Proposal - Decentralized Crypto Gateway (Ubernet)

[seraphim]

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

[mindphlux]

What is your reasoning with proposing to take away 111% of the daily available worker fund? All your workers cost 360k per day if they're voted in, but the blockchain only pays 321,613 BTS. So you're essentially blocking ALL workers proposals until the end of February if you're voted in.

I think that is very selfish, your budget should never be more than 20-30% of the total daily worker supply.

[seraphim]

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.

[kuro112]

i really like the idea, it has some... complicated mechanics to work out, but let us know if you need any help architectonic or theory crafting for the system.

[seraphim]

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.

[fuzzy]

Why do you say this luckybit? 

Personally and without hearing luckybits reasoning, I not only support this, but I support the hell out of it.  I mean just imagine our UIAs being not only protected by our blockchain, but also provably backed by the real thing...that is huge.

And we need to fund cool ideas like this until some grow up big and strong...and help pave the way to bitshares being known around the world.

[luckybit]

BitShares CryptoeXchange (working name)

Please use this thread to discuss a worker proposal only. For other questions, check out https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18602

BTSCX will provide a gateway for cryptocurrencies to a decentralized storage, backing assets tradable on the BTS network (comparable to NXT's SuperNET, but without static main nodes)

For a coin to be added there need to be at least three individuals, so called signers, who hold keys to multisig addresses to store coins and assets. Two of those keys are required for a transaction to get accepted in the blockchain. The signers watch each other and react to suspicious behaviour by locking out the malicious signer, and if possible replacing him.
A multisig address can be created with a variable number of signers and required signatures, so it can be raised per-coin when more individuals applied for signing and get voted in. The number of signers should be in some way proportional to the total deposited value for (obvious) security reasons.

When a coin is added (enough signers available + successful community vote), an asset representing that coin is issued by the signers (also multisig protected), which will be given out in return for deposited coins. The deposits are immediately sent to the multisig storage address.
Returning the asset to the issuer triggers a withdrawal of the respective amount of coins.

The gateway can sustain itself through fees taken from deposits and withdrawals.

The client will support adding new coins and applying as a signer for an added coin as well as voting, trading and community functions.
Like Graphene, the UI will be standalone and can work with remote BTSCX, BTS and coin nodes.
By connecting it to a local coin wallet it will support trading directly out of or into that wallet.

A control asset will be issued, which gives the community the possibility to vote on every variable that may be set, per coin.
Those variables are (list not necessarily complete):
- coins to add
- x-of-y multisig
- offline/dropout tolerance
- fees
- distribution of fees between asset holders, signers, and burning


80% of this asset will be given to the community, 20% will stay with me to be distributed amongst the people helping to create the gateway.

The team consists of 3 persons so far (2 coders, 1 designer). As a rough estimation it'll require about 6 months and at least 30k USD to develop a working product. This would only cover a very basic version though. Adding more features like a trollbox or margin trading will boost that up quite a bit, and if we want to include marketing and further development, even 300k USD could easily be spent in a year. There won't be a company in Switzerland though, promised!

I will create 6 worker proposals, amounting to 60k BTS/day each, running for three months (target: Nov/Dec/Jan). 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.
At the end of January 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 to be discussed with the community).

This should be built on top of Omni rather than on Bitshares.

[seraphim]

Nothing happened on the hangout, but right now a poll was suggested. Can't hurt, please vote

[seraphim]

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.

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.

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.

[tbone]

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.

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.

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? 

[luckybit]

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.

[fuzzy]

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?

And tbone hits it out of the park...

[seraphim]

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.

[tbone]

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?

[seraphim]

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