Quote from: ncinic on January 18, 2016, 08:44:56 AM
Well stealth worker proposal has ended, what happens next?

That "worker" was only to poll the shareholders if they would allow a hard fork ..
Development goes on as planned and AFAIR, it should be all done by end of february

Well stealth worker proposal has ended, what happens next?

Quote from: onceuponatime on December 07, 2015, 10:01:16 PM
Could multisig functionality be added to the GUI in a Privacy Mode worker proposal for a reasonable increase in the cost and without drastically affecting eta?

The blockchain technically supports using confidential transfers with multi-sig as well as with public accounts (keeping the amounts private).  Exposing that in the GUI is non trivial.  I would be very interested in getting some ideas of what that might look like.  At this point in time though, I do not wish to increase the scope of the basic worker proposal because it is already tightly budgeted and we absorb all of the risk for cost overruns. 

We would need "off line" signing of transactions and general multisig support throughout the whole wallet. 

I would probably put off-line signing support as a separate worker proposal because its use case applies to everything the wallet can do, not just confidential transfers.

Quote from: dannotestein on December 07, 2015, 10:27:32 PM
I think it might be simpler if the "Create Private Account" dialog only required a user to enter a label for the account and generated the public/private key pair for the account "behind the scenes". I assume the current design is to allow for importing private accounts generated from a different wallet, but it seems like it would be better to have a separate functionality for exporting/importing such accounts.

The assumption is that it would fill it in automatically, so it is only slightly more informative than necessary.

I think it might be simpler if the "Create Private Account" dialog only required a user to enter a label for the account and generated the public/private key pair for the account "behind the scenes". I assume the current design is to allow for importing private accounts generated from a different wallet, but it seems like it would be better to have a separate functionality for exporting/importing such accounts.

Could multisig functionality be added to the GUI in a Privacy Mode worker proposal for a reasonable increase in the cost and without drastically affecting eta?

Quote from: bytemaster on December 07, 2015, 09:25:16 PM
I have put together some mock up interface ideas for adding confidential transfers to the user interface. This is a draft for community review.

https://files.zenhub.io/5665f8501bd9a6596812de50

That looks like what we are hoping for in terms of what the feature would be expected to do.
It will make a lot of potential users much more confident in adopting our system!

I have put together some mock up interface ideas for adding confidential transfers to the user interface. This is a draft for community review.

https://files.zenhub.io/5665f8501bd9a6596812de50

I am in the process of preparing a much more detailed proposal for onceuponatime with clear milestones.

Eagerly awating developments regarding this. While I don't agree with BM on many of the statements regarding privacy from last weeks' hangout, one thing is certain.. people are indeed not putting funds into BitShares due to the lack of privacy.

Quote from: onceuponatime on December 05, 2015, 04:37:39 AM

Quote from: TravelsAsia on December 05, 2015, 04:19:54 AM
I've been trying to keep up with the stealth discussion, did the community come to any type of consensus and is it waiting for the fee-backed asset to be developed?

Discussions are ongoing. Expect a Forum post on the rationale of a tentative amended Worker Proposal for community discussion on Monday/Tuesday.

Thank you for the update, I wanted to make sure I didn't miss something linked elsewhere.

Quote from: TravelsAsia on December 05, 2015, 04:19:54 AM
I've been trying to keep up with the stealth discussion, did the community come to any type of consensus and is it waiting for the fee-backed asset to be developed?

Discussions are ongoing. Expect a Forum post on the rationale of a tentative amended Worker Proposal for community discussion on Monday/Tuesday.

I've been trying to keep up with the stealth discussion, did the community come to any type of consensus and is it waiting for the fee-backed asset to be developed?

Quote from: abit on November 23, 2015, 10:50:15 AM

Quote from: triox on November 23, 2015, 10:36:30 AM
Getting back to the proposal: stealth functionality currently works in CLI.

How about instead of this costly feature integration, we first expose the command line in the UI, like in the original Bitshares1 client?

Then provide step-by-step instructions for stealth transfers. Post them on bitcointalk, github, wiki, etc.
See if stealth usage picks up and if there's real demand.

It will be easier to get the shareholders to accept the costs if there's usage data to point to.

There would be reasons that a CLI console hasn't been included in GUI.

The primary reason is that the GUI wallet which has the private keys kept in Javascript would have to transfer the private keys over a websocket connection to a server. Different architecture.

Quote from: triox on November 23, 2015, 10:36:30 AM
Getting back to the proposal: stealth functionality currently works in CLI.

How about instead of this costly feature integration, we first expose the command line in the UI, like in the original Bitshares1 client?

Then provide step-by-step instructions for stealth transfers. Post them on bitcointalk, github, wiki, etc.
See if stealth usage picks up and if there's real demand.

It will be easier to get the shareholders to accept the costs if there's usage data to point to.

There would be reasons that a CLI console hasn't been included in GUI.