You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Bitshares: At the crossroads

in #bitshares7 years ago

Thanks for all the information provided. I've replied to #2 above, and concerning #4, do you think that the technology being developed now to replace the stealth we have is a superior solution?

In my view, not even touching on the hardcore cryptographic aspects, if those stealth-receipts you mention are not needed with the new solution, that's already enough of a reason in my book.. what are your thoughts on this?

Sort:  

do you think that the technology being developed now to replace the stealth we have is a superior solution?

All I know about what is currently "in development" is that there is something in development. I would need specs and documentation for that before I can make an opinion on it and I have asked ken numerous times to provide it. No response so far. Not seen ken's testnet that he promised for Christmas last year either.

From the top of my head, I think there are 4-5 different ways of adding some sort of privacy to the blockchain level. 2 of them are already available on BitShares and there is nothing technically preventing us from adding more.

However, there is the incentives that currently only lies on those that hold STEALTH tokens, to actually build something useful on it. I personally have thought about adding the current STEALTH feature into python-bitshares, but don't see a reason to work on code that earns a profit to someone else.

That said, STEALTH doesn't have a technical problem, it rather has a political and economical problem on BitShares -- currently.

100% agree that we should have access to the technical inner-workings of the new system. As you know I have not been around much lately (pretty much due to the stealth-stall), so I just assumed such documents would exist - it seems rather silly to be funding such work without knowing exactly what is being funded, and if the technology being implemented is even sound to begin with - before any line of code is even written.

The good-natured side of me would say that @kencode has been too busy or that perhaps there has been some sort of miscommunication, I hope it is something like that - because I 100% agree with you, we need such technical documentation.