How does BCE help solve the problems of scalability and the very long confirmation time of bitcoin ?
A decentralized voting architecture could enable the real time voting (as in BCE) of co-signers of multi-sig wallets that would store the nubits.
This is intended to be accomplished by the escrow system of BCE.
But how do we make sure that tx (settlement) is instantaneous?
A sole escrow system cannot enable that in itself.
As a matter of fact, I think we need some kind of servers that process requests very rapidly.
The problem is that those servers would introduce some kind of single point of failure.
However, cannot those servers be choset and managed by a voting system based on Nu?
I believe this was the idea behind Teehe
B&C uses native trades. One could in theory make a string of unconfirmed txns if one trusts the B&C signers and trade rapidly, then use a smart system to settle some of those trades off-chain and move only what’s required per block. That way, the only time you’d have to wait for confirmations is on withdrawal and deposit (and deposit only because we dont trust customers not to double spend like we do the signers).
As BCE is used as kind of “settlement network” for the trades, only the confirmation times of the BCE blockchain are limiting the speed of (verified!) transactions - unless you can even speed that up by having a system that allows off-chain trades (how to make that both fast and secure?).
I think it might be possible to make 0-confirmation trades, but it will be important to care for edge cases. If withdrawing funds from an account is only possible after the trade, that brought the funds to the account, has some confirmations, not much can go wrong.
But maybe I’m just lacking imagination how to attack such a system.
I am not aware of anyone working on this. @TomJoad has done things like that in the past. @Sentinelrv may also be interested in helping. Any volunteers to approach the Augur community about this?
One other matter I neglected to mention in my previous post is that it seems like implementing fixed cost liquidity as first envisioned by @Nagalim would be a major improvement in liquidity operations for a modest effort. @desrever, @woolly_sammoth@Nagalim: what would it take to see this on Poloniex and other exchanges?
This is done. It’s in ALP v2 (as crfc, which can esaily be run as fixed cost by using a target of 0 nbt). We’re waiting for the NuBot release.
(If we decide we cant wait anymore, other pool operators are free to use the fc_server.py file in my repo. I can help anyone figure it out that needs it.)
@tomjoad actually posted before that he had contact with them some months ago. Maybe we should do a follow up just to maintain contact with them about it. We shouldn’t take their previous response for granted. I think it would be best to show shareholders continued interest in working with them. Maybe a thread in their forum where NuShareholders can introduce themselves to the community, offer our services and ask what they would need from us in the future so that we can prepare. It helps show them we are taking the initiative. Here was Tom’s quote by the way…
So just to be clear, the ALP v2 server software is already completed by Woolly? We’re only waiting for Des to finish testing NuBot compatibility? Also, fixed reward was abandoned and not included in ALP v2 correct, only fixed cost?
CRFC (Combined Reward Fixed Cost) has been implemented in ALP v2. This implementation should give us the best of both worlds, where we have fixed cost when the pool is above target and a form of fixed reward when the pool is below target. The biggest difference when the pool is below target is that the buy and sell side will combine to form a fixed reward, but the reward will be given to both sides equally such that even below target there will be a balancing incentive.
I am more and more convinced that we should make Nubits as desirable currency as we can (user friendly wallet, liquidity providing, fiat exchange services, incentives for merchant acceptance, offchain transactions, Loyality gifts and interests and all kinds of profitable and non profitable offchain centralized or decentralized services) to the point that Nu is as good deal as paypal or better.
Then we should depend on Volume-dependent Transaction Fees to profit from the big chunks settlment transactions.
So answering @nagalim question; yes we are a settlments network for the wealthy (blockchains can’t be more than that), but we achieve that not by being a multinational super corporation, but by offering a real commonly used currency with the offchain efforts of the shareholders.
The question is, would that fees ever be enough? Not if we can have other revenu streams because I can’t see we have other choices.
I don’t think hosting a i7 desktop machine 24X7 is costly, leave along several raspberries. Perhaps we can buy cheap outdated SHA256 minting rig to speed up off chain transaction?
BTC has been wasting 99.99% hardware hash rate. PoW = low efficiency.
I still very much feel we should look into expanding to include money lending to our business, I feel it could be a very relevant and profitable business for Nu. I’ll quote myself on this:
This, especially the automation of important processes, will be easier with B&C Exchange.
It’s already possible, but only feasible for rather big sums due to the manual efforts.
It reminds me of thoughts I had regarding leveraged trading on B&C Exchange
Margin trading is most definitely a feature we should push for B&C, I asked Jordan about it a couple of weeks ago but he made it clear (and also in this thread) that while most likely possible it will require a lot of time and funding. My opinion is we should do an BKS token sale a few months after B&C is live and hopefully trading at higher than current levels to easier fund the feature without diluting shares to much.
Money lending however is something we could set up right now, the scheme I described should be fairly easy to get rolling and we could probably automate large parts of it. I could try to work out more details for how I envision it if shareholders are interested.
That would probably be the best time to do it if we’re going to raise more funds. All eyes will be on the exchange once released and the share price will most likely be a lot more than it is now, if not experiencing a surge in demand. Any funding raised can be converted to NuBits to sustain its purchasing power. And as I said above, we can always buy back the shares and destroy them with the profit B&C brings in.
In a recent video, Augur’s director of marketing says they plan to integrate shapeshift. If so, seems all that is needed from Nu is.
Maintain the peg
A solid marketing campaign when Augur launches explaining why Nu’s products are useful to Augur traders.
More details about how their shapeshift integration will work would be nice. At the very least, Augur accounts will have wallets for ETH/REP. BTC is likely as well. Do they intend to provide users with online wallets for every tradeable currency on shapeshift?
The team has a slack channel, I’d be willing to check in with them if no one else is.
providing bootstrap files that get regularly updated
attract community members
specifically people with financial background
or people who have development capabilities; just imagine there’d be a few more Nagalims, willys, ttutdxhs, woolly-sammoths, desrevers, mhpses etc. (this list is by no means complete!)
or people who are familiar with marketing and PR
amendment of FLOT contracts to measure performance beyond reaction time
scalability of Nu liquidity provision (additional currencies and ramping up current LP)
finding out the “true” costs of liquidity provision
implement market aware offsets
preparing the launch of the new pegged products (how shall that work to get those listed at exchanges and liquidity provision going with what we have now?)
preparing the go-live of BCE and liquidity provision there
creating/finding fiat/(??-)NBT gateways
Building teams and assigning tasks to them would be great.
I fear our (active) community is too small for that.
