OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)

[R]

I remember that CoinHoarder use to be supporter of BTS.
What happened?   

Meh, kind of a lot of reasons.

- I realized the Larimers are greedy when they stopped sharedropping PTS/AGS, due to the stuff with the Bitshares DAC mergers, and how the Steem project started.
- I disagreed with the lack of development (pretty much only GUI work done since Dan left)
- I felt like my opinions and ideas weren't taken seriously by the community.
- I realized there are better designed DEXs that will eventually come to fruition that don't use IOUs or derivatives.
- Tether kicked bitUSD's butt.
- The proliferation of Bitshares vaporware fork scams that never seem to come to fuition (or at least to their full potential) by "community" members.

Even with all that stuff, I still root for Bitshares because I was such an avid supporter in its beginning. Some people bought BTS because of my advice, so I want Bitshares to succeed. I just dont own any anymore. I have always been a Bitshares supporter, but I am more honest and blunt than most, so my posts may not come off that way.

Am I the only one here that thinks tether usd has become total scam ?

Tether has zero proven backing collateral, and is centrally issued. I'd avoid it at all costs.

[lakerta06]

I remember that CoinHoarder use to be supporter of BTS.
What happened?   

Meh, kind of a lot of reasons.

- I realized the Larimers are greedy when they stopped sharedropping PTS/AGS, due to the stuff with the Bitshares DAC mergers, and how the Steem project started.
- I disagreed with the lack of development (pretty much only GUI work done since Dan left)
- I felt like my opinions and ideas weren't taken seriously by the community.
- I realized there are better designed DEXs that will eventually come to fruition that don't use IOUs or derivatives.
- Tether kicked bitUSD's butt.
- The proliferation of Bitshares vaporware fork scams that never seem to come to fuition (or at least to their full potential) by "community" members.

Even with all that stuff, I still root for Bitshares because I was such an avid supporter in its beginning. Some people bought BTS because of my advice, so I want Bitshares to succeed. I just dont own any anymore. I have always been a Bitshares supporter, but I am more honest and blunt than most, so my posts may not come off that way.

Am I the only one here that thinks tether usd has become total scam ?

[abit]

Can someone explain why do we need the witnesses to be cosigners of the btc wallet? Can't it be just coded into the core that if  the withdrawal request is made and the wallet holds requested amount of btc then approve the transaction? Then the blockchain itself (the trusty robots, as Stan calls it) is in control and the changes in witnesses are irrelevant.

The blockchain can not hold private keys of BTC deposit addresses.

[abit]

If you don't believe in BitShares' future, just dump (if you still have some) and leave, no need to waste time here.

I have a moral obligation to help Bitshares succeed to the individuals whom I suggested that they invest into Bitshares. I was effectively Bitshare's unpaid Bitcointalk.org ambassador for several years.

If you guys want to ban me from these forums for posting my opinions and ideas no matter if they are popular or not- then so be it. But until then...

More constructional opinions / works may help. Complaining and/or blaming doesn't help.

[abit]

@ivandev I think the Auto-Bridging feature makes more sense for the system.
Related links:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15118.msg195232.html
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21781.msg283706.html
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19340.msg248329.html

Currently due to lack of this feature, individual market depth seems a bit low, in the meanwhile there are several bots doing triangular arbitrage.

I started a BSIP for it (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/45), hope we can get some progress.

[Ravid]

Can someone explain why do we need the witnesses to be cosigners of the btc wallet? Can't it be just coded into the core that if  the withdrawal request is made and the wallet holds requested amount of btc then approve the transaction? Then the blockchain itself (the trusty robots, as Stan calls it) is in control and the changes in witnesses are irrelevant.

[CoinHoarder]

If you don't believe in BitShares' future, just dump (if you still have some) and leave, no need to waste time here.

I have a moral obligation to help Bitshares succeed to the individuals whom I suggested that they invest into Bitshares. I was effectively Bitshare's unpaid Bitcointalk.org ambassador for several years.

If you guys want to ban me from these forums for posting my opinions and ideas no matter if they are popular or not- then so be it. But until then...

[abit]

If you don't believe in BitShares' future, just dump (if you still have some) and leave, no need to waste time here.

This is a beauty of this platform: event if I don't believe in BTS token future, I can still use this platform. It does not require trust or believes at all. You screwed bitCNY, I dumped them, but I still trade a lot of $$ per day on btsbots in many available assets. And I don't even need to touch BTS tokens to use this exchange (except for tiny fees). This is incredible system, which gives a lot of freedom. It just needs some flaws to be fixed to become a true mega exchange.
 

Nice. But it's off-topic.

[abit]

@CoinHoarder

Wouldn't BTS (along with other chains) migrating to EOS solve all the issues you point out?  2018 should start to see real businesses building real APPS on existing chains, just like virtual machines on the same hardware.  EOS can make this a reality.

IMHO BTS just won't "migrate" just because EOS is "better". Think why Windows XP has been used by many businesses for 10+ years, and then Windows 7 has been used by many businesses for another 10+ years.

[Brekyrself]

@CoinHoarder

Wouldn't BTS (along with other chains) migrating to EOS solve all the issues you point out?  2018 should start to see real businesses building real APPS on existing chains, just like virtual machines on the same hardware.  EOS can make this a reality.

[yvv]

If you don't believe in BitShares' future, just dump (if you still have some) and leave, no need to waste time here.

This is a beauty of this platform: event if I don't believe in BTS token future, I can still use this platform. It does not require trust or believes at all. You screwed bitCNY, I dumped them, but I still trade a lot of $$ per day on btsbots in many available assets. And I don't even need to touch BTS tokens to use this exchange (except for tiny fees). This is incredible system, which gives a lot of freedom. It just needs some flaws to be fixed to become a true mega exchange.
 

[abit]

Multi-signature IOU gateways for DEXs are so 2016... these already exist on Waves, Komodo, Supernet, etc., and have existed for some time now. It is nothing new and will be outdated implementations soon. They are technically still IOUs like OPEN.BTC and counterparty risk still exists if the majority of signers are compromised or collude. By the time you develop such a product, better solutions will have arisen.

Look closer at Atomic Swaps (no IOUs, derivatives, or counterparty risk). They are coming to fruition soon in 2018. There have been several successful atomic swaps done in both development and live blockchain environments by many blockchain projects. The only thing that is missing is a good GUI, which is relatively easy to code...
https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/911328252928643072
https://blog.decred.org/2017/09/20/On-Chain-Atomic-Swaps/
All Lightning Network implementations are working on Atomic Swaps (at least 3): https://lightning.engineering/ & https://blockstream.com/ & https://acinq.co/

DEXs in development that will leverage Atomic Swaps:
https://www.altcoin.io/
http://barterdex.supernet.org/
https://blocknet.co/

Anyone that is informed in the crypto space knows this is the direction DEXs are heading. Not only DEXs, but interoperability will go mainstream in 2018/2019 rending crypto IOUs (OPEN.BTC) and derivatives (bitBTC) useless and not worth the risk (unless perhaps interest from trading fees is brought back to the Smart Coins... but that probably won't save them anyways... and I digress). Get ya'lls head out of the sand before you get buried!

That said, Atomic Swapping is actually a competitor of BitShares.
Ivan has clearly explained in last post (end of last page).
If you don't believe in BitShares' future, just dump (if you still have some) and leave, no need to waste time here.

[fav]

- Tether kicked bitUSD's butt.

time to log out my dude

[yvv]

Multi-signature IOU gateways for DEXs are so 2016... these already exist on Waves, Komodo, Supernet, etc., and have existed for some time now. It is nothing new and will be outdated implementations soon. They are technically still IOUs like OPEN.BTC and counterparty risk still exists if the majority of signers are compromised or collude. By the time you develop such a product, better solutions will have arisen.

Look closer at Atomic Swaps (no IOUs, derivatives, or counterparty risk). They are coming to fruition soon in 2018. There have been several successful atomic swaps done in both development and live blockchain environments by many blockchain projects. The only thing that is missing is a good GUI, which is relatively easy to code...
https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/911328252928643072
https://blog.decred.org/2017/09/20/On-Chain-Atomic-Swaps/
All Lightning Network implementations are working on Atomic Swaps (at least 3): https://lightning.engineering/ & https://blockstream.com/ & https://acinq.co/

DEXs in development that will leverage Atomic Swaps:
https://www.altcoin.io/
http://barterdex.supernet.org/
https://blocknet.co/

Anyone that is informed in the crypto space knows this is the direction DEXs are heading. Not only DEXs, but interoperability will go mainstream in 2018/2019 rending crypto IOUs (OPEN.BTC) and derivatives (bitBTC) useless and not worth the risk (unless perhaps interest from trading fees is brought back to the Smart Coins... but that probably won't save them anyways... and I digress). Get ya'lls head out of the sand before you get buried!

Good review, thanks.

[CoinHoarder]

I remember that CoinHoarder use to be supporter of BTS.
What happened?   

Meh, kind of a lot of reasons.

- I realized the Larimers are greedy when they stopped sharedropping PTS/AGS, due to the stuff with the Bitshares DAC mergers, and how the Steem project started.
- I disagreed with the lack of development (pretty much only GUI work done since Dan left)
- I felt like my opinions and ideas weren't taken seriously by the community.
- I realized there are better designed DEXs that will eventually come to fruition that don't use IOUs or derivatives.
- Tether kicked bitUSD's butt.
- The proliferation of Bitshares vaporware fork scams that never seem to come to fuition (or at least to their full potential) by "community" members.

Even with all that stuff, I still root for Bitshares because I was such an avid supporter in its beginning. Some people bought BTS because of my advice, so I want Bitshares to succeed. I just dont own any anymore. I have always been a Bitshares supporter, but I am more honest and blunt than most, so my posts may not come off that way.

[vegolino]

I remember that CoinHoarder use to be supporter of BTS.
What happened?   

[CoinHoarder]

Multi-signature IOU gateways for DEXs are so 2016... these already exist on Waves, Komodo, Supernet, etc., and have existed for some time now. It is nothing new and will be outdated implementations soon. They are technically still IOUs like OPEN.BTC and counterparty risk still exists if the majority of signers are compromised or collude. By the time you develop such a product, better solutions will have arisen.

Look closer at Atomic Swaps (no IOUs, derivatives, or counterparty risk). They are coming to fruition soon in 2018. There have been several successful atomic swaps done in both development and live blockchain environments by many blockchain projects. The only thing that is missing is a good GUI, which is relatively easy to code...
https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/911328252928643072
https://blog.decred.org/2017/09/20/On-Chain-Atomic-Swaps/
All Lightning Network implementations are working on Atomic Swaps (at least 3): https://lightning.engineering/ & https://blockstream.com/ & https://acinq.co/

DEXs in development that will leverage Atomic Swaps:
https://www.altcoin.io/
http://barterdex.supernet.org/
https://blocknet.co/

Anyone that is informed in the crypto space knows this is the direction DEXs are heading. Not only DEXs, but interoperability will go mainstream in 2018/2019 rending crypto IOUs (OPEN.BTC) and derivatives (bitBTC) useless and not worth the risk (unless perhaps interest from trading fees is brought back to the Smart Coins... but that probably won't save them anyways... and I digress). Get ya'lls head out of the sand before you get buried!

[jenkas]

I think that Bitshares and Steem should be the first chains(&apps) that integrate into EOS, and if it's the future, then your proposal is not relevant. Both communities will benefit from such integration, and so EOS.
They are already from the same family, and should work together.

Remember that implementing VM is not enough, since it will add "catastrophic" load on witnesses, and to solve it, THEDAN developing much more than just VM.
EOS will provide unlimited grow for(and of) Applications/Smart-contracts/Block-chains/... inside the same eco system. It will be The Standardization for block-chain world, just like "std" for c++. This is very hard to achieve, and Daniel Larimer is the one who can do it (because he is the only one who moving that target several years!).

[severo]

... and a market and a reliable program. Good software does not grow on trees.

[fav]

just need escrow & agents, then you can run any p2p exchange pairing

[severo]

making decentralized gateway (according to vote results) seems inexpedient

Chinese don't think so. Their magicwallet seem to be quite popular way of depositing funds into bitshares. (So popular, that they decided to screw up bitCNY to make up for disbalance between deposits/withdrawals)

Is magicwallet an Open Source project? in this case it could be used for this purpose. Otherwise, a commercial approach to Bisq would be preferable. In any case an external P2P system seems a reasonable solution, and a way to exploit the functionalities of the MPA

[yvv]

making decentralized gateway (according to vote results) seems inexpedient

Chinese don't think so. Their magicwallet seem to be quite popular way of depositing funds into bitshares. (So popular, that they decided to screw up bitCNY to make up for disbalance between deposits/withdrawals)

[severo]

Well, if a decentralized gateway is inconvenient as a result of the number of signers, why not use one already built? I am referring to requesting a collaboration with the Bisq multi-sign decentralized exchange, an APP that allows the exchange of Alts and also FIAT to BTC.

If that exchange implemented the FIAT BTC pair and / or the FIAT BitUSD pair, a decentralized gateway would already be built, but truly 100% decentralized.

In Bisq you can request the addition of new cryptocurrencies and the trading is made of wallet to wallet, in this case that of Bitshares.

I think there would be no competition problem, each exchange has its ecological niche (in Bisq 99% is the, pair BTC / FIAT) and the collaboration would only generate positive synergies for each one.

It is not necessary to invent the wheel each time, the solution can be in the collaboration between exchanges with sister projects.

Imagine the possibility of having a decentralized BitUSD and BTS entry from FIAT.

[abit]

Nice summary.

[ivandev]

Howdy, everyone.
Today, I’m happy to update information related with our research process. Due to very pressure days, we couldn’t pay full time on RnD direction, so date of result publishing has been moved slighly. Unfortunately, for today, we’ve got results, which showing, that making decentralized gateway (according to vote results) seems inexpedient. You can see (and comment) full explanation below.

The conception.
This one is based on creating multisig wallets (for example, 8 signs required from 19 current witness) on Bitshares and destination blockchain (ETH and BTC, as reviewed ones), where signers are witnesses with their own private keys. After wallets setting up, witness node software will be updated, what will make possible, to monitor outside blockchain also (BTC, as example). In case of noticing income transaction on dedicated address from wallet (every user in BitShares will get own address and will be attached to it – this way OL gateway is working already), the witness independently of others, checks transaction and broadcast own verdict, if this tx is real and confirmed by network. When 8 same verdicts will be accepted, the witness, who has noticed tx first will create transfer of OPEN.BTC to customer, and broadcast tx to the rest of witnesses – they should finalize tx with their signs. In case of withdrawal, each witness should check, if funds have come from user to gateway account and necessary BTC address is pointed, then they initiate BTC transfer in its blockchain, with getting required number of signs by the rest of witnesses.

The problems.
We have discovered possibilities of realization in ETH and BTC blockchain and faced some problems.
There are 2 in BTC:
1) In case of changing set of signers, very expensive tx should be executed (affect every single address with funds for changing access condition) and fees for that tx will be paid from funds of customers. It means, that if anything will threaten to possibility of signing by initial list of involved witnesses (key losts, voting out, leaving bitshares, own disagreement) we will have to pay quite much fees, for initiating new set of signers. We’re still looking for solutions, allowing to set up flexible key management and will be appreciate for any useful info in this area.

2) Every transaction from multisig wallet costs more than from single sign wallet. Tx will require 2-3 times more fees on average. These payments will be also charged to customers. For instance, current gateway is 0.0003 BTC, what is around 3$; with making multisig wallet fees will be around 10$, what makes transactions with amount less than 30-50$ senseless.

The problem in ETH is only one:
1) It’s not possible to generate thousands of address in multisig smart contract. That makes gateway realization impossible. We could, actually, use meta details in every payment for separating payments, but access to optional fields in transfer exists only in full-functional wallets. People from exchanges will be not able to send funds directly.

The alternatives.
For now, the best alternative, for trustless gateway is Atomic Swap technology.
But there are two conceptual problems of solution:
1) AS is slow. It’s quite slow. You should wait confirmation of 2nd blockchain (actually, require confirmation of both blockchains, but mostly, any of BC is slower than BTS). So, it doesn’t present market as it. 
2) Actually AS tx doesn’t affect the BitShares growth/cap/development, cause BTC coins don’t somehow come to BitShares DEX (in contrast with Open.BTC, where income BTC create new market). Simply, BTS holder leaving BitShares, while BTC holder comes to BTS and doesn’t bring anything valuable. It’s swap as it, but not trading. We follow updates on altcoin.io, where guys promise to implement fully working DEX, based on AS, but until now, viability of enterprise solution is doubtful.

Some kind of similar conception was described by Fav and discussed there: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/657 and we’re thinking, how to use that in max convenient way.

Due to low potential of clear Atomic Swaps conception (in other words - until it isn’t found yet), our RnD team has decided to look attentively into EVM for BitShares.
We already playing with EVM in EOS testnet and comparing to ETH. We can say already now, that implementing EVM will not affect network speed in cases of current transaction (smart contract instances will be presented as separated transaction and VM will be involved only when it needed, but not with every block). The questions we’re working with now are economical. BitShares concept is quite good in many questions, especially in economical, so it require much attention, to keep everything strong as it now.

Thanks everybody, who has taken part with comments and messages (some people connected in private) – we appreciate very much. Going to continue researching. I’m quite sure, that some useful mechanisms will be presented very soon (but only after full understanding of possibility worker will be presented). Will keep everybody updated about progress and result.

[Bitshiz]

Yes, I was inconsistent with my original point

What if I deposit x btc and buy bts with it, then bts goes to 330$ - how can that be adressed? By putting up some disclaimer or something?

Right now 1 btc will get you 93330 BTS. If BTS goes to $330 and BTC stayed at $7000, then you only would need ~21BTS to exchange for that 1 BTC and you are left with 93309 BTS.

[ivandev]

This is how I think a trustless BTC token could work on BitShares:
Multisig bitcoin wallets that include the witnesses and possibly the BTC depositor with a designated time locked withdrawal every 3 months.

This essentially very similar to the sidechain solution proposed by http://www.drivechain.info/

The biggest problem i see, is that list of the witnesses, in theory, cannot be constant, while when we create multisig in bitcoin, every involved witness will get own key from the beginning and wallet cannot be changed later (we're researching this question, maybe anyb knows if it's possible?). I can assume multisig scheme 5-8/16, with potential reserve. But still, if significant number of witnesses will stop their activity by any reason, we will have to create new BTC wallet with a new list of signers.

[intelliguy]

From tomorrow our team will start researching and solution prototyping, and during next 7-10 days (till 20 Nov max) will prepare and announce detailed worker for community. We’re opened for any kind of collaboration, so, if you have ideas or proposals, feel free to suggest me personally or to our team through this thread.

Please have your team listen at 4 mins, 15 seconds in to this archive:

https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/bitshares-open-source-hangout-45-20171104full-edited-version

It's intelliguy (me) speaking talking about 2 of 2 multisig wallets for trustless Bitcoin transactions on this diagram here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25203.0.html (diagram)

...and the important part I wanted everyone to understand was 12 mins, 10 seconds in, where I talk about how I've been using Bitshares for 3 years, and I avoid bitBTC at all costs and I think others might be doing the same thing.

- it is not the fault of the way bitBTC works.  It is just the way bitBTC is perceived (human reaction)

We need to protect OpenLedger by building a trustless bitcoin gateway. The reasons why this ends up protecting OpenLedger is at 24 mins, 30 seconds in that same audio archive.

[JonnyB]

Hello everyone and thanks for your active participation. For now, poll is locked.
As we can see for today, the most preferable options, chosen by community, are Trustless gateway and ACCT transactions (with slight difference in total votes). Both options are very similar to each other and probably, they could be combined in final solution, but our main goal, according to will of the community, is deployment of decentralized gateway in the end.
From tomorrow our team will start researching and solution prototyping, and during next 7-10 days (till 20 Nov max) will prepare and announce detailed worker for community. We’re opened for any kind of collaboration, so, if you have ideas or proposals, feel free to suggest me personally or to our team through this thread.
Regards, OpenLedger Team.

This is how I think a trustless BTC token could work on BitShares:
Multisig bitcoin wallets that include the witnesses and possibly the BTC depositor with a designated time locked withdrawal every 3 months.

This essentially very similar to the sidechain solution proposed by http://www.drivechain.info/

[ivandev]

Hello everyone and thanks for your active participation. For now, poll is locked.
As we can see for today, the most preferable options, chosen by community, are Trustless gateway and ACCT transactions (with slight difference in total votes). Both options are very similar to each other and probably, they could be combined in final solution, but our main goal, according to will of the community, is deployment of decentralized gateway in the end.
From tomorrow our team will start researching and solution prototyping, and during next 7-10 days (till 20 Nov max) will prepare and announce detailed worker for community. We’re opened for any kind of collaboration, so, if you have ideas or proposals, feel free to suggest me personally or to our team through this thread.
Regards, OpenLedger Team.

[yvv]

Oh, I thought it would automatically convert my whatever holdings to btc when I withdraw through it... Well if I need to sell all my bts for btc and then withdraw through that system then yes, there is no problem at all

EDIT: What happens with the people who are already on the DEX? Let's say there's someone who holds bitBTC in their wallet, then you implement this awesome new feature - they won't have equal amount of btc in the "gateway wallet". And if I sell them my bts for bitbtc, I'll receive no btc to mine. Will they need to move their bitbtc out to a centralized exchange and go in again, now through the gateway? Am i missing something?

To withdraw your BTS or bitBTC or whatever through BTC gateway, you would need to find somebody who wants to buy you BTS or bitBTC or whatever for BTC from you. That somebody would need to deposit exactly the same amount of BTC which you want to withdraw. This works the same with centralized or decentralized gateway.

[Ravid]

Oh, I thought it would automatically convert my whatever holdings to btc when I withdraw through it... Well if I need to sell all my bts for btc and then withdraw through that system then yes, there is no problem at all

EDIT: What happens with the people who are already on the DEX? Let's say there's someone who holds bitBTC in their wallet, then you implement this awesome new feature - they won't have equal amount of btc in the "gateway wallet". And if I sell them my bts for bitbtc, I'll receive no btc to mine. Will they need to move their bitbtc out to a centralized exchange and go in again, now through the gateway? Am i missing something?

[yvv]

Yes, I was inconsistent with my original point

What if I deposit x btc and buy bts with it, then bts goes to 330$ - how can that be adressed? By putting up some disclaimer or something?

What exactly do you want to disclaim? That you have $330 worth of BTS and somebody else has x BTC? There is no problem to address here.

[Ravid]

Yes, I was inconsistent with my original point

What if I deposit x btc and buy bts with it, then bts goes to 330$ - how can that be adressed? By putting up some disclaimer or something?

[pc]

II think that your earnings are someone else's loses so all backed BTC should be able to pay all earnings, am i wrong ?

In the grand scheme of things it's correct but irrelevant. Your gains on the dex can be completely independent of your trading. You can just hold your coins there and the price can suddenly surge - who's loss is it? Some guys from China? How do you track it?
The trading-related gains are indeed losses for someone else, but again, how do you track it?

Your original point was this:

If I understand it correctly, the solution of having bitshares-controlled btc wallet won't work in the scenario of depositing btc to the dex, then gaining profit from trading and then withdrawing. The wallet will have only the btc that is deposited there, so you won't be able to withdraw all your newly found money.

There are two different kinds of profit to look at here:
1. You deposit BTC, BTC goes up in value, you withdraw you BTC and you are richer than before. This is not a problem for the gateway, because the gateway holds the exact amount that you deposited and will return that to you upon withdrawal.
2. You deposit x BTC, someone else deposits y BTC. After some trading you own x+y BTC. You withdraw x+y BTC for a profit of y BTC. This is not a problem for the gateway either - x+y BTC have been deposited, and x+y BTC will be withdrawn.

[Ravid]

II think that your earnings are someone else's loses so all backed BTC should be able to pay all earnings, am i wrong ?

Exactly!

In the grand scheme of things it's correct but irrelevant. Your gains on the dex can be completely independent of your trading. You can just hold your coins there and the price can suddenly surge - who's loss is it? Some guys from China? How do you track it?
The trading-related gains are indeed losses for someone else, but again, how do you track it?

[pc]

II think that your earnings are someone else's loses so all backed BTC should be able to pay all earnings, am i wrong ?

Exactly!

[Victor118]

II think that your earnings are someone else's loses so all backed BTC should be able to pay all earnings, am i wrong ?

Sorry if my english is not very good, french people don't use to speak very well english
I 'm new on bitshares and i like the concept.

If I understand it correctly Creation of Trustless (Decentralized) BTC gateway for DEX will permit to use BTC as collateral of MPA.
It sounds great, people will be able to trade MPA on DEX without knowing BTS, it can attract lot of new exchange and then lots of traders.
May be it would be even better feature if it can be extended to others major crypto-currencies in the future, is that possible ?

[Ravid]

If I understand it correctly, the solution of having bitshares-controlled btc wallet won't work in the scenario of depositing btc to the dex, then gaining profit from trading and then withdrawing. The wallet will have only the btc that is deposited there, so you won't be able to withdraw all your newly found money.

[Digital Lucifer]

Dear Digital Lucifer, I'm glad to see your activity and so loud words. The whole system will be happy when you will deliver any quality solution or even product on BitShares network.

The main idea of the poll and topic is preparation before creating RnD workgroup and getting feedback from community, about wishes and needs. Any specific plan or project will appear only in the end of 2nd stage, as well as team of experienced developers will be combined in the team and announced. It's not a wise approach to start development, before goals and aims are clear to all parties. Listed ideas were created not only because "it would be cool to have this on BitShares", but also, because we have 2 teams (business analytics and developers) agreed, that in the end, solutions like these are technically possible and demanded. They will never seem easy and so obvious, as presented, so it's not surprise for me, that your reaction is negative mostly.
I'm also not a forum-speaker and don't see sense in debating right now, before we've spent time on researching and tried prototyping. I believe, that you're experienced enough and can bring a lot of profit in ecosystem, so will look attentively on your development process and github account, for possible useful learning.

Ivan,

Appreciate your very strategic and well crafted answer. You seem to have a very well speaking/communicating skills for a non forum-speaker, but i do agree with you we are not here to debate. My github account is more private since all our projects are being handled with Asana and Slack.

I would really appreciated if you would add me in Telegram by using number from signature.

Cheers,

Luci.

[Bitshiz]

I don't think theres any type of fully trustless BTC gateway (sidechain) but some proposed are very secure....

Where are these proposals if you don't mind pointing me in that direction?

I am very interested in this possibility which could definitely be a game changer.

I imagine that if the BTS chain could somehow control a BTC address and privatekey  without risk of anything being leaked then it is a great idea. I absolutely don't think it would hurt BTS. But to make sure it doesn't, you could maybe lower the fees on the dex for trading a BTS pair than any other pair to incentivise a demand for BTS. For example, trading fees would be less for BTS:bitBTC than bitUSD:bitBTC.

[ivandev]

Dear Digital Lucifer, I'm glad to see your activity and so loud words. The whole system will be happy when you will deliver any quality solution or even product on BitShares network.

The main idea of the poll and topic is preparation before creating RnD workgroup and getting feedback from community, about wishes and needs. Any specific plan or project will appear only in the end of 2nd stage, as well as team of experienced developers will be combined in the team and announced. It's not a wise approach to start development, before goals and aims are clear to all parties. Listed ideas were created not only because "it would be cool to have this on BitShares", but also, because we have 2 teams (business analytics and developers) agreed, that in the end, solutions like these are technically possible and demanded. They will never seem easy and so obvious, as presented, so it's not surprise for me, that your reaction is negative mostly.
I'm also not a forum-speaker and don't see sense in debating right now, before we've spent time on researching and tried prototyping. I believe, that you're experienced enough and can bring a lot of profit in ecosystem, so will look attentively on your development process and github account, for possible useful learning.

[intelliguy]

I'm strong believer that Bitshares can sort out roadmap it has with a lot more performance if developers put a bit more effort in project management.

Developers are incentivized by two main things:

a) Health of the system (easy fixes to keep it running)
b) Financial incentive either by their holdings, or by an angel-investor financing them to propose and implement something

What we're lacking in the most is:

a) Users and current investors really understanding how this decentralized company works  (ie: there are no project managers, unless someone steps up to the plate)

b) Getting involved by voting and reading proposals... Giving their opinions, and help locate developers willing to take on the jobs we require.

Instead what we have a lot of is:

a) Users and current investors blaming developers.  Blaming Stan. Blaming the markets. Blaming everyone. Blame, blame, blame.

(This accomplishes nothing, and isn't helpful).   

What is cool about Bitshares, is any of us can make a difference and get this changed, if we work together by using our BTS voting power....

• Work together? In a decentralized environment? For the common good of all Bitshares users and our future?
• It is possible.  Once we realize we have to do exactly that...

[Digital Lucifer]

So, if anyone has one, i'm happy to comment in the future, white papers, nice diagrams, charts, whatever is ok for a marketing event, not for any serious development. I'm sure most will agree on this.

Since there are more users, and investors, using Bitshares than there are developers, there is always a wide divide of people who have opinions, suggestions, and complaints.

Right about now is when the appreciation of the teams Bytemaster use to lead developing Bitshares is missed.

It's like the system is on autopilot (development wise) and only now are people raising important questions about how the system works, where trust lies, how much trust is "too much trust" and now a recent discussion about NDA's among proxy witnesses has been raised.

This is all very long overdue, and I'm happy to see it.

There is a lot of interested money in this platform (always has been), so financing our future is going to be quite easy.

But when you say:

I seriously have to stop answering and stop talking completely. There is so much going on, and currently how it's being presented is just a talk, even from my side.

You are incorrect.

It's not "just a talk".  It's a united level of understanding, that is really important going forward.

Deliver that as proposal even with a broken monkey in the box, and i'm sure that any serious businessman related to this network will push the proposal through.

I'd rather not see lots of proposals with a broken monkey in the box.  That just leads to confusion, frustration, and can camouflage real decent proposals if they are hidden among all the other broken and non-possible proposals.

I hear your frustration, but removing talk in the favor of creating broken monkey in the box proposals is not a better solution.

I agree on 100% of what you've said, but i have to clear up few things that you got wrong about my words.

1.) "I seriously have to stop answering and stop talking completely. There is so much going on, and currently how it's being presented is just a talk, even from my side. " - I'm lead developer in my company and CTO in another IT company that Ross owns for 4 years. 4 years even having my own company never moved me away from the development. Having Ross as a business partner lets me be out of management even for my own company so i can dedicate my real skills to contribution for our business, where everybody are doing what they are most skilled to do. I've been slapping myself in that sentence over the wrists, by talking to much, delivering to little, so i want to back off to development, coming back here with results and real proposals, not just talk, because we do have healthy and realistic concept and ideas in progress not going over limits of ourselves. Spending my time here for talk is taking time from project management and coding/engineering which i personally enjoy to do.

2.) "Deliver that as proposal even with a broken monkey in the box, and i'm sure that any serious businessman related to this network will push the proposal through." - EVEN if you have broken monkey with knowing exactly whats broken about it, knowing how to fix it or proposing possible fixes with prices and estimates on it, and doing estimate on an each fix, you are being professional as Mitsubishi Factory in Japan. It's matter of personal opinion, and as i said you are completely right 100% about all what you've said, but i prefer rather visible broken monkey that can be tested, rather than paper that is saying that monkey will run in a golden box, but i cant see monkey or a box. Developers proposal needs to based on a demo of the work for project/proposal being made. At least outside of Bitshares world, like in regular B2B circumstances. I'm strong believer that Bitshares can sort out roadmap it has with a lot more performance if developers put a bit more effort in project management.

Since it comes from a developer, i think its rather rational thing to say

Cheers, and i really agree with you and understand fully your perspective on it. It's just small difference of an opinions how things to be done.

Luci

[intelliguy]

So, if anyone has one, i'm happy to comment in the future, white papers, nice diagrams, charts, whatever is ok for a marketing event, not for any serious development. I'm sure most will agree on this.

Since there are more users, and investors, using Bitshares than there are developers, there is always a wide divide of people who have opinions, suggestions, and complaints.

Right about now is when the appreciation of the teams Bytemaster use to lead developing Bitshares is missed.

It's like the system is on autopilot (development wise) and only now are people raising important questions about how the system works, where trust lies, how much trust is "too much trust" and now a recent discussion about NDA's among proxy witnesses has been raised.

This is all very long overdue, and I'm happy to see it.

There is a lot of interested money in this platform (always has been), so financing our future is going to be quite easy.

But when you say:

I seriously have to stop answering and stop talking completely. There is so much going on, and currently how it's being presented is just a talk, even from my side.

You are incorrect.

It's not "just a talk".  It's a united level of understanding, that is really important going forward.

Deliver that as proposal even with a broken monkey in the box, and i'm sure that any serious businessman related to this network will push the proposal through.

I'd rather not see lots of proposals with a broken monkey in the box.  That just leads to confusion, frustration, and can camouflage real decent proposals if they are hidden among all the other broken and non-possible proposals.

I hear your frustration, but removing talk in the favor of creating broken monkey in the box proposals is not a better solution.

[Digital Lucifer]

https://crypto-bridge.org/
Calim they solve the counterparty risk by implementing decentralized gateway to bitshares DEX !?

Is't it the same as idea 4:
Creation of Trustless (Decentralized) BTC gateway for DEX.

What do you think?

It is not clear to me. It looks like a Federation of Gateways, distributing the risk of third parties. But in the end uses IOU (UIA) as Open Ledger.

(BTC is BRIGGE.BTC)

What is a Gateway?

A gateway is a service that you can use deposit/withdraw coins and that converts coins to proxy-assets (UIA). Each issued proxy-asset is backed 1:1 with the real coins by the gateway.

If someone has used it and has another opinion, say so.

I agree with definition what is a crypto gateway, even though fiat gateway is completely another story.

I seriously have to stop answering and stop talking completely. There is so much going on, and currently how it's being presented is just a talk, even from my side. The fact is, develop test monkey in a box, collect all bugs you can, do estimate on bugs/missing things/fixes in days and possible solutions with hours, whoever you are. Deliver that as proposal even with a broken monkey in the box, and i'm sure that any serious businessman related to this network will push the proposal through. That proposal have a goals, targets, limits, collateral. It's not just developers estimate, its project/product management with SLA on top of it and there is no flaws in the process, with maximum burn time (additional) can be 10-12% of total amount proposed and that always pre-calculated in original proposal as collateral damage.

So, if anyone has one, i'm happy to comment in the future, white papers, nice diagrams, charts, whatever is ok for a marketing event, not for any serious development. I'm sure most will agree on this.

Cheers,

Luci

[severo]

https://crypto-bridge.org/
Calim they solve the counterparty risk by implementing decentralized gateway to bitshares DEX !?

Is't it the same as idea 4:
Creation of Trustless (Decentralized) BTC gateway for DEX.

What do you think?

It is not clear to me. It looks like a Federation of Gateways, distributing the risk of third parties. But in the end uses IOU (UIA) as Open Ledger.

(BTC is BRIGGE.BTC)

What is a Gateway?

A gateway is a service that you can use deposit/withdraw coins and that converts coins to proxy-assets (UIA). Each issued proxy-asset is backed 1:1 with the real coins by the gateway.

If someone has used it and has another opinion, say so.

[mostar]

https://crypto-bridge.org/
Calim they solve the counterparty risk by implementing decentralized gateway to bitshares DEX !?

Is't it the same as idea 4:
Creation of Trustless (Decentralized) BTC gateway for DEX.

What do you think?

[severo]

Pleased to meet you, but the nature of your game puzzles me.

Two questions

1- Do you consider it possible to use sidechains in Bitshares DEX without third parties?
2 - I was very surprised by the proposal of Open Ledger to develop Atomic Swaps. I always considered it complex. Do not you consider it possible? Do you see more feasible a solution like this? https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25147.msg311633.html#msg311633

[Digital Lucifer]

I don't think theres any type of fully trustless BTC gateway (sidechain) but some proposed are very secure and would be good enough to use as BTC collateral for smartcoins.

This would be huge! And a real win for bitshares / marketing opportunity.

Just think any bitcoin holder in the world could get a USD loan against their BTC.

For those of you worried that this would damage the value of BTS I disagree because all fees will still ultimately be paid in BTS even when paying or collateralising in SIDE.BTC

I see the system inconsistent. SmartCoins are self-assured, but if tomorrow morning the Gateway has disappeared, or has been banned or hacked, who guarantees the collateral?

If I am BitUSD holder and there is a black swan event I know I will receive at least the collateral. What will I receive if the Gateway disappears? BTS? From where?

If it is not possible to find clear answers to these questions that would imply that BitUSD would become a weak asset totally dependent on the Gateway's survival. Crazy.

We are talking about a trustless or near trustless BTC gateway (sidechains.)  We are not talking about a UIA gateway like OPEN.BTC

Ok, Sidechains, it's not clear in the proposal and we've all understood something different. It is clear that using a third-party Gateway is crazy.

If we use Sidechains we do not need a gateway. We can simply send BTC to a Sidechain address to send the funds to another chain.

If so, I agree that it is a good idea that can greatly improve BTS!!

It also has it's downfall. Using sidechain"s" means we are becoming centralized exchange when it comes to BTC. Similar to OpenLedger with open.BTC, just we don't need liquidity for it Gilgamesh from Telegram Bitshares DEX has a missing piece of white paper how few Witness Nodes should be confirming that transaction before it goes to sidechain, with a very nice concept he created.
We started some discussion today on it in Telegram, and tomorrow we will continue more on setting up a real proposal for design/implementation on it, since we had some tests with sidechain BTC wallet last week. In the way of random witness is coming to confirm transaction, means that it would be staying decentralized since anything going there would be passing decentralized system and BTC would be on a blockchain outside of Bitshares.

And yes, i know that many will say "but we dont know will witness agree"... You wanna help community ? You are a witness ? You job is to WITNESS Transaction ? Guess what ? You got new task in your job to witness one more extra, and if you don't like it, you don't have to be a witness, because you're not helping the community if you are not doing your job.

I'm simple in explanations, no need for wraps, just logic and sense.

Cheers,

Luci

[Digital Lucifer]

1) Implementing a virtual machine (like Ethereum’s’ Virtual Machine) into Graphene.
Once created, it will allow each user to produce smart contracts that work with assets and Smartcoins. The mechanisms of ICOs, trusted systems for the payments of dividends, and hosting various games/shares/lotteries, are examples of possible, future business cases.
By combining the strengths of the two platforms (the flexibility of ETH Smartcontracts and the speed/throughput of BitShares), they will get the symbiosis of the advantages and eliminate the weaknesses of these two platforms.

As seen already, Daniel Larimer had negotiations with EOS over the past, before real launch of EOS, and he dropped them. Probably because 'mechanisms' of ETH blockchain and it's Centralized autonomy is nothing to implement from. BEOS is far better proposal than this.

2) Implementation of the Atomic Swap mechanism.
Such a mechanism will allow the exchange of funds from one blockchain (Bitshares) to another (bitcoin, as the first), without any participation from third parties. In this case, BTS, MPA (bitUSD), and UIA can be used as bitshares funds.
Given the fact that there is only one real decentralized exchange, the ability to enter it from other blockchains, without any risks (technical and regulatory), and the participation of third parties (gateways), creates huge economic potential for the platform and the cryptocurrency economy.

You are fun If you can provide corporate developer estimate with stages/descriptions/proposal of actual integration of Atomic Swap to Bitshares, I would made entire Bitshares to vote for this. But since we both know that you don't have idea or clue how it can be done actually or its going to work, and when it's going to work, let's drop it as well.

3) Creation of Fee Backed Asset.
The idea of creating the FBA was proposed back in 2015, but was never implemented. (http://docs.bitshares.org/bitshares/user/fba.html)

In addition to implementing the mechanisms for automatic dividends distribution, it is proposed to discuss additional options for managing fees (the ability to impose payments on the issuer, change the fee rules for creating/closing the order, so that the person who closed the order pays 100% of the fees or 50/50).

It would create more Chaos on already chaotic market we are running here. If it's not done since 2015. it shouldn't be left alone completely.

- Now, someone mentioned BEOS and how it's all cool, and should be STARTING EARLY DEVELOPMENT AS FROM NOW! Being part of Steem and Bitshares Blockchain, i've seen in both that Daniel had serious issues when he originally wrote both blockchains and launched them. Steem had 6 hardforks before blocks really start being written and "fully functional", so lets put it this way:

THERE IS NO WAY THAT ANYONE REASONABLE WILL GO TO 3RD PRODUCT of 2 SEMI PRODUCTS to START WRITING NEW DEV for the PRODUCT ORIGINALLY CREATED BY SAME DEV AUTHOR, where project are still being under FIXES/ONGOING Development.

Is there any reasonable mind to bare with me on this one, please ?

Many thanks.

Lucifer.

[severo]

I don't think theres any type of fully trustless BTC gateway (sidechain) but some proposed are very secure and would be good enough to use as BTC collateral for smartcoins.

This would be huge! And a real win for bitshares / marketing opportunity.

Just think any bitcoin holder in the world could get a USD loan against their BTC.

For those of you worried that this would damage the value of BTS I disagree because all fees will still ultimately be paid in BTS even when paying or collateralising in SIDE.BTC

I see the system inconsistent. SmartCoins are self-assured, but if tomorrow morning the Gateway has disappeared, or has been banned or hacked, who guarantees the collateral?

If I am BitUSD holder and there is a black swan event I know I will receive at least the collateral. What will I receive if the Gateway disappears? BTS? From where?

If it is not possible to find clear answers to these questions that would imply that BitUSD would become a weak asset totally dependent on the Gateway's survival. Crazy.

We are talking about a trustless or near trustless BTC gateway (sidechains.)  We are not talking about a UIA gateway like OPEN.BTC

Ok, Sidechains, it's not clear in the proposal and we've all understood something different. It is clear that using a third-party Gateway is crazy.

If we use Sidechains we do not need a gateway. We can simply send BTC to a Sidechain address to send the funds to another chain.

If so, I agree that it is a good idea that can greatly improve BTS!!

[JonnyB]

I don't think theres any type of fully trustless BTC gateway (sidechain) but some proposed are very secure and would be good enough to use as BTC collateral for smartcoins.

This would be huge! And a real win for bitshares / marketing opportunity.

Just think any bitcoin holder in the world could get a USD loan against their BTC.

For those of you worried that this would damage the value of BTS I disagree because all fees will still ultimately be paid in BTS even when paying or collateralising in SIDE.BTC

I see the system inconsistent. SmartCoins are self-assured, but if tomorrow morning the Gateway has disappeared, or has been banned or hacked, who guarantees the collateral?

If I am BitUSD holder and there is a black swan event I know I will receive at least the collateral. What will I receive if the Gateway disappears? BTS? From where?

If it is not possible to find clear answers to these questions that would imply that BitUSD would become a weak asset totally dependent on the Gateway's survival. Crazy.

We are talking about a trustless or near trustless BTC gateway (sidechains.)  We are not talking about a UIA gateway like OPEN.BTC

[severo]

I don't think theres any type of fully trustless BTC gateway (sidechain) but some proposed are very secure and would be good enough to use as BTC collateral for smartcoins.

This would be huge! And a real win for bitshares / marketing opportunity.

Just think any bitcoin holder in the world could get a USD loan against their BTC.

For those of you worried that this would damage the value of BTS I disagree because all fees will still ultimately be paid in BTS even when paying or collateralising in SIDE.BTC

I see the system inconsistent. SmartCoins are self-assured, but if tomorrow morning the Gateway has disappeared, or has been banned or hacked, who guarantees the collateral?

If I am BitUSD holder and there is a black swan event I know I will receive at least the collateral. What will I receive if the Gateway disappears? BTS? From where?

If it is not possible to find clear answers to these questions that would imply that BitUSD would become a weak asset totally dependent on the Gateway's survival. Crazy.

[yvv]

For those of you worried that this would damage the value of BTS I disagree because all fees will still ultimately be paid in BTS even when paying or collateralising in SIDE.BTC

It is all set up such that you need to be bullish on BTS to use the DEX. This is not good, because this cuts off many traders who are not bullish on BTS. Ideally, a user should be able to use the DEX without keeping any BTS at all, just like on other exchanges, you don't give a crap how much their stocks cost, you just use their platform for trading, saving etc. BTS would serve only as a proof of stake for voting in this case and as an internal currency. Even the reserve fund could be easily diversified into a portfolio of top 100 coins, such that development funding would not depend on BTS price.

[JonnyB]

I don't think theres any type of fully trustless BTC gateway (sidechain) but some proposed are very secure and would be good enough to use as BTC collateral for smartcoins.

This would be huge! And a real win for bitshares / marketing opportunity.

Just think any bitcoin holder in the world could get a USD loan against their BTC.

For those of you worried that this would damage the value of BTS I disagree because all fees will still ultimately be paid in BTS even when paying or collateralising in SIDE.BTC

[Frodo]

If it is possible to use BTC (via the trustless gateway) as collateral for smartcoins, BitShares will provide a trustless way to enter a leveraged long BTC position. You can simply borrow bitUSD against BTC and sell the borrowed bitUSD for more BTC. You have entered a leveraged long BTC position, while providing additional bitUSD supply. I imagine demand for that would be huge, which would drastically improve liquidity for all smartcoins.

I agree, this would be a great improvement for bitshares. Volatile collateral is a weak point of MPA. BTC is as volatile as BTS, but they are not completely correlated, so if we could chose which coin to deposit in collateral, that would greatly reduce the risk of shorting.

You overlook the fact that the supply of BTC needed for the loan would not be real BTC, but an IOU such as OPEN.BTC

This can reduce to nothing the concept of self-assured smartcoins and end the prestige of Bitshares, making its "guarantees" as vulnerable as those given by any centralized exchange.

True that it would be an IOU, but still not comparable to something like OPEN.BTC, since the BTC would be transparently held in a multisig wallet by BitShares witnesses. The question is if the risk of the BTC getting stolen outweighs the reduced risk of black swan events.

[severo]

If it is possible to use BTC (via the trustless gateway) as collateral for smartcoins, BitShares will provide a trustless way to enter a leveraged long BTC position. You can simply borrow bitUSD against BTC and sell the borrowed bitUSD for more BTC. You have entered a leveraged long BTC position, while providing additional bitUSD supply. I imagine demand for that would be huge, which would drastically improve liquidity for all smartcoins.

I agree, this would be a great improvement for bitshares. Volatile collateral is a weak point of MPA. BTC is as volatile as BTS, but they are not completely correlated, so if we could chose which coin to deposit in collateral, that would greatly reduce the risk of shorting.

You overlook the fact that the supply of BTC needed for the loan would not be real BTC, but an IOU such as OPEN.BTC

This can reduce to nothing the concept of self-assured smartcoins and end the prestige of Bitshares, making its "guarantees" as vulnerable as those given by any centralized exchange.

[yvv]

If it is possible to use BTC (via the trustless gateway) as collateral for smartcoins, BitShares will provide a trustless way to enter a leveraged long BTC position. You can simply borrow bitUSD against BTC and sell the borrowed bitUSD for more BTC. You have entered a leveraged long BTC position, while providing additional bitUSD supply. I imagine demand for that would be huge, which would drastically improve liquidity for all smartcoins.

I agree, this would be a great improvement for bitshares. Volatile collateral is a weak point of MPA. BTC is as volatile as BTS, but they are not completely correlated, so if we could chose which coin to deposit in collateral, that would greatly reduce the risk of shorting.

[Frodo]

Number four. Number four, number four, number four.

Having a decentralized btc gateway would make bitshares utterly unique (though it is already), and position it against poloniex, etc. Though challenging, I have long thought this to be possible and desirable.

Why?

Real bitcoins... Not pegged bitcoins... Real bitcoins... Via the bitshares dex.

So I vote three times for number four.

You have the same, but more direct, with Atomic Swaps.

Bitcoin on chain allows for one thing that atomic swaps can't deliver. It gives us the possibility to use real BTC as collateral for smartcoins. That has two advatages: 1) Reduced risk for black swan events 2) Higher liquidity as currently only traders who want to go long BTS relative to the smartcoin will create smartcoin supply. When we have BTC on chain everyone who wants to go long BTC relative to the smartcoin can do so and deliver additional liquidity to smartcoin markets. Which is huge IMO, as there should be a lot more people willing to go long BTC opposed to long BTS.

With atomic swaps you could instantly change, without third parties, BTC to BTS thus increasing BTS liquidity. But in addition could be directly changed BTC to BitBTC, increasing the liquidity of this or another smartcoin.

I do not see why a decentralized Gateway would work better. Can you explain it better?

What I mean is the creation of smartcoins. Let's take bitUSD as example. Currently the only way to create bitUSD is to borrow it from the blockchain for BTS as collateral. Meaning that only people who are bullish on BTS are willing to create bitUSD, which leads to low liquidity.

If it is possible to use BTC (via the trustless gateway) as collateral for smartcoins, BitShares will provide a trustless way to enter a leveraged long BTC position. You can simply borrow bitUSD against BTC and sell the borrowed bitUSD for more BTC. You have entered a leveraged long BTC position, while providing additional bitUSD supply. I imagine demand for that would be huge, which would drastically improve liquidity for all smartcoins.

And while it is true that you could trade bitUSD/BTC with atomic swaps, the liquidity gains of that would be lower than in the scenario described above.

[severo]

Number four. Number four, number four, number four.

Having a decentralized btc gateway would make bitshares utterly unique (though it is already), and position it against poloniex, etc. Though challenging, I have long thought this to be possible and desirable.

Why?

Real bitcoins... Not pegged bitcoins... Real bitcoins... Via the bitshares dex.

So I vote three times for number four.

You have the same, but more direct, with Atomic Swaps.

Bitcoin on chain allows for one thing that atomic swaps can't deliver. It gives us the possibility to use real BTC as collateral for smartcoins. That has two advatages: 1) Reduced risk for black swan events 2) Higher liquidity as currently only traders who want to go long BTS relative to the smartcoin will create smartcoin supply. When we have BTC on chain everyone who wants to go long BTC relative to the smartcoin can do so and deliver additional liquidity to smartcoin markets. Which is huge IMO, as there should be a lot more people willing to go long BTC opposed to long BTS.

With atomic swaps you could instantly change, without third parties, BTC to BTS thus increasing BTS liquidity. But in addition could be directly changed BTC to BitBTC, increasing the liquidity of this or another smartcoin.

I do not see why a decentralized Gateway would work better. Can you explain it better?

[Frodo]

Number four. Number four, number four, number four.

Having a decentralized btc gateway would make bitshares utterly unique (though it is already), and position it against poloniex, etc. Though challenging, I have long thought this to be possible and desirable.

Why?

Real bitcoins... Not pegged bitcoins... Real bitcoins... Via the bitshares dex.

So I vote three times for number four.

You have the same, but more direct, with Atomic Swaps.

Bitcoin on chain allows for one thing that atomic swaps can't deliver. It gives us the possibility to use real BTC as collateral for smartcoins. That has two advatages: 1) Reduced risk for black swan events 2) Higher liquidity as currently only traders who want to go long BTS relative to the smartcoin will create smartcoin supply. When we have BTC on chain everyone who wants to go long BTC relative to the smartcoin can do so and deliver additional liquidity to smartcoin markets. Which is huge IMO, as there should be a lot more people willing to go long BTC opposed to long BTS.

[Stan]

Personally, I fail to see why are you guys so excited about EOS. Right now bitshares is much more than just a DEX, it is full with other awesome feauters and that is what makes it the best thing in the market right now, it's a package deal. When EOS is released, it's gonna have all the features bitshares has and then some. Bitshares will be reduced to an app for dex on EOS. It's like if facebook would be excited for their whole platform to be reduced only to the messenger mobile app.
For now, whe have the tech and potential to become the new world currency, EOS will take away every advantage we have. It could be great if after the release EOS would be renamed to bitshares 3.0, and all bts exchanged for the new tokens but that's not gonna happen - it's a separate project.
 So why would this project "go to the moon" after EOS? Could anyone explain that to me?

Content, content, content.

[severo]

Why not add BEOS (Bitshares on EOS) option to the poll?
Seems this option has some support in the community.

See  "BEOS - Alternative proposal for Bitshares 3.0"
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@slavix/beos-bitshares-on-eos-alternative-proposal-for-bitshares-3-0

After much thought, I think it is the best option to climb Bitshares. We should support her.

[severo]

Number four. Number four, number four, number four.

Having a decentralized btc gateway would make bitshares utterly unique (though it is already), and position it against poloniex, etc. Though challenging, I have long thought this to be possible and desirable.

Why?

Real bitcoins... Not pegged bitcoins... Real bitcoins... Via the bitshares dex.

So I vote three times for number four.

You have the same, but more direct, with Atomic Swaps.

[faddat]

Number four. Number four, number four, number four.

Having a decentralized btc gateway would make bitshares utterly unique (though it is already), and position it against poloniex, etc. Though challenging, I have long thought this to be possible and desirable.

Why?

Real bitcoins... Not pegged bitcoins... Real bitcoins... Via the bitshares dex.

So I vote three times for number four.

[llildur]

 So why would this project "go to the moon" after EOS? Could anyone explain that to me?

It will not. It will become obsolete. Which is great, because then we can switch to better platform.

So why bother at all to try and improve it if it becomes obsolete next year?
I am seriously worried. I am a fan of bitshares and am doing what i can to contribute, but that's just disheartening.

This is a very valid concern. For now, there is no alternative to bitshares, and since we use it, we need to improve it to make it more useful.  But if you want to build a long term business on blockchain, you have to think twice, and at least have in plans how you migrate when another, more advanced blockchain comes out.

Bitshares will benefit from EOS in many aspects, EOS isn't intended as a new layer protocol, EOS is projected as the backbone of many of them allowing interconection between varios existing projects, some kind of sidechain VM,  if i'm correct then all the upgrades proposed here will be fullfilled in the future with EOS, Dan mentioned that EOS will be compatible with BTS, we can think about it as ETH compatible with ERC20 tokens,  but better  than that, we all know that BTS is by far the  most reliable blockchain in TPS, imagine  what can achieve a VM with this power multiplied at protocol level, even Raiden in ETH will pale at comparision, atomic swaps and such will be a piece of cake EOS will be the door to all the crypto sphere, a truly descentralized economy, OL will become another gate no the only gate to fiat world. Its a shame that we can´t have some feedback from EOS project or Dan at this point, so  only we can guess about it, after all BTS is first Dan's child.

[yvv]

 So why would this project "go to the moon" after EOS? Could anyone explain that to me?

It will not. It will become obsolete. Which is great, because then we can switch to better platform.

So why bother at all to try and improve it if it becomes obsolete next year?
I am seriously worried. I am a fan of bitshares and am doing what i can to contribute, but that's just disheartening.

This is a very valid concern. For now, there is no alternative to bitshares, and since we use it, we need to improve it to make it more useful.  But if you want to build a long term business on blockchain, you have to think twice, and at least have in plans how you migrate when another, more advanced blockchain comes out.

[Ravid]

 So why would this project "go to the moon" after EOS? Could anyone explain that to me?

It will not. It will become obsolete. Which is great, because then we can switch to better platform.

So why bother at all to try and improve it if it becomes obsolete next year?
I am seriously worried. I am a fan of bitshares and am doing what i can to contribute, but that's just disheartening.

[yvv]

 So why would this project "go to the moon" after EOS? Could anyone explain that to me?

It will not. It will become obsolete. Which is great, because then we can switch to better platform.

[severo]

On the other hand the integration of BTS in EOS seems to me an error and a proposal made by the investors of EOS to take advantage of the quality of BTS. I think it would be good if BTS copied some of the EOS technology that we can find useful, [1] but always from our own ecosystem. And if we become a smart EOS contract, I hope that at least they [2] do not wanting to give EOS investors our token for free, which I know most projects that are in ETH have not given their token to those who they had ETH. I insist that it seems a bit of a joke from EOS investors who have realized that their EOS token is worthless and want to see where they can steal. So if this is proposed I hope that the majority of people who like and appreciate the community do not vote in favor, if they voted to in favor I would of course leave the project.

Best regards.

I completely agree in [1] and [2] it seems to me that there are two of us who can see the naked king.

So why would this project "go to the moon" after EOS? Could anyone explain that to me?

And can you explain to me how EOS will go to the moon just  that it is a good platform? Investors are looking for interesting ICOS, but  there are already many people disillusioned. There are too many good projects that fail. By contrast, Bitshares has been running a small eternity perfectly, and with an acceptable capitalization.

If EOS wants to take advantage of the momentum of Bitshares, the best thing would be to work on some kind of integration that safeguards the interests of Bitshares investors and respects the most outstanding functionalities

[Ravid]

Personally, I fail to see why are you guys so excited about EOS. Right now bitshares is much more than just a DEX, it is full with other awesome feauters and that is what makes it the best thing in the market right now, it's a package deal. When EOS is released, it's gonna have all the features bitshares has and then some. Bitshares will be reduced to an app for dex on EOS. It's like if facebook would be excited for their whole platform to be reduced only to the messenger mobile app.
For now, whe have the tech and potential to become the new world currency, EOS will take away every advantage we have. It could be great if after the release EOS would be renamed to bitshares 3.0, and all bts exchanged for the new tokens but that's not gonna happen - it's a separate project.
 So why would this project "go to the moon" after EOS? Could anyone explain that to me?

[cborra8]

Hello and welcome to the updated poll (with possibility to change vote), related with OpenLedger team's proposal directed on making research and further features deployment on the BitShares network.


Detailed text of proposal:
(Previous discussion is available at: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25179.15.html)

Dear Community Members,
Over the past two years, OpenLedger have played an important role in the development and establishment of the BitShares blockchain. Our high-qualified team of developers have been involved in dozens of third-party projects, acting as consultants and direct executors, continuously interacting with the community, developers, and traders to develop their products on the BitShares ecosystem.
Believing in the limitless possibilities of BitShares technology, it is OpenLedger’s vision to build projects for all uses, and truly develop ‘Blockchain as a Service’ (BaaS).

With a varied and rich experience in development using Graphene technology, as well as unmatched experience in working with Bitcoin, Ethereum, NXT, Omni, Waves blockchains, the key goal for the OpenLedger team will be to research ongoing cryptocurrency technological trends, as well as create new features, with subsequent implementation into the BitShares blockchain.
OpenLedger sincerely believe that BitShares is significantly underrated, from both economic and technological points of view in comparison to other crypto-platforms.

The strategic goal of OpenLedger is to create such a platform which will outpace the competition and allow for the creation of a truly decentralized and trusted digital economy. To achieve these goals, we would like to rely not only on our own views and ideas, but also on yours - the community opinion - and we invite you to like to take part and join us in this next stage of Bitshares’ evolution.

For the first stage of our mission, we want the community to vote for one, or more, of the following proposed ideas:

1) Implementing a virtual machine (like Ethereum’s’ Virtual Machine) into Graphene.
Once created, it will allow each user to produce smart contracts that work with assets and Smartcoins. The mechanisms of ICOs, trusted systems for the payments of dividends, and hosting various games/shares/lotteries, are examples of possible, future business cases.
By combining the strengths of the two platforms (the flexibility of ETH Smartcontracts and the speed/throughput of BitShares), they will get the symbiosis of the advantages and eliminate the weaknesses of these two platforms.

2) Implementation of the Atomic Swap mechanism.
Such a mechanism will allow the exchange of funds from one blockchain (Bitshares) to another (bitcoin, as the first), without any participation from third parties. In this case, BTS, MPA (bitUSD), and UIA can be used as bitshares funds.
Given the fact that there is only one real decentralized exchange, the ability to enter it from other blockchains, without any risks (technical and regulatory), and the participation of third parties (gateways), creates huge economic potential for the platform and the cryptocurrency economy.

3) Creation of Fee Backed Asset.
The idea of creating the FBA was proposed back in 2015, but was never implemented. (http://docs.bitshares.org/bitshares/user/fba.html)

In addition to implementing the mechanisms for automatic dividends distribution, it is proposed to discuss additional options for managing fees (the ability to impose payments on the issuer, change the fee rules for creating/closing the order, so that the person who closed the order pays 100% of the fees or 50/50).


We are hungry for constructive dialogue and invite all of you in the community to join us in this quest.
Our menu of ideas may not be complete and if a community member puts forward an idea proposing the implementation of an unlisted, and vital development, we will add this item to the  list (your vote can be changed throughout the voting process).

Phase two will include the tabulation process.
The results will be summed up either on November 9 (in the case of clear and straight voting), or on November 30 (if there will be active discussions or disputes). Whatever the positive outcome, we will prepare a detailed roadmap, which will outline the steps, deadlines, project participants, and financial calculations, which will in turn be presented to the community.

The third stage will be a full deployment on the test network and the environment, with the testing process performed by the team and any interested parties within the community.
Following this, we will start the integration into working nodes. If the changes are significant, we will perform the hard fork, provided that all witnesses agree.

At OpenLedger we believe that true progress and mass adoption of blockchain technology will only come from working together. Collaboration is the new tool for global progress and it should be encouraged at every level, so please join us as we explore the future of the BitShares blockchain.


The OpenLedger Development Teams behind this project are:

Key Management Team:

Ivan – The Initiator and Supervisor of this project, Ivan is deeply involved in strategic planning, research and communications. He has led the OpenLedger development from the first moments of its existence.
Email: ivan@openledger.io
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivan-bo-b7421a151/

Mikhail – As the Head of Project, Michael is an experienced Release and Project Manager. Before crypto, he was the head of the management department in Wargaming Inc. (World of Tanks/Warships/Planes creator).
Email: mikhail.makaruk@openledger.io
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikhail-makaruk-2022714a/

Key development team:

Alex – The Guardian of Project Servers, Alex is am experienced DevOps and Engineer, controlling more than 20 servers the world over. He has built a unique network of pools with gateways, nodes and wallets, and manages security, resistance and stability of server infrastructures.

Anton – The Team Lead of Project Development, Anthony is a professional Engineer, with 12 years of programming experience (C++, Python, Ruby, JS), dozens of executed projects (four of them during the previous year in the blockchain industry) and limitless enthusiasm. Antony coordinates the work of dev groups in different directions (core, gateway, etc.).

The list of connected developers will be formed closer to the beginning of the approved project.

So, make your choice and feel free to comment!

Good Morning,

I am a relatively new investor in this project, I have been learning new things about it for about 3 months, even though I knew it before.
When I started to see it more thoroughly, i really liked the project, until finally it is one of my favorite projects within the cryptocurrencies.

When I read about the proposal of Open Ledger of Bitshares 3.0 , I liked it enough, although a part does not finish liking me.
I have tried to read more about it and there are mainly two things that I would not like, one is "Creation of Fee Backed Asset", it seems completely unnecessary, the cryptocurrency that should be used as main in all aspects should be BTS and reduce its use with another it seems to me that it is not good for BTS investors.
The other improvement that I would not want would be the VM if this slowed the BTS net. As such it seems to me a pretty good improvement, but if it is going to reduce the speed of BTS it would be better to consider perhaps another option or study about how to implement it without reducing the speed of BTS.

In general if Open Ledger ensures that the speed of BTS will be maintained despite the VM, I will vote for that proposal, although I insist that I do not like the "Creation of Fee Backed Asset" part.

On the other hand the integration of BTS in EOS seems to me an error and a proposal made by the investors of EOS to take advantage of the quality of BTS. I think it would be good if BTS copied some of the EOS technology that we can find useful, but always from our own ecosystem. And if we become a smart EOS contract, I hope that at least they do not wanting to give EOS investors our token for free, which I know most projects that are in ETH have not given their token to those who they had ETH. I insist that it seems a bit of a joke from EOS investors who have realized that their EOS token is worthless and want to see where they can steal. So if this is proposed I hope that the majority of people who like and appreciate the community do not vote in favor, if they voted to in favor I would of course leave the project.

This is my opinion and my first comment, it seems excellent the work of the developers of the community and open ledger, who are working on the project, surely we reach soon a new historical high.

Best regards.

[severo]

In the short term cherry picking some improvements from EOS and integrating them into Bitshares 2 may make sense. Long term Bitshares 2 will not be able to compete with BEOS, as the latter will have a superior foundation with many significant advantages over Bitshares 2.

And what are those features that make EOS absolutely superior and essential? we should remember that the most capitalized currency has no relevant technical characteristics. I suspect that all those characteristics are beads and colored glasses to deceive the unwary.

Technically inferior technology can lead in capitalization, maybe even for a long time. However superior tech will succeed and will likely win out in the end. EOS is Dan Larimer's 3rd blockchain and is being built with lessons learned from the first two, Bitshares being the first.  EOS is a natural upgrade path for Bitshares.

Some of the most significant advantages BEOS will have over BTS 2:

• Smart contract support
• Compatibility with EOS Dapps
• Massive scalability
• Low latency (likely sub-second)
• Free transfers

Do not lose sight of the fact that cryptos are used as an investment. As an investor I have clear the advantages of Bitshares: stable and self-guaranteed price currencies with which I can make backups of my investments. Coins that give 5% per year, a DEX own where no one can steal the coins. Instant transactions.

All this is easily understandable. From EOS I am clear the free transactions, but the rest I am not sure to fully understand, and how many of these functionalities would be used by 75% of investors.

It is possible, I do not doubt, that EOS is a magnificent platform, but that will not be enough to succeed if we do not perceive its advantages in a way as clear and honest as those of Bitshares.

[bitcoinerS]

In the short term cherry picking some improvements from EOS and integrating them into Bitshares 2 may make sense. Long term Bitshares 2 will not be able to compete with BEOS, as the latter will have a superior foundation with many significant advantages over Bitshares 2.

And what are those features that make EOS absolutely superior and essential? we should remember that the most capitalized currency has no relevant technical characteristics. I suspect that all those characteristics are beads and colored glasses to deceive the unwary.

Technically inferior technology can lead in capitalization, maybe even for a long time. However superior tech will succeed and will likely win out in the end. EOS is Dan Larimer's 3rd blockchain and is being built with lessons learned from the first two, Bitshares being the first.  EOS is a natural upgrade path for Bitshares.

Some of the most significant advantages BEOS will have over BTS 2:

• Smart contract support
• Compatibility with EOS Dapps
• Massive scalability
• Low latency (likely sub-second)
• Free transfers

[severo]

In the short term cherry picking some improvements from EOS and integrating them into Bitshares 2 may make sense. Long term Bitshares 2 will not be able to compete with BEOS, as the latter will have a superior foundation with many significant advantages over Bitshares 2.

And what are those features that make EOS absolutely superior and essential? we should remember that the most capitalized currency has no relevant technical characteristics. I suspect that all those characteristics are beads and colored glasses to deceive the unwary.

[bitcoinerS]

subject to stakeholder approval.
work can't start, there is nothing to work on.

Yes, stakeholder approval is what this proposal is seeking.
Work on BEOS begins with discussion, planning, approval of the plan by the community, securing development funding, assembling a team of qualified devs to work on it.
Coding can not start yet, but discussion and planning of this project can and should start now.

Given zero BSIPs on the routes to EOS integration, this isn't a serious proposal

BSIP for this proposal has not been created yet, it will be written once there is a discussion of the proposal and general approval of the idea from stakeholders.
My goal here is to ignite this discussion and see how much support this idea gets from stakeholders.

won't make it in time for the ICO.

Which ICO?

Perhaps bringing some of EOS' functionality to BTS is plausible, but BTS merging into/onto EOS is highly unlikely.

In the short term cherry picking some improvements from EOS and integrating them into Bitshares 2 may make sense. Long term Bitshares 2 will not be able to compete with BEOS, as the latter will have a superior foundation with many significant advantages over Bitshares 2.

We don't know, may be Larimer's team is already working on this right now.

There is a basic sample exchange smart contract  developed by EOS team.
https://github.com/EOSIO/eos/tree/master/contracts/exchange
It can be used as a starting point for porting Bitshares to EOS.

[yvv]

and it's still nothing they can work on right now.

Not a fact.
Current Bitshares functionality will need to be implemented as an EOS native smart contract. This work can start now.

We don't know, may be Larimer's team is already working on this right now.

[R]

and it's still nothing they can work on right now.

Not a fact.
Current Bitshares functionality will need to be implemented as an EOS native smart contract. This work can start now.

Given zero BSIPs on the routes to EOS integration, this isn't a serious proposal and won't make it in time for the ICO. Perhaps bringing some of EOS' functionality to BTS is plausible, but BTS merging into/onto EOS is highly unlikely.

OP: Got any BSIPs to share?

[fav]

and it's still nothing they can work on right now.

Not a fact.
Current Bitshares functionality will need to be implemented as an EOS native smart contract. This work can start now.

subject to stakeholder approval.
work can't start, there is nothing to work on.

[bitcoinerS]

and it's still nothing they can work on right now.

Not a fact.
Current Bitshares functionality will need to be implemented as an EOS native smart contract. This work can start now.

[fav]

and it's still nothing they can work on right now.

[bitcoinerS]

they already addressed this in the last post, you did not read this either.

The only comment addressing BEOS proposal I see, is that @ivandev thinks EOS is not ready. 
In my opinion EOS is ready to start developing BEOS, to be launched when EOS is released in june of 2018.
In any case it is up to the community to decide which proposal to support.
Adding BEOS option to the poll allows community to voice its support.

[fav]

they already addressed this in the last post, you did not read this either.

[bitcoinerS]

Why not add BEOS (Bitshares on EOS) option to the poll?
Seems this option has some support in the community.

See  "BEOS - Alternative proposal for Bitshares 3.0"
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@slavix/beos-bitshares-on-eos-alternative-proposal-for-bitshares-3-0

[ivandev]

I'm very sceptic about porting a VM to BTS. I believe that in the end it means that we have to sacrifice our speed, because the problem here is that VMs simply don't scale. We're still one of the fastest blockchains out there - sacrificing that for something that in the end would be no better than ETH would be a very bad move IMO.

In our vision to implement VM in parallel and use (call) it only for particular transactions and assets. So, VM integration will expand possibilities on BitShares, but will not limit current functionality.

Not sure if I understand what you mean - are we talking about Atomic Cross--Chain Trading (ACCT)?

In that case I think that this would be a great feature to have. It could provide an actual trustless gateway (as opposed to a delegate-controlled sidechain/gateway) between BTC and bitBTC, and most altcoins out there. The speed of such trades is mostly determined by the speed of the other chain (read: slow), which is why I think that people wouldn't use it for everyday trading but more to move funds into and out of our chain. For everyday trading they would use out built-in high-speed DEX.

It could also be implemented with relatively little effort (read: low cost) I think.

Thanks for remark, added link clarifying sense of ACCT in poll option. For the beginning, we consider ACCT as trusted way to enter into BitShares from outside (other blockchain), bypassing exchanges (involving 3rd parties and regulations). It's actual to whales and allow do not drop price, using exchange. After ACCT implementation, we will look into creating ACCT market, connecting offers from different blockchains, or at least, including BTS ones.

I'd like to see the option to trade all alt coins on Bitshares, then we would become the go to DEX for any trade. Is this possible?

We're working on this already, but it's not related with RnD.  We're also planning to let people choose a list of currencies, which will be connected. So, follow up our newsletters and forum threads.

I feel what we are talking about are:

1. to which direction should Bitshares evolve while the other blockchains evolve rapidly?

2. how to implement the new change and fund the development?

after go through this thread and some relevant posts, I tend to agree the ideas come from https://steemit.com/bitshares/@slavix/beos-bitshares-on-eos-alternative-proposal-for-bitshares-3-0 :  make an EOS clone with BTS as a base token.

maybe smart contracts and VM are the most important factors for the next step evolution of Bitshares, however, EVM is designed specially on Ethereum blockchain, I don't think it can be smoothly integrated into Bitshares blockchain, the obvious difference between the 2 blockchains base will make this process tough, so why not adopt EOS VM, which is also built on Graphene base, instead in this scenario?

thinking continully, if we need to adopt most of the good features introduced by EOS, why not just clone EOS and make BTS the base token? and realize the current Bitshares features as native smart contracts on BEOS (Bitshares on EOS)

to avoid the potential risks and fit the possibility that there is no consensus from community, one selection is to hard fork BTS to 2 parts, one classical BTS and one BEOS, like BTC and BCC, then each one can still prefer what he likes most and the better one will emerge with time elapse.

A worker proposal can be created to fund the development and implementation of this, after a skilled team is organized.

As you got it right, the main goal of current Project is evolving of current BitShares. EOS is amazing project and we constantly watch in this, but it's still raw as product, while launch is planned for the summer of 2018. From our point of view, until alpha/beta testing of completely done platform, taking EOS features in BitShares is too prematurely. But given the fact, that 3 members already supported the idea of EOS implementation, we will think (and we're opened for particular proposals), what is possible to suggest as solution.

About VM proposal, we didn't decide yet exactly which one to implement (will do during research stage), but there two significant reasons, why EVM from our point of view is more preferable for now:
1) Legacy. There are many developers already create SContracts and a lot of sources published, so it will be easy for people, to start/continue making their business on BitShares.
2) Stability. EVM is well-tested already for more than years and it's trusted by business, while EOS is in the beginning of its way.

Your original thread inspired me to write this - https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@karnal/privacy-in-the-digital-age

Dear Karnal, we respect your opinion and your undisguised interest to Monero solution (and thanks for link to thread), but we discuss here specific solutions and maybe you could suggest anything, we can add into BitShares to meet your expectations.

[karnal]

Your original thread inspired me to write this - https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@karnal/privacy-in-the-digital-age

There is zero mention of confidential/private transactions, in the poll, your OP, and all of the replies, which I find appalling; I took half an hour to write something about it, in sort of a bigger-picture kind of way.

Hopefully it helps framing why private transactions being discounted will ultimately, as far as I can see it, spell obsolescence for bitshares.

We're already 1.5 years late, going to the 3rd reimplementation of the platform, and privacy has never been taken seriously.

It won't take off without it. I hope I'm not the only one who can see it.

[ivandev]

Hello and welcome to the updated poll (with possibility to change vote), related with OpenLedger team's proposal directed on making research and further features deployment on the BitShares network.


Detailed text of proposal:
(Previous discussion is available at: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25179.15.html)

Dear Community Members,
Over the past two years, OpenLedger have played an important role in the development and establishment of the BitShares blockchain. Our high-qualified team of developers have been involved in dozens of third-party projects, acting as consultants and direct executors, continuously interacting with the community, developers, and traders to develop their products on the BitShares ecosystem.
Believing in the limitless possibilities of BitShares technology, it is OpenLedger’s vision to build projects for all uses, and truly develop ‘Blockchain as a Service’ (BaaS).

With a varied and rich experience in development using Graphene technology, as well as unmatched experience in working with Bitcoin, Ethereum, NXT, Omni, Waves blockchains, the key goal for the OpenLedger team will be to research ongoing cryptocurrency technological trends, as well as create new features, with subsequent implementation into the BitShares blockchain.
OpenLedger sincerely believe that BitShares is significantly underrated, from both economic and technological points of view in comparison to other crypto-platforms.

The strategic goal of OpenLedger is to create such a platform which will outpace the competition and allow for the creation of a truly decentralized and trusted digital economy. To achieve these goals, we would like to rely not only on our own views and ideas, but also on yours - the community opinion - and we invite you to like to take part and join us in this next stage of Bitshares’ evolution.

For the first stage of our mission, we want the community to vote for one, or more, of the following proposed ideas:

1) Implementing a virtual machine (like Ethereum’s’ Virtual Machine) into Graphene.
Once created, it will allow each user to produce smart contracts that work with assets and Smartcoins. The mechanisms of ICOs, trusted systems for the payments of dividends, and hosting various games/shares/lotteries, are examples of possible, future business cases.
By combining the strengths of the two platforms (the flexibility of ETH Smartcontracts and the speed/throughput of BitShares), they will get the symbiosis of the advantages and eliminate the weaknesses of these two platforms.

2) Implementation of the Atomic Swap mechanism.
Such a mechanism will allow the exchange of funds from one blockchain (Bitshares) to another (bitcoin, as the first), without any participation from third parties. In this case, BTS, MPA (bitUSD), and UIA can be used as bitshares funds.
Given the fact that there is only one real decentralized exchange, the ability to enter it from other blockchains, without any risks (technical and regulatory), and the participation of third parties (gateways), creates huge economic potential for the platform and the cryptocurrency economy.

3) Creation of Fee Backed Asset.
The idea of creating the FBA was proposed back in 2015, but was never implemented. (http://docs.bitshares.org/bitshares/user/fba.html)

In addition to implementing the mechanisms for automatic dividends distribution, it is proposed to discuss additional options for managing fees (the ability to impose payments on the issuer, change the fee rules for creating/closing the order, so that the person who closed the order pays 100% of the fees or 50/50).


We are hungry for constructive dialogue and invite all of you in the community to join us in this quest.
Our menu of ideas may not be complete and if a community member puts forward an idea proposing the implementation of an unlisted, and vital development, we will add this item to the  list (your vote can be changed throughout the voting process).

Phase two will include the tabulation process.
The results will be summed up either on November 9 (in the case of clear and straight voting), or on November 30 (if there will be active discussions or disputes). Whatever the positive outcome, we will prepare a detailed roadmap, which will outline the steps, deadlines, project participants, and financial calculations, which will in turn be presented to the community.

The third stage will be a full deployment on the test network and the environment, with the testing process performed by the team and any interested parties within the community.
Following this, we will start the integration into working nodes. If the changes are significant, we will perform the hard fork, provided that all witnesses agree.

At OpenLedger we believe that true progress and mass adoption of blockchain technology will only come from working together. Collaboration is the new tool for global progress and it should be encouraged at every level, so please join us as we explore the future of the BitShares blockchain.


The OpenLedger Development Teams behind this project are:

Key Management Team:

Ivan – The Initiator and Supervisor of this project, Ivan is deeply involved in strategic planning, research and communications. He has led the OpenLedger development from the first moments of its existence.
Email: ivan@openledger.io
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivan-bo-b7421a151/

Mikhail – As the Head of Project, Michael is an experienced Release and Project Manager. Before crypto, he was the head of the management department in Wargaming Inc. (World of Tanks/Warships/Planes creator).
Email: mikhail.makaruk@openledger.io
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikhail-makaruk-2022714a/

Key development team:

Alex – The Guardian of Project Servers, Alex is am experienced DevOps and Engineer, controlling more than 20 servers the world over. He has built a unique network of pools with gateways, nodes and wallets, and manages security, resistance and stability of server infrastructures.

Anton – The Team Lead of Project Development, Anthony is a professional Engineer, with 12 years of programming experience (C++, Python, Ruby, JS), dozens of executed projects (four of them during the previous year in the blockchain industry) and limitless enthusiasm. Antony coordinates the work of dev groups in different directions (core, gateway, etc.).

The list of connected developers will be formed closer to the beginning of the approved project.

So, make your choice and feel free to comment!