Stealth Transfers Worker Proposal

[liondani]

About price tag: right now Bitcoin is paying a little bit less than 50 000 dollars per hour for miners. So we get this feature for less than one hour of bitcoin mining, I think that is quite cheap price.

I never looked at it like that. Good point!

lol

So please calculate now... how much "hours of bitcoin mining" it will take to evaporate bitshares marketcap

[bitacer]

Hey Akado , could you define what you mean by "profit" ? I am not pulling your leg , I want to understand what it means to you.

[Akado]

Anonymity is not profitable, meaning it's a no no for me. API and Bond Markets first.

Anonymity is useless with no liquidity, plus there are already other well known option for that like monero and dash. I don't know if they're as good as advertised but that doesn't matter. We're not trying to compete with them. There's less money in the anonymity market than in a proper exchange used by traders.

The only way anonymity would be profitable is if it was to be used by darkmarkets which (1) Don't even use monero and dash, well established projects known for anonymity and (2) some people don't want to be associated to dnms.

No profits can be taken from anonymity right now. It doesn't bring as much value as bringing in traders. They don't care about anonymity, they care about having a proper tool that can be used for profits.

It's all nice being libertarian but we need to follow the money. Only then when we're into a well established position, recognized as a brand, can we have the luxury of implementing certain things

Not everything is about profit..

It is if you want BitShares to succeed. You can't act like there is no competition. Who knows tomorrow something can appear and do something better. Then what happens to BitShares? You can't take this project for granted. The more profits the more potential it has to succeed. I don't want to sound like I'm on my high horse but if we act like sheep we will get eaten and disappear. Simple as that. You don't have the money, resources or time to relax and think: "everything will be ok". You can't take this for granted.

What good is privacy/anonimity if you don't have liquidity? It's useless. You just wasted precious time and money you won't ever get back while someone else is already working on something better (or trying to).

You want it to succeed, it has to make profits, bring in users and liquidity. What good is BItShares if it has s billion features and no one uses it? Same thing as if it not existed.

The liberty BitShares aims to achieve depends on money and profit, you have to understand that whether you like it or not.

[jakub]

Since 2014 Q4 (when the dev team ran out of money), CNX owes us nothing. Just get used to it.
CNX is free to make worker proposals whatever they like (including fixing bugs) and we are free to accept them or reject them.

If a coder is unwilling to take responsibility for his bugs, he only risks his reputation.
CNX is not doing us a favor - they are just taking care of their reputation.
They said they would fix the bug so there is no issue.

And if we continue with this "attitude of entitlement" - we risk our reputation (as a community).

I did see an entitlement in the last 5-7 posts or so...but it was not coming from me... or the community.
Or do you suggest, we stop asking legitimate questions, for some greater good?

I think both sides are at fault:

- CNX for not being able to produce a clear road-map for the next 6 months, which would show what their priorities are and which of the new features will be beneficial for other Graphene-based blockchains (and this must be done to avoid this "paid by Bitshares used by others" syndrome). So far BM has always been hiding behind the pretext of worker proposals not being decided by him.

- the community for not being able to accept the fact that CNX is free to propose whatever they like and we can criticize them but at this stage we are not entitled to anything from CNX. I understand that there is a very thin border between asking legitimate questions & giving critique / feedback AND demanding that something needs to be done because it was "promised". However sometimes we cross this border and I'm trying to prevent that.

-------------------------------------------------------------
We need a clear road-map both for alleviating bad emotions inside the community and for outside investors to be able to see where this project aims.
Since no-one from CNX seems to seeing the importance of this, I'll try to create such road-map later on today based on the information scattered to this forum.

[karnal]

Anonymity is not profitable, meaning it's a no no for me. API and Bond Markets first.

Anonymity is useless with no liquidity, plus there are already other well known option for that like monero and dash. I don't know if they're as good as advertised but that doesn't matter. We're not trying to compete with them. There's less money in the anonymity market than in a proper exchange used by traders.

The only way anonymity would be profitable is if it was to be used by darkmarkets which (1) Don't even use monero and dash, well established projects known for anonymity and (2) some people don't want to be associated to dnms.

No profits can be taken from anonymity right now. It doesn't bring as much value as bringing in traders. They don't care about anonymity, they care about having a proper tool that can be used for profits.

It's all nice being libertarian but we need to follow the money. Only then when we're into a well established position, recognized as a brand, can we have the luxury of implementing certain things

Not everything is about profit..

[bitacer]

Very good points Samupaha , bugs are nuances , I am for an accommodating marketplace which meets users' basic needs. I believe I can bring in quite many users from my Country, because bitshares have qualities that people here will really appreciate.

[bitcrab]

I disagree that anonymity the most important... The most important is as follows

1. Fees for trading updated per the worker proposal
2. Referral program for trading fees
3. API for 3rd party platforms and liquidity bots

We are a decentralized exchange. We have finally discovered what we are and what we are niche is.  Most people never get a chance to discover that much less exploit it... DON'T GET DISTRACTED!

Yeah, focus on the exchange first which will hopefully bring liquidity to a few key smartcoin markets. Stealth transfers are kind of useless if people are trapped in an illiquid market. I definitely think blinded transfers will be very important after some liquidity has been reached.

This! Improve the fu***ing API real quick!!

 

agree

[Tuck Fheman]

I agree that we are propably not going to see a lot of users coming because of this. But it is important to understand that those who come because of this are propably very useful early adopters.

 

These kind of people are the best early adopters. They will believe in the product even if it is a little bit buggy. They will make sure that all their friends know about this. They don't need to be paid for marketing.

 

About price tag: right now Bitcoin is paying a little bit less than 50 000 dollars per hour for miners. So we get this feature for less than one hour of bitcoin mining, I think that is quite cheap price.

I never looked at it like that. Good point!

Anyway, if you know somebody that could make this cheaper, please ask them to do it. Of course it is always better to save money and let the cheapest offer do the job.

Personally this is not something I want done on the cheap. I want the most qualified people we can find working on this proposal.

#btstip "Samupaha" 1 FISTBUMP

[Samupaha]

I suggest that after 2-4 weeks Bytemaster can set the worker proposal to be voted. If people want this feature, it will get voted in. If not, then it will wait until it is it's time.

I will vote for it when it's put on the blockchain and recommend others to do so too.

I agree that we are propably not going to see a lot of users coming because of this. But it is important to understand that those who come because of this are propably very useful early adopters.

Just look at this thread: montpelerin wont use Bitshares until this is implemented, bitacer has been very vocal in this thread, onceuponatime is willing to fund this feature from his own pocket.

These kind of people are the best early adopters. They will believe in the product even if it is a little bit buggy. They will make sure that all their friends know about this. They don't need to be paid for marketing.

If a start-up wants to gain any meaningful traction, it has have early adopters. It is easier if the early adopters are high quality, and the quality is mostly measured by how much users believe in the product.

(On the other hand, worst early adopters are those who are just bitching and complaining about the product and it's makers all the time. They might become an unpleasant burden and slow down the journey to success.)

About price tag: right now Bitcoin is paying a little bit less than 50 000 dollars per hour for miners. So we get this feature for less than one hour of bitcoin mining, I think that is quite cheap price.

Anyway, if you know somebody that could make this cheaper, please ask them to do it. Of course it is always better to save money and let the cheapest offer do the job.

[bitacer]

Now I have a clearer picture for why the Chinese left and the price tanked.

I doubt that is the case,  I really think its because of the privacy issue. China is still a communist country right . Without privacy bitshares is like a very well equipped businessman,  NAKED BUT WEARING A TIE.

[lil_jay890]

Please just answer my question! Will the other chains get the improvements that bts pays for?!?

PS I'm a top 50 largest shareholder... And if I'm bringing up these points what do you think compettitors are saying?

Yes.  If we do it then we are the copyright holders and will have unrestricted use.

Then BTS is going to pay for all the features on all the other chains? I understand they have not enough liquidity atm and Identabit doesnt even exist (for public at least), will they in the future be the ones paying for feature integration in BTS?

Seems kind of unfair some are 'paying' for every other chain.

It is a giant conflict of interest... CNX gives us buggy software, makes us pay to fix it and says they are free of all liability. Yet if we want any upgrade we have to pay crazy high prices, but they get to license it to whoever they want. BTS takes all the risk while cnx gets paid and takes no risk.

I strongly recommend not supporting cnx worker proposals until these deals can be put on more level ground.  Cnx is using bts as it's piggy bank and lab rat at the expense of the shareholders.  Now I have a clearer picture for why the Chinese left and the price tanked.

If bts is ever going to grow, it must break free of any and all licensing cnx has over it.

[roadscape]

A 9x markup represents how much longer it would take to audit the code and ensure it is free of bugs. It represents the time it would take to implement all the extra tests required to increase the quality of all of the code to the level of perfection demanded by some.

We can expect a much more polished & documented product from each of these new proposals than what we got at launch, right? With better communication?

The 4 weeks post-launch weren't very confidence-inspiring for some, leaving them in a low-expectation mood, and causing sticker shock I think. Personal expectations are up to us, but we still need to recalibrate occasionally and get on the same page.

If this new worker model means CNX can give it 100% I'm all for it.

[tonyk]

No software company offers a warranty on a FREE product provided WITHOUT WARRANTY.

If you think BitShares should have a software support contract that covers a certain amount of bug fixes then that may be the proper way to structure things.

Software bugs cost people money, if we had to take out liability insurance for any and all losses as a result of software then our rates would be $1000 per hour or more. It would be totally impractical to produce software on an kind of market competitive schedule.

It is not liability insurance, it is fixing the non working coffee makers coming out of your factory. (as in not compensating the people killed by it, just fixing the one that fail at making coffee)

Really?

The warranty would be 9 times greater than the product itself???

This is one hell of a shitty product, if it costs 9x more to repair all defects than to produce it in the first place.

In software terms there are always bugs and things that can be considered "non-working". That said, we DID come back and fix things without charge.  The reason we pointed out that we didn't ...HAVE TO... is merely to protect us against unbounded liability for making fixes to bugs / issues that come up.

A 9x markup represents how much longer it would take to audit the code and ensure it is free of bugs. It represents the time it would take to implement all the extra tests required to increase the quality of all of the code to the level of perfection demanded by some.

You better believe that if a coffee pot manufacturer was giving away free products that had some minor defects they wouldn't offer to fix them.  Especially if it came with no warranty as being fit for any purpose.

Like I said above, we overcommitted to what we could deliver in a USER INTERFACE.  We also quickly retracted the bond market commitment a week after announcement. 

This whole "blame game" is not really productive.  Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment. It is up to each of us to manage our own personal expectations.

If you do not remember it, I will refresh your memory - I was the only person [sorry if there was a second person but two is about the total count] that after the announcement said that the bond market as  proposed was a not well thought out and definitely a terrible idea to implement.

So, I am forever glad you decided not to include it and will never blame you for "promising" and not doing it. As I said, not including it was and still is the right move for everybody.

On a similar note I do think your insistence on a feature pretty much everyone finds good but not immediately necessary, and behaving like this logical reasoning somehow hurts your feelings (or vision) is childish at least and  quite possibly destructive to the whole project.
Hope you see it for what it is.

[Akado]

Please just answer my question! Will the other chains get the improvements that bts pays for?!?

PS I'm a top 50 largest shareholder... And if I'm bringing up these points what do you think compettitors are saying?

Yes.  If we do it then we are the copyright holders and will have unrestricted use.

Then BTS is going to pay for all the features on all the other chains? I understand they have not enough liquidity atm and Identabit doesnt even exist (for public at least), will they in the future be the ones paying for feature integration in BTS?

Seems kind of unfair some are 'paying' for every other chain.

[btstip]

Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...

• lil_jay890: has been credited 1 FISTBUMP

Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://btstip.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!

Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.msg259229/topicseen.html#msg259229

Created by hybridd