Stealth Transfers Worker Proposal

[triox]

Getting back to the proposal: stealth functionality currently works in CLI.

How about instead of this costly feature integration, we first expose the command line in the UI, like in the original Bitshares1 client?

Then provide step-by-step instructions for stealth transfers. Post them on bitcointalk, github, wiki, etc.
See if stealth usage picks up and if there's real demand.

It will be easier to get the shareholders to accept the costs if there's usage data to point to.

[donkeypong]

I'd even be happy with a CNX UIA token where they sharedropped and then shared their profit. See Obits for reference.

[TravelsAsia]

Actually we should support BM for every initiative he proposes ,  bitshares can not walk and run before it crawls.

No. We should evaluate every proposal and do our due diligence as demonstrated in this thread.

Could you wait at least until the baby learns to walk and talk. Thats my point . I think BM plunged the baby too early in the middle of politics. I am afraid it will never grow up this way.

I would be willing to pay the high price for feature development by cnx only if we are guaranteed a share drop or some form of reimbursement from each other chain cnx sells it to. Bitshares should own half the copywrite.

Also, payment should be withheld  until the feature is working to a level both sides can agree on as being fully functional.  Bugs should be fixed for free for a minimum of 3 months.

I would also be willing to push through worker proposals if cnx loosened up the licensing on the code.  Bts needs to break free of the cnx collar if you ever want to see other devs come to this ecosystem.

We have around $2.5million in the bank (at current rates).  The startups that succeed are the ones that are frugal and don't burn through their seed cash.  We need to set a high standard for what is acceptable when working for bitshares

  What lil_jay890 wrote would move me to a yes.

[lil_jay890]

though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid. I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.

Huge fund will likely develop a private chain and pay CNX to help them do it unless there is a compelling reason to join the public chain.

personally I don't care CNX get paid and this will be used to other projects because currently CNX is the bitshares.

Exactly. While it looks like CNX makes all the money and takes none of the risk keep in mind that consulting firms live and die by their reputation. As much as Bitshares is their lab it is also the flagship in their portfolio. Every consulting project, or worker proposal in our case, has defined terms. If you don't like CNX's offer then make a counter proposal that's agreeable to them and the community and try and get it voted in.

In business you don't get what you deserve you get what you negotiate.

Well said Riverhead.. words to live by.  Although my brain doesn't generally work like this, (get what you negotiate) it's a reality we must contend with.

So the 1,000,000 BTS question is, would anyone like to come forward with a counter-proposal for any of the CNX worker proposals? serious counter proposals only, this is not the place for satire.  Start a new thread referencing the OP proposal if you think it best.

I like this... See my above post about some of the strings that should be attached to the cnx proposals.  I really think loosening the licensing is the most important

[lovejoy]

though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid. I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.

Huge fund will likely develop a private chain and pay CNX to help them do it unless there is a compelling reason to join the public chain.

personally I don't care CNX get paid and this will be used to other projects because currently CNX is the bitshares.

Exactly. While it looks like CNX makes all the money and takes none of the risk keep in mind that consulting firms live and die by their reputation. As much as Bitshares is their lab it is also the flagship in their portfolio. Every consulting project, or worker proposal in our case, has defined terms. If you don't like CNX's offer then make a counter proposal that's agreeable to them and the community and try and get it voted in.

In business you don't get what you deserve you get what you negotiate.

Well said Riverhead.. words to live by.  Although my brain doesn't generally work like this, (get what you negotiate) it's a reality we must contend with.

So the 1,000,000 BTS question is, would anyone like to come forward with a counter-proposal for any of the CNX worker proposals? serious counter proposals only, this is not the place for satire.  Start a new thread referencing the OP proposal if you think it best.

[lil_jay890]

Actually we should support BM for every initiative he proposes ,  bitshares can not walk and run before it crawls.

No. We should evaluate every proposal and do our due diligence as demonstrated in this thread.

Could you wait at least until the baby learns to walk and talk. Thats my point . I think BM plunged the baby too early in the middle of politics. I am afraid it will never grow up this way.

I would be willing to pay the high price for feature development by cnx only if we are guaranteed a share drop or some form of reimbursement from each other chain cnx sells it to. Bitshares should own half the copywrite.

Also, payment should be withheld  until the feature is working to a level both sides can agree on as being fully functional.  Bugs should be fixed for free for a minimum of 3 months.

I would also be willing to push through worker proposals if cnx loosened up the licensing on the code.  Bts needs to break free of the cnx collar if you ever want to see other devs come to this ecosystem.

We have around $2.5million in the bank (at current rates).  The startups that succeed are the ones that are frugal and don't burn through their seed cash.  We need to set a high standard for what is acceptable when working for bitshares

[bitacer]

Actually we should support BM for every initiative he proposes ,  bitshares can not walk and run before it crawls.

No. We should evaluate every proposal and do our due diligence as demonstrated in this thread.

Could you wait at least until the baby learns to walk and talk. Thats my point . I think BM plunged the baby too early in the middle of politics. I am afraid it will never grow up this way.

[TravelsAsia]

Actually we should support BM for every initiative he proposes ,  bitshares can not walk and run before it crawls.

No. We should evaluate every proposal and do our due diligence as demonstrated in this thread.

[bitacer]

Can we also stop insinuate that somehow developers are using bitshares as their ATMs , it is annoying. Corporations pay their CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars as bonuses and here we claim that developers are after few dollars. Actually we should support BM for every initiative he proposes ,  bitshares can not walk and run before it crawls. Let the guys do their thing ,  thats what I like about the team, they keep  trying until they get it right .We are just delaying the evolution of bitshares by going against his proposals. Get behind the guy and lets move please.

[Samupaha]

though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid.

This isn't the same feature. What we had in 0.x wasn't really private, it only gave a feeling of privacy. This was so dangerous that the feature was removed. Stealth transfers that are used in 2.0 are quite new invention, I don't think any other cryptocurrency uses that yet.

I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.

Do you know that there are funds that are waiting for this feature or is this just a guess?

I have know idea how wanted this feature is for those people who haven't yet claimed their balances. But I'd guess there have to be few of them. So that way this feature would really bring more users to blockchain. And as I said earlier in this thread, these people are propably the best kind of early adopters that we want.

[karnal]

though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid. I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.

personally I don't care CNX get paid and this will be used to other projects because currently CNX is the bitshares.

billions of Huge FUNDs are in transparent blockchain Bitcoin .

Huge Funds don't want to go into BitShares for the  very reason that they don't want to be the development ATM for a unfinished product without legal protection  .

If Bitcoin was like BitShares today , do you think there could be billions of marketcap to begin with ?

Transparent, perhaps... but if you take a few very basic precations, it becomes much more difficult to trace the funds.. in BTS 2.0, it's trivial.

[btswildpig]

though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid. I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.

personally I don't care CNX get paid and this will be used to other projects because currently CNX is the bitshares.

billions of Huge FUNDs are in transparent blockchain Bitcoin .

Huge Funds don't want to go into BitShares for the  very reason that they don't want to be the development ATM for a unfinished product without legal protection  .

If Bitcoin was like BitShares today , do you think there could be billions of marketcap to begin with ?

[Riverhead]

though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid. I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.

Huge fund will likely develop a private chain and pay CNX to help them do it unless there is a compelling reason to join the public chain.

personally I don't care CNX get paid and this will be used to other projects because currently CNX is the bitshares.

Exactly. While it looks like CNX makes all the money and takes none of the risk keep in mind that consulting firms live and die by their reputation. As much as Bitshares is their lab it is also the flagship in their portfolio. Every consulting project, or worker proposal in our case, has defined terms. If you don't like CNX's offer then make a counter proposal that's agreeable to them and the community and try and get it voted in.

In business you don't get what you deserve you get what you negotiate.

[wallace]

though I'm also a little bit disappoint about the Cost 45k which I think the feature already exist in BTS0.x but now need to re-paid. I prefer to get this done ASAP because this is really important to the huge fund get into the system. huge fund don't want their operation display to the public.

personally I don't care CNX get paid and this will be used to other projects because currently CNX is the bitshares.

[donkeypong]

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.

I kind of agree with you. I'm not whining about the remaining cost to get this done, because the developers have bills to pay during the time we need the work done, and it's not uncommon to have things come in a little late or overbudget when you are talking about complex software. The gun is to our head anyway; we need the software ready for prime time and they are the ones who can get us there.

The remaining chunk isn't that much more time and money in the greater scheme. It's also just a practical reality that developers need to eat and pay rent. But for what we've all paid to support the development of this product, I think they owe us a finished product. Maybe they can do something else to make it up to us.

Another feel-good suggestion would be to cut in the Bitshares community on ownership of a small stake in CNX and/or some of the outside projects they are pursuing. It's their expertise and hard work; they deserve to trade on those skills in the broader marketplace. But it's this community that has supported and helped make possible the development of the backbone blockchain technology upon which all of this will depend.

CNX could float a UIA token like Obits did, sharedrop it to BTS wallets, and then share some profits from their eventual mega-deals with Bank of America and Walmart. I wouldn't call it shares, both legally and because I'm sure they don't want to answer to this community for every CNX corporate decision. But I'll bet a lot of people on this forum would stop the criticism pretty quickly if there were a promise of sharing some of CNX's future rewards. Luckybit's gift economy.

Isn't that what the social consensus requested, given that the BitShares community has some 'ownership' of the blockchain which CNX probably will clone and improve for the highest bidder?