being the way it is, is because most exchanges quote BTC / USD prices in dollars per BTC.  So if Bitcoin is trading at $217 USD and $213 BitUSD, you can easily compare the prices because they are on the same scale.

Only skimmed the whitepaper, but I'm thinking this might consist of:

- Airdropped UIA shares in several systems that support UIA-like tokens.
- Atomic "cross-chain teleportation protocol" where anyone can e.g. burn UIA shares on the BTS chain and create an equal number of UIA shares on the Ripple chain.

If you can make it so the cross-chain teleportation is truly atomic, I'm sure there would be some value in this functionality.

The details would be incredibly tricky.

This is not a big issue right now but I am just wondering what the plans are for fees in the future.

We're planning to eventually allow delegates to publish feeds for all fee types charged by the network, and the actual fee will then be the median of the feeds.  Thus fees will be set by the delegates.

Currently delegates can sort-of set fees by choosing not to include transactions with low fees, but it requires unanimous consent of the delegates.

A median is more robust about ensuring the will of the majority of delegates will win in case some delegates want lower fees and others want higher fees.

We are aware that ease-of-use issues exist, and we are focusing substantial resources on them.

We have a light wallet in development that will be considerably easier to use, partly due to not implementing advanced features like the built-in market.  We also have a faucet to allow new users to register an account name without funds, which you can see in action if you run an up-to-date GUI client.

We are re-branding our robohashes as Safebot -- see http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/11/Introducing-SafeBot/?r=theoreticalbts