Author Topic: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added  (Read 17167 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tarantulaz

  • Guest
Maybe I missunderstood how FBA works. I had in mind that when you own an FBA you have a % of each Tx fee from the feature you paid for.

As an example, if someone would fund stealth, he would benefit from each Tx fee on stealth transfer (ex : 20% for BTS / 80% for him )Besides having his FBA worth its speculative value from the market and beeing able to sell it anytime.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I don't think that you misunderstood. You are right. All I am saying is that we would need to do many ICOs, as each feature would require its own FBA. That doesn't make a lot of sense as these assets will end up being illiquid and might be unprofitable in the long run, as the BitShares tokens will be the ones getting most of the value anyways.

Also, if we want to do an ICO for many features, where some of them are not fee related, then we won't be able to get money for those, except if we sell BitShares or some form of BitShares to investors. For example BitShares backed assets, where they will be able to redeem their shares after an x number of months or something like that, which I don't think is a great idea.

After the peerplays crowdsale is over and Waves have launced, it would be great to see an ICO for BitShares.

Offline EstefanTT

Maybe I missunderstood how FBA works. I had in mind that when you own an FBA you have a % of each Tx fee from the feature you paid for.

As an example, if someone would fund stealth, he would benefit from each Tx fee on stealth transfer (ex : 20% for BTS / 80% for him )Besides having his FBA worth its speculative value from the market and beeing able to sell it anytime.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

tarantulaz

  • Guest
Maybe it's over simplistic but ...

What if Bts Munich (or anyone wanting to step up) set up a worker of 3-5k (tiny sum, would be voted for sure) to pay for expenses to set up a ICO campain to sell a global FBA that would support development for blinded Tx, Stealth, bond market, rate limitex fee ... ).

We would have the funds to finish what BitShares needs to get back on the scene with the big guys. FBA would split a decent amount to the network so we keep our long terme profitability goals. The higher market cap after having attention from crypto public would provide more funds to keep evolving (to the m...)

Bitshares Munich seem to be able to do A LOT with small funds. We don't need to gather millions.

We would have an ICO with goals, a simple list of features by money gathered.

ICO : 50k > blinded Tx and rate limited Tx
ICO : 100k > + stealth
ICO : 150k > + bond market
... and so on.

With the right campain, it would be easy to collect 500k. Ppl nowadays jumps on any ICO that looks promising. Besides the FBA token would be tradable right after the ICO, it's a fast way to make money if the FBA token increase in value after the ICO (for a investor perspective)

The other benefit is this campain would get the attention on BitShares, on FBA (very good thing) and finally ppl would expect the market cap to grow in response of amazing features added (this expetation would  increase the market cap).

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I want to see Bitshares Munich do stuff, especially in co-operation with other community members/companies.

However I doubt that someone would join an ICO, apart from community members for features that won't make them profit. For example, why would someone join an ICO for the Maker/Taker, Autobridging or Rate limited fees etc, if he is not going to make money out of it. I think that that token should at least be backed by BTS tokens or be BTS themselves.

A solution could be a worker paying BTS to that Fee-Backed Asset which would stop receiving payments after a certain amount of BTS is reached.

Would anyone consider monthly contracts for workers? Having just daily payments is ridiculous without a contract is ridiculous...

Again, I would like to know what people think of the Multigateway, where people deposit coins with the Supernet client and then trade them as NXT assets.

Offline EstefanTT

Maybe it's over simplistic but ...

What if Bts Munich (or anyone wanting to step up) set up a worker of 3-5k (tiny sum, would be voted for sure) to pay for expenses to set up a ICO campain to sell a global FBA that would support development for blinded Tx, Stealth, bond market, rate limitex fee ... ).

We would have the funds to finish what BitShares needs to get back on the scene with the big guys. FBA would split a decent amount to the network so we keep our long terme profitability goals. The higher market cap after having attention from crypto public would provide more funds to keep evolving (to the m...)

Bitshares Munich seem to be able to do A LOT with small funds. We don't need to gather millions.

We would have an ICO with goals, a simple list of features by money gathered.

ICO : 50k > blinded Tx and rate limited Tx
ICO : 100k > + stealth
ICO : 150k > + bond market
... and so on.

With the right campain, it would be easy to collect 500k. Ppl nowadays jumps on any ICO that looks promising. Besides the FBA token would be tradable right after the ICO, it's a fast way to make money if the FBA token increase in value after the ICO (for a investor perspective)

The other benefit is this campain would get the attention on BitShares, on FBA (very good thing) and finally ppl would expect the market cap to grow in response of amazing features added (this expetation would  increase the market cap).

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: June 10, 2016, 10:31:18 am by EstefanTT »
Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2283
    • View Profile
    • Agorise

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.

Me too. We will reveal more about this in the coming weeks.
 

A quick fix would be to create OPENStealth as an FBA and have Openledger as escrow or something like that.

We already have a STEALTH FBA that we will be using.
 

Again I am gonna wait and see your plan about adding Ring Signatures to the game.

Every contact, competing product, available technology for this is still on the table. I am following every lead and doing serious R&D on each so that when we finally have the path paved properly we can get down it much faster and easier.
 

Imagine the blockchain bloat if we add Ring Signature in BitShares
...
But without money we can't do anything. No money, no honey.

 +5% +5%
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Matrix/Keybase/Hive/Commun/Github: @Agorise
www.PalmPay.chat

Offline bitsharesbrazil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
When arhag talks I just listen, always great....I only disagree that I really like the way workers are put on the table, is there uncertainty over it? Yes, if you dont delivery you have to improve your game,
Is it fair? Depends, for someone it is for other maybe not....call me.crazy, but I really like it
What I miss is an automatic way to follow up, see expenses, details of what have been doing, but the way it is right now I really.like.....
Nothing will be perfect in dac, we have to adapt ourselves to it let the ruler rules....

I of Ico, fork, dilution....talk about it when you have a guy that want to put big money into it....dont speculate
If it, if that..... You think if waves, lisk got that money you are going to get the same or more the same way...just delusion, you probably will no get 50btc if 90% of coins stay in a few pair of hands........n if it does not work? New dilution?  Merger? New ico? Rebranding?

You have to believe in bitshares n do your share instead waiting for some magical money pay yours bills or print new money from reserves....money dont come from magic.....money doesnt come from nowhere....
To give some credibility to bitshares stop give uncertainty lets do it, lets do that with supply, lets merge, lets dilute......make something in what you believe because what I see here is that people want money for everything they do........why do not share risk of the new feature? Partnership if in the future it works both gains......you need be creative because beg for money all the time just paint a portrait of a deep troat sucker.
bitcointalk ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1084460.0
chat, post, promote it!!!!!!!! Stan help to improve OP!

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
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/@xeroc/improvment-bitshares-workers-proposal-thedao#@arhag/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 »

tarantulaz

  • Guest
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
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.  :(

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
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 »

tarantulaz

  • Guest

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?

@bitsharesbrazil 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 bitsharesbrazil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
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!

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2283
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
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
Matrix/Keybase/Hive/Commun/Github: @Agorise
www.PalmPay.chat

tarantulaz

  • Guest
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 Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
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.