Plan for introducing Privacy (STEALTH) Mode feature asap

[abit]

So... a few greedy people whining just made Stealth transfers 2/5 more expensive for everyone... great! 

More expensive than what?  What do stealth transfers cost currently?

Scroll up to: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20499.msg268421.html#msg268421

[Samupaha]

If the market cap stays constant .. a reduced supply (burning of shares) results in a higher price for the other shares

But what about the reserve pool? Isn't it going to be used anymore?

[giant middle finger]

So... a few greedy people whining just made Stealth transfers 2/5 more expensive for everyone... great! 

More expensive than what?  What do stealth transfers cost currently?

[xeroc]

If the market cap stays constant .. a reduced supply (burning of shares) results in a higher price for the other shares

[Samupaha]

I've added a shareholders summary and a discussion about the fees with respect to the already implemented cli-wallet:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/commit/02b7162ccd3dc14c006b26dd32dbcc99b49afa14
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/commit/00e673050c6b341f9df8a1b6ebf1f176c755b416
Feedback appreciated

From the first one:

"All fees in BitShares2 are actually burned"

What this means? Doesn't burning mean that the asset is made unusable forever? Isn't Bitshares 2 supposed to put money made from fees to the reserve pool where it can be used again?

[CoinHoarder]

So... a few greedy people whining just made Stealth transfers 2/5 more expensive for everyone... great! 

[xeroc]

I've added a shareholders summary and a discussion about the fees with respect to the already implemented cli-wallet:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/commit/02b7162ccd3dc14c006b26dd32dbcc99b49afa14
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/commit/00e673050c6b341f9df8a1b6ebf1f176c755b416
Feedback appreciated

[tonyk]

their logic goes like this.... if I build a better looking house on your land I can claim the land as mine. After all they claimed a whole continent as 'theirs' following this tactic, what are a feature or two on BTS.

CLI users are (and always will be) a very small fraction of Bitshares' user base. Sorry, but you are not that important. It is more important that the masses be able to use said feature than you get "robbed" of it. Anyways, the appreciation of the value of the BTS token, if we are able to further adoption, will in effect remedy the "profit" you could of made from Stealth transfers (or any feature for that matter.) Adoption has always been the end game goal for Bitshares- if it is widely adopted everyone wins, regardless of who owns X, Y or Z feature. Making Stealth transfers available to the masses rather than just CLI users is a good step in that direction. It will take many more steps, but every step is worth taking.

You guys should of realized early on that Bytemaster will heavily influence the direction the Bitshares project will take. If you don't like that, then please just sell your stake and go somewhere else because your negativity is toxic to the community.

  - The community is way more tolerant than it needs to be IMHO.  It's like people coming into your home and calling you a bum and your wife a whore...and screaming FREE SPEECH when you tell them to STFU and get out. 

(my Christmas message.  )

Sounds like a plan... gotten tired of brown nosing forum defense not thinking for themselves crowds, anyway.

[yvv]

If switching between chains is that easy , then the chain is not really a public chain , but a private chain mirrored on public chain . So no decentralization

Not true.  You would just be doing then what you think you need to do now: 
Making a centralized decision to launch a new decentralized chain.

have you talk to big banks about using the BitShares chain ? anyone interested at that ?  or they insist on private chain ?

Ripple is negotiating with banks for two years or so with no results. Neither big nor small banks like open blockchains for two main reasons: they need privacy and they don't like cryptotokens like XRP.

[abit]

The fee doesnt change for cli users ... effectively .. only what would have been paid to the referral program now goes to the fba .. BUT since the referral program CANNOT work together with stealth, these funds never would have went to the referal program in the first place ... so in the end it does change much for the end user but a fraction of bts profits is redirected to a fba

I'll try to make it more clear in the bsip after the holidays

It's obvious that the fees will increase a lot.

Current fees:

Transfer   30 BTS   6 BTS   20 BTS
...
Transfer to blind   20 BTS   4 BTS   -
   -  Price per output   20 BTS   4 BTS   -
Transfer from blind   20 BTS   4 BTS   -

New fees in the proposal:

2.  It shall provide the following fee based services:
       * Transfer from public account to their own private balance
       * Transfer from one of their private accounts to one of their private contacts
       * Transfer from one of their private accounts to any public account
       * Register a new account using a private balance.
       * Receive a private transfer from a 3rd party given a transfer receipt.
 3.  Each of these services shall charge a fee initially set at 3x the standard
     transfer fee, but which may be adjusted from time to time by the owner(s) of
     the Privacy Mode's management account (see [BSIP-0008](bsip-0008.md))

[btswildpig]

If switching between chains is that easy , then the chain is not really a public chain , but a private chain mirrored on public chain . So no decentralization

Not true.  You would just be doing then what you think you need to do now: 
Making a centralized decision to launch a new decentralized chain.

have you talk to big banks about using the BitShares chain ? anyone interested at that ?  or they insist on private chain ?

[Stan]

If switching between chains is that easy , then the chain is not really a public chain , but a private chain mirrored on public chain . So no decentralization

Not true.  You would just be doing then what you think you need to do now: 
Making a centralized decision to launch a new decentralized chain.

[Stan]

Building businesses on separate chains and forking BTS seems just like the same thing happening with Bitcoin and Banks (ignore the problems with bitcoin that's not the point). There just won't be interoperability and that will limit all the chains.

Everyone wants to create THE chain nowadays and parts in different directions when if they worked together, that chain might have being built/started already.

This is just like every IT company in the world having their own separate Operative System.

In the future - unless there's a way for the chains to communicate, which will have it's own bottlenecks and restrictions - most will be extinguished.

Everyone's just being greedy as hell trying to build the next big thing instead of working together smh. It seems people didn't learn from the past yet, with the OS, intranets, etc

If someone isn't happy with the path BTS is taking, they can "fork it" simply by having committee members so they can convince people why that path is better and if everyone agrees, we can take it. That's like abandoning an argument and remain in ignorance and/or be mad instead of having a proper discussion and find common ground or try to understand each other and learn something

Yes.  We'd love to see a proposal to implement whatever changes your whale thinks are needed bad enough to justify starting over again with a new chain.

Bytemaster has been trying to encourage other leaders to step forward for many months now. 
An experienced, aggressive Chinese businessman could be just what we need.

By the way, I know of at least one business application that is considering building on the BitShares chain with a completely different brand - ordinary customers don't even know they are using the BitShares chain, while other businesses can take advantage of that knowledge to offer all kinds of bridge and infrastructure services.

This gives all the benefits of being on an interoperable network while retaining complete control of brand and messaging.

[btswildpig]

... I don't think bts would go to zero if they quit working on the project.  It's just code, its mit licensed, and any programmer could come in and start working on it.

It certainly could, though. Interesting this is being brought up today.
Just this morning I was skyped by a whale friend of mine in China who asked me...
 

[1:48:56 AM] : Do you know how to fork BTS ?
[1:48:56 AM] : we want to fork BTS
[1:48:56 AM] :
[1:48:56 AM] : For stock market use
[1:48:56 AM] : In China
[1:49:06 AM] : may need some help

 
If CNX doesn't keep their nose to the grindstone, the next fork might just hurt a bit more..

I think you should push him to use the current bts platform and develop on our chain instead of forking it.
What will you advise him to do?

I know the whale, even met him last week.
"forking BTS" is a little hotly discussed  these days in China.
most people agree that the BTS2.0 development is amazing, but the operation is not in good status.
seldom believe to run business in BTS is a good choice, people would rather adopt the technology developed by CNX.
this is the case...

Devs, especially @bytemaster and @Stan should take this seriously IMHO.
How can we improve or fix the bad management? If we fix this problem, will they build their businesses on current BTS ecosystem?

Even Muse(no developer,easy function) is on a different chain  . Why would you expect serious businesses build their app on BTS chain instead of their own ? Serious business does not like to be choked by some developer . If they want the tech , at best is to hire BM like Muse  .

Actually, that logic is like jumping to your weaker backup plan immediately rather than take advantage of the combined network effect of multiple businesses on a single network.  This means you have to negotiate all your support infrastructure and on/off ramps all over again.

Look at how easy it is to switch to a separate chain later, if it turns out one of your hypothetical worried does materialize:.  MUSE started out as an asset on BitShares and then switched to its own chain when they decided they needed to for sound business reasons.  Even BitShares 1.0 easily switched to 2.0 when the time came.    Chains are not a long term commitment and it will become common place for them to move to the best new technology from time to time.

So, you always have a fork as an easy backup plan if the main chain doesn't work out for you for any reason.    But prematurely throwing out the other advantages of a ready built supporting community because you have theoretical worries is not something to be considered lightly.    You don't just miss out on the network effect we have now, you miss out on what everybody adds to it over time.

The network effect doesn't come with the code.

Unless you want to take centralized control of a chain to ensure that you have "better management", what would you do differently now that BitShares is managed by its owners?    I guess a whale could keep enough shares for herself to ensure that she always retains voting control.   

If switching between chains is that easy , then the chain is not really a public chain , but a private chain mirrored on public chain . So no decentralization

[Akado]

Building businesses on separate chains and forking BTS seems just like the same thing happening with Bitcoin and Banks (ignore the problems with bitcoin that's not the point). There just won't be interoperability and that will limit all the chains.

Everyone wants to create THE chain nowadays and parts in different directions when if they worked together, that chain might have being built/started already.

This is just like every IT company in the world having their own separate Operative System.

In the future - unless there's a way for the chains to communicate, which will have it's own bottlenecks and restrictions - most will be extinguished.

Everyone's just being greedy as hell trying to build the next big thing instead of working together smh. It seems people didn't learn from the past yet, with the OS, intranets, etc

If someone isn't happy with the path BTS is taking, they can "fork it" simply by having committee members so they can convince people why that path is better and if everyone agrees, we can take it. That's like abandoning an argument and remain in ignorance and/or be mad instead of having a proper discussion and find common ground or try to understand each other and learn something