Author Topic: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)  (Read 20551 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline intelliguy

Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #60 on: November 09, 2017, 05:04:45 pm »
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.


« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 05:19:03 pm by intelliguy »
I'm @intelliguy on steemit. I usually get things right (or so they tell me), follow me there if you want to see more. Tips accepted to bitshares user: intelliguy-bts  (I'm a lifetime member because I trust in the Bitshares ecosystem)

Offline ivandev

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #61 on: November 10, 2017, 03:33:05 pm »
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.


Offline Bitshiz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #62 on: November 10, 2017, 04:47:04 pm »
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.

Offline ivandev

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #63 on: November 23, 2017, 02:06:50 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 02:12:02 pm by ivandev »

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4562
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #64 on: November 23, 2017, 03:48:44 pm »
Nice summary.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline severo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #65 on: November 23, 2017, 04:28:23 pm »
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.

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #66 on: November 23, 2017, 05:12:30 pm »
Quote
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)

Offline severo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #67 on: November 24, 2017, 08:45:51 am »
Quote
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

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #68 on: November 24, 2017, 01:22:09 pm »
just need escrow & agents, then you can run any p2p exchange pairing

Offline severo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #69 on: November 24, 2017, 01:50:25 pm »
... and a market and a reliable program. Good software does not grow on trees.

Offline jenkas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #70 on: November 24, 2017, 11:59:24 pm »
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!).

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #71 on: November 25, 2017, 07:06:30 am »
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!
« Last Edit: November 25, 2017, 07:12:01 am by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline vegolino

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Reality is Information
    • View Profile
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #72 on: November 25, 2017, 12:35:25 pm »
I remember that CoinHoarder use to be supporter of BTS.
What happened?   :)

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #73 on: November 25, 2017, 04:02:02 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2017, 04:10:33 pm by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« Reply #74 on: November 25, 2017, 04:03:35 pm »
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.