New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)

[Samupaha]

@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.

[monsterer]

though I think you can still have "plausible deniability", can't you? Why would anyone know that I own a particular private account?
Furthermore, to my understanding, the private account only contains the 'root' private key and the funds are stored in child-keys making it impossible to to link funds to the private account without the private key. (unless of course you add your account name into the memo, which has been the case in BTS1)

Authorities just cross reference this forum with the usernames, seize the database and get access to personal information which can be used to follow up their investigations.

Authorities will just seize the hardware, within that will be the wallets with all child keys.

[xeroc]

For anyone who's interested, CNX proposal lacks the following critical feature:

* Sender and receiver of a transaction can prove a connection between themselves.

This doesn't sound that bad at first, but if you think about some authority confiscating private keys of some service using this system, then they have access to the usernames of all users who sent them transactions. This totally defeats the purpose.

Very good point.

though I think you can still have "plausible deniability", can't you? Why would anyone know that I own a particular private account?
Furthermore, to my understanding, the private account only contains the 'root' private key and the funds are stored in child-keys making it impossible to to link funds to the private account without the private key. (unless of course you add your account name into the memo, which has been the case in BTS1)

[monsterer]

For anyone who's interested, CNX proposal lacks the following critical feature:

* Sender and receiver of a transaction can prove a connection between themselves.

This doesn't sound that bad at first, but if you think about some authority confiscating private keys of some service using this system, then they have access to the usernames of all users who sent them transactions. This totally defeats the purpose.

[carpet ride]

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?

[xeroc]

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

[xeroc]

That would be great if he submitted a worker proposal to implement a competing technology from CNX's on our blockchain.. I might even buy some of his FBA on the DEX if he does to hedge my bet. But 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?

That would be so awesome .. only because it shows the true nature of decentralized development and it's funding through FBA's

[onceuponatime]

This thread just got real interesting; the first competitor to CNX capable of serious development.

Does this mean Anonymint & CNX are going to bid against each other for OnceUpon's $45K?

Is OnceUpon willing to consider Anonymint's bid, and is the timing an issue?

Anonymint, I hope you consider what bytemaster said about the FBA route here in the BitShares ecosystem being more lucrative than launching your own coin and all that entails.

My investment  purchase of software and its implementation would be from CNX because I have had years to evaluate the characters of the principals and trust them completely (as I have to because the technology is way over my head). If CNX wants to subcontract the work to Anonymint, or hire him, that is their business.

That makes perfect sense. So even IF anonymint were to submit a worker proposal and try to compete with CNX, you wouldn't be interested in such an arrangement. I get it, I do see the wisdom in that.

I'm not saying that is anonymint's intention, I just saw it as a possibility.

Puppies is also right, anonymint may be capable of coding such an important and complex feature, but his skills in DPoS / BitShares are more of an unknown. At this stage of BitShares (im)maturity there is added risk in getting a 3rd party involved, so a CNX code review / audit would be prudent.

That would be great if he submitted a worker proposal to implement a competing technology from CNX's on our blockchain.. I might even buy some of his FBA on the DEX if he does to hedge my bet. But 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?

[Thom]

This thread just got real interesting; the first competitor to CNX capable of serious development.

Does this mean Anonymint & CNX are going to bid against each other for OnceUpon's $45K?

Is OnceUpon willing to consider Anonymint's bid, and is the timing an issue?

Anonymint, I hope you consider what bytemaster said about the FBA route here in the BitShares ecosystem being more lucrative than launching your own coin and all that entails.

My investment  purchase of software and its implementation would be from CNX because I have had years to evaluate the characters of the principals and trust them completely (as I have to because the technology is way over my head). If CNX wants to subcontract the work to Anonymint, or hire him, that is their business.

That makes perfect sense. So even IF anonymint were to submit a worker proposal and try to compete with CNX, you wouldn't be interested in such an arrangement. I get it, I do see the wisdom in that.

I'm not saying that is anonymint's intention, I just saw it as a possibility.

Puppies is also right, anonymint may be capable of coding such an important and complex feature, but his skills in DPoS / BitShares are more of an unknown. At this stage of BitShares (im)maturity there is added risk in getting a 3rd party involved, so a CNX code review / audit would be prudent.

[onceuponatime]

This thread just got real interesting; the first competitor to CNX capable of serious development.

Does this mean Anonymint & CNX are going to bid against each other for OnceUpon's $45K?

Is OnceUpon willing to consider Anonymint's bid, and is the timing an issue?

Anonymint, I hope you consider what bytemaster said about the FBA route here in the BitShares ecosystem being more lucrative than launching your own coin and all that entails.

My investment  purchase of software and its implementation would be from CNX because I have had years to evaluate the characters of the principals and trust them completely (as I have to because the technology is way over my head). If CNX wants to subcontract the work to Anonymint, or hire him, that is their business.

[puppies]

Anonimint is very very smart.  Perhaps capable of everything he says.  I would still want all code audited by cnx though. 

[sittingduck]

Zero coin is overrated.

[Thom]

This thread just got real interesting; the first competitor to CNX capable of serious development.

Does this mean Anonymint & CNX are going to bid against each other for OnceUpon's $45K?

Is OnceUpon willing to consider Anonymint's bid, and is the timing an issue?

Anonymint, I hope you consider what bytemaster said about the FBA route here in the BitShares ecosystem being more lucrative than launching your own coin and all that entails.

[CoinHoarder]

I suggest we implement the lastest-greatest, otherwise we will want to upgrade in a few years. 

Anonymint knows his stuff, and ZKT seems to be a superior technology compared to all other solutions to privacy on a blockchain. Zerocoin is nice, but setting up the initial parameters in a transparent way is a tricky thing to do from what I'm told. If we implemented something like ZKT, we would have industry-leading privacy... a better solution than even Monero is able to come up with. Correct me if I'm wrong Anonymint, but I remember from what I've read on Bitcointalk that your solution results in a smaller block size than Monero's solution.

If it is possible set up the Zerocoin parameters in a transparent way then would be awesome too. We would be years ahead of most other coins when it comes to financial privacy. Bitshares needs to consider privacy as being one of its core values, and I think that core value fits together well with the exchange and banking part of Bitshares.

[Bhuz]

Hope that helps you all in your decision process.

Thanks for the explanations.

Sorry for the probably stupid question, but about the mixer based on Zerocash...are we still talking about an internat/blockchain/protocol-level feature right?
If so, would it be "easily" addable to the RingCT/ZKT ?
How much would it impact on implementation time&cost?