Profits, Performance, Trust & Efficiency

[luckybit]

No other system is as decentralized as I am proposing.

The problem is it may introduce politics into the system. Politics create a toxic environment.

Your suggestion of using Tor nodes and anonymity is not politically palatable. It might be palatable for the fringe community but not for Wall Street. Consider that your primary demographic for Bitshares will be Wall Street.

What does the Wall Street user require? They want regulation. They want transparency. They might like the fact that Bitcoin is decentralized, does not require trust, is more efficient, but to go mainstream AML, KYC and all sorts of regulatory protocols have to be adopted but in a decentralized peer to peer fashion. (Blockauth is a good example https://github.com/DeftNerd/BlockAuth )

So if you go the operator route (instead of trustees), the one argument you could make which is hard to refute is that we need self regulation. This self regulation means someone may have to interact with the global authorities. This person may need some power to regulate the network and the majority of users could be convinced to go that route if it's the only route to keep Bitshares legal and make it mainstream.

The network itself could vote on who operates the DAC. I'm not against the idea of having DAC operators because I proposed a similar idea about voting a while back for a different purpose but was told that voting is not a good idea and that prediction markets would work better.

Let's say we go with voting, and we empower this individual or group of individuals. Let's say that it's time to bring Bitshares into the mainstream and these are the individuals chosen to represent the network. All of them are in public, all of them work with regulators, but they get voted into these positions in such a way that regulators have to work with the decentralized base of the network. The network itself is a sovereign entity but the operators must respect the rules of their jurisdiction, they can bridge the gap between the two worlds.

Leaders and important persons will always exist in some form even in flat networks. Valve for instance is a flat network but it still has leaders. So decentralization does not mean there isn't an underlying power structure.

The question is what to make that sacrifice for? Absolute decentralization makes even self regulation impossible and without that the entire network could be villainized. While thinking about the problem of security from the angle presented by Cryptosig in which the SEC or some other agencies want to get involved, it's clear that in order to deal with some of them will require playing political ball.

The Bitcoin foundation tries to do it but does not do it very well. Individuals who operate DACs will have to meet with regulators and negotiate back and forth. If these individuals are high enough in number and spread across multiple jurisdictions then it's superior to the Bitcoin foundation in that regard. Additionally if the decisions can happen in such a way to minimize disagreement and politics thats even better.

A lot of text above just to suggest that we politically and legally future proof the design of Bitshares. It should be designed to withstand political and legal attack, not also designed in such a way to self regulate so that external regulation is not needed. If external regulators cannot make the case in the first place then there isn't a way to bring political pressure to ban the whole thing.

[luckybit]

The term trustee sounds like marketing suicide. Change the name.

Perhaps acceptor? 
Notary?
Witness?

Operator.
The connotation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_assistance

[bytemaster]

It's why no-one's afraid of JPM-coin it might have a lot more utility, but if it involves more trust than existing decentralised alternatives I think it's already dead in the water.

Define trust?  Do we not trust the mining pools not to collude?   Do we not trust the government to to shutdown every mining pool or outlaw asic?   

Trust is all relative and ultimately begs the question... "trust what?" and "what happens if my trust is violated?".   In the case of Bitcoin if your trust in the mining pools and large ASIC manufactures is violated you have no recourse except to start a new chain based upon a new security model.   Bitcoin miners own all sha256 based chains.  What would happen if Bitcoin suddenly lost 75% of its value... would it be hung out to dry like PTS taking an hour per block?   What happens if the 'core developers' make decisions that harm the network (possibly coerced) and the pools support these hard forks?    You see,  these other systems only have marketing behind them to make it appear as if their is no need to trust anyone.  Ultimately you are trusting an unelected group of individuals who have erected barriers to entry that protects their power.

In the case of Ripple they have 90+% (last I heard) of the shares and ran the only servers which alone *define* the consensus.   So in this case you are trusting them to be benevolent and not change their definition of consensus or block transactions.    Ripple operates on a 'trustee' model defined by the "unique node list" on the principle that the UNL will not collude to defraud you.   

So how have we improved things with TaPOS + Notary?   First of all the largest shareholder in BTS systems has less than 10% and the remaining shares are divided among 1000s.   Everyone participates in securing the network and making it immutable.   No other system has this property of being immutable because it is always possible to mine longer alternative chains whether it is POS or POW.   No other system has as every shareholder participating in the securing of the network and ultimately ratifying the ledger.   You could say that TaPOS means that eventually every transaction is confirmed and ratified by 90% or more of the shareholders.   

There are two kinds of decentralization:  power & redundancy.   There are two types of power:  power to change and power to prevent change.   In the bitcoin space, the miners have the power to change history and the power to block transactions.   As soon as 51% of the hashing power is controlled any transaction can be blocked forever by the attacker refusing to build upon any block that includes it.   As a government that didn't want make Bitcoin illegal (for political reasons), they could certainly 'follow the rules' and gain the ability to do far more than the Notary could with TaPOS.   The notary has no ability to change history with only the power to prevent change and their power is easily taken from them. 

With respect to 'centralization' of a point of failure, it is easy for the Notary to provide some redundancy and for the network to have contingency plans in place should anything happen.   These contingency plans can be executed without manual involvement of everyone. 

Decentralization:  Removing barriers to entry and maximizing competition. 

No other system is as decentralized as I am proposing. 



 

[bytemaster]

The term trustee sounds like marketing suicide. Change the name.

Perhaps acceptor? 
Notary?
Witness?

[MrJeans]

If someone has to hide behind a torr network to support BitsharesX it makes the whole thing look dodgy.
I'm just imagining trying to explain to the people at work that they should start trading using bitsharesX: "Oh no dont worry there is some guy hiding behind a computer somewhere running the system so it should be fine." even though this wouldnt be strictly true, trying explaining the centralized looking system to someone who doesnt understand how this stuff works would stretch beyond peoples attention span.

Here is an answer. How about the trustee be public, but located out of the US jurisdiction and that would put them out of the jurisdiction of the SEC.

The trustee being public removes the shady factor, but the trustee being out of US jurisdiction removes the legal risk.

So only people in certain jurisdictions can assist in supporting the network in this manner

[CLains]

The term trustee sounds like marketing suicide. Change the name.

[luckybit]

If someone has to hide behind a torr network to support BitsharesX it makes the whole thing look dodgy.
I'm just imagining trying to explain to the people at work that they should start trading using bitsharesX: "Oh no dont worry there is some guy hiding behind a computer somewhere running the system so it should be fine." even though this wouldnt be strictly true, trying explaining the centralized looking system to someone who doesnt understand how this stuff works would stretch beyond peoples attention span.

Here is an answer. How about the trustee be public, but located out of the US jurisdiction and that would put them out of the jurisdiction of the SEC.

The trustee being public removes the shady factor, but the trustee being out of US jurisdiction removes the legal risk.

[HackFisher]

One additional point. If it were possible to design the BTX DAC so that the trustee mechanisms are scriptable this could allow for people the freedom of expression to try many different organizational models. Trial and error lead to algorithmic optimization over time but you need enough flexibility and ease for different DACs to try many different models.

So I would say if possible add a scripting layer to this so that for example the amount of power a trustee has is something which can be voted on, revoked, with a very fine level of granularity. The fear is that the community might not be able to keep track of the source code and the trustee could somehow become a dictator.

If we want the trustee to be able to act in a way which is in the best interest of the majority of shareholders but the trustee does not have the explicit power to do so, perhaps this would be an area for a script to create a sort of digital contract which gives the trustee certain privileges. The principle of least privilege can be followed so the trustee never has any more privileges than is necessary, but voting or some other mechanism such as a prediction market has to allow for feedback.

.............
They verify every block follows the rules and the first time the trustee produces an invalid block the user's client is notified that one of two things has happened:

 1) They have not updated and the trustee went down a hard fork without also maintaining the old fork.
 2) The trustee is bad and is using non-standard code that violates the rules... a new trustee is needed.

  In either case the user knows immediately that they need to take some action.

Hoping that these users's action to find new trustee is script automation, being part of digital contract/protocol, different from the way of MMC voting. People are lazy and slow to react manually, and they don't even want to spend time on this, the lag time will be long if it is political, especially for those who even don't know the bottom mechanism but just want to trust the protocol's peer review from opensource. If the trustee selection process is not settled down in digital contract/protocol, the people could have no idea which to choose, and it is tending to be political, which awaits improvement.

[Empirical1]

And Luckybit has a good point that the focus of our argument for requiring a trustee should be based on the fact that shareholders are not placing any more trust in our trustee than XRP holders place in a gateway, or BTC holders place in the ASIC pools; and far less destruction to our personal holdings can result in a 100% breach of trust by our trustee in our case as compared to those who recently got goxed.
 
And does this trustee method really speed up transactions? Because Ripple is FAST !

Bytemaster is leaning toward kicking up the UTILITY factor here, and I wholeheartedly agree.

Ripple is a great example of how we already have proof the market hates a trusted gateway approach.
Despite it's utility, speed and the investment that went into it, it's trending to zero and the fact that there are no ripple clones/forks out there is very telling.

The biggest currencies since Bitcoin are the ones that have developed methods that involve less trust in ASIC pools, Litecoin,  Peercoin, then NXT.  (Do you think the introduction of scrypt asics soon will increase or decrease Litecoins value?)

It's why no-one's afraid of JPM-coin it might have a lot more utility, but if it involves more trust than existing decentralised alternatives I think it's already dead in the water.
 

[MrJeans]

If someone has to hide behind a torr network to support BitsharesX it makes the whole thing look dodgy.
I'm just imagining trying to explain to the people at work that they should start trading using bitsharesX: "Oh no dont worry there is some guy hiding behind a computer somewhere running the system so it should be fine." even though this wouldnt be strictly true, trying explaining the centralized looking system to someone who doesnt understand how this stuff works would stretch beyond peoples attention span.

There are still so many people who dont want to use bitcoin because they think Shatoshi is sitting behind a computer somewhere running it and steeling from them (and bitcoin is very decentralized!).

I3 got me hooked on decentralization because it makes so much sense. With this proposed system I would not have the same comfort using it as I have when using bitcoin. Imagine BitsharesX becomes as big as bitcoin. It will be on the news everytime a trustee has to be fired for misconduct. That wont do much to raise confidence about using a new technology.

And I wont be casting any votes (time/technical ability to monitor trustee misconduct) so I will have to trust others to vote on my behalf to elect a new trustee to trust.

Everything than can be decentralized, should be. I am happy to make compromises for increased decentralization but would not be happy with a new feature with further centralization as a trade off.

[cryptosig]

I don't think centralization is a good idea.

The cryptocurrency grave yard is littered with centralized schemes. Make no mistake that there is enough pressure already IMO on I3 to be indicted for securities violations, whether that is the case will be up to a court to decide. You have taken steps to stop the regulators from stopping your work, but they can arrest you and accuse you at any time. They know they have a better than 80% chance to get a conviction at trial, just because of the psychology of an authority saying you did something wrong. I can deal with that element of centralization, but just barely.

I think that any trustee that reveals their identity and lives in a country with strong financial regulations, such as the US, will go to jail for operating with out a license, selling securities with out a license, conspiracy to commit security fraud, money transmission without a licence, running a money services business without a license, the litany of charges will go on forever in some cases.

This will basically only leave trustees in countries where regulations are lax to operate the trustee scheme. This type of system will ensure that wall street and most of main street will not participate. This is bad for my and others' investment in PTS,AGS, and BTS. I will not participate in such a scheme, I believe the only reason that Bitcoin is any different than any prior is because of the blockchain decentralization invention. You are literally taking the greatest invention of the century and throwing it out the window for centralized control. Make no mistake you are taking a step backward.

If you are serious about this thing you have created, you would spend the time to do it right. Satoshi took years crafting his system, you can't take a few extra months?

This is something which could happen but how likely is it to happen? Bitshares aren't securities anymore than objects in WoW are securities. That isn't to say there wont be regulation, but if they were to target that it would be seen as petty. It's similar to gambling sites.

From wiki:
A security is a tradable asset of any kind.[1] Securities are broadly categorized into:
debt securities (such as banknotes, bonds and debentures),
equity securities, e.g., common stocks; and,
derivative contracts, such as forwards, futures, options and swaps.
The company or other entity issuing the security is called the issuer.

Your selling a derivative, your calling it bitUSD, bitEUR, bitBTC, it's a security to the SEC. The SEC will try to enforce this, they have no desire to see this project come to pass. The more decentralized the better. It is in the best interest of the project to consider the issue. The only reason that the SEC has not cracked down on Bitcoin is because it stands by it self in a category not classified here.

Bitshares on the other hand, is using "marketing terms" such as the word "shares" and "Exchange" which imply a security, its trading consists of elements directly in conflict with the above definition, that being debt security in the form of bitUSD and it sells derivative contracts on those debt securities.

The best way to deal with the SEC is to assume they will take the least favorable side you can imagine. They often do.

BitUSD isn't an actual derivative. It's not any more a derivative than a poker chip is a derivative. How is it that poker chips are consider poker chips but BitUSD is considered a derivative? And if both are digital, and no contracts are used to guarantee it, I don't see where the SEC or the law has any say in something which is entirely virtual.

If a legal contract is written or if someone tries to redeem BitUSD for real USD then you might have a point. BitUSD isn't USD in anything other than name though. It's not an actual contract.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just giving my interpretation.

"The SEC will try to enforce this, they have no desire to see this project come to pass."

If Bitcoin is not a currency, and if Bitcoin is not a stock, what gives the SEC any authority over it? It's digital property from what the IRS says. If Bitshares isn't an actual stock backed by an actual company then what business does the SEC have in this space?

Is the SEC going after Second Life next? How much authority do they have? Will they go after people using poker chips and monopoly money too? I'm not saying they cannot interpret the law in a way to try and stretch their power, I'm making a point that it's wrong for them to do it.

They are the securities and exchange commission while Bitshares is more like a gambling program that people run to bet on stuff. It's not real money and the only way I could see them making it into something real would be if it centralized around Invictus. Invictus actually was a corporation so that is one area they might try to use.

You've highlighted a legitimate problem with the trustee scheme though. It will make regulators want to find the trustee and go after whoever is in that position and that is why I said it was a risk to be the trustee.

If there must be a trustee in my opinion the best way to do it is to put a public face on Bitshares and let someone be a public trustee. No anonymous trustee, no hiding, no trying to be sneaky, all of that will attract regulators like a magnet. If the trustee is public and willing to go to jail or court to defend Bitshares that actually would look better politically.

I don't think people in the United States would like to see innocent people being put in jail for inventing new technologies. If the United States is willing to do that then it may change the culture of Silicon Valley.

More information is needed about this https://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370539730583
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-132.pdf
Did they call it securities or not?

A security is a tradable asset of any kind. I believe they will try to apply this same logic to Bitcoin and everything else. The reason why Bitshares is currently different than Bitcoin is because it has a built in exchange. An exchange is a place the SEC believes is exactly in its wheelhouse, no questions asked. They would feel as if investors are not made aware of risks, money laundering etc, and unregulated risk influencing "real" markets.

BitUSD is not a poker chip, first of all the USD implies dollar, not only that but it is pegged to the dollar for the most part. They will argue, and probably successfully, that you can't have it both ways, you can't say it has no relation to USD,  the users just for some reason value it exactly to the value of a dollar . How did the users know to value the asset to the exact price of a dollar? Probably because of the name?

BitAssets are not at all like poker chips. You would have a very weak argument in court, people know what a poker chip is and it's function. A judge would have played both games, that of poker and the market, and would side with the prosecution believing it feels and behaves like a market and not a game.

Any public face involved in anything using the words shares,shareholder,dividend,stock,corporation,etc should expect that the SEC will be paying them a visit. To think otherwise given the Satoshidice thing is foolish.

[luckybit]

I don't think centralization is a good idea.

The cryptocurrency grave yard is littered with centralized schemes. Make no mistake that there is enough pressure already IMO on I3 to be indicted for securities violations, whether that is the case will be up to a court to decide. You have taken steps to stop the regulators from stopping your work, but they can arrest you and accuse you at any time. They know they have a better than 80% chance to get a conviction at trial, just because of the psychology of an authority saying you did something wrong. I can deal with that element of centralization, but just barely.

I think that any trustee that reveals their identity and lives in a country with strong financial regulations, such as the US, will go to jail for operating with out a license, selling securities with out a license, conspiracy to commit security fraud, money transmission without a licence, running a money services business without a license, the litany of charges will go on forever in some cases.

This will basically only leave trustees in countries where regulations are lax to operate the trustee scheme. This type of system will ensure that wall street and most of main street will not participate. This is bad for my and others' investment in PTS,AGS, and BTS. I will not participate in such a scheme, I believe the only reason that Bitcoin is any different than any prior is because of the blockchain decentralization invention. You are literally taking the greatest invention of the century and throwing it out the window for centralized control. Make no mistake you are taking a step backward.

If you are serious about this thing you have created, you would spend the time to do it right. Satoshi took years crafting his system, you can't take a few extra months?

This is something which could happen but how likely is it to happen? Bitshares aren't securities anymore than objects in WoW are securities. That isn't to say there wont be regulation, but if they were to target that it would be seen as petty. It's similar to gambling sites.

From wiki:
A security is a tradable asset of any kind.[1] Securities are broadly categorized into:
debt securities (such as banknotes, bonds and debentures),
equity securities, e.g., common stocks; and,
derivative contracts, such as forwards, futures, options and swaps.
The company or other entity issuing the security is called the issuer.

Your selling a derivative, your calling it bitUSD, bitEUR, bitBTC, it's a security to the SEC. The SEC will try to enforce this, they have no desire to see this project come to pass. The more decentralized the better. It is in the best interest of the project to consider the issue. The only reason that the SEC has not cracked down on Bitcoin is because it stands by it self in a category not classified here.

Bitshares on the other hand, is using "marketing terms" such as the word "shares" and "Exchange" which imply a security, its trading consists of elements directly in conflict with the above definition, that being debt security in the form of bitUSD and it sells derivative contracts on those debt securities.

The best way to deal with the SEC is to assume they will take the least favorable side you can imagine. They often do.

BitUSD isn't an actual derivative. It's not any more a derivative than a poker chip is a derivative. How is it that poker chips are consider poker chips but BitUSD is considered a derivative? And if both are digital, and no contracts are used to guarantee it, I don't see where the SEC or the law has any say in something which is entirely virtual.

If a legal contract is written or if someone tries to redeem BitUSD for real USD then you might have a point. BitUSD isn't USD in anything other than name though. It's not an actual contract.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just giving my interpretation.

"The SEC will try to enforce this, they have no desire to see this project come to pass."

If Bitcoin is not a currency, and if Bitcoin is not a stock, what gives the SEC any authority over it? It's digital property from what the IRS says. If Bitshares isn't an actual stock backed by an actual company then what business does the SEC have in this space?

Is the SEC going after Second Life next? How much authority do they have? Will they go after people using poker chips and monopoly money too? I'm not saying they cannot interpret the law in a way to try and stretch their power, I'm making a point that it's wrong for them to do it.

They are the securities and exchange commission while Bitshares is more like a gambling program that people run to bet on stuff. It's not real money and the only way I could see them making it into something real would be if it centralized around Invictus. Invictus actually was a corporation so that is one area they might try to use.

You've highlighted a legitimate problem with the trustee scheme though. It will make regulators want to find the trustee and go after whoever is in that position and that is why I said it was a risk to be the trustee.

If there must be a trustee in my opinion the best way to do it is to put a public face on Bitshares and let someone be a public trustee. No anonymous trustee, no hiding, no trying to be sneaky, all of that will attract regulators like a magnet. If the trustee is public and willing to go to jail or court to defend Bitshares that actually would look better politically.

I don't think people in the United States would like to see innocent people being put in jail for inventing new technologies. If the United States is willing to do that then it may change the culture of Silicon Valley.

"BTCST, formerly known as First Pirate Savings & Trust, is an unincorporated
entity with no brick and mortar presence. The BTCST investments Defendants offered and sold to the investing public as alleged herein constitute “securities” as defined by Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(1)] and Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § "

"Any investment in securities in the United states remains subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC regardless of whether the investment is made in U.S. dollars or a virtual currency. In particular, individuals selling investments are typically subject to federal or state licensing requirements."

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-132.pdf

[cryptosig]

I don't think centralization is a good idea.

The cryptocurrency grave yard is littered with centralized schemes. Make no mistake that there is enough pressure already IMO on I3 to be indicted for securities violations, whether that is the case will be up to a court to decide. You have taken steps to stop the regulators from stopping your work, but they can arrest you and accuse you at any time. They know they have a better than 80% chance to get a conviction at trial, just because of the psychology of an authority saying you did something wrong. I can deal with that element of centralization, but just barely.

I think that any trustee that reveals their identity and lives in a country with strong financial regulations, such as the US, will go to jail for operating with out a license, selling securities with out a license, conspiracy to commit security fraud, money transmission without a licence, running a money services business without a license, the litany of charges will go on forever in some cases.

This will basically only leave trustees in countries where regulations are lax to operate the trustee scheme. This type of system will ensure that wall street and most of main street will not participate. This is bad for my and others' investment in PTS,AGS, and BTS. I will not participate in such a scheme, I believe the only reason that Bitcoin is any different than any prior is because of the blockchain decentralization invention. You are literally taking the greatest invention of the century and throwing it out the window for centralized control. Make no mistake you are taking a step backward.

If you are serious about this thing you have created, you would spend the time to do it right. Satoshi took years crafting his system, you can't take a few extra months?

This is something which could happen but how likely is it to happen? Bitshares aren't securities anymore than objects in WoW are securities. That isn't to say there wont be regulation, but if they were to target that it would be seen as petty. It's similar to gambling sites.

From wiki:
A security is a tradable asset of any kind.[1] Securities are broadly categorized into:
debt securities (such as banknotes, bonds and debentures),
equity securities, e.g., common stocks; and,
derivative contracts, such as forwards, futures, options and swaps.
The company or other entity issuing the security is called the issuer.

Your selling a derivative, your calling it bitUSD, bitEUR, bitBTC, it's a security to the SEC. The SEC will try to enforce this, they have no desire to see this project come to pass. The more decentralized the better. It is in the best interest of the project to consider the issue. The only reason that the SEC has not cracked down on Bitcoin is because it stands by it self in a category not classified here as it is completely decentralized. Even then I'm sure they will try to say now it is a security.

Bitshares on the other hand, is using "marketing terms" such as the word "shares" and "Exchange" which imply a security, its trading consists of elements directly in conflict with the above definition, that being debt security in the form of bitUSD and it sells derivative contracts on those debt securities.

The best way to deal with the SEC is to assume they will take the least favorable side you can imagine. They often do.

[puvar]

1) All of the random selection techniques discussed here (and with Nxt) depend upon people putting their private keys at risk.  So rather than trusting a trustee, everyone has to trust their computer not to get hacked.   

Why not having a separate private key for staking and a separate private key for spending? Then hacking will be a no issue: even if somebody knows my staking private key he's still not able to spend the transactions.

[luckybit]

I don't think centralization is a good idea.

The cryptocurrency grave yard is littered with centralized schemes. Make no mistake that there is enough pressure already IMO on I3 to be indicted for securities violations, whether that is the case will be up to a court to decide. You have taken steps to stop the regulators from stopping your work, but they can arrest you and accuse you at any time. They know they have a better than 80% chance to get a conviction at trial, just because of the psychology of an authority saying you did something wrong. I can deal with that element of centralization, but just barely.

I think that any trustee that reveals their identity and lives in a country with strong financial regulations, such as the US, will go to jail for operating with out a license, selling securities with out a license, conspiracy to commit security fraud, money transmission without a licence, running a money services business without a license, the litany of charges will go on forever in some cases.

This will basically only leave trustees in countries where regulations are lax to operate the trustee scheme. This type of system will ensure that wall street and most of main street will not participate. This is bad for my and others' investment in PTS,AGS, and BTS. I will not participate in such a scheme, I believe the only reason that Bitcoin is any different than any prior is because of the blockchain decentralization invention. You are literally taking the greatest invention of the century and throwing it out the window for centralized control. Make no mistake you are taking a step backward.

If you are serious about this thing you have created, you would spend the time to do it right. Satoshi took years crafting his system, you can't take a few extra months?

This is something which could happen but how likely is it to happen? Bitshares aren't securities anymore than objects in WoW are securities. That isn't to say there wont be regulation, but if they were to target that it would be seen as petty. It's similar to gambling sites.