Author Topic: Can't we create a trustless gateway using the current ecosystem?  (Read 4576 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gn1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
I see. Thank you for your input, guys. I now see the weak point in the regular proof-of-burn approach.

I'll just keep coming up with more ideas. All we have to do is to increase the absolute supply of BitAssets in a fair way.

I have two more ideas at this time. How does this sound?

A. We can do a one-time crowdsale to allow people to "buy" BitAssets directly from the blockchain using their BTS. The collected BTS can then be used to support the network or get locked up for good.

B. Copy bitcoin's approach and simply use proof-of-work to allow users to "mine" BitAssets until we feel that supply of BitAsset has increased to a sufficient level.
I'm a BitShares enthusiast in Japan, spreading BitShares daily to the Japanese people through https://genxnotes.com. Help us grow bitJPY together, so that bitUSD/bitJPY market pair will become the most popular market worldwide! Imagine what kind of world it will become when we execute this.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
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.

At some point in the future it might but right now your idea is before it's time. It's not a bad idea and it seems Omni, and Counterparty, have the same sort of idea on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Of course doing it over Bitshares would be more efficient and you wouldn't need to rely on as much centralization, but it's not necessarily better, safer or easier. It costs more to do it right now than the current way.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline monsterer

How about we use proof-of-burn to burn real BTC to allow the blockchain to issue a counterparty-risk-free BLOCKCHAIN.BTC, which is a pseudo-BTC that uses the BitShares Blockchain?

Just because something costs X to produce, does not mean it is worth Y - you need redeemability to give it value parity.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline gn1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
It has to be reversible.

I'm not technical so I can only come up with ideas, but can't the blockchain hold onto the private key of the BTC address where nobody else can see, and use it to unlock it whenever the trader tries to redeem his/her real BTC?

I was imagining  a cloakroom type of mechanism, where you hand over the receipt when you go home, and you get your coat back on the way out.


freebie has been playing with this concept for a while for its approach to decentralization of *coin transactions, the technology for this solution does not YET exist, but is theoretically possibly.

this is one of the issues we will be tacking going forward, and would love any suggestions :)

Okay, now I understand that locking away BTC using the blockchain is theoretically possible, but not practically possible at this moment.

Either way, the current "flooding" of BTC IOU is not an ideal situation.
So, I've given it a thought and came up with another idea.
Let me know what you think.

How about we use proof-of-burn to burn real BTC to allow the blockchain to issue a counterparty-risk-free BLOCKCHAIN.BTC, which is a pseudo-BTC that uses the BitShares Blockchain?
I'm a BitShares enthusiast in Japan, spreading BitShares daily to the Japanese people through https://genxnotes.com. Help us grow bitJPY together, so that bitUSD/bitJPY market pair will become the most popular market worldwide! Imagine what kind of world it will become when we execute this.

Offline seraphim

The poll's a nice idea. Although posting ones remaining questions would be a lot more helpful for everyone ;)
Meet you on STEEM

Offline noisy

I already proposed this, but there's currently no way to finance development (check the link in my sig for more info).

I saw this post... but it seems, that in that case I didn't catch the idea. Are you sure, that people actually understand what you proposed? You can attach a poll: [Yes/No/I don't understand the full concept yet].

I will give it a second look.
Take a look on: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19625.msg251894.html - I have a crazy idea - lets convince cryptonomex developers to use livecoding.tv

Offline seraphim

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.
Meet you on STEEM

Offline monsterer

Correct me if I am wrong, but issuer will not have to trust anyone, if he have own key, because no one can successfully made a transfer without having 2/2 keys.

So... If I want to withdraw my real bitcoins from bitshares blockchain I will initiate a transfer... which will be confirmed with 2nd key by witnesses only in case when bitBTC will be properly deposited by me.

The user must trust the holder(s) of the other keys not to destroy, lose or otherwise refuse to unlock the funds.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline noisy

Quote
...
You have to prevent the user from double spending it, so she'd need to send it to a multi-sig address where she controls one key and 'another party' controls the other.
Is it possible that witnesses will control 2nd key?
Yes, but then it's not trustless.

Correct me if I am wrong, but issuer will not have to trust anyone, if he have own key, because no one can successfully made a transfer without having 2/2 keys.

So... If I want to withdraw my real bitcoins from bitshares blockchain I will initiate a transfer... which will be confirmed with 2nd key by witnesses only in case when bitBTC will be properly deposited by me.
Take a look on: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19625.msg251894.html - I have a crazy idea - lets convince cryptonomex developers to use livecoding.tv

Offline xiahui135

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
    • View Profile
This is exactly what nxt's multi-gateway do.
But nxt's is not that smooth. Sometimes you have to wait more than a day after deposit. If we can do better, then it will be really useful.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
If the blockchain can issue such IOU and lock up the real BTC,
How is 'the blockchain' supposed to lock up real BTC?

What about https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn ? But I am not sure whether this kind of irreversible lock will have economical sense

Second approach: I am also wandering whether multisig could help. Real BTC funds would be secured by two private keys. One private key would be from the issuer, who would send his public key to the network. The second public key... would come somehow from the bitshares network.

Is it possible, that each witness would have only some part of private key? I am thinking about the way... that private key of bitshares network would be used only when witnesses will have consensus...i.e. that there was a transaction, and the issuer want to withdraw his bitcoins.

To be honest, I am not 100% sure, how multisig works... so please be gentle and explain me, what in this idea is wrong, if this is actually impossible.

Time lock encryption does make it possible to lock up Bitcoins in the blockchain for a period of time. It could probably be modified to be a list of conditions which unlock it but still because Bitcoin is a separate blockchain it's not so easy to do this.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline kuro112

It has to be reversible.

I'm not technical so I can only come up with ideas, but can't the blockchain hold onto the private key of the BTC address where nobody else can see, and use it to unlock it whenever the trader tries to redeem his/her real BTC?

I was imagining  a cloakroom type of mechanism, where you hand over the receipt when you go home, and you get your coat back on the way out.


freebie has been playing with this concept for a while for its approach to decentralization of *coin transactions, the technology for this solution does not YET exist, but is theoretically possibly.

this is one of the issues we will be tacking going forward, and would love any suggestions :)
CTO @ Freebie, LLC

Offline monsterer

Quote
...
You have to prevent the user from double spending it, so she'd need to send it to a multi-sig address where she controls one key and 'another party' controls the other.

Is it possible that witnesses will control 2nd key?

Yes, but then it's not trustless.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline noisy

Quote
...
You have to prevent the user from double spending it, so she'd need to send it to a multi-sig address where she controls one key and 'another party' controls the other.

Is it possible that witnesses will control 2nd key?
Take a look on: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19625.msg251894.html - I have a crazy idea - lets convince cryptonomex developers to use livecoding.tv

Offline monsterer

It has to be reversible.

I'm not technical so I can only come up with ideas, but can't the blockchain hold onto the private key of the BTC address where nobody else can see, and use it to unlock it whenever the trader tries to redeem his/her real BTC?

You always need a third party tho - 'the blockchain' is not an entity, so it can't hold onto its own part of the shared secret required to hide the private key from the user who locks it away. You have to prevent the user from double spending it, so she'd need to send it to a multi-sig address where she controls one key and 'another party' controls the other.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads