Topic: **MANDATORY UPGRADE REQUIRED** [ANN] B&C Exchange - All users must upgrade - page 28. (Read 174455 times)

I'm neither
I've read the design a few times, read discussions and have made up my mind about it. But I wouldn't dare to say, that I understand the inner workings.
I think I have a grasp of the concept - more or less.

You are right, I'm still not very well familiarized with B&C inner workings.


That could be a solution for sure.

Why? Trusted signers don't need to do anything, but sign transactions. What do coins owned by them have to do with that and why should they need to be anonymized?
They sign transactions of users, who deposit/withdraw coins to/from multi-signature B&C addresses. The signers don't have ownership of those coins (and for the sake of B&C I sincerely hope it stays this way )


I fully second that. Signers will have to be careful, too. And the more reputation they have, the better they need to take care.


Why do major exchanges trade BTC then? I still don't get the difference between B&C and a random crypto asset/coin in terms of money laundering capabilities.

If major exchanges refuse to trade BKS, why not trade them on B&C Exchange?

As I was saying on the PT chat box, trusted signers will have to make sure they anonymize all the coins they use.

And BlockShares owners will have to be very careful about their anonymity too.

In case of money laundering I don't think any major exchange will want to trade BlockShares.

It's a good question!
My take is that decentralized exchanges like B&C further what has started with Bitcoin years ago: a way to transfer value independent from governments or centralized corporations.
But as B&C is based on the technology that was invented by Bitcoin (ok, there are iterations like Peercoin, Peershares and Nu in between), it inherits a lot of its features.

B&C introduces a new block chain executing the transfers between the involved crypto asset/currency block chains.
Users of B&C will have pseudonymous addresses in the B&C block chain.
With B&C everything (in terms of addresses and transactions) is available in a public ledger - but not the connection to the identities behind addresses and transactions!
So there's still the possibility to trace the movement of outputs through the block chains.
In my opinion this is completely from the CoinJoin approach and has nothing to do with the mixing CoinJoin offers.

I don't want to start a discussion about the legal or ethical implications of money laundering.
I only want to say that using a distributed system like B&C makes it hard to get hold of signers and users.

In difference to e.g. Poloniex, you won't need to reveal private information to use B&C - either if you want to be a signer or a user and using TOR makes it even harder to trace information.

The basic question is:
in what way does B&C allow a different level of pseudonymity than each single crypto asset/currency that will be exchanged at B&C already does?

Mably's concern in Peercointalk chat was about whether this could affect trusted signers. If they're not careful with their anonymity, they could possibly be targeted by authorities if people are using B&C to launder money and that money is going through them.

How does B&C plan to combat money laundering?  Money laundering might be the first usage of such a decentralized exchange, it could prove better than CoinJoin at anonymizing transactions.

What do you think?

The update of Poloniex' "Terms of Use" yesterday is another good reason to strive for exchanges like B&C and why they will have a big chance to become important and successful.

From 20th May on users will need to provide full name and country of residence to withdraw funds:


Bad luck for those who don't get that information within the 48 hours that are between the announcement and taking effect to withdraw without providing that information...

I have updated the total to this on all Peercoin channels.

Total funds pledged for BlockShares have reached $90,880 in just a little over a day. We are 45% of the way to the $200,000 that is required to fund development. The price will soon rise to $5.10 per BlockShare.

It is likely that to make this course of action practical NuShare holders would need to commit to selling an equivalent amount of NSR. For instance, shareholders could pass a motion that says sell 20 million NSR valued at $40,000 from undistributed NuShares and upon successful completion of the NSR sale create 40,000 NBT that could be used to fund a purchase of 8,000 BlockShares. When BlockShares are created to distribute, 8,000 fewer BlockShares are created than planned, increasing the proportion of BlockShares that NuShare holders possess. There would be the complication that the quantity given to purchasers would need to be reduced so that the percentage of BKS they received remained constant with the change in the total quantity of BlockShares. Such changes would occur before BKS payment is made.

So this is practical, but NSR holders must sell NuShares to justify the creation of NuBits which could fund B&C Exchange.

It will be interesting to see if NuShare holders find this option appealing.

While this would technically speaking be possible, it isn't done easily if you consider the economical part.
NSR holders can't create NBT out of thin air as they like.
The NBT are ultimately backed by the value of Nu, derived from the market capitalization of NSR.
The first attempt for funding B&C would have gone that way.
Collect funds, pay for the B&C development and make B&C technologically and economically a complete offspring of Nu

Based on the feedback from those who placed a bid (and maybe those who didn't place a bid, but provided feedback) it has become clear that people are more interested in B&C than in Nu.

That's why this version of funding has started, allowing people to get a bigger share of B&C for the same amount of investment (compared to the initial proposal) by not making them buy NSR to receive BKS, but instead allowing them to buy BKS directly.


This topic has for sure raised some eyebrows and looking at the number of views it's obviously one of the most interesting topics in the project development section here on bitcointalk.
Sorted by views (at the time of writing 18,472 views) it's on place 71 of all threads ever started in the development section. Considering that it's here for less than 4 weeks this is impressive!
Whether the interest in terms of views will be matched with interest in terms of bids for BKS is something only time can tell.

B&C can be a game changer in exchanging crypto assets, so owning BKS offers the chance to participate in this business as well as forming it and determining the way it evolves - all decisions are made by the owners, the BKS holders!
It's entirely possible (and I think I've read that in one of the previous posts) that B&C can become _the_ stock exchange for DACs. This is a part of the next level of economy!
Is there one other concept that offers the convenience (for users/customers) and flexibility (in terms of trading pairs, etc.) that B&C is offering by design?
All that is required by a user to utilise B&C is to create an account to place transactions on the block chain. Whether this account is used through web sites that offer convenient access to the block chain or from a client running on one of the user's computers isn't important.
Important is that all relevant data that can be put there is stored in the block chain.

The only thing that can't be stored in the block chain is the private keys - of clients as well as of signers. Why they can't be stored there should be obvious.
B&C will inherit so much from Nu: being decentralized, highly flexible, being sustainable, all decisions are made by owners.

It's for sure aligned with some risk to invest in a business like this; B&C can fail in part or in total.

Given the track record (e.g. Peershares and Nu) of the architect and the development team that is going to implement B&C I have very high hopes for it to become a huge success. This team has started ambitious projects and delivered what was promised each time.
The design makes sense and the team going to develop B&C is motivated, devoted and has an amazing skill level.

If only I had the money, I'd buy me the whole lot of BKS that is being sold

That's probably not a good idea, as it would create $200k worth of additional sell pressure on the peg. There are already too many NuBits in circulation right now and a burn is being talked about to reduce the supply somewhat.

It might just be that this sale will take several weeks to finish. I'm sure that given enough time, we can find enough interested people.

i wonder if NSR holders can vote to "buy" any BKS remainings with newlly ceated NBTs?

In the first 14 hours of the sale $76,865 have been pledged for 15,373 BKS. The threshold for a successful sale that allows us to move on to development is $200,000, so we are 38% of the way there.

For ~$20, you get 10,000 NSR, which is quite different. So long as the sale meets the minimum funding requirement, for that ~$20 you will get 10,000 NSR and later 1 BKS. That route is a two-for-one deal.

From the design document:


B&C Exchange will be open-source. This means that it is highly unlikely that a rogue developer could hold shareholders hostage for payment to upgrade the exchange. On B&C Exchange, the only owners are BlockShareholders. Developers are merely contractors that perform a service for BlockShareholders in exchange for compensation.

There is a question on r/peercoin...

So someone will get them for 5$ and others for ~20 (at today's prices)? I'd like to see where the price settles once this is delivered, I'm pretty curious.

Not quite. Devs will start development shortly after the $200,000 threshold is reached. Agreements were made with sigmike and Giannis (erasmospunk) to provide development before the first auction failed to reach funding goals. Because funding has not been secured and no start has been set we are not in a position to renegotiate agreements with devs. However, chances are high they will develop B&C Exchange if funding is secured quickly. If not, other devs will be recruited.

So, development or recruitment of developers (if necessary) will begin when funding is secured. The first iteration will be development related to the fork of the Nu chain and BKS distribution to purchasers.