Author Topic: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)  (Read 20216 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Buck Fankers

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Under New Management
    • View Profile
    • TuckFheman.com
  • BitShares: buckfankers
Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #255 on: December 19, 2015, 05:30:41 am »
Just out of curiosity.....   The 45K or 50K that onceuponatime was willing to put up .....was that in the form of  Bitcoin,USD or BTS ?


Offline onceuponatime

Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #256 on: December 19, 2015, 05:36:31 am »
Just out of curiosity.....   The 45K or 50K that onceuponatime was willing to put up .....was that in the form of  Bitcoin,USD or BTS ?

Bank wire transfer of US dollars.

Offline roadscape

Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #257 on: December 19, 2015, 05:45:32 am »
[member=21490]Thom[/member] - valid points.. but depending on how deep into the rabbit hole you want to go, some of those fears could be misguided. Stealth could be detrimental to a free society in the long run, and could attract unwanted attention in the medium term.. nobody really knows.. just saying that NOT having stealth has value too.

As bm mentioned, current implement of STEALTH transfer is lack of unlinkability as well as untraceability. So it's just like TITAN in bts 0.x (although in 2.0 it does more than TITAN by hiding the amount of transfer), which just let people feel like that their have privacy, but their don't really have. It's dangerous to encourage people to use such non-perfect feature. Personally I don't like to use it nor recommend to other people.

Yes, this is a very good point, and possibly the core of my concern: no true privacy exists (on the internet), and what little does exist, is complex, imperfect, and expensive.

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I've been thinking it over and have some questions..

Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.

This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just 13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.

With STEALTH BitUSD you could conduct business for weeks/months privately and only need to do the rare conversion which wouldn't necessarily have to go through a payment processor or major exchange so that combo would be profitable for BTS. (This a major benefit over using volatile crypto-currency for business which needs to be traded regularly/often simultaneously for fiat in the process making privacy very hard to achieve.) 

Without more liquid BitAssets though, or other popular sell-able product first, there will be little demand for STEALTH but as Xeroc says the funding/development of some of those products via FBA's may benefit from/require privacy.

I don't think BTS will really increase in value though until BitAsset liquidity or one of those more sell-able products are developed.

Interesting.. could actual businesses use stealth and remain compliant?

Also, would stealth USD be worth more than plain USD? It seems like whoever creates stealth balances from a known account takes on some amount of risk which they could pass off as a premium.. For instance, if Blocktrades or Metaexchange could convert BTC to STEALTH-USD, I wonder how much of a premium they could get away with..


Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.
But hing the amount and not showing involved parties at all is considered WAY
better privacy.

Quote
This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the
table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH
market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just
13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.
Great observation.
What the MAKER speculators may not know is that the STEALTH proposal is VERY
VERY important for the Fee Backed Asset idea. even though they are independent
proposals (BSIP7 and BSIP8), creating and issuing a FBA under a STEALTH/PRIVATE
account is very important for regulatory reasons!!!
Otherwise people that want to innovate and have t funded via FBA might run into
legal trouble quickly. Read BSIP7 for more details about it.


Quote
Finally, on an ideological note: we've never seen a true global free market, and
we have no idea where it will lead society. It could be really good, it could be
really bad. I posit that stealth is only desirable because of
short-term/reactionary fear. And when people act out of fear they make
bad (I mean truly horrible) decisions.
The Stealth proposal is not only about hiding funds or transfers or privacy. It
is also about making sure not to run into regulatory issues and let more
innovations enter the system more easily.

Aah... good point., I forgot that this was sort of a prerequisite for some FBA's. BSIP7 is helpful, thanks. I now understand that even if MAKER doesn't depend on STEALTH, there might be other important/interesting FBA's which could only be released in a 'counterparty-free setting'.
http://cryptofresh.com  |  witness: roadscape

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4155
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #258 on: December 19, 2015, 09:50:36 am »
Why do we need stealth when you can just create and claim into an anonymous account?
Stealth funds need to go back into a visible account to be tradeable anyway.
And the people who really want to spy you have *plenty* of other ways to find out what you're doing.
But hing the amount and not showing involved parties at all is considered WAY
better privacy.

Quote
This has a higher priority than say, MAKER, only because the cash is on the
table, right? If we put up more bids/depth on the MAKER market than the STEALTH
market, would that be enough for CNX to reconsider priorities? If MAKER had just
13M BTS in bids, that's $45k right there.
Great observation.
What the MAKER speculators may not know is that the STEALTH proposal is VERY
VERY important for the Fee Backed Asset idea. even though they are independent
proposals (BSIP7 and BSIP8), creating and issuing a FBA under a STEALTH/PRIVATE
account is very important for regulatory reasons!!!
Otherwise people that want to innovate and have t funded via FBA might run into
legal trouble quickly. Read BSIP7 for more details about it.


Quote
Finally, on an ideological note: we've never seen a true global free market, and
we have no idea where it will lead society. It could be really good, it could be
really bad. I posit that stealth is only desirable because of
short-term/reactionary fear. And when people act out of fear they make
bad (I mean truly horrible) decisions.
The Stealth proposal is not only about hiding funds or transfers or privacy. It
is also about making sure not to run into regulatory issues and let more
innovations enter the system more easily.

Aah... good point., I forgot that this was sort of a prerequisite for some FBA's. BSIP7 is helpful, thanks. I now understand that even if MAKER doesn't depend on STEALTH, there might be other important/interesting FBA's which could only be released in a 'counterparty-free setting'.
So why not just make a work proposal for FBA only, but made a proposal with 45K$ Graphene-STEALTH-GUI in high priority in a same "package" and which changes the under protocol of STEALTH feature?
1. Anyway, people are already able to do stealth transfer via CLI wallet NOW, although the feature is not currently perfect. Who has big money and wants to keep privacy may be willing to learn how to use CLI, or has a technician help her.
2. If current proposal get approved, users of other GUI products (e.g. moonstone) would have to pay to OnceUpon for using STEALTH feature, but it's likely that OnceUpon won't fund all GUI products for the same feature.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4155
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #259 on: December 19, 2015, 12:29:50 pm »
As requested by Bytemaster; i have created a worker proposal for ~$300 for one month starting tomorrow to poll the shareholders about the STEALTH proposal.
The worker is 1.14.18 and payed $300 to me for creating and maintaining this particular BSIP. Expect some minor modifications and improvements for this BSIP
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0008.md
This worker serves as a simple "poll" for the shareholders.

Happy voting!
Rejected. Thank you.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline Samupaha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: samupaha
Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #260 on: December 19, 2015, 12:50:58 pm »
Will I have to pay the new and improved stealth fee for stealth transfers made through the CLI?

I think I should not. I have this feature now, and I will see the 45K as a bribery so this feature is stolen from me (and the rest of BTS holders) and sold to the  highest bidder.

Bad precedent all around.

Stealth supply is now little bit more than 10,000 BTS. That's very clear indicator that most people aren't willing to use the text based client. You might be able to do that but Bitshares is not only for you – are you even using this particular feature?

If we want to grow, we need more users. If we want more users, we need better GUI.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4155
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #261 on: December 19, 2015, 01:02:20 pm »
the STEALTH proposal have already taken effect.
I really don't like such kind of rush. Many people even have no chance to vote. You can see from http://cryptofresh.com/ballots only 3 accounts vote for it and 2 vote against it.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4155
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #262 on: December 19, 2015, 01:02:55 pm »
Stealth supply is now little bit more than 10,000 BTS. That's very clear indicator that most people aren't willing to use the text based client. You might be able to do that but Bitshares is not only for you – are you even using this particular feature?

If we want to grow, we need more users. If we want more users, we need better GUI.
Better GUI doesn't mean to change the underlying protocol.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #263 on: December 19, 2015, 01:50:13 pm »
the STEALTH proposal have already taken effect.
I really don't like such kind of rush. Many people even have no chance to vote. You can see from http://cryptofresh.com/ballots only 3 accounts vote for it and 2 vote against it.

Well wasn't there a period of 1 or 2 weeks for people to vote? I thought being approved at first didn't mean anything as other people could still vote it down and you would only get the result after that 1 or 2 weeks timeframe
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #264 on: December 19, 2015, 03:33:14 pm »
Will I have to pay the new and improved stealth fee for stealth transfers made through the CLI?

I think I should not. I have this feature now, and I will see the 45K as a bribery so this feature is stolen from me (and the rest of BTS holders) and sold to the  highest bidder.

Bad precedent all around.

Stealth supply is now little bit more than 10,000 BTS. That's very clear indicator that most people aren't willing to use the text based client. You might be able to do that but Bitshares is not only for you – are you even using this particular feature?

If we want to grow, we need more users. If we want more users, we need better GUI.

I do not mind making the fancy GUI [I reject ONLY its timing,]

What is more important I want EXACT answer on the question posted in the quoted post of mine.

In other words - is this proposal evolves changing the protocol so I have to pay extra stealth fees when using the CLI as well?

If yes it is a steal from BTS and a bribery (to the tune of 45K USD) and EXTREAMLY bad precedent of taking existing features from BTS [as in from BTS and out of BTS the core ], wrapping them up in GUI and selling them to the highest bidder.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2015, 03:37:47 pm by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline twitter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #265 on: December 19, 2015, 06:36:12 pm »
Why not use bitusd ?   [member=49]onceuponatime[/member]
if you use bitUSD , our BTS system  can benefit from this deal

Just out of curiosity.....   The 45K or 50K that onceuponatime was willing to put up .....was that in the form of  Bitcoin,USD or BTS ?

Bank wire transfer of US dollars.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2015, 06:52:17 pm by twitter »
witness:

Offline onceuponatime

Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #266 on: December 19, 2015, 08:57:26 pm »
Why not use bitusd ?   [member=49]onceuponatime[/member]
if you use bitUSD , our BTS system  can benefit from this deal

Just out of curiosity.....   The 45K or 50K that onceuponatime was willing to put up .....was that in the form of  Bitcoin,USD or BTS ?

Bank wire transfer of US dollars.

first - I don't have 45,000 bitUSD, and I don;t have enough BTS to buy bitUSD (I invested a couple of million BTS into MOONFUND to try and get competition and innovation going in the wallet area  - that is still locked up there).

second - Cryptonomex needs fiat USD to pay its ongoing corporate expenses in Virginia (office rent, supplies etc.). By me sending them fiat USD they do not need to sell BTS on the market and hence no downward pressure on our market cap.

Offline bytemaster

Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #267 on: December 19, 2015, 10:22:00 pm »
Bottom line is that STEALTH is the only thing we can fund without selling BTS to cover it right now.  Hence it is the best bet.
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 abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4155
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #268 on: December 19, 2015, 11:02:32 pm »
Bottom line is that STEALTH is the only thing we can fund without selling BTS to cover it right now.  Hence it is the best bet.
Very sorry to hear this..
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« Reply #269 on: December 19, 2015, 11:03:25 pm »
Bottom line is that STEALTH is the only thing we can fund without selling BTS to cover it right now.  Hence it is the best bet.

some of the bottom lines are:

- the bottom line is - BTS has never been (and will not be in the foreseeable future) a bottom-line business.

- the bottom line is - onceUopon would have had a much better bottom line using the 45K to buy BTS sold as a result of CNX choosing the best feature to implement and CNT selling the BTS received to cover its expenses .

- the bottom line is - I will have a much better bottom line (or at least base price for BTS) by the time this is all said and done. [and do not ask me why I prefer my principles over my bottom line... I was just born/gotten that way, I guess]

Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.