Personally don't care much for stealth (I do recognize the strategic value) but blinded amounts is kinda cool. My concern would be impacted GUI performance like we had with TITAN.

Quote from: bytemaster on April 04, 2016, 05:33:54 PM
The server-side wallet storage was not part of the proposal, but something we felt was necessary to backup/secure user funds. We do not yet have confidence in the reliability of server-side storage to enable this feature. There is a significant about of liability associated in offering to host/backup user wallets.  We don't want to be responsible for the loss of funds.

Why not backup wallets directly on the blockchain? Along with a hash of the owner's email for easy lookups later. And maybe some random noise.

Jeepers!  Well done DEVS for getting this far with the stealth functionality!  It's really ok if there's a bit more work (assuming Onceuponatime is happy.)  Thank you for putting additional work in because it was actually more difficult or time-consuming than originally planned for.  Onceuponatime, thank you so much for putting up your capital to make sure this happened.  I for one appreciate any reasonable attempts to add functionality to BitShares......i hope you are amply rewarded for the risks you took!!

Quoteas for how to actually use this -- if anyone on the network does one of the stealth ops, the fees will be accumulated in an object and then sent to stealth-buyback account at the next maintenance interval.  a v-op will be produced at that time (so you only get one v-op per maint interval instead of spamming the stealth-buyback history every time someone does a stealth tx).  during each maintenance interval stealth-buyback account automatically attempts to use its BTS balance to buy as much STEALTH as possible on the market, generating a market order v-op (immediately followed by a cancel v-op if it can't be fully matched).  you can basically monitor the stealth-buyback account history if you're interested in the finance.  (ok, i guess technically that's up to three v-ops per maint interval total)

Onceuponatime now has 1M stealth and can distribute them to his partners and/or sell them on the internal market.

Quote from: hcf27 on April 05, 2016, 01:17:12 PM
So, the important question is:

Can I use stealth transactions or not?.. I dont see any options at the GUI and all the Tokens still belong to BM..

Yes, you can use them via the dedicated wallet.
Onceuponatime will have his STEALTH asset today.

Our developers made STEALTH #1 priority over STEEM.   Ben, James, and Val have been dedicated to STEALTH this whole time (hence, no Steem UI).

In any event, onceuponatime and I have been talking about the project and I believe he is very happy with how we have taken care of him.

Quote from: Stan on April 05, 2016, 12:41:09 PM
I, for one, will have no part in trying to pressure Onceup to give up what he took the ultimate personal risk to make possible.

Was he aware of the fact that the dev leader would put all his energy to a new project called STEEM?
One of the reason you call it ultimate risk ... is this  fact?

So, the important question is:

Can I use stealth transactions or not?.. I dont see any options at the GUI and all the Tokens still belong to BM..

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on April 05, 2016, 12:03:45 PM
I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.

I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .

I'd like to see @onceuponatime  to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.

He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

Well, the community had a chance to fund it and would up relying on private investment.  To lobby after the fact to change the rules is very damaging to the possibility of further such investment.  It's really the same bad rep we get when someone starts a worker project and then gets voted out before they can finish it.  I, for one, will have no part in trying to pressure Onceup to give up what he took the ultimate personal risk to make possible.

I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.

I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .

I'd like to see @onceuponatime  to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.

He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

Quote from: lil_jay890 on April 05, 2016, 11:33:24 AM

Quote from: kenCode on April 05, 2016, 07:58:52 AM
Let's kick stealth into overdrive now, we will do whatever we can to pitch in here!

So is stealth going to ever be usable or is it being replaced with blind transactions? Blind transactions feel like more of a band aid than anything else.

Blinded transactions are a sub-unit of STEALTH which consists also of stealth addresses

Quote from: kenCode on April 05, 2016, 07:58:52 AM
Let's kick stealth into overdrive now, we will do whatever we can to pitch in here!

So is stealth going to ever be usable or is it being replaced with blind transactions? Blind transactions feel like more of a band aid than anything else.

Let's kick stealth into overdrive now, we will do whatever we can to pitch in here!

Quote from: onceuponatime on April 05, 2016, 06:53:57 AM
        o  20% to a Maintenance Account.
   

The problem is that if there are too many bugs, not so many STEALTH transactions will happen, so 20% taken from about nothing will not be enough to pay for maintenance...no?
From the other side 20% is a steal when it gets... bug free... so I see some motivation for CNX to work on this further... (seems that STEEM has more priority now)

Quote from: btswildpig on April 05, 2016, 06:01:30 AM
What if Stealth cause more issues (bugs , other negative impact like performance, scalability even user safety ) , some may even been realized after one year , who will pay for fixing the bugs ?

Will that be one of those things where "if you don't pay , the blockchain will suck , so the reality is ...."

So is this really a total private funded project in this aspect ?

Will there be a fund paid by the private money dedicated to maintain all related bug fixes now and in the future if any bug were introduced on the blockchain because of this feature ?

That was planned for from the inception:

4.   Fees shall be automatically distributed by the blockchain to the following accounts:
        o   20% to the BitShares network.
        o  20% to a Maintenance Account.
        o   60% to holder(s) of the Privacy Mode Fees accumulation account

What if Stealth cause more issues (bugs , other negative impact like performance, scalability even user safety ) , some may even been realized after one year , who will pay for fixing the bugs ?

Will that be one of those things where "if you don't pay , the blockchain will suck , so the reality is ...."

So is this really a total private funded project in this aspect ?

Will there be a fund paid by the private money dedicated to maintain all related bug fixes now and in the future if any bug were introduced on the blockchain because of this feature ?

oh, F**K    -5%-5%