agorise/bsips
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #10 from neura-sx/patch-4

Browse source 
Known issues reformatted
This commit is contained in:
Fabian Schuh 2016-02-02 20:57:31 +01:00
commit 8c37c07174
1 changed files with 10 additions and 10 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

20
bsip-0010.md
View file

@ -119,17 +119,17 @@ In particular, the following aspects will be covered:
* full documentation & guidelines for similar projects * full documentation & guidelines for similar projects
* GUI support * GUI support
# Known issues and limitations # Known issues and possible solutions
There are the following issues and limitations that cannot be overcome: These are the identified issues (or limitations) and available solutions that address them:
* The percentage-based fee scheme cannot be applied to stealth transfers (due to the very nature of stealth transactions, it's impossible to determine the amount transfered). Known issue (or limitation) | Possible solution
* This proposal covers all SmartCoins (both public and private), UIAs and possibly also FBAs (once they get implemented). ~~However, due to technical reasons, the percentage-based fee scheme cannot be applied to the core currency i.e. BTS.~~ --- | ---
EDIT: Together with CNX, we are actively looking at ways to find a solution to this problem - one of the options considered is changing the ownership of BTS from `null-account` to `committee-account`. The values of the minimum and maximum limits are denominated in BTS (as all fees in the system). If those limits are not updated on a regular basis, we might end up with discrepancies between their current fiat value and the intended initial value. | There is another project (run by `xeroc`) aiming to address this issue, by introducing an automated way to keep all fees synced to fiat-defined targets. So if we combine our proposal with `xeroc`'s project, we should end up with a complete, fiat-stable solution.
* There might be a negative UX in a very rare situation: when CER is being updated by the issuer between the moment the user hits `Transfer` and the moment s/he hits `Confirm`. In this situation the user might receive an error message about not supplying sufficient funds to cover the transfer fee and will have to redo the transfer. The percentage-based fee scheme cannot be applied to stealth transfers. | There is no solution available. Due to the very nature of stealth transactions, it's impossible to determine the amount transferred and thus apply a percentage-based transfer fee.
EDIT: Thanks to [this suggestion](https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21080.msg275323.html#msg275323) by `roadscape`, there might be a viable workaround for this issue at the GUI level. Due to technical reasons, the percentage-based fee scheme cannot be easily applied to the core currency i.e. BTS. | Together with CNX, we are actively looking at ways to find a solution to this problem - one of the options considered is changing the ownership of BTS from `null-account` to `committee-account`. (We are aware that this might be highly controversial, so please treat it as just one of several options considered.)
* ~~In case of committee-controlled SmartCoins, occasionally there might be a small discrepancy between the current value of CER and the value of CER enclosed in the committee proposal to switch a given SmartCoin to the percentage-based mode.~~ There might be a negative UX in a very rare situation: when CER is being updated by the issuer between the moment the user hits `Transfer` and the moment s/he hits `Confirm`. In this situation, the user might receive an error message about insufficient funds to cover the transfer fee and will have to redo the transfer. | Thanks to [this suggestion](https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21080.msg275323.html#msg275323) by `roadscape`, there might be a viable workaround for this issue at the GUI level.
EDIT: We will most probably be able to offer a patch to the code-base, which will make it possible to update an asset without changing CER, and thus fix this issue. ~~In case of committee-controlled SmartCoins, occasionally there might be a small discrepancy between the current value of CER and the value of CER enclosed in the committee proposal to switch a given SmartCoin to the percentage-based mode.~~ | We will most probably be able to offer a patch to the code-base, which will make it possible to update an asset without changing CER, and thus entirely fix this issue.
* If the committee decides to apply percentage-based fees to SmartCoins, our partners (e.g. exchanges, gateways etc) need to be notified in advance, so that they have time to adjust their applications, and make sure those applications and their pricing policy are compatible with percentage-based fees. If the committee decides to apply percentage-based fees to SmartCoins, this might affect third-party partners (e.g. exchanges, gateways etc), especially their pricing policies. | Our partners need to be notified in advance, so that they have time to adjust their processes.
# Copyright # Copyright
This document is placed in the public domain. This document is placed in the public domain.