Author Topic: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added  (Read 4929 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bitsharesbrazil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #45 on: June 10, 2016, 03:03:31 am »
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 kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #46 on: June 10, 2016, 06:30:46 am »

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
Telegram: https://t.me/Agorise - Github: https://github.com/Agorise

Offline EstefanTT

Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #47 on: June 10, 2016, 10:29:45 am »
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)

tarantulaz

  • Guest
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #48 on: June 10, 2016, 11:48:54 am »
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

Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #49 on: June 10, 2016, 12:28:56 pm »
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
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #50 on: June 10, 2016, 12:38:14 pm »
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

Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #51 on: June 10, 2016, 12:47:25 pm »
My idea was to try to have the funds to develop all features included in on only FBA.
As we can't know how much funds we would collect, I was thinking of doing it with milestone. Every X thousands $ we add one feature that have fees with one that don't but increase the overall value of BitShares anyway.

I keep thinking if it's well done, we could easily collect what we need to allow BitShares to take off soon. We will be  have all these features one day but the big question is ... will it be too late ?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

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

tarantulaz

  • Guest
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #52 on: June 10, 2016, 01:21:22 pm »
My idea was to try to have the funds to develop all features included in on only FBA.
As we can't know how much funds we would collect, I was thinking of doing it with milestone. Every X thousands $ we add one feature that have fees with one that don't but increase the overall value of BitShares anyway.

I keep thinking if it's well done, we could easily collect what we need to allow BitShares to take off soon. We will be  have all these features one day but the big question is ... will it be too late ?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I see. I think the milestones can be added via BlockTrades and Openledger, in the form of escrow. As I said earlier, we needed a detailed roadmap + timeline, with fund allocation (how much we are going to spent, on what, for how long and who is going to work on these things). We also need to have some excess funds and set some time breathing room i.e 2-3 extra months.

For example : We publish our roadmap and start the ICO. Openledger, Blocktrades + a few more people do the escrow for us. We hardfork after the ICO is over and we transfer the shares to that committee account.

We could either give BitShares to the participants straight away or a BitShares IOU. Why an IOU? Because not all funds are going to be spent and the escrow will still exist, people will be able to exchange their IOUs for BitShares gradually. For example if the roadmap states that the developement is going to last for a year, then people will be receiving BTS over that period. So even if the development stops (I hope it doesn't), for any reason, then at least people can get their BTC back.

This is just an idea. I bet there are many things that we could improve to make it work and get people to join. The CO has to happen and I guess it will happen one way or another. We might have to do stealth first, implement it successfully and then people might be more willing to get in a bigger CO (even if I wouldn't prefer a smaller and then a bigger CO).

I would like to see Rate limited fees, Autobridging, Maker/Taker, Negative Fees, Smartcoin Park rates, Bond Market, MetaTrader Integration, Trading Bots first and then Stealth and possibly sidechains.  I made this post to say why I don't want them, but if the community thinks it is fine to add them and everyone agrees then I will step back and I will still join the coin offering. I would also like to see improvements on the voting mechanisms based on the Dash voting model and I definitely want to see contracts being implemented.

We need to act soon. Waves are a direct competitors, of unknown quality, however they have 16MUSD and they can definitely learn from the past mistakes of each crypto... For the features I mentioned we need about 300.000$ to 500.000$, if we consider the work needed to be done on the GUI.

If we haven't done all this in the next 1 to 1.5 years, then I am afraid we are done...

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #53 on: June 10, 2016, 04:37:15 pm »

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 ... ).

Now this idea I like. I could use the worker to set everything up rather quickly too, I can get quite a bit done with just minimal capital.
 

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

You just made my day with that comment, thank you Estefan :)
 

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.

As you guys already know, I milestone every job I undertake so this is a given. We would not need that much money though, but I see how we could break all of this up into an ongoing milestones-project. Don't forget recurring/scheduled payments, margin trading and lots of tools for pro-traders, enough to snag them away from the likes of polo, thinkorswim, etc.
 

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).

 +5% +5% chris and rodrigo are handling all of the financials and legal stuff. we're on it.
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Telegram: https://t.me/Agorise - Github: https://github.com/Agorise

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #54 on: June 10, 2016, 04:41:32 pm »
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.


Exactly, if we sell off some of the STEALTH FBA, then those Stealth holders will get rewarded for every token they hold, for every stealth transaction that is processed, by everyone interacting with our chain.
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Telegram: https://t.me/Agorise - Github: https://github.com/Agorise

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #55 on: June 10, 2016, 04:48:14 pm »

I would like to see Rate limited fees, Autobridging, Maker/Taker, Negative Fees, Smartcoin Park rates, Bond Market, MetaTrader Integration, Trading Bots first and then Stealth and possibly sidechains.  I made this post to say why I don't want them, but if the community thinks it is fine to add them and everyone agrees then I will step back and I will still join the coin offering. I would also like to see improvements on the voting mechanisms based on the Dash voting model and I definitely want to see contracts being implemented.
We need to act soon. Waves are a direct competitors, of unknown quality, however they have 16MUSD and they can definitely learn from the past mistakes of each crypto... For the features I mentioned we need about 300.000$ to 500.000$, if we consider the work needed to be done on the GUI.

 +5% +5% +5%
First STEALTH FBA offering, then Worker to fund the ICO offering, then milestone-projects for all of our top requests. Once that third step is reached we will run a Poll to find out which features to knock out first. I'll put the Poll on steemit.com too of course.
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Telegram: https://t.me/Agorise - Github: https://github.com/Agorise

Offline EstefanTT

Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #56 on: June 10, 2016, 04:51:27 pm »
We would just have to create a long list of everything we dream of and decide by priority to arrange them in the list. Then, the more money we have the more features we can add.

Metatrader API, new GUI and other cool thing we don't expect until a long time.

The main thing is find a way to explain how the FBA can be very valuable for someone buying in the ICO. The % of fees ... forever unless someone want to sell their FBA and probably get their money back (or more). Explain that with all theses new features, BitShares will compete with the big players and the FBA is a way to invest in this very crucial step and have a income from several features on BitShares and bla bla bla ...
I think the effect would be double. People finding this ICO would invest not only in the ICO but also in BTS. It makes more sense. So BTS should rise if the ICO is a success.
So the ICO should also describe how far we are at the moment and the capabilities of BTS as it is now.

FBA have been created exactely for that purpose, let's get the more of it !

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: June 10, 2016, 04:53:58 pm by EstefanTT »
Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #57 on: June 10, 2016, 04:59:58 pm »
 +5% +5%
BitShares Munich is definitely consider this.
It's too bad an FBA reqiuires a hard fork though, can't we soften that? I foresee many companies wanting to "go public" in this way. We are building so many products now that it only makes sense.
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 #58 on: June 10, 2016, 08:55:38 pm »
I like this idea...wont be easy......but I believe is a pretty rasonable path.
bitcointalk ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1084460.0
chat, post, promote it!!!!!!!! Stan help to improve OP!

Offline kenCode

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2240
    • View Profile
    • Agorise
Re: My opinion on why Stealth, Backups and Sidechains should not be added
« Reply #59 on: June 11, 2016, 05:53:24 am »
[member=18133]arhag[/member] Would Stealth benefit from the use of Schnorr Signatures in any way?
Anyone think this route would be better than going with CN, CT, CCT, ZKT, etc?
Remember, if Stealth is totally anonymous and untraceable, choosing the right path now (and for the next 5+ years) is imperative.
edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnorr_signature
kenCode - Decentraliser @ Agorise
Telegram: https://t.me/Agorise - Github: https://github.com/Agorise