Author Topic: STEALTH Status Update  (Read 36217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

I think they are mainly a hack to get around the anti-dilution crowd.

IMO it just adds complexity that isn't needed.  Complexity that can bring in more bugs. 

Complexity is something you fight against in software development, just like libertarian types fight against more laws.

I'd still like to see this explained somewhere so I can know it isn't another TITAN.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline roadscape

The server-side wallet storage was not part of the proposal, but something we felt was necessary to backup/secure user funds. We do not yet have confidence in the reliability of server-side storage to enable this feature. There is a significant about of liability associated in offering to host/backup user wallets.  We don't want to be responsible for the loss of funds.

Why not backup wallets directly on the blockchain? Along with a hash of the owner's email for easy lookups later. And maybe some random noise.

 +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
Forget servers, we have a blockchain!
 
How about this...
Throw a bunch of different random numbers and other noise (maybe even the brainkey too?) into a json file, then compress it, encrypt it, base58 encode it, and throw that single text string into a memo. then, there is your backup. just call it up via wif, throw your key at it, and voila'... would that work? It would only cost a few BTS to store it as a transaction in a block too (for LTM's of course). For extra security, make a second backup. Yes? No? Horrible idea?
 
Hiring (and having to constantly trust) a backup server company is a huge expense and risk that Bitshares' name does not need. I think we should leverage the tools that we already have as much as possible. We have the most scalable chain on earth, let's really show it off!

this would be awsome!

how likely is it, that someone could entcode my password?

We would have to use very secure passwords.. maybe encrypt the wallet using its own brain key. That would make it easy to recover and hard to hack.. isn't this effectively a brain wallet?
http://cryptofresh.com  |  witness: roadscape

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
I am willing to sell to you, @JonnyBitcoin, all of my shares at 8.34 BTS each in order for you to be able to accomplish what you say you would like to see.

Sell STEALTHS openly on OL  and give the opportunity to our community to participate !

sell them in parallel with 5 different prices and give as 2 weeks....   (like a crowd-sale)

1. 20% at 8.0 BTS / STEALTH
2. 20% at 8.5 BTS / STEALTH
3. 20% at 9.0 BTS / STEALTH
4. 20% at 9.5 BTS / STEALTH
5. 20% at 10 BTS / STEALTH

I am sure it will be successful! 

PS just throwing ideas
Selling to public is different from selling back to the DAC (all stake holders). Arhag posted a solution in last page.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
I am willing to sell to you, @JonnyBitcoin, all of my shares at 8.34 BTS each in order for you to be able to accomplish what you say you would like to see.

Sell STEALTHS openly on OL  and give the opportunity to our community to participate !

sell them in parallel with 5 different prices and give as 2 weeks....   (like a crowd-sale)

1. 20% at 8.0 BTS / STEALTH
2. 20% at 8.5 BTS / STEALTH
3. 20% at 9.0 BTS / STEALTH
4. 20% at 9.5 BTS / STEALTH
5. 20% at 10 BTS / STEALTH

I am sure it will be successful! 

PS just throwing ideas

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
The server-side wallet storage was not part of the proposal, but something we felt was necessary to backup/secure user funds. We do not yet have confidence in the reliability of server-side storage to enable this feature. There is a significant about of liability associated in offering to host/backup user wallets.  We don't want to be responsible for the loss of funds.

Why not backup wallets directly on the blockchain? Along with a hash of the owner's email for easy lookups later. And maybe some random noise.

 +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
Forget servers, we have a blockchain!
 
How about this...
Throw a bunch of different random numbers and other noise (maybe even the brainkey too?) into a json file, then compress it, encrypt it, base58 encode it, and throw that single text string into a memo. then, there is your backup. just call it up via wif, throw your key at it, and voila'... would that work? It would only cost a few BTS to store it as a transaction in a block too (for LTM's of course). For extra security, make a second backup. Yes? No? Horrible idea?
 
Hiring (and having to constantly trust) a backup server company is a huge expense and risk that Bitshares' name does not need. I think we should leverage the tools that we already have as much as possible. We have the most scalable chain on earth, let's really show it off!

this would be awsome!

how likely is it, that someone could entcode my password?

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2283
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
The server-side wallet storage was not part of the proposal, but something we felt was necessary to backup/secure user funds. We do not yet have confidence in the reliability of server-side storage to enable this feature. There is a significant about of liability associated in offering to host/backup user wallets.  We don't want to be responsible for the loss of funds.

Why not backup wallets directly on the blockchain? Along with a hash of the owner's email for easy lookups later. And maybe some random noise.

 +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
Forget servers, we have a blockchain!
 
How about this...
Throw a bunch of different random numbers and other noise (maybe even the brainkey too?) into a json file, then compress it, encrypt it, base58 encode it, and throw that single text string into a memo. then, there is your backup. just call it up via wif, throw your key at it, and voila'... would that work? It would only cost a few BTS to store it as a transaction in a block too (for LTM's of course). For extra security, make a second backup. Yes? No? Horrible idea?
 
Hiring (and having to constantly trust) a backup server company is a huge expense and risk that Bitshares' name does not need. I think we should leverage the tools that we already have as much as possible. We have the most scalable chain on earth, let's really show it off!
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Matrix/Keybase/Hive/Commun/Github: @Agorise
www.PalmPay.chat

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin
I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.

I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .

I'd like to see @onceuponatime  to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.

He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

@JonnyBitcoin   I agree with you and Bytemaster that it's best if STEALTH becomes a core feature of the BitShares blockchain under the control of the Committee for setting fees which will then go to all shareholders.

I now own 920,000 of the 1,000,000 STEALTH. I have distributed 20,000 to each of the 4 accounts who, along with myself, are the signatories to the Maintenance Account and are my advisors on the project.

I am willing to sell to you, @JonnyBitcoin, all of my shares at 8.34 BTS each in order for you to be able to accomplish what you say you would like to see.

I think the other 4 accounts would almost certainly sell you their shares at the same rate provided that your plan is to take STEALTH out of existence as a FBA and return the feature to the control of the Committee.

So for my rather significant risk undertaken I am asking for only a virtual break even. This is because I want immediate funds for a couple of projects which require market liquidity in key BitShares markets.  I hope to help provide such liquidity.

And  I would hope that your offer to sell the shares to the blockchain via Worker Proposal would also be reasonable and no more than at a, say, 10% profit?

(This proposal is good until Friday April 8th at  11:59 UTC after which, if not accepted, it will be withdrawn)

I would not take this risk on, sorry.
I think you should ask someone to create a worker proposal for you.
I run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline onceuponatime

I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.

I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .

I'd like to see @onceuponatime  to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.

He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

@JonnyBitcoin   I agree with you and Bytemaster that it's best if STEALTH becomes a core feature of the BitShares blockchain under the control of the Committee for setting fees which will then go to all shareholders.

I now own 920,000 of the 1,000,000 STEALTH. I have distributed 20,000 to each of the 4 accounts who, along with myself, are the signatories to the Maintenance Account and are my advisors on the project.

I am willing to sell to you, @JonnyBitcoin, all of my shares at 8.34 BTS each in order for you to be able to accomplish what you say you would like to see.

I think the other 4 accounts would almost certainly sell you their shares at the same rate provided that your plan is to take STEALTH out of existence as a FBA and return the feature to the control of the Committee.

So for my rather significant risk undertaken I am asking for only a virtual break even. This is because I want immediate funds for a couple of projects which require market liquidity in key BitShares markets.  I hope to help provide such liquidity.

And  I would hope that your offer to sell the shares to the blockchain via Worker Proposal would also be reasonable and no more than at a, say, 10% profit?

(This proposal is good until Friday April 8th at  11:59 UTC after which, if not accepted, it will be withdrawn)

Offline Erlich Bachman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
  • I'm a pro
    • View Profile
for real though.

You are the Satoshi Onceuponatimeamoto of Bitshares. The last thing we want to do is piss u off!

You took the risk while others are strangling our ability to develop so logically, you deserve the reward
You own the network, but who pays for development?

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.

I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .

I'd like to see @onceuponatime  to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.

He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

 +5% +5%

I would support this move as well.  The easiest way to do so is to create a worker, get it voted in, and refund once upon a time his money.  That would require about 7.5 million BTS.  Maximum dilution for about 3 weeks should do the trick if my math is right.

Who thinks we can get that approved by shareholders?

Have you asked onceuponatime ?

Bytemaster and I have discussed the situation. There are some issues that I am still mulling over in my mind. For instance I had promised a distribution of 20,000 STEALTH each to the 5 accounts that agreed to share responsibility of the 3 of 5 signatory power over the Maintenance Account, and to act as an advisory board. I intend to keep my word on that matter by making that distribution.
Absolutely. Compromise for the community/network is great onceuponatime, but you must make sure you feel no pressure. You took a significant risk for us.

Offline onceuponatime

I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.

I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .

I'd like to see @onceuponatime  to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.

He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

 +5% +5%

I would support this move as well.  The easiest way to do so is to create a worker, get it voted in, and refund once upon a time his money.  That would require about 7.5 million BTS.  Maximum dilution for about 3 weeks should do the trick if my math is right.

Who thinks we can get that approved by shareholders?

Have you asked onceuponatime ?

Bytemaster and I have discussed the situation. There are some issues that I am still mulling over in my mind. For instance I had promised a distribution of 20,000 STEALTH each to the 5 accounts that agreed to share responsibility of the 3 of 5 signatory power over the Maintenance Account, and to act as an advisory board. I intend to keep my word on that matter by making that distribution.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.

I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .

I'd like to see @onceuponatime  to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.

He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

 +5% +5%

I would support this move as well.  The easiest way to do so is to create a worker, get it voted in, and refund once upon a time his money.  That would require about 7.5 million BTS.  Maximum dilution for about 3 weeks should do the trick if my math is right.

Who thinks we can get that approved by shareholders?

Have you asked onceuponatime ?

Offline bytemaster

I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.

I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .

I'd like to see @onceuponatime  to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.

He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

 +5% +5%

I would support this move as well.  The easiest way to do so is to create a worker, get it voted in, and refund once upon a time his money.  That would require about 7.5 million BTS.  Maximum dilution for about 3 weeks should do the trick if my math is right.

Who thinks we can get that approved by shareholders? 
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 void

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.

I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .

I'd like to see @onceuponatime  to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.

He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

 +5% +5%

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.

I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .

I'd like to see @onceuponatime  to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.

He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

Well, the community had a chance to fund it and would up relying on private investment.  To lobby after the fact to change the rules is very damaging to the possibility of further such investment.  It's really the same bad rep we get when someone starts a worker project and then gets voted out before they can finish it.  I, for one, will have no part in trying to pressure Onceup to give up what he took the ultimate personal risk to make possible.

I think we need to figure out some community rules for how FBA features could potentially be given back to BTS holders in the future for any new FBA we wish to approve.
For example, perhaps if more than 90% of a FBA holders vote to hand back control of their feature to BTS, that gives the community permission to:
1) choose some "fair" price of the FBA based on the recent market price history of the FBA trading on the DEX; and,
2) with the permission of the majority of BTS holders, hard fork the DAC to pay all FBA holders (other than the committee account) at the previously mentioned price (using sufficient funds accumulated in the committee account), destroy the FBA, and allow control of the FBA's feature to be given fully to the DAC.

If all FBA investors know these rules ahead of time, it becomes appropriate for BTS holders to optionally support the following procedure to gain control over the FBA feature:
1) BTS holders vote for workers that pay the committee account for the sole purpose of using those funds to buy the FBA over time at "reasonable" prices.
The worker would have to include some kind of information of what maximum price the committee would be authorized to pay for the FBA, although the committee would try to be smart about the orders they place to try to get good deals even if that delays acquiring the FBA. BTS holders could always stop voting for existing workers and vote new workers to change the price limits on the orders they are willing to authorize the committee to make.
2) As the committee accumulates the FBA they buy, they would also be accumulating the fees from the usage of the FBA's feature. It would be the committee's responsibility to either use these fees to buy more of the FBA or instead send those fees to the BTS reserve pool depending on what the currently active worker authorized them to do.
3) If the committee ends up accumulate more than 90% of the FBA supply, they would lock in the "fair" settling price at that time. They would then move onto the second stage which is to continue raising enough funds from workers to pay off the remaining less than 10% of holders at the "fair" price. The worker voted by BTS holders to pay them would also act as support from BTS stakeholders to do the hard fork later when possible.
4) Finally, when enough funds have been accumulated for this purpose in the committee account, everyone would update to a new client which would trigger the hard forking mechanism described above to pay the remaining less than 10% the "fair" price using the funds in the committee account, and then destroy the FBA so that the feature ends up fully in the control of BTS holders.

If everyone investing in new FBA assets understands these rules (that more than 90%, or whatever threshold we think is appropriate, of FBA holders can, with the agreement of the majority of BTS holders, force them out of their position at a price that is not determined by them but is nevertheless hopefully not too unreasonable) then BTS holders get a fair mechanism to potentially take control over features that they weren't able/willing to fund back when the feature was considered necessary to have. In fact, if we could get @onceuponatime to agree to a rule like this prior to selling any STEALTH, then we have a mechanism to potentially allow BTS holders to get back control over stealth features.

I think this is very important because I agree with @JonnyBitcoin that stealth is a core feature of BitShares and I very much dislike the idea of BTS holders not having sovereignty over their core features. I preferred funding stealth GUI features with workers rather than the FBA for this reason. Now if we ever want to change the way stealth operations work or interact with the rest of system (the rate-limited free transaction feature or funding the referral program are perfect examples) it is no longer just the decision of BTS holders. It now requires complicated (and less likely to succeed) negotiations between BTS holders and STEALTH holders. This rigidity can prevent us from making the smart decisions to most effectively grow BitShares.

At the same time, not having a way to practically use stealth features could likely have also hindered BitShares adoption. And the fact is that due to the anti-dilution camp, if it wasn't for @onceuponatime we likely wouldn't have a practical way to use stealth for the foreseeable future. So I am thankful for that. I just want to make sure we have some mechanism that is fair to all parties involved which allows us to go back to the better way of managing these features (controlled solely by the BTS holders) in the future when hopefully BTS holders are more willing to dilute.