[Mandatory upgrade] B&C Exchange 4.0 has been released

B&C Exchange
#1

I am excited to be able to announce the 4.0 release of B&C Exchange. It contains major protocol changes centering around the reputation system for signers, which is fully functional in this release.

We have implemented protocol voting in B&C, so when 90% of minted blocks have the upgraded protocol, the two week countdown to the actual protocol switch date will begin.

Once the switch occurs, shareholders will begin using the reputation voting system to elect reputed signers. @TomJoad has already indicated he will seek to be a signer. I am very interested to see who else will seek to become a B&C reputed signer. For those who are interested in becoming a signer, here is a summary of how to do that. Additional details can be found in the B&C Exchange design document.

Until now, active participation in B&C Exchange has been mostly restricted to developers. This release will change that as shareholders vote for reputed signers and reputed signers work with developers to bring B&C Exchange to full functionality in a 5.0 release.

I’m excited to be able to see the reputation system in action in just a few short weeks. I expect we will see quite a bit of discussion in the community about the reputation system and reputed signers going forward.

Here are the builds:

Download B&C Exchange 4.0 for Windows

Download B&C Exchange 4.0 for Linux

An OS X release will be available soon.

Here are some details about the features included in 4.0 and how to use them, provided by @CoinGame.

9 Likes
B&C Exchange 5.0.1 release - upgrade before 18 July!
Finally upgraded bcexchange and it keeps crashing at startup
#2
#3

what is signer doing for?

#4

what’s the diff between:
bcexchange-4.0.0-RC3-win-gitian.zip
bcexchange-4.0.0-win-gitian.zip

#5

I am interested in supporting Nu and B&C Exchange blockchains

#6

Only the version number.

#7

Is it wise for shareholders who are public like you and I to become signers? I imagine it could open us up to attack by hackers or government.

1 Like
#8

If a problem like this exist you could always withdraw. But a public face is always good for businesses that include reputation and trust :wink:

1 Like
#9

It might be good to have a public face representing a business.

But it’s more dangerous having this person as signer than anonymous people.
Knowing a person creates the attack vector of social engineering (speaking of hackers/crackers) and of attacking that person directly (blackmailing from hackers/crackers, governments, etc.)

Reputation at BCE is decoupled from real life and needs to be earned on BCE.
Trust is backed by the collateral a reputed signer needs to deposit.

There’s no need to be public for being a reputed signer.
On the contrary, I share @Sentinelrv’s view.; it’s a drawback, if you’re public and want to be in this position.

You might will realize that too late.
If you want to know what governments are capable of and willing to do, read here:

BCE is freeing people from being limited to centralized exchanges when trading blockchain assets.
More and more business will be created like Nu, as a DAO built on a blockchain.
If BCE is a big success, it can be in some years be the “NYSE of blockchain based DAOs” - as well as BTC, PPC, etc. exchange.
Sooner or later governments will start to fight it.

#10

In that case, signers would have to use anonymous vps,proxies,tor,etc in order to hide their nodes!

#11

…the nodes are not the problem here…
It’s knowing who the person is. You can’t hide that.

#12

If you can find the real IP you can find the real person :wink:
you mean that there is no way to connect anonymous singers with nodes?

#13

That’s why you need to use TOR, etc.
If you know the IP address you can always find out the person behind it and unveil the identity.

That!

1 Like
#14

I do not think being anonymous gives you a strong advantage over being public. One can argue that being public gives you more credibility because you would not have the possibility to hide if you screw up your duty or you behave in a dishonest way as a signer.
The same applies to FLOT membership and core development.
I am a public FLOT member. I could be the object of attacks that could undermine my role and yet I fulfil my role.
3 or 4 core devs are public. They could be the objects of attacks, undermining their role and yet they fulfil their role.
So overall, being public has drawbacks as being anonymous does.
I am planning to make a proposal to become a signer.
Bce shareholders shall decide!

1 Like
#15

I think anonymity has to do with – you dont need to do a background check such as rank, name or affiliation because you dont need to give credence to publicly known references attributed to someone to whom you might want to delegate a task.
In the blockchain context (and that of B&C Ex and Nu as well), anonymity is not a requirement or a pre-condition for someone to participate (verification or shareholding), but more like a natural feature.

I believe Nu and B&C ex are working essentially (not against) with sovereign governments and eventually, big corporations and national governments would want a chunk of them if they become distributed exponentially over the web.

Also, limiting one’s self to a forum handname and an email address does not prevent one to be attacked and blackmailed from hackers/crackers – it goes without saying numerous are the ones that have been scammed on bitcointalk…

#16

Unlike the quarrel in BTC community, we just vote it! Quickly and decisively!

1 Like
#17

Could anybody show an example of B&C datafeed.json for Raspberry? Different from Nu’s because the packing rate etc.

#18 
bcexchanged setvote '
{
"custodians" : [
],
"parkrates" : [
],
"motions" : [
],
"fees" : {
},
"reputations" : [
],
"signerreward" : {
"count" : null,
"amount" : null
},
"assets" : [
]
}'

And with dummy data it looks like this:


{
"custodians" : [
],
"parkrates" : [
],
"motions" : [
],
"fees" : {
},
"reputations" : [
{
"address" : "8KE9SSLxQAm3JqJrwzCWyCvRrZJPWUCUaZ",
"weight" : 10
},
{
"address" : "8UCpvarJpn4pLMRtJCxwZJdRnP3Q6LApB9",
"weight" : 1
},
{
"address" : "8TxxqGe3NLkm116xK7apD6ft8E92tUVQg6",
"weight" : 5
},
{
"address" : "8XPLBsQeuLc3TMDjXgDQuB8g67VH4zB2G7",
"weight" : -5
}
],
"signerreward" : {
"count" : 3,
"amount" : 0.01
},
"assets" : [
{
"assetid" : "BKC",
"confirmations" : 6,
"reqsigners" : 2,
"totalsigners" : 3,
"maxtrade" : 1.0,
"mintrade" : 0.001,
"unitexponent" : 4
},
{
"assetid" : "BKS",
"confirmations" : 6,
"reqsigners" : 2,
"totalsigners" : 3,
"maxtrade" : 1.0,
"mintrade" : 0.001,
"unitexponent" : 4
},
{
"assetid" : "BTC",
"confirmations" : 6,
"reqsigners" : 2,
"totalsigners" : 3,
"maxtrade" : 1.0,
"mintrade" : 0.001,
"unitexponent" : 8
},
{
"assetid" : "NBT",
"confirmations" : 6,
"reqsigners" : 2,
"totalsigners" : 3,
"maxtrade" : 1.0,
"mintrade" : 0.001,
"unitexponent" : 4
},
{
"assetid" : "NSR",
"confirmations" : 6,
"reqsigners" : 2,
"totalsigners" : 3,
"maxtrade" : 1.0,
"mintrade" : 0.001,
"unitexponent" : 8
}
]
}
3 Likes
#19

I like the concept of BlockExchange, but I wonder why there is no Ethereum, Monero and other prominent tokens on the roadmap? Assets are matter…

#20

BKS holders can vote for whatever token they like to see supported by BCE - as long as it supports multisig (and there are for sure some more requirements).
For supported tokens there will be reputed signers, because there’s money to be made from signing tx there.

What about this?

[omitted parts]
{
"assetid" : "ETH",
"confirmations" : 6,
"reqsigners" : 2,
"totalsigners" : 3,
"maxtrade" : 1.0,
"mintrade" : 0.001,
"unitexponent" : 8
},
{
"assetid" : "MONERO",
"confirmations" : 6,
"reqsigners" : 2,
"totalsigners" : 3,
"maxtrade" : 1.0,
"mintrade" : 0.001,
"unitexponent" : 8
},
{
"assetid" : "OTHER",
"confirmations" : 6,
"reqsigners" : 2,
"totalsigners" : 3,
"maxtrade" : 1.0,
"mintrade" : 0.001,
"unitexponent" : 8
}
]
}
1 Like