Author Topic: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added  (Read 5032 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tarantulaz

  • Guest
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2016, 06:09:49 pm »
Well, if KenCode has his whales behind him and they are going to fund the development then I guess it should be up to him and his team. As long as the solution is working and they commit in doing everything right with the GUI as well, then I can't see a reason to argue.

However I still think that little privacy = no privacy for me and untested-new-high privacy technology is both too risky and time consuming.

On the funding side, would anyone consider doing an ICO-type funding? I know it might sound crazy, but this discussion has been within the NXT community as well.

With the current liquidity pool workers, market cap, the existing dilution from the merger and the Chinese community voting against most projects, we should try and raise some money for a specific number of projects and sell BTS to whales OTC. If that happens via a hard fork, that would be the quickest way. Create an account managed by an elected committee that will handle the funds and get Ronny to assist us with the escrow.

This would have many benefits :
1) No immediate drop in the market cap
2) Immediate access to funds and we don't have to worry about the votes, so mini projects like Chronos' videos, as well as svk can keep being funded.
3) No more arguments about funding workers
4) More whales would get in the ecosystem that could invest more if everything goes well both in terms of development and privacy
5) ICOs seem to attract a lot of attention recently and raising 500.000 especially for an established project wouldn't be that hard. With the right promotion BitShares could attract more people to get involved.

For this one we need some people to lead the way. We need a good plan first and then a strong committee to implement the things the majority of stakeholders and CO participants has agreed on.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2016, 06:29:26 pm »
Well, if KenCode has his whales behind him and they are going to fund the development then I guess it should be up to him and his team. As long as the solution is working and they commit in doing everything right with the GUI as well, then I can't see a reason to argue.

However I still think that little privacy = no privacy for me and untested-new-high privacy technology is both too risky and time consuming.

On the funding side, would anyone consider doing an ICO-type funding? I know it might sound crazy, but this discussion has been within the NXT community as well.

With the current liquidity pool workers, market cap, the existing dilution from the merger and the Chinese community voting against most projects, we should try and raise some money for a specific number of projects and sell BTS to whales OTC. If that happens via a hard fork, that would be the quickest way. Create an account managed by an elected committee that will handle the funds and get Ronny to assist us with the escrow.

This would have many benefits :
1) No immediate drop in the market cap
2) Immediate access to funds and we don't have to worry about the votes, so mini projects like Chronos' videos, as well as svk can keep being funded.
3) No more arguments about funding workers
4) More whales would get in the ecosystem that could invest more if everything goes well both in terms of development and privacy
5) ICOs seem to attract a lot of attention recently and raising 500.000 especially for an established project wouldn't be that hard. With the right promotion BitShares could attract more people to get involved.

For this one we need some people to lead the way. We need a good plan first and then a strong committee to implement the things the majority of stakeholders and CO participants has agreed on.

For new networks yes... why would an investor want to come in and make a bunch of existing holders more rich with their money?

This is the position I have gotten numerous times when talking to investors about bitshares.. there is no clear ROI... and the politics that have divided the direction of Bitshares (anti-dilusion vs. etc) only heightened the risk profile.

I understand that this is an FBA though... which investors understand.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

tarantulaz

  • Guest
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2016, 06:39:59 pm »

For new networks yes... why would an investor want to come in and make a bunch of existing holders more rich with their money?

This is the position I have gotten numerous times when talking to investors about bitshares.. there is no clear ROI... and the politics that have divided the direction of Bitshares (anti-dilusion vs. etc) only heightened the risk profile.

I understand that this is an FBA though... which investors understand.

That's why a clear plan is needed, with the majority agreeing on it. It doesn't have to be only big investors even if that would be more preferable.  Let's say a whale wants to enter BitShares, but doesn't want to move the price too much. We could sell the shares in a discounted rate. That would be ideal for him/her. Give them a 10-15% discount as well and bingo.

I am not talking about investors waiting to make ROI, but people who see that these features could make BitShares' price go up. People join ICOs nowadays without thinking much. It could even be people from this community who want to see the money that they put in buying shares do something useful and not just move onto a previous holder.

I am pretty sure than many community members would actually like this. More shares, for less and with money going into actual development.

As an FBA it wouldn't make much sense. Who would like to have an asset that only pays for some features or what are those features? Which ones should be included and which ones shouldn't?

Finally I don't want to be too pushy, but I still haven't gotten an answer about how you plan to implement sidechains? When I made a post about doing an ICO for an FBA for sidechains you said Peerplays would do it (you might have talked/wrote about it and I haven't heard/read it yet).

Offline bitsharesbrazil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2016, 06:43:40 pm »
You can fork any time, but who is going to follow you? Bitshares holders will not, big guys will not, the market will not, brwnd recongnition will not, awareness will not, community will not,

But if you can find BiG new money for it fork it make an ico, dump early at no cost, develop n let community judge if you have either.
bitcointalk ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1084460.0
chat, post, promote it!!!!!!!! Stan help to improve OP!

tarantulaz

  • Guest
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2016, 07:07:12 pm »
You can fork any time, but who is going to follow you? Bitshares holders will not, big guys will not, the market will not, brwnd recongnition will not, awareness will not, community will not,

But if you can find BiG new money for it fork it make an ico, dump early at no cost, develop n let community judge if you have either.

Who said that they will not? Are you a representative of all big holders? I am just setting a question that has MANY pros and a few cons. If the community says no, we don't want this fork, but we are still up for going through the slow way of not spending then fine. Getting paid by the blockchain at current rates and with the current split in the community, is painful, slow and many times you don't even get paid. Who wants to get paid by a blockchain who can revoke the contract anytime or whose token value is dropping day by day?

Lisk got 6M, Waves 16$ and there are more to come. We need about 500.000$ and we'll become huge. Otherwise, we can wait for developers to get some pennies, so that they can fix a few bugs and the documentation then we are done.

We are so much smaller than bitcoin, that the holders can offer less than 500.000$/y, but Bitshares needs a lot more in order to grow, otherwise it is going to die slowly. Many people already say that BitShares is dead and they are not that wrong. If people keep thinking that way, then BitShares will die, because hey, that's the word on the street, so it must be true.

Offline bitsharesbrazil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2016, 07:29:20 pm »
You can fork any time, but who is going to follow you? Bitshares holders will not, big guys will not, the market will not, brwnd recongnition will not, awareness will not, community will not,

But if you can find BiG new money for it fork it make an ico, dump early at no cost, develop n let community judge if you have either.

Who said that they will not? Are you a representative of all big holders? I am just setting a question that has MANY pros and a few cons. If the community says no, we don't want this fork, but we are still up for going through the slow way of not spending then fine. Getting paid by the blockchain at current rates and with the current split in the community, is painful, slow and many times you don't even get paid. Who wants to get paid by a blockchain who can revoke the contract anytime or whose token value is dropping day by day?

Lisk got 6M, Waves 16$ and there are more to come. We need about 500.000$ and we'll become huge. Otherwise, we can wait for developers to get some pennies, so that they can fix a few bugs and the documentation then we are done.

We are so much smaller than bitcoin, that the holders can offer less than 500.000$/y, but Bitshares needs a lot more in order to grow, otherwise it is going to die slowly. Many people already say that BitShares is dead and they are not that wrong. If people keep thinking that way, then BitShares will die, because hey, that's the word on the street, so it must be true.

Bitshares dead? A lot of data dont say that, for me it is stronger n much stronger than before....do your research again.

Average people does not make a diference in lisk ico, lisk ico was small targeting average investor. The only diffent thing is ethereum. ico party will be over soon n.we will start mining party again.



Is it fud because the price has to go up now?
bitcointalk ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1084460.0
chat, post, promote it!!!!!!!! Stan help to improve OP!

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2905
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2016, 07:36:42 pm »
I'd like to see the discussion separate the affordability/priority issues from the underlying best approach.

If Ken has a whale sponsor with deep, um, blubber, what is the best thing to build for the ecosystem?
Please read my post above, my concern is not just affordability. Assuming one approach is the "best" is itself an error, IMO.

Yeah, you slipped in your answer while I was still typing my question.  Great service!
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

tarantulaz

  • Guest
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2016, 07:39:01 pm »
You can fork any time, but who is going to follow you? Bitshares holders will not, big guys will not, the market will not, brwnd recongnition will not, awareness will not, community will not,

But if you can find BiG new money for it fork it make an ico, dump early at no cost, develop n let community judge if you have either.

Who said that they will not? Are you a representative of all big holders? I am just setting a question that has MANY pros and a few cons. If the community says no, we don't want this fork, but we are still up for going through the slow way of not spending then fine. Getting paid by the blockchain at current rates and with the current split in the community, is painful, slow and many times you don't even get paid. Who wants to get paid by a blockchain who can revoke the contract anytime or whose token value is dropping day by day?

Lisk got 6M, Waves 16$ and there are more to come. We need about 500.000$ and we'll become huge. Otherwise, we can wait for developers to get some pennies, so that they can fix a few bugs and the documentation then we are done.

We are so much smaller than bitcoin, that the holders can offer less than 500.000$/y, but Bitshares needs a lot more in order to grow, otherwise it is going to die slowly. Many people already say that BitShares is dead and they are not that wrong. If people keep thinking that way, then BitShares will die, because hey, that's the word on the street, so it must be true.

Bitshares dead? A lot of data dont say that, for me it is stronger n much stronger than before....do your research again.

Average people does not make a diference in lisk ico, lisk ico was small targeting average investor. The only diffent thing is ethereum. ico party will be over soon n.we will start mining party again.



Is it fud because the price has to go up now?

I didn't get the last point some of your points to be honest.

There are many people who have left the community claiming BTS is dead, BM has left for another project and to many, that might seems very bad. I was on some forums where people were making fun of BTS. The same thing came up when I was watching a crypto livestream. We are so closed up in our community and think so highly of ourselves and we don't see the same things as others. We see that BitShares is alive, but other people see it as dead.

We have 0 marketing. We've been talking about Rate limited fees, Stealth, sidechains and other features for months and we have done nothing, in a space that moves so fast, that is either evolve or die...

You have to be realistic. If people think you are dead and forget about you, then does it matter that you are alive? We aren't building this platform just for ourselves. We have to try more and we need money or we die.

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2016, 07:46:31 pm »
I am probably not going to ultimately use RingCT. I think we can combine CN and CCT (one timers and compact conf tx (h/t Blockstream)), radically reducing the space that is needed and then dump proof of square this way. We are still working this out, but this just might be the ticket.

What is CN?

One time rings which mix the senders identities for untraceability
 

And I believe Compact Confidential Transactions were broken.

Right now I think that is just hearsay by btctalk "Poloniex Matthew" (a btctalk newbie)
 
Have you looked at Zerocash (https://z.cash)? Hiding who you are, where you are connected etc might be a lot easier if we can somehow use their method for the mixing stage.


From my limited understanding of Zerocash (zk-SNARKs wtf?) it doesn't have very good performance, and does it still require a trusted setup? If so, that is a non-starter to me.

True, speed is a major issue with me. It's one of the many reasons I chose Bitshares (even when we had 10 second blocks). Their mixing technology though looks so far to be the most superior, so I would like to dig deeper into this and just use what we need. There have been some ideas brought to me that may solve all of the speed issues.
 
blinded transactions are not just a detour or even a "half-way" towards stealth transactions. We ultimately want to support both methods, IMO, but blinded transactions are 1) easier to use, 2) not prone to losses, and 3) easier to implement. It would be difficult for me to support a worker that favors supporting stealth before supporting blind transactions. I would like to see a lower cost worker created for blinded transactions first, then a higher cost worker created to support stealth after blinded transactions have been successfully implemented.

Interesting, but you guys know a Worker is not cheap and for me it is very risky to start some of my guys on this and have the funding get yanked out because of the non-dilute guys. $45K was no small amount, but at least all the core code is done, now we just need the GUI. Hiding the sender/receiver stage 1. Hiding the amounts stage 2. Mixing and masking stage 3. Rudimentary, but would you vote for something like that? My guys don't cost as much and of course I would try to get CNX and others to do the audits on all of our code too (plus I will put it on my github as usual).
 

We need both simple blinded transfers (with no hiding of metadata) and also a great stealth system
...
building a GUI for simple blinded transfers is a much easier problem, so I expect it to be completed first.

Ok, so if we break this up in stages, milestones if you will, could we get this Worker funded? If so, I will get on the job description and milestones asap and present it to the community for a vote. I just worry about the anti-dilute crowd, I do not want to waste time or money on a project that just gets stalled again.
 

On the funding side, would anyone consider doing an ICO-type funding?

Yes, BitShares Munich
 

ICOs seem to attract a lot of attention recently and raising 500.000 especially for an established project wouldn't be that hard.

Jeez well you wouldn't believe how far I can stretch even 10K.
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Telegram: https://t.me/Agorise - Github: https://github.com/Agorise

Offline bitsharesbrazil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2016, 07:51:29 pm »
Relax man, let bts do his ride alone.....if it need sink, let it sink n increase your stake.....so in the future you can help funding at little cost, is not easy funding in this situation, but things gonna change, n we should focus on simple, priorities,n affordable.things that our service can be more widespread for now....when bts reach a considerable apreciation in price everything will be easier.....even bitcoin found hard time in bear market
bitcointalk ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1084460.0
chat, post, promote it!!!!!!!! Stan help to improve OP!

tarantulaz

  • Guest
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2016, 08:16:46 pm »

On the funding side, would anyone consider doing an ICO-type funding?

Yes, BitShares Munich
 

ICOs seem to attract a lot of attention recently and raising 500.000 especially for an established project wouldn't be that hard.

Jeez well you wouldn't believe how far I can stretch even 10K.

That sounds really good to me, but I was talking about development in general. I wanted bigger ICO so that we can develop all the features we want to and we need to.

Let's admit it, DPoS isn't ideal to fund development. At least not as good as Dash's masternodes and with the ongoing merger dilution, we need another way to fund development. A quick fix would be to create OPENStealth as an FBA and have Openledger as escrow or something like that.

I know you 'inherited' that code from BM, but why not something else and you desperately want that feature? Again I am gonna wait and see your plan about adding Ring Signatures to the game.

Blinded Transfers and CoinJoin would be very easy to add to BitShares, and would add great privacy if combined. Imagine the blockchain bloat if we add Ring Signature in BitShares, even if they are optional. What are your thoughts on this?

[member=42425]bitsharesbrazil[/member] I am relaxed, the situation is serious though. Even if the community doesn't agree on stealth at the moment, a solution will be found. But without money we can't do anything. No money, no honey.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #41 on: June 09, 2016, 10:19:33 pm »
I am probably not going to ultimately use RingCT. I think we can combine CN and CCT (one timers and compact conf tx (h/t Blockstream)), radically reducing the space that is needed and then dump proof of square this way. We are still working this out, but this just might be the ticket.

What is CN?

One time rings which mix the senders identities for untraceability

Are you talking about the linkable ring signatures used in CryptoNote, which are based on the "Traceable ring signature" by Fujisaki and Suzuki?

Apparently according to this Monero paper (warning PDF), the LWW ring signatures (Linkable Spontaneous Anonymous Group (LSAG) signatures by Liu, Wei, and Wong) are more space efficient than the FS ring signatures.
 

And I believe Compact Confidential Transactions were broken.

Right now I think that is just hearsay by btctalk "Poloniex Matthew" (a btctalk newbie)

After looking into it more carefully, it seems it was broken last year but was fixed. Here is a better link explaining the original problem. Gregory Maxwell reported on June 24, 2015 that Andrew Poelstra was able to break the cryptosystem. A day later, Mixles (Denis Lukianov), the creator of CCT, commented that he updated the paper to fix the issue but because of it the proof was slightly less compact (but still much better than CT). The thread is really long and detailed so I just skimmed it, but it seems some other minor issues came up and were addressed, and then there was a bigger issue and it seems that was eventually addressed. However, of the four variants of CCT available as of that last update, 1 and 2 are non-starters because they require trust, 3 seems to not be interesting for our purposes either, and 4, which is the interesting one to consider, now has much larger proofs that are close to but I suppose still half the size of a CT proof that hides all 64-bits of the amount (but if only hiding 32 bits of the balance with CT is enough from a privacy perspective, then there doesn't seem to currently be any significant proof size advantage).

Given all of the above, I feel more comfortable sticking with regular CT for now. Especially considering that LSAG signatures have been adapted to work with CT by Monero devs (see the Monero paper I linked above) and an implementation for it already exists.

 
« Last Edit: June 09, 2016, 10:26:00 pm by arhag »

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2016, 10:44:55 pm »
Let's admit it, DPoS isn't ideal to fund development. At least not as good as Dash's masternodes

How is Dash's governance and proposal funding system better? I'm actually curious, because I haven't had time to look into it yet. On a very quick inspection I didn't see anything novel or that stood out to me (when I compare to what BitShares already has). Keep in mind, I am talking technicals here. Maybe Dash stakeholders are blessed without an anti-dilution camp holding them hostage. But that has nothing to do with the technology.

That doesn't mean BitShares governance systems are great. I have issues with it which I have talked about here and here. And I have some additional ideas (in drafts or even still in my head) for how I would like to see the worker system change to provide greater certainty to those getting paid who got elected. It's not great to get your worker elected only to worry everyday whether your worker is being paid or not because of vote fluctuations.

But the bigger issue is, could we get stakeholder consensus to implement such a large change. Probably not.  :(

tarantulaz

  • Guest
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #43 on: June 10, 2016, 12:08:28 am »
Let's admit it, DPoS isn't ideal to fund development. At least not as good as Dash's masternodes

How is Dash's governance and proposal funding system better? I'm actually curious, because I haven't had time to look into it yet. On a very quick inspection I didn't see anything novel or that stood out to me (when I compare to what BitShares already has). Keep in mind, I am talking technicals here. Maybe Dash stakeholders are blessed without an anti-dilution camp holding them hostage. But that has nothing to do with the technology.

That doesn't mean BitShares governance systems are great. I have issues with it which I have talked about here and here. And I have some additional ideas (in drafts or even still in my head) for how I would like to see the worker system change to provide greater certainty to those getting paid who got elected. It's not great to get your worker elected only to worry everyday whether your worker is being paid or not because of vote fluctuations.

But the bigger issue is, could we get stakeholder consensus to implement such a large change. Probably not.  :(

Dash doesn't have any anti-dilution camp and that is why they are doing a lot better at the moment. I made a post a few months ago explaining how different crypto DAO/DAC work, and despite the fact they have a 13% inflation, the main problem they have, is how to fund all the awesome projects they have... If they could fund more proposals trust me, they would. At the moment they are about implement contracts on the blockchain, so that people don't run into the same problems as we've run into, like one day you are paid, the other you are not.

But let me be more clear as to why Dash's model is better :

1) You must have 1000 Dash in order to vote and run a masternode, which gets about 9-10% APR. So it is people with a relatively good stake and people that are more interested in seeing Dash grow.

If you could get 10% APR and you were risking that much money, would you not try to make things work? Because there are no proxies, wouldn't you be more interested to find out about the developments? If you have bothered to create a masternode, wouldn't that mean that you are already a bit more technical and willing to get involved? It isn't the speculator or the average Joe that vote via the masternode mechanism.

2) Less voter apathy because of the incentives. Apart from the apathy, it doesn't make much sense for people to sell their Dash and leave the project after they get such good returns. In BitShares, the voting shares don't get any reward for their contributions.

3) Because your collateral is hard-locked (doesn't move), it is hard for people to can't manipulate your vote, by using your stake.

4) The voting is more anonymous as all masternodes have the same collateral, as well as due to the inbuilt privacy it has.

5) It would be very hard for exchanges to vote, as they would have to create many masternodes and vote with them, something that wouldn't go unnoticed.

Obviously many of the problems are not exactly problems of DPoS, but of the existing implementation in BitShares. I agree with your first commend on steemit, but I can't open the second one.

Without voting incentives, proper contracts, the current merger dilution, ability of exchanges to vote etc, our worker voting mechanism is useless. That's why I strongly suggest to do a Coin Offering via a hard fork. We are really stuck and we can't move.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #44 on: June 10, 2016, 01:58:39 am »
I agree with your first commend on steemit, but I can't open the second one.

The second link is the same link as the "differentiated" link in the first post. Let me try reposting the raw link (I really hate this forum's buggy @ mention implementation  >:():
https://steemit.com/bitshares/[member=120]xeroc[/member]/improvment-bitshares-workers-proposal-thedao#[member=18133]arhag[/member]/re-xeroc-improvment-bitshares-workers-proposal-thedao-20160520t015315090z

Actually, many of the items in your list I think would be addressed in BitShares simply by providing voting rights to only vested BTS (which is what the link above discusses mostly). But it is a huge (social) change, because it requires printing BTS to pay interest to vested BTS.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2016, 02:00:45 am by arhag »