From f8df3a7788c469341a5dce6834df84ab2e20c215 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fabian Schuh Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:59:45 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] BSIP-0008: more discussion --- bsip-0008.md | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/bsip-0008.md b/bsip-0008.md index 98b3b43..405f117 100644 --- a/bsip-0008.md +++ b/bsip-0008.md @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Discussion: - Worker: tbd + Worker: 1.14.18 # Abstract @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ account has to be made in private. ## GUI Mockup -The goal of this proposal is to have a frontend developed (or integrated into an +The goal of this proposal is to have a front end developed (or integrated into an existing web wallet) that allows ordinary people to use the privacy mode without further knowledge about the underlying technology. Thus, a proposal for the user interface has been drafted and is attached to this proposal as @@ -140,6 +140,16 @@ will have the power to set the fee. * Cryptonomex does the development and testing of the feature: *(4 to 6 weeks)* * Hard fork for implementation of the feature: *Monday Feb, 15th* +# Worker Proposal + +The worker proposal `1.14.18` is dedicated to poll shareholders about their +willingness to implement the Privacy Mode feature in a hard fork. It serves the +private investor as an indicator whether shareholders would appreciate his +investment and agree to upgrade the protocol accordingly. + +Since the implementation is funded by a private investor, the worker only pays +approx. $300. + # Discussion For the best user experience this proposal is best combined with proposal for @@ -157,6 +167,37 @@ pay 15x more for a Private transfer than a Public transfer. Percentage based fees are not possible with Private Transfers either because the amount being transferred is *private*! +## Worker as Poll + +When the project is complete, the new software will be presented to the +witnesses as an opportunity to hard fork by switching to running the new +package/software. At that time witnesses will face a choice: + +1. Honor the proposal at the time the decision to spend the private investor's money was made, or +2. Honor the proposal at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time). + +Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people +disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1. + +Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for +reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied. + +This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about this proposal +by installation time, they might *not* decide to fire otherwise faithful +witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation +in future deals. + +Considering the participation rate in the worker poll: those who do not care +enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process as it is supposed to +be. + +## Privacy Mode not Most Pressingly Needed + +The argument was raised that the Privacy Mode as proposed here is not the +feature most pressingly needed for BitShares right now. + +## Worker Poll Interval too Short + # Copyright This document is placed in the public domain.