Author Topic: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)  (Read 59929 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AnonyMint

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Daniel thanks we could get into that then if I am free to work.

I like GUI programming so that is no problem for me assuming the incentives are well aligned.

Can we have infos about Stealth vs RingCT vs ZKT ?

Differences, cons & pros.

Assuming you mean by Stealth what I think you mean Stealth Addresses, which is ECDH exchange so that the payee's address is different on each transaction (but I thought Daniel already implemented that in BTS2.0?), then I explain what the others add to that. Stealth Addresses provides unlinkability but not untraceability. Those two terms are defined in the Cryptonote (CN) white paper.

CN (one-time rings) mixes payer's identities which adds the untraceability.

CT (Blockstream's Confidential Txns) hides the values of the transactions in homeomorphic proof-of-sums and proof-of-positive small values.

CCT is another way of doing CT that appears to be about 10X smaller use of space. Note I have claimed to have eliminated the proof-of-square thus making it even more efficient but my paper is unpublished and thus not vetted yet.

RingCT combines CN and CT.

ZKT is my unpublished paper that combines CN with CCT which I claim was completed before July 15 much earlier than RingCT was invented. So I claimed to be first, but again I chose not to publish because at the time I thought I was reserving it as feature for my coin that I was working on (but since changed my mind on priorities).

I would also suggest considering offering a mixer based on Zerocash because I think that is the holygrail, because it doesn't matter if your IP address is not obfuscated because ZC (not Zerocoin) hides everything. Theoretically all the other anonymity paradigms can be unmasked by correlating IP addresses. That doesn't mean the others are useless, just not as 100% certain as Zerocash. Zerocash has some issues and I made some suggestions on how to overcome them:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290263.msg13269624#msg13269624

Hope that helps you all in your decision process.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2015, 08:36:44 pm by AnonyMint »

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Can we have infos about Stealth vs RingCT vs ZKT ?

Differences, cons & pros.

Offline bytemaster

Welcome back Anonymint.  I am sure the BTS holders would welcome a Fee Backed Asset for your new improved security provided you also produced a viable GUI to go along with it.   

With a FBA you would benefit from the use of your feature / work across the entire ecosystem and would likely profit more than you would be launching your own coin. 

More developers are always welcome.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline AnonyMint

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Btw, I am unclear if this thread is asking for a programmer to help implement superior on chain anonymity, but I have designed anonymity that is equivalent to RingCT in functionality but is based on the more efficient and compact CCT. I could implement either RingCT or my Zero Knowledge Transactions for $45k.

But at this time I am working on my own coin. But if that flops in January, I would be available for programming work.

If anyone is unfamiliar with who I am, refer to these Bitcoin forum threads:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1284083.msg13264616#msg13264616

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13267804#msg13267804

Daniel remembers me from technical discussions on the Bitcoin forum in 2013.

Generally speaking if my current venture flops, I am interested in well paid programming not limited to just anonymity. But it seems that perhaps this thread about paying the existing core devs to do this work?

Offline AnonyMint

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Everyone wants a free lunch, but nobody wants to pay for it.  Why shouldn't he get lifetime royalties?  Its a privatized feature and they put in the money to get it running.

I would agree with your statement if the investor is not receiving a guaranteed monopoly on the feature. Given the threat of competition, the investor would need to adjust the fees accordingly.

But will the investor allow the feature to be open sourced if the investor isn't granted a monopoly?

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
could this be extended to something like having your profile with a stealth mode active as well? So others couldn't see who you voted for, the assets you have, etc? If feasible, that would be an extremely good revenue source for the DAC (and onceuponatime), imagine getting something like Stealth Membership where you would pay a fee to have that the same way you have Life Time Membership.

If LM find it unfair, then get current LM to have it for free and charge the new ones for a Stealth Membership apart. Or make LM more expensive and already including those features once it's released. Since that would be someone most people would get, could be a good revenue source.

So,

Basic Members would get Stealth Transfers for an extra fee
LM would get a Stealth Mode or something that would also hide the assets they have, etc, meaning it would not only be limited to transfers, but extended to their entire account as well.
Would make LM more useful, attractive and increase revenue source.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2015, 09:31:24 pm by Akado »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline complexring

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...

What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?

Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..

I'm trying to find out how Ronny is issuing OBITS and selling them for participation in future income streams without being fingered as issuing a security. Same with the ShareBits. If anyone can tell me how they expect  to not come under the scrutiny of various regulatory authorities, please let me know.

edit to add: the following analysis is in regards to the usa.  it is unclear how these will be regulated by other entities, i.e. the eu.

these uia's are not considered securities.  the cftc has ruled that virtual currencies are commodities.  in addition, the cftc only has regulatory authority when commodities are being sold for 'future delivery' -- not when a commodity is bought directly at market price and immediate delivery takes place.  at least, this is how i understand the various rulings and white papers that the cftc has released regarding regulatory matters of virtual currencies. 

one can then consider these uia's as 'interest-bearing commodities.'  in a sense, no different than any other PoS coin that is interest-bearing.  in other words, unregulated as long as no future contracts are sold.

A UIA *CAN* be considered a security as you noted, depending on how they are used.

The issue at the end of the day here is the liability being brought on @onceuponatime in holding/controlling this UIA in how it operates. People are going to buy this UIA with the intent of having something delivered in the future called stealth feature. Following that, those that buy into it are expecting a return on their 'investment'.

It doesn't matter how you word it.. if/when regulatory body looks at this situation where money was taken, and future profits were promised/expected, it won't matter if you say otherwise. The whole setup clearly indicates that this is an investment with a clear path of return.

METAFEES has not been treated as a security, but more like a temporary loan.

OBITS is being treated as an ongoing security and what happens to it in the future will depend on what regulator compliance and/or consideration has been given to it by it's creator.

I made this suggestion in another thread when FBAs was being proposed by Stan.. I think if a new type of FBA function within BitShares comes into existence.. it should be something that once created gets pushed to the committee members as the managers of the asset, and thus decentralizing the  assets and limiting the liabilities tremendously.

I hate to say it.. but I would wait for something like that to be implemented, which shouldn't be overly difficult since it involves mostly just re-purposing various elements we already have.

For those that argue that there is no laws now.. you have to really think 5 steps ahead when it comes to these things. Where are things going to end up? In the end, you want to be in the position where you are most likely to be protected. Since we are talking about blockchain functions too, lifetime is a long time to consider. So the best way to approach this IMO is to ensure that this whole thing remains decentralized.

point of clarification : i never said there were no laws, i have just been repeating what statements regulatory bodies have themselves stated on the matter.

if you deem UIAs / virtual currencies to be securities, and this appears to fall within the definition as given by the Securities Act of 1933 -- see Sec. 2(a)(1) in https://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf -- then one can make the argument that the unincorporated body of bitshares is the issuer of any of the securities -- be they UIAs or bitshares or FBAs or whatever -- and that the "issuer" on the platform is the "user" selling tokens of their stock on the bitshares platform.  alternatively, the `person' (as per the definition of `person') selling UIA could also be considered an `issuer' by definition.   see Sec. 2(a)(4) for the definition of 'issuer' as given by the Securities Act of 1933 (previous link). 

i would also say that, clearly, the bitshares platform is an exchange, as per the definitions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (see https://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf and Sec. (3)(a)(1). )

regardless of how regulatory bodies will decide how to regulate decentralized exchanges, any 'talk' of being 5 steps ahead requires compliance with existing laws, i.e. registration with the SEC, etc.  any other discussion about regulations is a moot point if this is not even done.

so, the question is, do we forge ahead and largely ignore regulations, but have our own internal ones that appear to mimic various international regulatory bodies, or perform an obligatory dance citing definitions, current regulations and law, and attempting to decipher how they apply to bts, users, issuers of UIAs, virtual currencies, etc. before finally mom and dad put a stop to the dance and teach us how to waltz?

basically, i think you can regard any UIA as a stock issued by a(n) (un)registered company and that any `promise of profit' is based on the success of said company, whose business model is in collection of fees, at which point dividends are re-distributed to shareholders.  this is no different than investing in any other company that issues common stock for sale.

there are all sorts of ways to interpret the law.  why bother?  any 'authority' is just going to regulate in a manner that benefits the regulatory agency the most -- be it in monetary gain or in a manner that allows for the maximum power of said 'authority.'  in turn, we should do the same.  interpret the law in such a way that maximizes our power, monetary gain, etc.  then, judges can decide.  but ... it becomes an even murkier issue when this is internationally based.  which nation-state's laws hold for regulation?  nation-states that have the physical presence of a committee member in their jurisdiction or the server that runs the witness or what.

at the end of the day, someone else will come along and regulate us into whatever manner they see fit (probably with the criteria outlined above).  the idea is to leave the code modular enough to be able to easily abide by their rules.  until then, we should do as we see fit -- which is no different than what we already have been doing.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2015, 02:53:11 pm by complexring »

Offline openledger

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Blockchain powered, people driven
    • View Profile
    • OpenLedger.info - Blockchain Solutions, Services and Products for Businesses
  • BitShares: ccedkbts

METAFEES has not been treated as a security, but more like a temporary loan.

OBITS is being treated as an ongoing security and what happens to it in the future will depend on what regulator compliance and/or consideration has been given to it by it's creator.


Let me know why you consider OBITS to be treated as an ongoing security?

It is being offered to be fully returned to issuer on the base of buyback, and one way for it to be consídered is possibly as a temporary loan as you put it, it is however no more different than any other internet commodity  or crypto currency available where the value of the token is based on various set of inner values.

The inner value of OBITS is i parts the acceptance of letting OBITS grow not only on the base of demand and supply but also based on the constantly added projects with each their contribution of value on the base of crypto generated fees.

Most importantly also is that all profits generated are profits generated in crypto on the base of transactions all taking place on blockchain.

When you buy bitcoin as an investor, you buy based on the expectations of a ROI
When you buy OBITS as an investor you also buy based on expectations of a ROI

In Denmark you do not need to pay any taxes on ROI' connected to crypto currencies, you do not need to pay any VAT on crypto either.

Below an official statment from the Danish FSA:

The Danish FSA has estimated that virtual currency is not covered by the existing financial regulation in Denmark. In fact, in a particular case the Danish FSA has approved that a company does not need permission to getting established in this country, with the intention of running a business with the exchange of real money against virtual currency such as Bitcoin among others, and vise versa.

Backing up the decision , the Danish FSA has concluded that the activity does not qualify as issuance of electronic money , the offering of payment services , currency exchange, receiving deposits or investment activity and that the activity is therefore not subject to financial regulation .

Background information on virtual currencies Virtual currencies are a form of unregulated electronic money, and as opposed to real money not issued or guaranteed by a central bank, which in some cases can be used as a method of payment. Virtual currencies have emerged in many different forms, first in the context of on-line gambling and social networks. Subsequently, the virtual currencies developed to be used as an alternative to real currency.

Bitcoin is the most common virtual currency, but also LiteCoin , ZeroCoin and Linden Dollars can be mentioned among the more well known types .

link in danish though: https://www.finanstilsynet.dk/da/Nyhedscenter/Pressemeddelelser/Arkiv-PM/Presse-2013/Advarsel-mod-virtuelle-valutaer-bitcom-mfl-2013.aspx?p=1&p=1
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 11:53:14 pm by ccedk »
OpenLedger blockchain in services and solutions - https://openledger.info
BitShares explorer: https://bitsharescan.com
BitShares commitee member since 2015

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...

What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?

Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..

I'm trying to find out how Ronny is issuing OBITS and selling them for participation in future income streams without being fingered as issuing a security. Same with the ShareBits. If anyone can tell me how they expect  to not come under the scrutiny of various regulatory authorities, please let me know.

edit to add: the following analysis is in regards to the usa.  it is unclear how these will be regulated by other entities, i.e. the eu.

these uia's are not considered securities.  the cftc has ruled that virtual currencies are commodities.  in addition, the cftc only has regulatory authority when commodities are being sold for 'future delivery' -- not when a commodity is bought directly at market price and immediate delivery takes place.  at least, this is how i understand the various rulings and white papers that the cftc has released regarding regulatory matters of virtual currencies. 

one can then consider these uia's as 'interest-bearing commodities.'  in a sense, no different than any other PoS coin that is interest-bearing.  in other words, unregulated as long as no future contracts are sold.

A UIA *CAN* be considered a security as you noted, depending on how they are used.

The issue at the end of the day here is the liability being brought on @onceuponatime in holding/controlling this UIA in how it operates. People are going to buy this UIA with the intent of having something delivered in the future called stealth feature. Following that, those that buy into it are expecting a return on their 'investment'.

It doesn't matter how you word it.. if/when regulatory body looks at this situation where money was taken, and future profits were promised/expected, it won't matter if you say otherwise. The whole setup clearly indicates that this is an investment with a clear path of return.

METAFEES has not been treated as a security, but more like a temporary loan.

OBITS is being treated as an ongoing security and what happens to it in the future will depend on what regulator compliance and/or consideration has been given to it by it's creator.

I made this suggestion in another thread when FBAs was being proposed by Stan.. I think if a new type of FBA function within BitShares comes into existence.. it should be something that once created gets pushed to the committee members as the managers of the asset, and thus decentralizing the  assets and limiting the liabilities tremendously.

I hate to say it.. but I would wait for something like that to be implemented, which shouldn't be overly difficult since it involves mostly just re-purposing various elements we already have.

For those that argue that there is no laws now.. you have to really think 5 steps ahead when it comes to these things. Where are things going to end up? In the end, you want to be in the position where you are most likely to be protected. Since we are talking about blockchain functions too, lifetime is a long time to consider. So the best way to approach this IMO is to ensure that this whole thing remains decentralized.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline complexring

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...

What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?

Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..

I'm trying to find out how Ronny is issuing OBITS and selling them for participation in future income streams without being fingered as issuing a security. Same with the ShareBits. If anyone can tell me how they expect  to not come under the scrutiny of various regulatory authorities, please let me know.

edit to add: the following analysis is in regards to the usa.  it is unclear how these will be regulated by other entities, i.e. the eu.

these uia's are not considered securities.  the cftc has ruled that virtual currencies are commodities.  in addition, the cftc only has regulatory authority when commodities are being sold for 'future delivery' -- not when a commodity is bought directly at market price and immediate delivery takes place.  at least, this is how i understand the various rulings and white papers that the cftc has released regarding regulatory matters of virtual currencies. 

one can then consider these uia's as 'interest-bearing commodities.'  in a sense, no different than any other PoS coin that is interest-bearing.  in other words, unregulated as long as no future contracts are sold.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 10:48:05 pm by complexring »

Offline rgcrypto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Cryptoctopus Blog
@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...

What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?

Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..

I'm trying to find out how Ronny is issuing OBITS and selling them for participation in future income streams without being fingered as issuing a security. Same with the ShareBits. If anyone can tell me how they expect  to not come under the scrutiny of various regulatory authorities, please let me know.

I don't know about OBITS or METAFEE...but the safest best is to have the blockchain issue the Fee Backed Asset. I see it like a coop distributing the profits to it's members.

Offline btstip

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: btstip-io
Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Created by hybridd

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest

Offline onceuponatime

@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...

What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?

Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..

I'm trying to find out how Ronny is issuing OBITS and selling them for participation in future income streams without being fingered as issuing a security. Same with the ShareBits. If anyone can tell me how they expect  to not come under the scrutiny of various regulatory authorities, please let me know.

Offline mf-tzo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
    • View Profile
@onceuponatime you are right about Brownies. Maybe it was a bad example...

What about obits, or Metafees? Are they considered securities or just "tokens of appreciation"? Aren't these serve the same thing as the UIA about stealth transfers? Raise funds and distribute earnings from fees?

Anyway, I may got all these wrong..I am sure you guys you will figure this out how to do it but please let's do this as soon as possible because without stealth transfers we will never see liquidity on the DEX..