I know a lot of people are thinking about combining the different gateway assets. It's been discussed several times on bitsharestalk, but it always comes down to not forcing people to be stuck with a gateway they might not want. Like if you think you're buying open.LTC and suddenly you have bridge.LTC in your account. Then you might have to pay different fees than you expected if you want to get your LTC's out.
But I agree, it would improve the platform tremendously to have this feature.
Do you have some idea how to get the gateways to come together and do this this? because the bts programmers don't think they can do it.
They could issue bitBTC instead of open.btc and bridge.btc... then the trading and long-term holding of assets would be risk-free for users. The only time when they fund would be in other's hands would be when depositing/withdrawing real BTC. After bitBTC proves to work, others could follow.
Gateways would have to use their money at the beginning as a collateral to create bitBTC. A small fee could be introduced on trading bitBTC which would be used for buying BTS at the open market which would indirectly lower gateway's risk.
This is more in line with the potential response. The issue simply stated is that the overall network would benefit from a concentration of trading volume to make the DEX more attractive to other traders. A committee run escrow account could be a solution but either way it would be helpful to have the gateways themselves on board. This is where the Federated nature of "Federated Gateways" comes into play.
Of course the risk with bitBTC in that way is that it is shorted so it can black swan. which would cause a pretty big scandal if people had deposited.
I guess you would also lose the direct relation with how much gateway.asset is deposited and how much they are holding.
bitBTC could be utilized in this scenario if the community directed some of the shared treasury to support the bitBTC market.
The bts protocol is quite flexible and I am sure there is technically a way to accomplish something similar. I am still thinking of how a solution could be implemented but it is definitely important to build up the gateways and encourage them to work together since they are stakeholders as well.
BTS blockchain would then be outwardly displaying preferential treatment for gateways. As mentioned already before, people CHOOSING their wallet is important. You can't just throw peoples BTS at bitcoin that COULD be compromised and POSSIBLY not paid back.
The idea being explored here is a way for the bts protocol to enable greater liquidity among BTC pairings to support all gateways. It is a structural headwind for the platform to support several various BTC pairings each struggling with lagging liquidity. This is still a brainstorming session - I do not proclaim to have a situation right now.
I suppose if you were to have a set-up screen where you could aggregate them via GUI. The reason I think this is import is because is exchange/gateway A: has some sort of quantum resistant service and gateway b: has a shaky design with a vulnerability -- I want to be able to choose which gateway will receive x.asset. The BTS blockchain is not Atomic Swap and thus the central security of the gateway is imperative and thus the grouping is subject to massive implications.
Yes the idea would be to grant the user maximum freedom to use which gateway he wanted. Bts protocol is not atomic swap but it is a second layer solution (DEX) for other chains like BTC.
So I would be willing to "federate", as you mentioned, my own pairings, but I think for worker/commitee action to choose a default would be wrong.
Yes the gateways would vountarily form a federation. Non-Aggression Principle.
Emphasizing personal preference and responsibility in the gateway would be sufficient for a true decentralized exchange. The only way I can see this working is if a ton of money is spent verifying security and/or insuring storage for this "easy-mode" pairing. But I guess the BTS commitee and workers have a metric ton of money to work with. lol
Agreed that the committee may not be well-positioned to handle this. There could be an opportunity for a private firm to serve as a BTC wholesale of sorts on the DEX.
I see what you mean, that would require a HELL of a lot of faith in the ecosystem itself. The stability and security of the "dpos" "voting block" can be a blessing, but it could also shove a knife in the back of the beast. You know what i mean?
I do. I trust the market and the dex is just that.