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 - seraphim

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22
1
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
« on: December 01, 2015, 03:10:15 pm »
Now the proposal has been around since over three months and failed to gain the necessary traction. Obviously most of the community doesn't think that BTS should be used to decentralize crypto trading.

It's time for me to move on to other things. Best wishes for BTS and the couple of nice people I got to know here over the last years!  :-*

2
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
« on: November 29, 2015, 10:26:07 am »
By using multisig addresses controlled by 3-16 elected signers to store coins and representing assets.

3
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
« on: November 27, 2015, 04:43:18 pm »
I'm not sure if I get your question.

The control asset holders will be able to vote on distribution of fees between signers, them and burning. This asset will partly be sharedropped (the workers part), and can be obtained by sponsoring the development at the end of the funding phase if the workers secured the initial amount.
The asset shouldn't be used to speculate, but to decide on the terms of the gateway. There won't be big returns through deposit/withdrawal fees. Other exchanges live from fees on trades.

If at any point there's really a LOT of coins going in and out, the amount of signers will need to be raised. Up to 16, it'll cost a lot of money to pay them already. Then there's a lot of transactions between the different multisig addresses, which need to be covered from the fees too. Again: The project is not expected to be profitable, only to sustain itself!

A decentralized gateway would add a lot of value to the BTS blockchain, and new applications could be built upon it, a decentralized shapeshift being the most obvious.

4
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
« on: November 27, 2015, 11:14:16 am »
Quote from: xeroc on November 27, 2015, 09:28:09 am
- I don't really see the need for yet another crypto gateway just now .. we have OpenLedger, blocktrades and metaexhange and people are already confused ..
- Also I can't remember that shareholders paid a thing for any of the existing gateways ..
- why would you need THAT much money? Isn't that supposed to be a profitable business in its own?

If you were to build a gateway for fiat things would look different, but even then I don't see why bitshares shareholders should pay for development of a profitable business. BitShares is not a startup incubator, and not a VC. We seek for more profit on our own and want to reduce costs!

No, it's not supposed to be a profitable business. It would be decentralized and open source.

The other crypto gateways aren't different to centralized exchanges, they require the user to trust a 3rd party. My goal is to create a completely trustless gateway to make BTS the first fully decentralized crypto exchange ever.

The only stream of income would be deposit/withdrawal fees, which would be used to pay the signers. Asset holders would be able to vote on a part of that going to them (or get burned), but initially it would all go to signers.
With a fee of 0.5% for deposits and withdrawals, a monthly 10 BTC in and out would result in 0.1 BTC, to be divided between at least 3 signers. There's not much room for asset holders to take a share of that. And there's no way for me to make anything out of it after it's released.

This is not about creating a traditional business, but a DAC. With a very big A.


//edit:
As soon as you grasp the whole concept, you'll also realize why the 30k are the lower limit to be able to create a working prototype. A fully featured product would require much more.
Initially I wanted to crowdfund with an asset only, but Stan proposed the workers. And he's right. It would benefit BTS as a whole by bringing in new users (traders!), and there's very little profit, if any, to be expected for investors.

5
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
« on: November 25, 2015, 01:43:42 pm »
You raised that issue before, and I answered it on this thread a month ago...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19351.msg248786.html#msg248786

6
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
« on: November 25, 2015, 12:08:14 am »
There we go. Worker proposals are on the blockchain awaiting your approval (id 10-15).

Final conditions: 6 worker proposals, amounting to 60k BTS/day each, running for three months (Dec/Jan/Feb). With this setup and current prices having all 6 voted in for 1 month, or 2 for three months, secures the minimum funding.  Donations of BTC, BTS and BitUSD will be accepted when the initial 30k USD target is met through those workers, or during February if it's possible to fill an eventual gap.

In March 2016 the value in USD for everything that came in will be calculated, and 80% of the control asset will be given out proportionally, sharedropping the worker income's part on BTS accounts. Details on that sharedrop need to be discussed, I'm not sure if a proportional drop on everyone makes sense. Whoever holds that asset should participate in the voting.

7
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
« on: November 16, 2015, 05:52:08 pm »
Fuzzy and the 8/2/2 poll result convinced me to keep going on this. Everything is delayed for a month, the workers will be running dec/jan/feb.

8
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
« on: November 02, 2015, 02:48:47 pm »
Nothing happened on the hangout, but right now a poll was suggested. Can't hurt, please vote :)

9
General Discussion / Re: Can't we create a trustless gateway using the current ecosystem?
« on: November 02, 2015, 02:45:50 pm »
The poll's a nice idea. Although posting ones remaining questions would be a lot more helpful for everyone ;)

10
General Discussion / Re: Can't we create a trustless gateway using the current ecosystem?
« on: November 02, 2015, 02:37:16 pm »
I already proposed this, but there's currently no way to finance development (check the link in my sig for more info).

The SuperNET ICO had great support from the NXT community and ended with $2.2M. We could get something more advanced done on BTS for a fraction of that, but neither an ICO nor a worker proposal seems to stand a chance here.

11
OpenLedger / Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« on: November 01, 2015, 12:44:08 pm »
Quote from: tbone on November 01, 2015, 12:13:48 pm
But Ronny, aren't you offering rewards to people for placing bids and asks on CCEDK?  Why incentivize people to provide liquidity on CCEDK rather than OpenLedger?  OpenLedger is ALREADY suffering from fragmented liquidity with each gateway having separately traded UIAs representing the coins they make available for deposit into OL.  None of this makes sense.  As I mentioned in a previous post (and as it seems phillyguy is also saying), if I were you I would eliminate the centralized markets on CCEDK for which there are corresponding markets on OL.  Take BTS:BTC for example.  You can still have that order book on CCEDK, but just have it reflect the OL order book for that market.  Obviously you can't make this happen at this snap of your finger.  But it shouldn't be too difficult, and hopefully it's your plan in the near future. 

But regardless of that, and probably more importantly, there needs to be ONE token that all of the OL partner gateways use for each asset they are making available for deposit into (and for withdrawal out of) the wallet.  That should be the BitAsset version.  Why are you guys not doing it that way?  I can't figure it out.  But I know it's killing the promise of an OPEN ledger i.e. shared order books i.e. pooled liquidity.  Do you see what I'm saying.  This is not good.

And that´s why a decentralized exchange is pretty much useless when it relies on centralized gateways. Openledger doesn´t solve any problems for users of centralized exchanges, it only enables the exchanges themselves to save on development and servers for the trading engine (and of course requires them to find other ways to make money, because they can´t take fees on trades).

The gateways could of course pool their resources with multisig accounts and have a distributed storage. But that´d require a lot of initial work, more efforts when partners are to be added or disappear, and higher costs for transaction fees. And it´s unclear if it´d be legally possible for every partner due to regulations.

12
General Discussion / Re: We'll be able to compare ourselves vs Nasdaq
« on: October 28, 2015, 03:41:46 am »
Quote from: Method-X on October 28, 2015, 02:55:33 am
Yeah, I mean I get what it allows for but I need someone to give me an example use case before I get the "aha". Anyone can create a decentralized company and govern it?

The crypto gateway I proposed would've required that feature for example (plan is cancelled for now, but still linked in my sig ;) ).

13
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
« on: October 23, 2015, 03:13:34 pm »
Quote from: tbone on October 23, 2015, 12:45:17 pm
For users, I see no reason for the interface to be outside the Bitshares wallet.  In fact, that would create a disjointed and confusing user experience.  We're talking about deposit/withdrawal functionality here.  How does it make sense to require an additional client for that?  As for the signer interface, that could potentially be a different matter.  For example, if the only option is for the signer UI to be in the full node as opposed to the light wallet, then creating a standalone client for the signers could be a sensible alternative vs. forcing some signers to install the full node when they might otherwise have no reason to do so.

That's just a frontend thing. Everything will happen on the BTS blockchain through normal transactions, so it'd be totally possible to have any BTS wallet support deposits and withdrawals with minimal effort.

Quote from: tbone on October 23, 2015, 12:45:17 pm
By the way, you've described the role of the signers as signing off on every deposit or withdrawal, correct?  But would that really be necessary?  Why couldn't that be automated?  So in the UI, a user can generates a bitcoin deposit address, for example.  Once the address receives a deposit, the blockchain issues a corresponding number of e.g. MY.BTC to that user's account, which can then be traded on the dex for, say, BTS or bitUSD.  Why would humans need to get involved, except when it comes to adding support for additional coins to the decentralized storage?

The signing is automated of course, but someone has to hold the private keys and act as a gateway between the different blockchains.


Quote from: luckybit on October 22, 2015, 09:03:05 pm
TradeNet sounds better than Ubernet. I would say don't use Bitshares in the name either. Take the stealth approach and use Bitshares technology without connecting directly to Bitshares.

Thanks, I like that idea.


I'm unsure how to proceed now - will ask on the hangout when bm is done I think.

14
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
« on: October 22, 2015, 05:38:58 pm »
Quote from: tbone on October 22, 2015, 04:59:09 pm
Quote from: mindphlux on October 22, 2015, 03:51:18 pm
With all due respect, I do not want to diss your project or anything, I'm just voicing my opinion.

As fav says, workers are not meant to fund external projects.

Examples for workers:
Add blinded transactions to frontend and post results on github for everyone to see
Add vested balances to frontend
Add proposed transactions to frontend
Improve market trading api calls since they're not too good at the moment
Create mobile wallet

All of these items are not a project that is trying to make money on its own, and I think that is the big difference.

@mindphlux: Obviously the community is divided as to whether it's appropriate to use a worker proposal to fund development of an external exchange.  I tend to agree with those that would be against it.  But what do you think about using a worker proposal to develop integrated, decentralized storage of other coins, which could then be traded on the Bitshares dex in the form of corresponding smartcoins?  I think that would be a massive winner for us.  Imagine if people could deposit and then trade BTC on the Bitshares dex just like they do at a centralized exchange, but free of counterparty risk.  And imagine further that once coins are trading on the Bitshares dex in this manner, that would provide a nice, easy migration path for these coins (perhaps not Bitcoin, but others) to move from their own blockchain onto ours. 

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19276.msg248887.html#msg248887

@seraphim: is this a project you would be interested in if the community got behind it?

An interesting idea for sure. I'd prefer the external solution, because everyone who wants to can become a signer without having to run a (later on potentially resource hungry) witness node besides the coin nodes.  A great part of the BTS universe isn't interested in other cryptos, just like other coin devs (potential signers) probably won't care about the mass of transactions on the bts chain.
For me, the dx gateway would have been a part of bts anyway. Creating another client instead of adding everything to the core just allows everyone to only run the software they need.

15
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)
« on: October 22, 2015, 04:12:59 pm »
Quote from: mindphlux on October 22, 2015, 03:51:18 pm
With all due respect, I do not want to diss your project or anything, I'm just voicing my opinion.

As fav says, workers are not meant to fund external projects.

Examples for workers:
Add blinded transactions to frontend and post results on github for everyone to see
Add vested balances to frontend
Add proposed transactions to frontend
Improve market trading api calls since they're not too good at the moment
Create mobile wallet

All of these items are not a project that is trying to make money on its own, and I think that is the big difference.

That's your point to it. Obviously Stan doesn't agree, or he wouldn't have suggested the proposal to me.
But whatever. The community has clearly shown that it's not willing to fund the project in either way, and I'm totally ok with that.
So let's move on, wherever that may lead to :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 23 queries.