Author Topic: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)  (Read 36526 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • BitShares Maximalist & Venture Architect
    • View Profile
    • BitShares
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
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
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org
Move Institute, Non-profit organization
RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia.

Offline severo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 03:43:52 pm by erizo »

Offline mostar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
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?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 08:25:11 am by mostar »

Offline severo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
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

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • BitShares Maximalist & Venture Architect
    • View Profile
    • BitShares
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
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
« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 05:28:02 pm by lucifer »
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org
Move Institute, Non-profit organization
RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia.

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
  • BitShares Maximalist & Venture Architect
    • View Profile
    • BitShares
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher

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.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 05:31:03 pm by lucifer »
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org
Move Institute, Non-profit organization
RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia.

Offline severo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
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!!

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin
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
I run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline severo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
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.

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile

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.

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin
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 run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline Frodo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: 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.

Offline severo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile

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.

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile

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.

Offline Frodo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: 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.