Author Topic: Incorrect TITAN instructions in wiki  (Read 2586 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
TITAN is a disadvantage for bitshares. The bitshares network even do not support a blockchain explore.

Not sure if trolling.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
TITAN is a disadvantage for bitshares. The bitshares network even do not support a blockchain explore.
plain wrong ..
it's even better ... bitshares client has a block explorer built-in
and it's the exact same thing as in bitcoin ... the only thing that you can in general NOT do is link an address to a person .. same thing as in bitcoin

So please inform yourself before spreading FUD!!

Offline xiahui135

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
    • View Profile
TITAN is a disadvantage for bitshares. The bitshares network even do not support a blockchain explore.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Alright. Glad I asked!  ;D

So, by the same token, paying for a new (titan) account FROM a TITAN account should not have privacy implications?

Even if the account reg will show up on the block right next to the 0.5 BTS fee, it will not be possible to tie that address, if the sending (paying for reg) account is TITAN. Correct?
Yup

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
Alright. Glad I asked!  ;D

So, by the same token, paying for a new (titan) account FROM a TITAN account should not have privacy implications?

Even if the account reg will show up on the block right next to the 0.5 BTS fee, it will not be possible to tie that address, if the sending (paying for reg) account is TITAN. Correct?

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
One angle I forgot to cover, how about NonTitanA to TitanA ? In this case it cannot be known except for the parties involved that the destination was TitanA ---- correct?
If the receiver account is TITAN you can link the receiver address to the receiver account name ..

if the sender is titan you cannot link the server address to a sender account name

if the sender and the receiver are titan account you cannot link neither of both to an account name

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
One angle I forgot to cover, how about NonTitanA to TitanA ? In this case it cannot be known except for the parties involved that the destination was TitanA ---- correct?

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
That's what I thought, just wanted to make sure.

I wonder if most present users realize we are broadcasting all of our (bitshares ecosystem) financial life for the whole of the internet to see, for eternity  :o

Speaking for myself, I was pretty convinced all accounts would be TITAN-enabled by default  :-[


Eh well, I'll take your instructions into consideration and begin planning around that.. would be sweet if the checkbox idea materializes as well, definitely.


As usual, thank you, your assistance's really appreciated :)

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Makes sense.. one more question, if non-titan A sends funds to non-titan B, can anyone automatically know this by observing the blockchain?

EDIT: to be more precise, can anyone know that NonTitanA is sending to NonTitanB (knowing that the transaction occured is possible by anyone, of course, but can anyone know the account names from blockchain observation?)

If you send funds from non-TITAN account A to non-TITAN account B .. you send funds from an address that is bound to account A to an address that is bound to account B.
So in short: yes .. everyone can see you move the funds from account A to B .. and you can see the account names of A and B

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
 +5%
And -- if indeed it is the faucet, how about adding a simple checkbox, perhaps defaulting to yes, for accounts reg'd through it?
good idea
https://github.com/BitShares/web_services/issues/24

 +5% +5% +5%

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Almost .. It's actually *registering* as public account.

Good point. The account is created locally, but registered by the faucet.

Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Jup .. that link can be made as you need to pay for it. BUT, you can also let
someone else pay the registration fee and register your account as titan
account. Also, you just need to move your funds from your account back to you
own account .. maybe in smaller junks .. and the from the blockchain, noone will
be able to tell if its still in your control or not.

Also, you don't necessarily need to 'register'.. you can use address as in
bitcoin too. This will be made easier in the next release.

So in order for your account to not be linked to any of your other funds due to
registration, you could do the following:
1) create a wallet / account (not registered)
2) get some funds from somewhere
3) create a new local account that you want to register
4) send 0.5 BTS from your funds to the new account
5) register your new account using the funds in the new account

you may even have some more intermediate steps to 'unlink' the source of your
funds.

Makes sense.. one more question, if non-titan A sends funds to non-titan B, can anyone automatically know this by observing the blockchain?

EDIT: to be more precise, can anyone know that NonTitanA is sending to NonTitanB (knowing that the transaction occured is possible by anyone, of course, but can anyone know the account names from blockchain observation?)
« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 02:44:29 pm by karnal »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
And -- if indeed it is the faucet, how about adding a simple checkbox, perhaps defaulting to yes, for accounts reg'd through it?
good idea
https://github.com/BitShares/web_services/issues/24

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I'm not sure if I follow. So it is the faucet that is creating the account as
public?
Almost .. It's actually *registering* as public account.

If this is so, then I don't see how to avoid linking one of the non-titan
accounts with the new titan-account (as a consequence of funding the new titan
account from a previously created account with a BTS balance).
Jup .. that link can be made as you need to pay for it. BUT, you can also let
someone else pay the registration fee and register your account as titan
account. Also, you just need to move your funds from your account back to you
own account .. maybe in smaller junks .. and the from the blockchain, noone will
be able to tell if its still in your control or not.

Also, you don't necessarily need to 'register'.. you can use address as in
bitcoin too. This will be made easier in the next release.

So in order for your account to not be linked to any of your other funds due to
registration, you could do the following:
1) create a wallet / account (not registered)
2) get some funds from somewhere
3) create a new local account that you want to register
4) send 0.5 BTS from your funds to the new account
5) register your new account using the funds in the new account

you may even have some more intermediate steps to 'unlink' the source of your
funds.

Quote
Also, could you provide a working example of an invocation of that command? It
seems strange if [] denotes the parameter being optional.
Code: [Select]
wallet_account_register newname payfromthisimport {} 255 "titan_account"

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
And -- if indeed it is the faucet, how about adding a simple checkbox, perhaps defaulting to yes, for accounts reg'd through it?

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
I'm not sure if I follow. So it is the faucet that is creating the account as public?

If this is so, then I don't see how to avoid linking one of the non-titan accounts with the new titan-account (as a consequence of funding the new titan account from a previously created account with a BTS balance).

Also, could you provide a working example of an invocation of that command? It seems strange if [] denotes the parameter being optional.