New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)

[jtme]

I disagree with this proposal and it sets a bad precedent.  There are much better ways to accomplish stealth transactions that do not require lifetime fees and creating a Frankenstein blockchain via custom requests to Cryptonomex.  I believe most people want stealth transactions, but it's just not a priority for the community so to saddle the ecosystem with some 'lifetime' structure to one connected individual just to get it done sooner would set a bad precedent for the very foundation of how the community works and improves the blockchain.  I think you can put this proposal out for a vote and technically it would still be still using the DPOS voting protocol, but why can't we just wait for stealth transactions to be approved by the simple worker proposal protocol?  We would be introducing a very unusual structure that not only takes weeks to understand and debate, but would distract us from even testing out our existing worker proposal protocol.  Let's learn to crawl before we run.

Let's wait for others to innovate faster than us.  Let's wait while people are looking for opportunities to put their money.  Let's wait while we get enough liquidity (if that ever happens) to fund our products.

This is just the first DAPP on the bitshares blockchain.  We have many other entrepreneurs wanting to put other Game changing DAPPS on Bitshares, but with only the right incentive structures. 

The more diverse our funding models are, the more opportunities and investors we can attract.  This is what we want.  To find people of all types of risk profiles and appetites.

yes, but at least the price should be auctioned. Some other investor might be interested to pay more
for lifetime fees of certain feature. CNX gets paid for the work and the rest of the auctioned money
are burned or used to fund other features.

[merivercap]

What if they took 80% of the fees until they'd recouped, for example, $60k worth of BTS - currently about 18 - 20 million shares. That's a 33% ROI - more if the price of BTS goes up during the payback phase.

Feature funding for profit makes sense. Lifetime royalties not so much.

Something like this would be much easier to do with less uncertainty.  Structure it more like a loan with a return. 

[topcandle]

I disagree with this proposal and it sets a bad precedent.  There are much better ways to accomplish stealth transactions that do not require lifetime fees and creating a Frankenstein blockchain via custom requests to Cryptonomex.  I believe most people want stealth transactions, but it's just not a priority for the community so to saddle the ecosystem with some 'lifetime' structure to one connected individual just to get it done sooner would set a bad precedent for the very foundation of how the community works and improves the blockchain.  I think you can put this proposal out for a vote and technically it would still be still using the DPOS voting protocol, but why can't we just wait for stealth transactions to be approved by the simple worker proposal protocol?  We would be introducing a very unusual structure that not only takes weeks to understand and debate, but would distract us from even testing out our existing worker proposal protocol.  Let's learn to crawl before we run.

Let's wait for others to innovate faster than us.  Let's wait while people are looking for opportunities to put their money.  Let's wait while we get enough liquidity (if that ever happens) to fund our products.

This is just the first DAPP on the bitshares blockchain.  We have many other entrepreneurs wanting to put other Game changing DAPPS on Bitshares, but with only the right incentive structures. 

The more diverse our funding models are, the more opportunities and investors we can attract.  This is what we want.  To find people of all types of risk profiles and appetites. 

[merivercap]

I disagree with this proposal and it sets a bad precedent.  There are much better ways to accomplish stealth transactions that do not require lifetime fees and creating a Frankenstein blockchain via custom requests to Cryptonomex.  I believe most people want stealth transactions, but it's just not a priority for the community so to saddle the ecosystem with some 'lifetime' structure to one connected individual just to get it done sooner would set a bad precedent for the very foundation of how the community works and improves the blockchain.  I think you can put this proposal out for a vote and technically it would still be still using the DPOS voting protocol, but why can't we just wait for stealth transactions to be approved by the simple worker proposal protocol?  We would be introducing a very unusual structure that not only takes weeks to understand and debate, but would distract us from even testing out our existing worker proposal protocol.  Let's learn to crawl before we run.

[Pheonike]

i like the idea

but would suggest some changes

1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.

With this we can finance many more project in the pipline

you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded

with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.

Best suggestion so far!

I like this option too. Open it up to everyone to participate. The donor can buys up as much as they want. I guess donor wants remain anonymous.  Funny scenario, anonymous investor wants to fund stealth transactions but would have to become known to do it. Nice irony in that.

[Samupaha]

I thought it might be better to separate the general discussion of how to use this kind of development model so I made a new thread for it: The General Theory of Privately Funded Blockchain Features

[NotSmart]

Developers try hard to push for stealth feature even though most understand that bond or prediction market would be better for Bitshares.

Forum members figure out that the stealth feature is going to be developed by them for their own use and they are trying to get it funded by Bitshares.

With no hope of getting funded by Bitshares suddenly a mysterious benefactor comes in and offers to fund it in exchange for $1000 and lifetime fees.

My question is, how come this 'benefactor' be so dumb as to not understand that there is more money in getting the developers to build bond or prediction market.

[jaran]

I think that our tight fisted licensing stance has been holding back BTS by triggering people's gut reaction to flee from anything that even smells proprietary. I apologize for getting weak and attempting to rely upon IP to build a business. We are looking at new business models that allow us to relax the IP restrictions and I think I can convince any potential feature investor that GPL is the minimum standard we should accept into the blockchain and that it must be BSD/MIT for use with BitShares (GPL for all other uses).

 

Once an investor has paid to develop a blockchain DAPP plug-in, why shouldn't they be able to offer ALL compatible block chains the same deal?  This is the killer DAPP model that encourages free-lance developers (or investor-developer teams) to build out the whole DAC universe feature by feature, DAPP by DAPP.

What you are describing works if a dapp  is built on top of graphene and its not intertwined.  The second its intertwined if it needs to be licensed differently its going to be a mess down the road is all i was saying

Its like google saying "we increased the energy efficency of linux but if you want to use this feature contact our sales department"  They increased energy efficency by improving the core of linux and thus its 100% intertwined with linux and its not a browser or some other app built on top of linux.  their improvement to the core benefits all companies using the core equally.

[TravelsAsia]

i like the idea

but would suggest some changes

1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.

With this we can finance many more project in the pipline

you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded

with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.

Best suggestion so far!

The automatic payback that BM mentioned if it's not funded at minimum levels opens up some new interesting areas of a decentralized kickstarter.

[jtme]

How does this model affect the issues around open sourcing graphene?

For example are these investor going to say "oh no my code cant be used in muse because i dont have access to the revenues"

Thus they might be completely against GPLing graphnee etc?

I think that our tight fisted licensing stance has been holding back BTS by triggering people's gut reaction to flee from anything that even smells proprietary. I apologize for getting weak and attempting to rely upon IP to build a business. We are looking at new business models that allow us to relax the IP restrictions and I think I can convince any potential feature investor that GPL is the minimum standard we should accept into the blockchain and that it must be BSD/MIT for use with BitShares (GPL for all other uses).

Would not be the other graphene blockchains have a an advantage over BTS chain in this way if GPL is required ?
In this way all profits from stealth transfers in muse go to the MUSE chain, whereas the
profits in BTS of stealth transfers go to the investor. Seem to be not a right balance of things.

[donkeypong]

i like the idea

but would suggest some changes

1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.

With this we can finance many more project in the pipline

you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded

with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.

Best suggestion so far!

[CLains]

Hats off to this anon! 

[tonyk]

i like the idea

but would suggest some changes

1. make it possible that a UIA is created for the investor
2. the UIA can be in control of the committee members and the investor
3. create a automated buyback mechanism etc.
4. the fees for this UIA should only be paid on top of a normal transaction. so if a normal transaction costs 20 cent and the stealth fees say 30 cents and then split the 30 cent like discribed.

With this we can finance many more project in the pipline

you want a prediction market? done, create UIA get the project funded

with this we can create multiple automated UIA assets on our blockchain who will be traded and give our bitshares exchange some unic assets.

+ 1
I like it. I like it better than my own idea in many ways. Maybe we need both system.
Why?
The 'improve the API' worker will not generate any direct fees in the future. and it will not be the only such case.
So we have/need a solution for both kind of jobs.

[Tuck Fheman]

Suddenly, there is a blossoming of many valid new ways to fund everything.  No reason to choose just one.  This is the free market.  Let a thousand profit models bloom!

Let's use Brownie.PTS to pay for it!

[Stan]

Suddenly, there is a blossoming of many valid new ways to fund everything.  No reason to choose just one.  This is the free market.  Let a thousand profit models bloom!

"Marty, do you know what this means?"