Topic: **MANDATORY UPGRADE REQUIRED** [ANN] B&C Exchange - All users must upgrade - page 38. (Read 174430 times)

After various number of hacks a decentralized exchange like that is a must! I hope it gets done quickly because I don't trust centralized exchanges.

Thank you for the mention in your article!

We understand that a blind auction requires quite a bit of trust in our team, so we hope that our prior reputations are considered when evaluating our proposal. There are likely other users here who would like to bid less than 1000 USD - perhaps they can get in contact with you to create a small group bid? In a perfect world we would accept bids of any size, but we want to avoid having to calculate the results of thousands of micro-bids. We would prefer beginning B&C development as soon as we can if the auction is successful.

I think its a shame you have such a high minimum - I would have like to put in my little half a bitcoin or something but there is no way I can afford $1000+. Can't say I'm very keen on the blind auction method either. But I wish you the best of luck and hope to one day be a customer even if I can't be a backer. In the meantime I've just published an article about this on my news blog:

http://cryptonewsday.com/nushares-votes-for-auction-to-fund-decentralized-cryptocurrency-exchange/

Suggestions or corrections (or likes and shares ) welcomed!

BlockShares holders will have full control over which exchanges its custodians sell on since there is no centralized control by its developers. This means that shareholders could conceivably only elect BKC custodians that operate directly on B&C Exchange's safe platform.

It is also worth pointing out that "mutualizing all the losses that custodians are going to suffer" is outside the scope of B&C Exchange operations because BlockCredits will not be supported at any specific price level. They will simply be sold for 1.00 USD. In the event that BKC are stolen from a custodian operating on a centralized exchange, they would likely be dumped on other exchanges for fractions of a dollar. Shareholders would only suffer lost revenue from the lack of new BKC being sold during the time the stolen BKC were dumped. For this reason, it is also likely that shareholders will prefer granting small batches of BKC to a custodian that will last for a week or two, rather than providing a year-long supply of BKC up front. Continuous replenishment of BKC to custodians is very easy in our design.

The design of B&C Exchange will protect networks like NuBits from the unpredictable and devastating failings of centralized exchanges. You are right that NuShareholders have not recently voted to give themselves a dividend as they work to recover from the exchange hackings of February. The dividend mechanism has been used in the past however and is fully functional.

Ok, you say "This mechanism is currently being used with great success in the NuBits and NuShares network." Well, I'm a three months Nushare holder in your six months old Nubits/Nushares system and didn't see in all this time a single dime in dividends. All I have seen is nubits custodians losing funds in hacked/adminrunnered exchanges and Nushares holders being diluted trying to compensate the custodians lost.

Are we going to repeat the system where Blockcredits custodians will try to elevate grants to start operating in  small and untrustworthy exchanges while Shareholders are covering the losses after the unavoidables hacks/adminrunnings?

I'm sorry being so negative, but I think shareholders will find themselves pretty soon underwater as happened in nubits/nushares because, probably, it's less dangerous to exchange quickly in some big centralized sites (like shapeshift.io) than mutualizing all the inevitable losses that custodians are going to suffer in the small and untrustworthy exchanges that will agree to accept the BKC/BTC trading pair.

Of course. Let's start with the relevant use case from the design document:


It is likely that regular dividends will occur, possibly every week or two. As such, the custodian will be required to publicly account for the funds they received. For example, they might say "I sold 10,433 BlockCredits this week on a BKC/BTC pair, and received 40.987 BTC in total" Or, if a BKC/USD trading pair was used, they could say "I sold 10,433 BlockCredits this week for 10,433 USD. I purchased 41.732 BTC at 250.00 USD with the USD funds received." Should a custodian try and "skim" some BTC off that dividend amount, it is likely that shareholders will switch to a more honest custodian. In the event of perceived dishonesty, shareholders could request that custodians share their trading logs to ensure that full value is being returned to shareholders.

Did that answer your questions?

Can someone please explain me how the dividend system works? How do you prevent inside trading cheating when buying bitcoins in order to distribute dividends?

The motion voted on by NuShare holders (https://discuss.nubits.com/t/passed-motion-to-provide-seed-funding-for-b-c-exchange-a-decentralized-exchange-built-on-the-peershares-platform/2001) to approve this auction took just 6519 blocks to receive the 5001 votes needed in any consecutive 10,0000 blocks required for passage. That is 76.7% in favor. The last 1000 blocks prior to passage contained 817 votes in favor of the motion (81.7%), which I would consider the most accurate measure of consensus.

This auction and the creation of B&C Exchange has overwhelming support from NuShare holders.

Using the Peershares framework permits decentralized networks to reach consensus on and move forward with bold and controversial proposals. Peershare networks (B&C Exchange will be one) can evolve and adapt quickly as directed by shareholders.

Thanks, bid sent.

The auction is now live. Please read the "Auction" section in the original post to place a bid.

I see. Tks.

Transaction fees (the sole use for BlockCredits) must be paid using an asset native to B&C Exchange. NuBits live on a different blockchain.

Use of multisig deposit addresses is certainly not a superfluous marketing gimmick. It is a method of requiring consensus that funds should in fact be transferred. Consider the typical exchange default either due to a thief obtaining access to a wallet or an insider deciding to steal funds. The thief only needs to get the keys in a single wallet because multisig is not used. Now consider what a thief must do in the case of an 8 of 15 multisig deposit address in B&C Exchange. He must compromise 8 different wallets all held by different pseudonymous top reputed signers whose IP addresses are unlikely to be known. All communication to and from them are just network broadcasts, so there is no good way to even go about trying to locate them to target them.

Your comment about a site wallet suggests you are applying a centralized exchange paradigm (there is nothing like a site in the design). Hopefully my post just prior to this one can help clarify how multisig is used in B&C Exchange as well.

I think you've applied some incorrect assumptions based on the typical operation of centralized exchanges. While our interface will feel much like the familiar centralized exchange experience, the back end is radically different.

In order to allow every network node to verify that the records do match up, all transactions are placed on blockchain. A customer can't refuse to sign a fund transfer because their funds are held in a multisig escrow consisting of up to 15 top reputed signers. Only these top reputed signers can refuse to sign. They won't refuse because they will lose a large security deposit, future income and their reputation. Even if some signers behave maliciously, in the case of an 8 of 15 multisig deposit address the system can tolerate up to 7 rogue top reputed signers and still function properly, so the system is highly fault tolerant. Shareholders choose who is a top reputed signer on an ongoing basis through voting in every block.

Transfers from multisig deposit addresses will be made in seconds.

Why not using nubits instead of credits?

Sunny King is not involved, but I've talked to him about the B&C exchange project. He said that he's happy that Jordan's team will once again be tackling a difficult project like this. He's also excited about the types of DAOs that continue to come out of the Peershares software designed by Jordan. I personally feel we're at the very beginning stages of an economy that will be filled with DAOs. It's something that will become very widespread and Peershares will be at the forefront of it.

Thanks

You did not miss anything. Rather, you got the thing.

I see, some cryptographic pundits today want to enforce multisig in everything. Either they do not understand or they do not want to understand for a reason. I think, the second is true. And the reason is, they simply want to make multisig a selling point of their product to the ignorant public.

Use of Multisig for a trade on the blockchain is just rubbish. It is only required in the site wallet.

Is sonny king involved?

And how exactly does multisig operate on man exchange were coins are traded at high frequency? The transactions need to be off blockchain, and an exchange Weill want to make sure their books and records match up... What if a customer refuses to sign a transaction since they're on the losing side of their trading?

Multisig, to me, makes no sense at an exchange. Either the trades are occurring on blockchain, which would make for slow trades be arduous with multisigs, or they're off blockchain, so the trader needs to essentially sign over his or her coins to the exchange so that the exchange can allocate positions as needed.

Can someone explain what I'm missing?

Is sonny king involved?

And how exactly does multisig operate on man exchange were coins are traded at high frequency? The transactions need to be off blockchain, and an exchange Weill want to make sure their books and records match up... What if a customer refuses to sign a transaction since they're on the losing side of their trading?