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 - JohnR

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]
61
General Discussion / Re: ETF on Blockchain
« on: March 02, 2018, 12:09:42 pm »
Great - talk to you soon.

Very cool project.  Would love to continue the conversation.  Are you on telegram or discord?

You can reach me on telegram: Zapata.

I'm rarely on Discord (same nickname).

62
General Discussion / Re: ETF on Blockchain
« on: March 02, 2018, 03:29:31 am »
Very cool project.  Would love to continue the conversation.  Are you on telegram or discord?


Hello,

I just wanted to share with you that my team won  this Hackathon.

Our idea was to showcase how in two days you can build a tool to create, issue and sell on the market an Exchange Traded Fund.

As you might expect, we used Bitshares "financial platform", in a similar way than Bit20.
 
This way the solution gives the below benefits over the established situation:
  • A time to market of less than 10 minutes, where it currently takes more than 6 months to banks;
  • More transparency on collateral management and fees;
  • No counterparty risks.
  • A smooth user experience

In those two days we have built:
  • an ETF management server to interact with the blockchain;
  • a Price feed batch to publish the ETF price;
  • a white labeled version of Bitshares Decentralized Exchange UI;
  • an interface to manage ETF compositions

We used ETF products as an example, but variations could be done for many other structured products and mutual funds.

All the public information is here
 (sorry no code, nor video of the presentation)

The demo has been done on the testnet (see ETFDEMO asset).

The proof of win.

Note that as of today this was only a Proof Of Concept for the Hackathon, there is no plan (yet?) to build business on top of Bitshares.
But the idea has been spread to the 100 attendees (including top management), and more to come.


My personnal feeedback, is that even for people working around blockchain topics in finance, Bitshares is not in the radar. There is a HUGE communication efforts to do, especially to IT (top) managers and Business Product Owners. We are sitting on a gold mine, future competition estimates it can brings £1.9bn of savings.

Feel free to contact me if you want to discuss the topic.

Also we would like to thank you all as our small victory wouldn't have been possible without you, especially @xeroc for the whitepapers and @EstefanTT  for Bit20.

63
Asking the tough questions.  I am interested to see the response here.  Bitshares has a very bright future if dialogue like this becomes the norm.

We have summarized our development efforts now in this final report.

Main post is also updated.

Hello to both Blockchain Projects BV and younger accidental brother Blockchain BV, as well as ChainSquad GMBH. Since you've posted your final report, and until now as we all know, there was nobody around to do review on your work as you're doing on others, i was happy to step up and p by doing pro-bono review of your delivery since it would be too centralized that Blockchain Projects BV getting reviewed by itself in another form known as Bitshares Foundation, as it was the case in the past.

[NOTICE]: Since CEO of the Blockchain BV and Blockchain Projects BV is at the same time being hired/funded by the blockchain to represents Bitshares interests as spokeperson, and Dr. Stefan Schießl is software engineer not a Project Manager/CTO, to completely remove any possible conflict of interests, i would request politely that @xeroc (Dr. Ing. Fabian Schuh), as the CTO of the company hired by the blockchain, be collaborative and provide explanations on certain details of this review in transparent way to stake-holders who upvoted his offer/worker proposal as presented first time in early December 2017.

Review of the ORIGINAL PROPOSAL and ROADMAP

http://www.bitshares.foundation/worker/budget/2017-12-infrastructure ( offtopic - you're missing ssl on bitshares.foundation domain )

Highlights and requirements (blue) for clarifications:

1) Distributed Network of BitShares
"The core component of this proposal is the distribution of the BitShares network by means of deploying multiple nodes and offer public API endpoints to improve latency, robustness and availability for the BitShares ecosystem. Since this proposal is funded by the BitShares ecosystem, we limit the use of the APIs to non-commercial activity."

Q) Please explain in which way exactly and/or how you limited the use/usage of the API to non-commercial one ?

2) Public nodes with load balancer in the U.S. on separate servers for redundancy
"a. Deploy two BitShares nodes on a cloud hosting service located in the U.S.
b. Deploy a loadbalancer controlling the traffic to the two new nodes on a cloud
hosting service located in the U.S."

Q) Why balancer and nodes are keep rebooting ? Uptime is not even a day, and downtime is not even an hour. - https://us.nodes.bitshares.ws/stats
Q) us.nodes.bitshares.ws resolves to 96.126.96.40 - Let's encrypt SSL deployed on it doesn't have a valid CA Root certificate, by presenting itself to potential visitor/user as not being trusted by all browsers. At the same time by checking bitshares.eu it does return properly installed SSL. Why ?
Q) On the invoices presented there is no transparent way to know which node is this, please clarify in the future proposals and reports to the community. Since I've been keen enough to do whois against IP, i've discovered that provider is Linode. Can you please clarify which node from the Linode invoices are these 3 ? Load balancer + 2.
Q) Could you please disclose location of the 2 deployed nodes ? In the current infrastructure problem, redundancy was not important as solution on the single location how much decreasing latency and new availability on more locations having balancer in front.


3) Support SSL encryption on the load balancers
"a. Free letsencrypt certificate is used
b. Upgrade to a premium SSL certificate, if necessary"

Comment: Wildcard SSL by Comodo/Positive is roughly around 250$, even though you stated price 800$ (no reason for it). We have inbound price for the same Wildcard a bit over 100$. It would cover all servers/subdomains under that domain for 1 year giving it full encryption and insurance policy. This was offered and discussed publicly in DEX channel earlier 2017. It covers all sub-domains and the main domain without expiry and stronger encryption chain as live certificate. Free SSL is not same as paid SSL, and im sure you are well aware since you are having highest degree of education and positioned as CTO of the Blockchain company managing DAC business after all. We are not running darkweb or home based servers that we can't afford cost of real SSL for all.



REVIEW OF FINAL REPORT

1) Test deployment and loadbalanced nodes
" Internal testing is completed and connection reliability is monitored. There is a
connection issue with the web wallet (“Node out of sync”) that has to be investigated,
but the nodes seem to be unaffected by this issue (no significant load when such
connection issues appear). There might be a connection management problem
inside the backend or the web wallet, but this lies outside the scope of this worker. "

Q) Who is responsible as authority/person to overview and review work being done by Worker Bill Butler ? - Offtopic, but related to the integrity of authority being responsible.

2) Public nodes with load balancer in Asia on separate servers for redundancy
"Two machines are deployed, which is a change to the original plan . One runs the
loadbalancer and one runs a normal node."

Q) Is it truth that adding load balancer in front of a single node will not do nothing except increasing latency by adding additional hop in front to the node ?
Q) Since worker proposal is being approved as written/offered by stake-holders and based on initial goal, please clarify who approved change to reduce original proposal from 3 servers to 2 for Asia and to waste resources ?
Q) Why balancer and nodes are keep rebooting ? Uptime is not even a day, and downtime is not even an hour. - https://sg.nodes.bitshares.ws/stats
Q) sg.nodes.bitshares.ws resolves to 172.104.167.98 and Let's Encrypt SSL deployed is missing CA Root certificate on the domain. Why ?


3) "If traffic increases significantly on this loadbalancer, additional nodes can be
deployed. This was a cost-benefit decision due to the price of asian dedicated hosts"

Q) Please clear on Linode's invoice which nodes are Asian ones/specified by ip.
Q) You are using excuse under the "price of asian dedicated hosts" while you are running cloud instance on Linode. Can you please be more clear on the actual reason of decreasing/leaving original roadmap/project ?



- Please be kind and clarify which node is running which IP and belongs to which invoice.
- Please be kind and explain what is legal relation with company ChainSquad gmbH presenting email printed reviews with its own stamp on it ? Isn't responsible party for the worker proposal Blockchain Projects BV ?
- Please be kind how from Infrastructure Urgent proposal additional milestone is related to infrastructure ( faucet ) and why it was primarily deployed as priority while even worker proposal approved infrastructure was started in February.
- Please clarify is Hetzner (invoice R0007759821) additional milestone for EU and who approved it ?

Finance/Payment review

http://www.bitshares.foundation/download/invoices/201712-infrastructure/20180216-Factuur%202018-4.pdf

You've asked for 3300 USD regarding one-time setup. Initial setup of infrastructure started in January and it was not fully operational by February since unexpected downtime happened at your initial deployment.

If your ONE-TIME setup had a period of 1 month, and you haven't delivered any eta on days/hours by setting fixed price, as taken from your own report i would be suggesting that you refund 1 of the 2 month (QTY) payments you've charged for the management of the infrastructure since you've been managing it only February (period after initial cost/setup), before this escalate more.

I also will hit reminder that having centralized autonomy, power, invoicing to yourself, approving changes and reviewing it yourself, changing proposals as you go without consent of each stake-holder, or moving funds in resources never approved was not something that i was expecting from someone who should set example on the blockchain.

Overall is that you are charging more than you are doing, lack of interest on long-term solutions (SSL example above), lack of professionalism (You spent 3 weeks to deploy 5 nodes and 3 are having broken SSL, but you've done Testing ), you are doing what was never agreed to be done, there is no serious reporting and your own KPI failed by the nodes status in first month as well as current up-time overall.

Many thanks for clarifications and answers, community is waiting patiently.

64
General Discussion / Re: HolyTransaction loves BitShares
« on: December 27, 2017, 05:21:00 pm »
Awesome, if you can add BTS itself as well that would be fantastic!

 +5%

BitUSD itself is fine, and I would like to see BitBTC and BitGOLD added too. BTS directly is not necessary.

BitBTC - more it starts getting used the better the peg will hold, and we can try and lure BTC holders with it.
BitGOLD - have to get the name known with Bireserve getting aggressive.

Will you make it open source? mosterer here has a 100% delegate and is doing something (I don't understand all the tech stuff), so maybe you can get in touch with him to prevent duplicate work.

Agreed that bts itself is less needed for something like this.  If we're bringing bitshares to the masses they are familiar with usd/eur.  No need to complicate things at first with bts.   

65
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] Bitshares gateway GDEX is launching
« on: December 27, 2017, 05:11:29 pm »
Will GDEX offer a fiat gateway?




After long time preparing, now GDEX is launching.

at first GDEX only list BTC, in recent future we will list ETH, NEO, QTUM, BCH, IOTA…etc.

Now users can only access GDEX through gdex.io, hope soon it can be integrated in the reference wallet.

GDEX is operated by OBSIDIAN TECHNOLOGY CO. PTE. LTD.  a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore Republic, the support team work in the office in Shanghai, China. 

GDEX focus on introducing high liquidities of main cryptocurrencies into DEX, we will pay much effort on market making, our goal is to make everyone in the world can trade in DEX with same or even better user experience than the best central exchange.

come on and enjoy!

66
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: December 12, 2017, 03:56:42 am »
If bitassets can get some more traction $1/bts seems conservative.  Like you say, not sure whether that takes 6 months or 2 years.

I guess 4-5 cents is definitely possible. I don't think it will happen soon, the trend being upward for the moment. In any case, any price below 10cents is a good price IMO. I might be delusionnal, but I believe 1$/BTS is not a matter of if, but when (when being any moment between now and 2020)


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

67
General Discussion / Re: Poloniex withdraw issue cause as bad reputation
« on: November 21, 2017, 01:01:58 am »
This Poloniex wallet issue is another example of why we need to promote the DEX.  But it's always going to be an uphill battle because others always have the newest hottest tokens.  While on BTS we seem to only have Open Ledger issuing assets with any serious liquidity.

68
Bitspark / Re: Zephyr token is launching soon
« on: November 21, 2017, 12:02:48 am »
Anyone have thoughts to share on Bitspark and Zephyr?

69
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Blockchain Academy - portal to market BitShares
« on: November 19, 2017, 04:43:46 pm »
I think this is a great project.  I want to bring this to the U.S.  I'm a student at the University of Michigan.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]