Plan for introducing Privacy (STEALTH) Mode feature asap

[kenCode]

thank you onceuponatime!

Agreed.
  thank you onceuponatime! - I think we should keep the name Stealth though. Branding is everything and when the media talks about what Bitshares is capable of, the phrase "stealth transactions" is pretty self-explanatory.
If we want whales and savers to start storing wealth in the Bitshares system then they DEFINITELY want some privacy. They don't want their assets displayed all over cryptofresh. The private banking folks will really love to go stealth.

[Tuck Fheman]

If you need to spin something to fit your narrative, call Stan.  He's the best in the biz...

I'm sorry to interrupt, but ... where is the outcry here?! 

@fav dafuq man! He just insulted "a founder" and you're going to let this slide?

Do I need to get Ben in here to complain?

Ben IS the "community" for gawd's sake!

Somebody do sumthin! muh eyes! muh safe space!

such feelings. very emotion. much pc.

</10% sarc+90%notcereal>

[tonyk]

If you need to spin something to fit your narrative, call Stan.  He's the best in the biz...

actually this made my day... it made me smile for 6h on ...whenever I remembered it...


The best example in my mind is when Stan posted a pic of 6-9 rockets launching at the same time (to prove his point)... not even 6h later he posted a pic 'proving' why launching 1 rocket is the best way to go...


PS
The 6 vs 1 rocket [both of course undeniable truths in themselves] was just before the time when the grand merger was announced....wish someone can find them damn post....

[rnglab]

haven't read the full thread yet, just the OP, but wanted to give my perspective.

As I see, some aspects may need to be discussed for the social contract to it get  signed by a majority, but this is a huge feature, brought probably by the most capable coders to develop it at the moment,  also an FBA proof of concept, and a good precedent for further worker proposals.

Combined with account permissions, asset rules and what not, this could be the most functional and  beautiful example of a social smart contract so far.

just my +(private)%

INFP here

[btstip]

Hey 38PTSWarrior, here are the results of your tips...

• bytemaster: has been credited 5 PERCENT

Curious about ShareBits? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!

Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20499.msg265158/topicseen.html#msg265158

Created by hybridd

[38PTSWarrior]

#sharebits "bytemaster" 5 PERCENT

[bytemaster]

Next week I will put together a revised proposal structured in the following steps:

Phase 1:  Implement the STEALTH asset + hard fork for tracking the fees.  This is the least work and gets the "funding portion" of the equation solved as early as possible. I would then transfer the STEALTH asset to onceuponatime after receiving $45,000.  In this way he has the full value of the future revenue stream locked in prior to our implementation of the GUI.   

Phase 2: Implement the GUI

[onceuponatime]

Since @onceuponatime is paying we will do things how he wants.

I just wanted to chime in on the regulatory issue. Those who have followed us for a long time know I am very careful and have become increasingly so.  That said, based upon the SWARM working paper (http://www.scribd.com/doc/255347578/SWARM-Working-Paper-Distributed-Networks-and-the-Law)  produced by Members of policy group Coin Center, law firm Perkins Coie as well as Harvard and MIT we now have a much clearer idea on what constitutes a security and high risk. 

My proposed solution of implementing the feature and giving onceuponatime 100% of the STEALTH asset that gets bought back by the network over time.  If he is the only owner, then it is clearly not a security. It just gives him a different way to claim the fees to his account (by order) as well as a way of dividing up control (by dividing his STEALTH among multiple accounts).  So from the perspective of the law, no security has been offered to the public and everything is merely an accounting system on the blockchain for a single user. 

If onceuponatime wished to sell his revenue stream he could do so by transferring the stealth asset.  This is much more powerful than transferring control over an account and/or requiring a bot to automatically forward payments. It creates a far more trust free transfer of revenue (or fraction thereof) to a 3rd party.  Once again, this wouldn't be a security by any stretch of the imagination when selling to private parties because there was no PUBLIC offering. 

At this point I have believe I have demonstrated that we can design the feature to buy back a STEALTH asset while being so far away from regulatory issues that it wouldn't make sense to do it any other way.

All of that said, I believe that the STEALTH asset could be sold to the public AFTER the feature has been implemented and accepted by the network. This is based upon the Howey Test.

The tests for a security require *ALL* of the following properties:

1. Investment of money - token buyers pay money for their tokens.    80%
2. Common Enterprise - the funds received by the sale of STEALTH are not pooled, they become the private property of the seller.  Thus clearly not a common enterprise.  20% risk
3. Reasonable Expectation of Profit - buyers purchase it for speculative purposes in the belief that the value of the token will rise.  90% risk of being a security.
4. Derived Mainly from the Efforts of Others -  the value of STEALTH depends upon users of an existing system. No effort is required nor promised of other individuals for the token to receive automatic repurchases from the use of the system. In other words, the value of the token does not depend upon onceuponatime to take further actions.   10% risk

The combined risk for STEALTH is therefore less than 2% chance of being classified as a security and that is with me over estimating and then rounding up. 
The penalty risk is $35,000 (what satoshi dice paid + disgorgement of profits).   When discounting the penalty for the risk you can price the cost at $500.  Any profits would be calculated after recovering his $45,000 investment.

The risk is so low (in my estimation) that CNX will probably use this model to fund future features. 

So I am going to argue strongly that we implement this feature as a STEALTH asset, and then leave it to onceuponatime to determine whether or not to SELL the asset except for the purpose of claiming fees from the automatic buyback.

@bytemaster

Could you please explain how/by whom the STEALTH asset is to be created?

I like the idea of being a modern day Prometheus and bringing to BitShares the equivalent of the fire it needs for combustion. But I do value what is left of my liver 

I am ready to go with your suggestion. I would just like to understand the mechanics a little better.

The STEALTH asset will be issued by the "management account" for this feature as part of the hard fork.  You will just be the initial owner of the issued asset (not the issuer).  This management account will have multi-sig authority assigned to the 5 largest STEALTH holders weighted proportional to stake and will have the power to set the fee.

Thank you. I agree with your ideasl as to how to structure the implementation of the Privacy Mode feature.

Would the next step be for Cryptonomex to release an amended and more detailed "Stealth Transfers in Web Interface ($45,000) #452"  https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/452 and for voting to begin?

If the Worker Proposal is voted in quickly, the January 2nd estimated dated for me to wire funds to Cryptonomex could be shifted forward.

[bytemaster]

Since @onceuponatime is paying we will do things how he wants.

I just wanted to chime in on the regulatory issue. Those who have followed us for a long time know I am very careful and have become increasingly so.  That said, based upon the SWARM working paper (http://www.scribd.com/doc/255347578/SWARM-Working-Paper-Distributed-Networks-and-the-Law)  produced by Members of policy group Coin Center, law firm Perkins Coie as well as Harvard and MIT we now have a much clearer idea on what constitutes a security and high risk. 

My proposed solution of implementing the feature and giving onceuponatime 100% of the STEALTH asset that gets bought back by the network over time.  If he is the only owner, then it is clearly not a security. It just gives him a different way to claim the fees to his account (by order) as well as a way of dividing up control (by dividing his STEALTH among multiple accounts).  So from the perspective of the law, no security has been offered to the public and everything is merely an accounting system on the blockchain for a single user. 

If onceuponatime wished to sell his revenue stream he could do so by transferring the stealth asset.  This is much more powerful than transferring control over an account and/or requiring a bot to automatically forward payments. It creates a far more trust free transfer of revenue (or fraction thereof) to a 3rd party.  Once again, this wouldn't be a security by any stretch of the imagination when selling to private parties because there was no PUBLIC offering. 

At this point I have believe I have demonstrated that we can design the feature to buy back a STEALTH asset while being so far away from regulatory issues that it wouldn't make sense to do it any other way.

All of that said, I believe that the STEALTH asset could be sold to the public AFTER the feature has been implemented and accepted by the network. This is based upon the Howey Test.

The tests for a security require *ALL* of the following properties:

1. Investment of money - token buyers pay money for their tokens.    80%
2. Common Enterprise - the funds received by the sale of STEALTH are not pooled, they become the private property of the seller.  Thus clearly not a common enterprise.  20% risk
3. Reasonable Expectation of Profit - buyers purchase it for speculative purposes in the belief that the value of the token will rise.  90% risk of being a security.
4. Derived Mainly from the Efforts of Others -  the value of STEALTH depends upon users of an existing system. No effort is required nor promised of other individuals for the token to receive automatic repurchases from the use of the system. In other words, the value of the token does not depend upon onceuponatime to take further actions.   10% risk

The combined risk for STEALTH is therefore less than 2% chance of being classified as a security and that is with me over estimating and then rounding up. 
The penalty risk is $35,000 (what satoshi dice paid + disgorgement of profits).   When discounting the penalty for the risk you can price the cost at $500.  Any profits would be calculated after recovering his $45,000 investment.

The risk is so low (in my estimation) that CNX will probably use this model to fund future features. 

So I am going to argue strongly that we implement this feature as a STEALTH asset, and then leave it to onceuponatime to determine whether or not to SELL the asset except for the purpose of claiming fees from the automatic buyback.

@bytemaster

Could you please explain how/by whom the STEALTH asset is to be created?

I like the idea of being a modern day Prometheus and bringing to BitShares the equivalent of the fire it needs for combustion. But I do value what is left of my liver 

I am ready to go with your suggestion. I would just like to understand the mechanics a little better.

The STEALTH asset will be issued by the "management account" for this feature as part of the hard fork.  You will just be the initial owner of the issued asset (not the issuer).  This management account will have multi-sig authority assigned to the 5 largest STEALTH holders weighted proportional to stake and will have the power to set the fee.

[lil_jay890]

If you need to spin something to fit your narrative, call Stan.  He's the best in the biz...

[Thom]

So this guy clearly isn't Satoshi, but when the value skyrockets, privacy is going to be absolutely essential... As is fairly obvious by the below... Which might also be why there hasn't been a big influx of capital thus far.

http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/

Some impressive coincidence eh?

Very disappointing that this has to be privately funded to get done. Thankful to Onceaponatime to funding it of course but disappointed in the overall lack of foresight.

You mean this kind of lack of foresight?

What if BitShares could have perfect privacy?

on the doublespeak Stan. You mean like the "foresight" that is 4 days after the BIG announcement on June 8 of what BitShares 2.0 would include upon launch, which did NOT include any privacy, where everyone's balance was out in the open? Or perhaps you're referring to the "foresight" that was in the making while TITAN was the king of privacy features back in the 0.9X era?

Lots of "gee whiz" features, actually great innovations ... if only they were real rather than ideas that CNX will implement ... eventually, when not dreaming up other neat innovations rather than finding ways to finish up with the last set.

Yep.  A man's reach should exceed his grasp.
We are learning as we go.  Do you really hold us to some standard that requires us to know everything up front?
Who learns and adapts faster than BM?

During that time, BM became aware of the work done in the Bitcoin universe and had a blinding flash of how to incorporate it into BitShares.  It was beyond our budget, so he made it clear it would have to be funded by others.

Bottom line:  BM is a very powerful piece on the chess board.  But he is not all powerful.
Be thankful he is on our chessboard and quit complaining that he is not simultaneously a knight and a rook.

First, for the record, I am not opposed to moving forward with OnceUp's plan to *finally* get stealth implemented. Quite the contrary, it is an incredibly bold and brave move, as well as generous. He wouldn't have invited me to participate in it's planning if I was opposed to it. It is plain to see from a review of the history of this forum that I have been very vocal about the need for stealth and privacy. I pushed back against the lack of it when 2.0 was announced. My minimal resistance to it has to do with its priority among other current objectives, and how it may impact their delivery.

The reason for my objections are primarily due to the spin being put on the record of events and the continuing attitude that CNX management is not at fault. I was here in May and June, I saw it all transpire. It wasn't until you were challenged that you admitted the true and accurate picture. Stan, the quoted post above is exactly right about how and when BM came up with stealth, but you didn't lead with that, no you tried to paint the picture of how it was all part of your grand plan, your omniscient "foresight". Now you want to lay responsibility for the lack of privacy on the community, who has only recently been given any real control.  Sorry, not buying it.

I get dizzy from all your spinning. Call it what you will, hype, spin, coolaid; it's all the same.

[giant middle finger]

no fucking shit. 

so haters quit hating and either give up some love to our rich uncle onceuponatime or go code your own "super-secret-stealth-mode BTS GUI"

this is a free community and you are free to compete, but bitching about free money will land a giant middle fucking finger in your face


for free


bite the hand that feeds, and you will undoubetedly get the finger first

[Stan]

So this guy clearly isn't Satoshi, but when the value skyrockets, privacy is going to be absolutely essential... As is fairly obvious by the below... Which might also be why there hasn't been a big influx of capital thus far.

http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/

Some impressive coincidence eh?

Very disappointing that this has to be privately funded to get done. Thankful to Onceaponatime to funding it of course but disappointed in the overall lack of foresight.

You mean this kind of lack of foresight?

What if BitShares could have perfect privacy?

on the doublespeak Stan. You mean like the "foresight" that is 4 days after the BIG announcement on June 8 of what BitShares 2.0 would include upon launch, which did NOT include any privacy, where everyone's balance was out in the open? Or perhaps you're referring to the "foresight" that was in the making while TITAN was the king of privacy features back in the 0.9X era?

Lots of "gee whiz" features, actually great innovations ... if only they were real rather than ideas that CNX will implement ... eventually, when not dreaming up other neat innovations rather than finding ways to finish up with the last set.

Yep.  A man's reach should exceed his grasp.
We are learning as we go.  Do you really hold us to some standard that requires us to know everything up front?
Who learns and adapts faster than BM?

During that time, BM became aware of the work done in the Bitcoin universe and had a blinding flash of how to incorporate it into BitShares.  It was beyond our budget, so he made it clear it would have to be funded by others.

Bottom line:  BM is a very powerful piece on the chess board.  But he is not all powerful.
Be thankful he is on our chessboard and quit complaining that he is not simultaneously a knight and a rook.

[Stan]

So this guy clearly isn't Satoshi, but when the value skyrockets, privacy is going to be absolutely essential... As is fairly obvious by the below... Which might also be why there hasn't been a big influx of capital thus far.

http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/

Some impressive coincidence eh?

Very disappointing that this has to be privately funded to get done. Thankful to Onceaponatime to funding it of course but disappointed in the overall lack of foresight.

You mean this kind of lack of foresight?

What if BitShares could have perfect privacy?

Exactly that... BM was on board, it was supposed to come a couple of weeks after 2.0 launch i recall, but then priorities changed due to community pressure and now we have onceaponatime funding it because it needs to be done.

I should have clarified i guess, Lack of foresight from the community.

That thread clearly stated that:
a) BM had a plan to add stealth
b) It would have to be funded by the community.

Cryptonomex does not have infinite resources.  Yet.

The community, of course, is sovereign and we can't control its decisions or priorities.

Ascribing "foresight" to a diverse group of people is an iffy proposition.
Dictatorships can have "foresight".
Communities can only aspire to "consensus".

[Myshadow]

So this guy clearly isn't Satoshi, but when the value skyrockets, privacy is going to be absolutely essential... As is fairly obvious by the below... Which might also be why there hasn't been a big influx of capital thus far.

http://www.coindesk.com/police-raid-home-of-alleged-bitcoin-creator-craig-wright/

Some impressive coincidence eh?

Very disappointing that this has to be privately funded to get done. Thankful to Onceaponatime to funding it of course but disappointed in the overall lack of foresight.

You mean this kind of lack of foresight?

What if BitShares could have perfect privacy?

Exactly that... BM was on board, it was supposed to come a couple of weeks after 2.0 launch i recall, but then priorities changed due to community pressure and now we have onceaponatime funding it because it needs to be done.

I should have clarified i guess, Lack of foresight from the community.