New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)

[bytemaster]

Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only
...
The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library.  Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.

good lord. this is why (for the past 15+ years) i refuse to hire american devs. sorry Dan, I just think that number is ridiculous.
I bet xeroc and Anonymint could do the front and back themselves for just 20% of that amount.

I definitely couldn't.
Don't think that just because I worked for "almost free" in the BitShares ecospace in the last years means that I can go on like that .. because that certainly is not the case.
Also note that German devs of that quality have AT LEAST the same price. Go find a Valentine, James, or Sigve that works for less and can get the work done as reliably and quick as they can!

Also keep in mind that this is for a COMPANY which has other overhead above and beyond an independent contractor.  With that you get a MIX of skills and parallel development.

[xeroc]

Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only
...
The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library.  Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.

good lord. this is why (for the past 15+ years) i refuse to hire american devs. sorry Dan, I just think that number is ridiculous.
I bet xeroc and Anonymint could do the front and back themselves for just 20% of that amount.

I definitely couldn't.
Don't think that just because I worked for "almost free" in the BitShares ecospace in the last years means that I can go on like that .. because that certainly is not the case.
Also note that German devs of that quality have AT LEAST the same price. Go find a Valentine, James, or Sigve that works for less and can get the work done as reliably and quick as they can!

[Samupaha]

Introducing something new and unproven to the backend will significantly increase the development costs.

The shortest path to privacy is by implementing a GUI on what we have now.   Then we can let the other technologies mature a bit first.

I see this as a strongest argument for going on as planned in the OP. If we change to a totally different technology, it will take time. Although that wouldn't be a surprise – Bitshares is quite well known for discarding current solutions and replacing them with newer ones even when the older haven't even implemented yet. 

But anyway, AnonyMint's proposal is still a notable threat for onceuponatime's FBA. If a better privacy tech will be implemented in less than a year, it will be a huge competitor to STEALTH-FBA.

[kenCode]

Well, I disagree completely on your first 3 points.
 
As for more developers. Not a problem. Give me even $5K and watch what I/we can build with that.

easy. make a worker proposal, setup an escrow (not gonna pay you in advance) and you're good to go.

actually, for raising money, I'd rather just use a UIA or FBA. this way we don't force stakeholders to pay anything who do not want to pay. make it voluntary for everyone.

[fav]

Well, I disagree completely on your first 3 points.
 
As for more developers. Not a problem. Give me even $5K and watch what I/we can build with that.

easy. make a worker proposal, setup an escrow (not gonna pay you in advance) and you're good to go.

[kenCode]

Well, I disagree completely on your first 3 points.
 
As for more developers. Not a problem. Give me even $5K and watch what I/we can build with that.

[Samupaha]

Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only
...
The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library.  Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.

good lord. this is why (for the past 15+ years) i refuse to hire american devs. sorry Dan, I just think that number is ridiculous.
I bet xeroc and Anonymint could do the front and back themselves for just 20% of that amount.

First point: Good developers are expensive. If Bitshares wants to be something more than a amateur project, we have to be able to attract high quality devs.

Second point: First worker proposals and job contracts can be very valuable. This is a good way to signal every other cryptoexpert that here is money to make. So this is also a marketing tool.

Third point: Not much competition right now. Cryptonomex is basically only party that can do this reliably.

If you can find more developers that can do new features on the blockchain considerably cheaper than Cryptonomex, please bring them in! We are lacking manpower here. Lots of stuff to do but very few devs.

[kenCode]

Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only
...
The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library.  Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.

good lord. this is why (for the past 15+ years) i refuse to hire american devs. sorry Dan, I just think that number is ridiculous.
I bet xeroc and Anonymint could do the front and back themselves for just 20% of that amount.

[Thom]

What about monseter's observation concerning the lack of provable transfer between stealth accounts?

On the one hand this would be an element of audit-ability / tracking, which stealth is implemented to overcome or obscure. On the other hand if that audit trail is protected and private it is evidence for ownership. I guess you could think of it as a hidden financial network. Not sure exactly what monsterer was looking for, but I would like to see his concern addressed one way or the other.

[bytemaster]

Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only under the assumption that no changes would be made to the blockchain.  We were comfortable adding a "small" change to reallocate fees paid for stealth transfers.

Introducing something new and unproven to the backend will significantly increase the development costs.

Of the things proposed by anonymint the ones I actually think are worth something are:

1. smaller proofs
2. ring signatures that allow you to combine any random set of outputs.

I do not think the mixing / zerocoin feature is worthwhile because it slows down the transfer rate.  You deposit into the mixer, then you must wait until there is enough cover traffic before you withdraw.  Zerocoin even requires a fixed size commitment. 

The shortest path to privacy is by implementing a GUI on what we have now.   Then we can let the other technologies mature a bit first.

The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library.  Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.

[Akado]

For anyone that doubts the value of blockchain transaction privacy, this interview of Dash's founder Evan Duffield may give you another perspective to consider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-wZr9chPrk

that initial distribution though... Could someone compare or link me to a comparison if it was done already, between the method BitShares wants to implement via Stealth and the method used by Dash please?

[onceuponatime]

FYI, I am currently collecting proposals and have them written down in a github repository:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0008.md  -- Privacy Mode
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0007.md  -- FBA
Those are still in draft mode @onceuponatime but I would like use them to represent the idea to shareholders to have them vote on the worker, if you agree

Thank you very much for this awesome organizational work!

As you said, it is still draft mode ( https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0008.md ) and I think  the "contract" section (among others)  needs to be further clarified by Cryptonomex and myself. I have been expecting a revised Worker Proposal draft from Cryptonomex.

[onceuponatime]

I think that CNX would beat him to market by a long shot, and his technology, coming out later, would have to be better and/or less expensive to gain traction, right?

Is there a plan for promoting your FBA?

There are to be five members of the Maintenance Account with 3 of 5 signatory authority who can vote on spending funds from that account to promote the feature far and wide.

Additionally, it would be in the interest of purchasers of a STEALTH FBA to promote the feature (since they participate in the income stream from its use) and in their promotions also use their referral link for an additional lifetime referral income from those who sign up for an account under them.

[Brekyrself]

@AnonyMint you have several options here.

You could produce a feature for Bitshares that includes ZKT + Zerocash mixer and GUI. You can fund this with:
- Basic worker proposal. BTS shareholders will decide by voting if they want this feature or not, and if they accept the price you ask.
- Fee Backed Asset. You produce the feature and issue an FBA for it that will bring revenue for you when the feature is used. Here are some calculations how to value it.
- Crowdfunding. You will issue an FBA, sell it and use those funds for development.
- Mixed funding. You sell some of the FBA and keep the rest for yourself. Maybe the best option, you get money instantly to fund the development and you will get a lot more later when people use the feature.

You will propably have to cooperate with Cryptonomex with this. They can consult you how to implement everything on the blockchain, issue FBA, etc. At least they have to check the code before it is implemented to the blockchain so that shareholders can be sure it is high quality.

Other options are basic GUI stuff, development, etc. You can either be a contractor to Cryptonomex or make your own worker proposal (like svk just did)

If you have any other features on mind that require new kind of transaction on the blockchain, you can code that feature and fund it with an FBA.

Anyway, my personal take on anonymous/private transfers is that of course we should implement best option available. Stealth transfers that we now have is good, but not the best. Having the best one is huge marketing advantage for Bitshares.

Would be nice to see the opinion of an outsider on this proposal from someone such as @AnonyMint

Perhaps as others have indicated this can be further revised and improved before moving forward with the 45k investment.

[Thom]

For anyone that doubts the value of blockchain transaction privacy, this interview of Dash's founder Evan Duffield may give you another perspective to consider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-wZr9chPrk