New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)

[BTSdac]

I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.

What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?

If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...


PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.

CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker.   In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them.  Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .

I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.

Guess it's a matter of knowing how much you want to get per transaction as lifetime royalties and make a worker proposal to see if it will get approved.

Only thing I dont know, as it was mentioned, is what if it comes someone else and does the same and improves stealth transactions? what percentage will they get? I don't know how this would be managed knowing BTS already has a commitment with onceuponatime (if this goes forward)

And I'm very impressed by the fact you're going in with your life savings... really. If this happens, I really hope you get rich. It's not every day someone places the money where their mouth is this way, I admire you for that.

I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general.  We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution. 

What we have learned is this:

1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.

Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful. 

So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000?  On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure.  On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.

So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains.  If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price. 

My bet is that onceuponatime is right.

I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy.  I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites.  By being equal opportunity we should auction it off.  Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest.  This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.

Just some ideas.

it is a very good idea , onceuponatime offer fund, I support it 
but I do not agree with you said

So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains.  If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price. 

I think I understood what you said ，  if onceuponatime  is right , I think he deserve more than he pay , and BTS holder do not lose anything , opposite , bts holder gain base transfer and user ,
and the more important is  BTS must been a platform that make people gain if he want to pay for developing   

[lafona]

I think this is a really interesting idea for funding a new feature. Particularly if it ends up as a crowdfund UIA. I am a little concerned over the potential loss of revenue for the block chain and bts holders. While I completely agree the funder should be rewarded, I think we should think carefully over what option (outright funding, or private funding) of this feature would be best for bts in the long term. Personally I would probably vote for the 45k worker proposal outright to secure the future revenue for the blockchain, but I would support this one as well. Either way, kudos to onceuponatime for stepping up.

[Empirical1.2]

Thank you onceuponatime, very awesome of you to make such an offer! And it has opened a new way of looking at the issue of how to fund features.. IMO it feels strange to have "privately funded" features on a public chain but I do see the merits of it

This points out the role of BitShares as a Generation 3 Platform - Supporting multiple independent profit-making businesses on a single platform for low economic friction between them.

Remember when BitShares was just a Generation 2 Platform - a complete, but single, exchange business all contained on a blockchain!   Think back now... when did BitShares first become a platform for hosting more than one business?

< Spoiler >

BTSX would have the capacity to do exactly this imo. 

In fact the referral programme and crowdfunding features in this manner demonstrate how little competitors will need to use share dilution and mergers as a means to improving their blockchain.

Also vs. BTC, BTSX was the fastest growing blockchain in crypto so may well have bee able to pay for many features out of profits and not give up any revenue.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains.  If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price. 

My bet is that onceuponatime is right.

I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy.  I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites.  By being equal opportunity we should auction it off.  Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest.  This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.

Just some ideas.

I will admit I didn't read every single msg in this thread.. but even as I was reading what @bytemaster said here at the end was precisely the idea I had swirling in my head about how this would better proceed.

I know @onceuponatime and for those that may have questions about his motives in this.. you are speaking of someone who has been and will continue to be BitShares most stoic supporter. He just happens to really love privacy and so he sees this as a priority.

I think the most elegant format for this proposal is to attach it to a UIA with the $45k originally invested attached to the shares. Open it up for everyone to be able to buy in.. I am sure Onceupon will have no problem sitting back and letting everyone else take up as much of the tab as possible. Once the $45k is reached the market will be empty and all that is left is the worker being voted in as proposed here. I would recommend 9 days to allow the buy in.

I would propose that the fees will go to the UIA asset holder. The holders of the UIA can decide how those funds will be released via the UIA market as a buy back of the UIA. It is clear that those that choose to hold longer are going to have a greater value for their shares in the UIA. Those that choose to sell early simply get their money back.

• This allows all those who want in on the action to get some.
• This means it's decentralized.
• This allows BitShares members in the future to have some of the action as well.. holders of the UIA have a market and I am sure there will be some infrequent buy/sell activity on owning one of Bitshares tollbooths.
• Future option for Bitshares as a network to buyout all the UIAs if they so choose to return it back to the network.

These are just my thoughts on this matter. It's now up to Onceupon how he would like to see things proceed and how much support we will see.

Looks like @luckybit is thinking along the same lines too.

I'm excited about this!  to @onceuponatime for lighting the fire.

[CoinHoarder]

This is a neat way to fund development. I support this initiative and a big TY to the person who put up the BTS. 

[Stan]

Thank you onceuponatime, very awesome of you to make such an offer! And it has opened a new way of looking at the issue of how to fund features.. IMO it feels strange to have "privately funded" features on a public chain but I do see the merits of it

This points out the role of BitShares as a Generation 3 Platform - Supporting multiple independent profit-making businesses on a single platform for low economic friction between them.

Remember when BitShares was just a Generation 2 Platform - a complete, but single, exchange business all contained on a blockchain!   Think back now... when did BitShares first become a platform for hosting more than one business?

< Spoiler >

[merivercap]

I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.

What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?

If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...


PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.

CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker.   In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them.  Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .

I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.

Any reason you prefer stealth transfer over bond or prediction market? Is it because you think it is more important or you feel that the developers are intent on doing this first?

Will you be open to a crowd funding where you dont have to put up the whole $45,000?

Only curious, dont attribute anything to my questions.

I am all in favor of bond and prediction markets. My thinking was that if I pay for the stealth transfer myself, then the other funds can be used for those. With a $45,000 up front cash infusion CNX would have the stability and wherewithall to expand and produce more and more quickly.

Crowdfunding would be great, but I am a technically challenged person and am still grappling with the 2.0 release which I have only just recently gotten set up. I suppose that I could try to hire Cryptonomex to take care of that for me (Stan?).

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought that I fund the whole Stealth Worker proposal for $45,000to to get CNX working on it and get the ball rolling. This was for several reasons, among them that Dan stated that he thought that it could be a valuable boost to our ecosystem, and also that I personally am uncomfortable with current levels of privacy.

Stan and I tossed the idea back and forth a couple of times with Stan actually seeing the opportunities for entrpreneurs much faster and more thoroughly than me. He came up with the analogy of building a parking garage attached to someone else's mall.  And then Bytemaster put it out here in the forum for public discussion.

I would gladly be responsible for less than the full $45,000 if others want to join in.
For me to put up $45,000 in an effort to get BitShares out of the doldrums and kickstarted is a huge risk. IT REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE SAVINGS. The risks are huge. But I believe in what we are attempting to do with BitShares, and I am trying to do everything in my power and within my limited skill set to make BitShares a success as a way to safeguard life liberty and property in face of the enormous economic disruptions that are headed our way as the legacy financial system reaps what it has sown.

I missed this post.  Thanks for your support for the ecosystem @onceuponatime!  Great to hear you are that dedicated to supporting the ecosystem.  We can probably put a crowdfunding campaign together so you don't take so much of the risk yourself.   However, since you'll probably be the main funder, we can start with what would satisfy your return requirements.  My feeling is that the worker proposal will be approved in 6 months to 1 year so what would be a good payback amount for you in 1yr?

[lil_jay890]

For those that don't like the proposal... Counter offer cnx to build it for you instead.

Raise the bid to what you think it's worth

[luckybit]

I remember someone mentioning this solution wasn't as secure as Monero rings.  Is this something that would be implemented and as someone mentioned above, if we change up the stealth implementation down the road, how would it effect the payout?

Myself, Bytemaster and many others have determined it's more secure. The point is practical security not theoretical security, and in terms of practical security it's very secure even if you can find some theoretically more secure alternative. A lot of the time something which is theoretically secure is only secure on paper and no implementation of it can live up to the academic literature or math.  It's also possible people confuse this with the previous method used in Bitshares 1.0 because of the name.

My understanding of the Stealth Transfers is that it combines stealth transactions with confidentiality, where the amounts are encrypted along with the sender and receiver. Bytemaster might know the code and terminology a bit better than me but conceptually if you don't know the amounts, and you don't know the sender or receiver, it's invisible.

Maybe for marketing we might want to call it "invisible transactions" instead of stealth transfers.

[luckybit]

I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.

What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?

If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...


PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.

CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker.   In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them.  Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .

I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.

Guess it's a matter of knowing how much you want to get per transaction as lifetime royalties and make a worker proposal to see if it will get approved.

Only thing I dont know, as it was mentioned, is what if it comes someone else and does the same and improves stealth transactions? what percentage will they get? I don't know how this would be managed knowing BTS already has a commitment with onceuponatime (if this goes forward)

And I'm very impressed by the fact you're going in with your life savings... really. If this happens, I really hope you get rich. It's not every day someone places the money where their mouth is this way, I admire you for that.

I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general.  We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution. 

What we have learned is this:

1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.

Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful. 

So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000?  On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure.  On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.

So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains.  If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price. 

My bet is that onceuponatime is right.

I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy.  I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites.  By being equal opportunity we should auction it off.  Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest.  This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.

Just some ideas.

I agree with the UIA and suggested it several times before for the bond market and prediction markets. I say we should go with the UIA but let Onceuponatime put $45,000 into it, and see if we can raise it much higher, and depending on how high we go would determine stuff like whether it's compeltely private or whether some of the fees go back to the blockchain via burning, or whether the bond market and prediction market can be added to it, sort of like Kickstarter.

Either that or we have 3 separate UIAs from the start. 1) UIA for Stealth Transfers. 2) UIA for Prediction Markets. 3) UIA for bond markets. All could be private features with any revenue split that the holders of UIA desire with the risk being that if it's very successful a worker proposal can come along and eventually reimplement these features and take the revenue stream.

So the lifetime revenue stream is not even guaranteed. It's just promised until the worker proposals decide that it's worth it to take the revenue stream with a reimplementation because there isn't any rule which says there can only be one implementation in the GUI.

[rgcrypto]

I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy.  I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites.  By being equal opportunity we should auction it off.  Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest.  This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.

Just some ideas.

 

If I can get a direct stream of revenue from STEALTH...

[btstip]

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

• onceuponatime: has been credited 1000 FISTBUMP
• onceuponatime: has been credited 1 HIGHFIVE
• onceuponatime: Insufficient funds for asset 1.3.673

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

Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20205.msg260206/topicseen.html#msg260206

Created by hybridd

[roadscape]

Thank you onceuponatime, very awesome of you to make such an offer! And it has opened a new way of looking at the issue of how to fund features.. IMO it feels strange to have "privately funded" features on a public chain but I do see the merits of it

[tonyk]

As a shareholder, the thought of a lifetime uncapped percentage cut from core protocol is about the worst proposal I think I've heard on this forum ever 
It's limiting the potential value of the BTS market cap.
A decentralised system full of toll roads.
This is bad PR in the same way as copywrited code is.
Like if BTC had a recurring fee to the original inventor!
This is exactly the type of thing the Reserve fund is for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we want people to privatise features only reasonable way surely would be with a scripting language?  otherwise you've got a lock in that can't be changed.
I would definitely not vote for this 
I think it's a bad business model, and value long term for BTS.
(But I would vote for funding the feature in the usual way.)

This is the complete screwed up logic, one can ever come up with.

So you want going into an restaurant and having no choices - just get the "normal salad" and the "normal meal" with exactly the prescribed amount of salt , oil and bread, everyone else gets?
Why? For what purpose?  So each expense is communized? Is  communized expenses and reducing choses really a goal?

We had to go with it up to now because no one has discovered anything better. Now that we have, to argue against choice???

[clayop]

I think most of community members didn't say it is wrong. They just said "not now". BM, if you can justify why this feature should be developed first, I will vote for the 45k worker proposal.