Hyena
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2114
Merit: 1015
|
 |
April 04, 2016, 08:57:55 PM |
|
yes, I was starting to wonder already why hasn't this been mentioned yet. somehow I agree with cryptog on a lot of topics so I feel good having subscribed to their data feed. |
|
|
|
|
MadCow
|
|
April 05, 2016, 12:58:04 AM |
|
Thanks, it would be good to compile a list of data feed providers to make it easier for people to decide |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
masterOfDisaster
|
|
April 05, 2016, 05:10:26 AM |
|
Thanks, it would be good to compile a list of data feed providers to make it easier for people to decide
Having a list is not enough. You need to assess the data feed provider; this is crucial. You need to make sure he/she configures the votes after your fancy. If you register a feed from a provider who doesn't vote like you'd vote (or at least very often close to it) if you'd configure the votes manually, you might be better off, stopping the minting. That theoretically harms the security of the network, because it reduces the part of the shares that are minting. The alternative - having votes that lead (from your perspective) in the wrong direction - can be dangerous (for your interest) as well. That's what I mean when saying there comes a responsibility with owning shares of a corporation, especially if you are able to vote directly and make decisions; like the protocol update: We have reached 42.85% of protocol votes for version 4.0. All shareholders must upgrade to version 4.0 immediately. The protocol switch date will be two weeks after 90% of blocks are minted with 4.0.0 or 4.0.1.
The protocol switch can only happen, if the vast majority of (active!) minters have switched to 4.0.0 or 4.0.1! Selecting a data feed provider requires finding out, what side takes in discussions and what are the arguments of the provider. It's pretty much like trying to find out about whether you want to elect a specific politician: try to find out what he/she says (here: forum discussions) and what he/she does (here: data feeds; are the aligned with the discussions?)! You can look for data feed providers here: https://discuss.nubits.com/c/b-c-exchangeRegarding asset voting (that will be able once the protocol switch is complete), from: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/configure-your-votes-when-minting/3729/16There a number of facts shareholders should know (unless they are using data feeds) regarding configuring asset voting.
For the maxtrade value, bear in mind that it won't really matter until the 5.0 version is released. Let me explain a little about the development process as I see it from now until just past release of 5.0, which will explain my suggested maxtrade value. Right now most messages can be sent, but their processing isn't implemented. We will work on that and as we do, we will begin see the exchange function in the context of a few narrow and limited use cases. Because the exchange will be incomplete, it stands to reason there will be plenty of ways to exploit the solution in its incomplete form. That is fine, because we are on test net and it is just part of the process. Eventually, we will get to where we have provided for all the use cases and no known major or high risk exploits are possible. This will be the time to move the solution to production, but we wouldn't want to do so with high max trade values. We want to start it with very low max trade sizes, so it can be tested without risk of loss of substantial funds. A good place to start would be around 1 USD. Once the exchange performs well with that limit, it can be raised incrementally at whatever pace seems appropriate at the time.
In regard to required signers and total signers, please remember that the protocol requires two backup signers to validate orders. This means 2 of 3 multisig cannot meet B&C protocol. The protocol can be changed (this hasn't even been coded yet), but doing so increases risk. I recommend we not do that. 2 of 4 is the minimum number of signers to be protocol compliant. If 2 of 4 is used, and a single signer is unavailable, no orders with the involved funds can placed. The funds wouldn't be lost because they can still be withdrawn without backup signers, however. I suggest 3 of 6 as a minimum number of required and total signers. More total signers and more required signers, such as 8 of 15, provide much better decentralisation but somewhat higher costs for transaction fees and signer compensation. My recommendation for a starting point is 3 of 6: 3 required signers and 6 total signers. I hope we move to 8 of 15 soon.
Also bear in mind that once an asset has been successfully voted in, you don't need to keep voting for it with its maxtrade value and so forth, unless you want to change one of the values from its current setting. If you don't vote, then your vote is counted as a vote for the status quo. So, if the current number of required Bitcoin signers is 3, if I vote for 3, it just wastes blockchain space. An abstention will be interpreted as a 3 by protocol. If you wanted to change it to 5, then you should include it in your vote. This notion of an abstention being counted as a vote for the current network setting applies to most things that can be voted for within B&C Exchange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
masterOfDisaster
|
|
April 06, 2016, 05:15:26 AM |
|
Minting with release 3 of the client harms your investment as it delays the asset voting, which is a prerequisite for trading on B&C Exchange.
Either upgrade to release 4 or stop minting, if you can't upgrade for whatever reason!
|
|
|
|
|
cryptog1
Member
Offline
Activity: 117
Merit: 10
|
|
April 06, 2016, 09:50:32 AM |
|
Maybe a handful of shareholders that would own 50% of the network do not bother upgrading but according to this poll ( https://discuss.nubits.com/t/new-poll-how-many-bks-do-you-own/3586), we have some indications that it is not the case. By the way, do not hesitate to take the poll if you have not yet. |
|
|
|
|
cryptog1
Member
Offline
Activity: 117
Merit: 10
|
|
April 06, 2016, 09:57:17 AM |
|
Out of curiosity, how does B&C Exchange main idea compare with zero knowledge proof-based decentralized exchange (ex: http://roberts.pm/zk_exchange) ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hozer
|
|
April 11, 2016, 05:02:03 AM |
|
- How are you planning to take into consideration and defend the B&C user interests Vs BKS shareholders & signers?
B&C user interests are of paramount interest for BKS holders. It's the users that consume BKC, which are required to pay fees and get destroyed by that. Destroying BKC means new BKC can get sold. That generates revenue (BTC), which BKS holders want to achieve (BTC will be distributed as dividends to BKS holders). Signers are a kind of contract workers, hired by BKS holders. If they don't behave, they'll get removed and replaced. Very interesting. What options are there to distribute dividends with other currencies (say maybe Nubits or something like Grantcoin) while still retaining the network effects? Or will this require a fork, with all the associated dilution. There also seems to be a risk of financial engineering a 'short' outside the BKS/BKC/etc system in which it becomes profitable to acquire, and then vote against the self-interest of the acquired crypto asset. It is either this, or a lack of patience that seems to be resulting in the long time it's taking to get enough clients upgraded (and voting for) the 4.0 protocol. |
|
|
|
|
|
masterOfDisaster
|
|
April 11, 2016, 01:16:09 PM |
|
What options are there to distribute dividends with other currencies (say maybe Nubits or something like Grantcoin) while still retaining the network effects? Or will this require a fork, with all the associated dilution.
The dividend distribution is coded in the client, but a software fork to support additional currencies doesn't lead to dilution; it would merely be a new client release with a new feature. As far as I understand the dividend addresses (public keys) get derived from the BKS private keys. At a snapshot date, a distribution to the dividend addresses takes place. Introducing additional/alternative dividend types isn't even a protocol update - you just need a client to distribute dividends and a client to generate the dividend addresses. There also seems to be a risk of financial engineering a 'short' outside the BKS/BKC/etc system in which it becomes profitable to acquire, and then vote against the self-interest of the acquired crypto asset. It is either this, or a lack of patience that seems to be resulting in the long time it's taking to get enough clients upgraded (and voting for) the 4.0 protocol.
While this risk is theoretically exisiting, I have a hard time seeing a relation between it and the upgrading apathy. BKC don't exist. Not a single one has been created so far, There's currently only one place that trades BKS: CCEDK ( BTC and US-NBT pair; almost no orders an no volume at the BTC pair, some orders and a little volume at the US-NBT pair). There's no place with leveraged trading or put options - at least not to my knowledge. So how can this be a real risk now? I think it's a lack of responsibility that made people start their client to mint blocks without paying attention to the development. The slow development over some months might have made them think that it's not important to pay attention. That's wrong! Without a protocol update to 4.0 (blocks minted by client versions 4.0.0 and 4.0.1), there's no reputed signer voting, no asset voting, etc. Trading can't start without switching to 4.0! People who continue to mint protocol 2.0 blocks (e.g. client release 3.0.2) essentially vote against activating exchange functions at B&C Exchange.
Whuaaaaat? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BCExchange (OP)
|
|
April 12, 2016, 12:03:03 AM |
|
Very interesting.
What options are there to distribute dividends with other currencies (say maybe Nubits or something like Grantcoin) while still retaining the network effects? Or will this require a fork, with all the associated dilution.
Simplicity is compelling in a protocol. For that reason we expect shareholders will continue to only authorize Bitcoin dividends because it is the most liquid cryptoasset available. Liquidity preserves dividend value transfer to shareholders. Once dividends are distributed, shareholders can easily convert Bitcoin to their preferred cryptocurrencies/cryptoequities. |
|
|
|
|
|
hozer
|
|
April 16, 2016, 04:54:18 AM |
|
What options are there to distribute dividends with other currencies (say maybe Nubits or something like Grantcoin) while still retaining the network effects? Or will this require a fork, with all the associated dilution.
The dividend distribution is coded in the client, but a software fork to support additional currencies doesn't lead to dilution; it would merely be a new client release with a new feature. As far as I understand the dividend addresses (public keys) get derived from the BKS private keys. At a snapshot date, a distribution to the dividend addresses takes place. Introducing additional/alternative dividend types isn't even a protocol update - you just need a client to distribute dividends and a client to generate the dividend addresses. There also seems to be a risk of financial engineering a 'short' outside the BKS/BKC/etc system in which it becomes profitable to acquire, and then vote against the self-interest of the acquired crypto asset. It is either this, or a lack of patience that seems to be resulting in the long time it's taking to get enough clients upgraded (and voting for) the 4.0 protocol.
While this risk is theoretically exisiting, I have a hard time seeing a relation between it and the upgrading apathy. BKC don't exist. Not a single one has been created so far, There's currently only one place that trades BKS: CCEDK ( BTC and US-NBT pair; almost no orders an no volume at the BTC pair, some orders and a little volume at the US-NBT pair). There's no place with leveraged trading or put options - at least not to my knowledge. So how can this be a real risk now? I think it's a lack of responsibility that made people start their client to mint blocks without paying attention to the development. The slow development over some months might have made them think that it's not important to pay attention. That's wrong! Without a protocol update to 4.0 (blocks minted by client versions 4.0.0 and 4.0.1), there's no reputed signer voting, no asset voting, etc. Trading can't start without switching to 4.0! People who continue to mint protocol 2.0 blocks (e.g. client release 3.0.2) essentially vote against activating exchange functions at B&C Exchange.
Whuaaaaat?Most likely, it's just folks who set up the client and forgot about it, or maybe even some that actively sell what they are minting. What might be the estimated economic cost (in dollars, or nubits) to buy sufficient BKS on the open market to put us over 90%, or is that effectively impossible? It may also be worth some discussion on if there are attacks that could be conducted on the network to either block an upgrade, or force an upgrade. At the end of the day though, the code and the concept may be perfectly fine but if you ended up with a subset of BKS shareholders who don't understand what it's really worth to upgrade, the choice of shareholders may be the cause for failure. Plenty of promising startups with good technology have failed because some shareholders don't get it. This problem is worse with more evenly distributed ownership structures like co-ops, and blockchain-based DACs are going to have the same social problems. There are also plenty of people who might think a distributed blockchain-based DAC that supports trading is a substantial risk to their other investments, and buy shares for no other reason than to block or delay the deployment. All the existing centralized exchanges, for instance, have a financial incentive to block competitors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hozer
|
|
April 16, 2016, 06:19:35 PM |
|
To quote Jordan: It has been 30 days since we released B&C Exchange 4.0, but only 47% of network minting power has upgraded. To effect the protocol change that will allow us to use the reputation system requires a 90% adoption rate. Given that the adoption rate is rising only very slowly, it is likely that it would take months to reach the switch threshold of 90%. It is important that we move forward with adoption of the reputation system more quickly so we can prepare for the full release of B&C Exchange.
To which I would respond with: Slow the fuck down. No serious exchange unilaterally changes the whole system on 30 days notice. I'm not talking about bitcoin exchanges, which I don't (yet) consider completely serious. I'm talking about exchanges like chicago board of trade, the new york stock exchange, and the dalian exchange. Okay, maybe the dalian exchange gets capital controls instituted on short notice, but then again I don't trade there. These are your competitors. If it's been *60* days and still been no substantial growth in the protocol adoption, then maybe its time to consider some of these proposals. If it gets to *90* days then start talking about more drastic things like buying back all 'old' legacy shares and exchanging them for an entirely new blockchain that starts out at protocol version 5. Relax a little. Contact all the original crowdsale buyers. If you can't contact them because all you have is an email and a bitcoin address, then maybe you might want to consider that running a business with shareholders without having multiple contact methods for your shareholders might be a bad idea. I'd appreciate this if someone could repost this to the nubits.com form, or let me know if there's a reddit forum. While I do have a business critical need to be able to market commodities using distributed blockchain based exchanges, I don't have the time and the patience to track every single forum. Or just estimate how much the price would have to go up to acquire enough shares to vote for the upgrade. It might be a good investment. But if you are going to throw out the contract you layed out for 90% consensus for upgrading, then slow down a little, and make sure you know what both the legal and ethical implications of such a change will be. |
|
|
|
|
|
Yefet
|
|
April 16, 2016, 06:28:16 PM |
|
To quote Jordan: It has been 30 days since we released B&C Exchange 4.0, but only 47% of network minting power has upgraded. To effect the protocol change that will allow us to use the reputation system requires a 90% adoption rate. Given that the adoption rate is rising only very slowly, it is likely that it would take months to reach the switch threshold of 90%. It is important that we move forward with adoption of the reputation system more quickly so we can prepare for the full release of B&C Exchange.
To which I would respond with: Slow the fuck down. No serious exchange unilaterally changes the whole system on 30 days notice. I'm not talking about bitcoin exchanges, which I don't (yet) consider completely serious. I'm talking about exchanges like chicago board of trade, the new york stock exchange, and the dalian exchange. Okay, maybe the dalian exchange gets capital controls instituted on short notice, but then again I don't trade there. These are your competitors. If it's been *60* days and still been no substantial growth in the protocol adoption, then maybe its time to consider some of these proposals. If it gets to *90* days then start talking about more drastic things like buying back all 'old' legacy shares and exchanging them for an entirely new blockchain that starts out at protocol version 5. Relax a little. Contact all the original crowdsale buyers. If you can't contact them because all you have is an email and a bitcoin address, then maybe you might want to consider that running a business with shareholders without having multiple contact methods for your shareholders might be a bad idea. I'd appreciate this if someone could repost this to the nubits.com form, or let me know if there's a reddit forum. While I do have a business critical need to be able to market commodities using distributed blockchain based exchanges, I don't have the time and the patience to track every single forum. Or just estimate how much the price would have to go up to acquire enough shares to vote for the upgrade. It might be a good investment. But if you are going to throw out the contract you layed out for 90% consensus for upgrading, then slow down a little, and make sure you know what both the legal and ethical implications of such a change will be. reposted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
sabreiib
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 40
Merit: 0
|
|
April 18, 2016, 07:28:05 AM |
|
Release the Mac OSX version ASAP, please. |
|
|
|
|
|
