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

Known issues reformatted 

Known issues / limitations section turned into a table. Also added fiat-stablity issue as advised by tbone.
oxarbitrage-patch-1
neura-sx 2016-02-02 16:40:03 +01:00
parent acb8e0df3e
commit a63a1a0994
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
* GUI support
# Known issues and limitations
There are the following issues and limitations that cannot be overcome:
# Known issues and possible solutions
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).
* 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`.
* 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.
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.
* ~~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.~~
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.
* 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.
Known issue (or limitation) | Possible solution
--- | ---
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.
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.
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.)
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.
~~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, 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
This document is placed in the public domain.