Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

BSIP66: Sharedrop Operation #132

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

OpenLedgerApp
Copy link
Contributor

@OpenLedgerApp OpenLedgerApp commented Dec 17, 2018

Dear BitShares Community,

We would like to introduce the sharedrop operation BSIP.
The purpose is to share potential profit/money/other assets with the holders of the specific asset according with their stake.

As per BitShares Core Team request we have spent some time drafting this BSIP.
And here's the resulting BSIP:
https://github.com/openledger/bsips/blob/bsip-sharedropoperation/bsip-00XX%20Sharedrop%20Operation.md

The pull request is here:
#132
Forum thread is here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27588.0
Please share your opinion.
If you think it might help BitShares, please voice your opinion and vote for it, when the worker is created.

Sincerely,
Denis Sokolov
OpenLedger

@ryanRfox ryanRfox changed the title draft BSIP Draft: Sharedrop Operation Dec 17, 2018

# Abstract
We should add the ability to distribute arbitrary amount of some token (SHAREDROP token) to holders of a specific other token (STAKE token) according to the share(stake) of such tokens.
The importance of a similar solution was raised in BSIPs-19, 20, however never implemented. (link below).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is pretty much the same thing as paying dividends.
The dividends feature has been implemented already for the PeerPlays blockchain.
See here: bitshares/bitshares-core#695

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As I mentioned, the idea is very similar to bsip-20 (and 19).
We have spent quite a lot of time looking into the PeerPlay code. And at this point of time (2 years after the code has been written) we have concluded that it is easier, safer and more maintainable in the future to write our own code.
Please see my extensive reply here:
#123 (comment)
Thanks,
Denis

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We have just posted related BSIP - Market Fee Backed Asset (MFBA) - #134
and here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27601.0
The idea is quite similar, but it's more automated with MFBA.
And it's more flexible with Sharedrop.
We can have one or the other or both.
Code base, when it comes to splitting share with stakeholders to their vesting balances would be quite similar.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the difference to BSIP 19/20 in essence?

# Rationale

- Other cryptocurrency platforms offer profit-sharing/dividends functionality, such as Peerplays/NXT/CounterParty/DigixDAO/LBRY/Waves/Dash.
- Most (if not all) Bitcoin forks (1000's of them) have 'sendmany' functionality which enables the mass distribution of their tokens against a large quantity of users (addresses) in a single transaction; this is currently not possible within BitShares.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

BitShares has a "sendmany" too. It is just a transaction with "many" transfer operations. Same thing that bitcoin forks do.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We have looked at the way "sendmany" is implemented and it does not exactly cover our needs. It is like many different transfers.. Block can only have limited amount of transfers. So if there are too many, then we will have several transactions and it will not be atomic.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The same will happen with an actual send_many operation. The thing that will make the transaction too big will be the account_id to amount list, and not the header of the serialization.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A serialized transfer_operation in BitShares is much smaller than a bitcoin address. A BitShares transaction with many transfers will be significantly smaller than a bitcoin transaction with as many recipients.
For a large number of recipients you'll hit the bitcoin block size limit much faster than the BitShares block size limit. Not to mention the fees.

- Other cryptocurrency platforms offer profit-sharing/dividends functionality, such as Peerplays/NXT/CounterParty/DigixDAO/LBRY/Waves/Dash.
- Most (if not all) Bitcoin forks (1000's of them) have 'sendmany' functionality which enables the mass distribution of their tokens against a large quantity of users (addresses) in a single transaction; this is currently not possible within BitShares.

To make it more difficult to abuse the system dropping multiple useless tokens, there will be a vesting stake for the sharedrop operation. For example, vest 5000 bitUSD (in BTS) for 2 month to be able to do sharedrop operation.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks like an arbitrary barrier. Why not raise the fee for that operation?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's just an idea. It's up for discussion. Our take was that if we make it let's say 50 bitUSD, then it's still open for shitcoins to send airdrops.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, we thought some more about it.. And we can definitely scrap the idea of vesting stake.
AND/OR
We might change the transaction fee for the sharedrop not to depend on the number of users. This way we would not need to calculate the fee. And it will be much simpler and easier to implement.
LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION HERE GUYS!
Or we can have it in the forum
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27588.0

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It shouldn't be the same price to sharedrop on 2 as it is 2 million, the more users the more resources it'll consume so the higher the fee required, no?


Sharedrop operation will drop the Sharedrop asset in proportion to the stake that stakeholders have to their respective vesting balances.

## dry_run_sharedrop operation
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No need for an extra operation for this. If it doesn't hit the blockchain, it could as well be the real operation and use the get_required_fees api call

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please see above. If we change the fee to the FIXED fee then we do not need it at all.
if we still have the fee depend on the number of users, then we still need to calculate it.
In this case, we can definitely extend the get_required_fees for this operation and implement our calculations there.
Thank you for the idea.
Again, it depends on the discussion about the fees and vesting stake.

Copy link
Collaborator

@sschiessl-bcp sschiessl-bcp Jan 21, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the idea which vesting balance object to use?

If the user does not have a vesting balance object, it will need to be created inducing more fees. IMO it can't be a fixed fee in such a case. Also, I'd recommend that any newly created vesting balances should purge themselves after being unused to avoid cluttering up the current state.

OpenLedgerApp and others added 2 commits December 18, 2018 16:37
@ryanRfox
Copy link
Contributor

I worked with @OpenLedgerApp to establish a drafting budget for this BSIP of 10 hours. It will be paid in weeks 50-51.

Revisions will continue within this budget.


https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0020.md

## Copyright
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please add a easy-to-understand Summary for the Shareholders

What are the additional leverages created for BTS holders, what are the benefits? Also, where are the risks?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Addressing why BSIP 20 was deferred is relevant too, I believe it's because the BSIP terminology was about dividends/profit-sharing of fees instead of sharedropping as a form of issuance? If the reason for deference was related to regulations then perhaps BTS and committee owned assets could be excluded?

@pmconrad
Copy link
Contributor

A sharedrop on BTS could easily lead to more than 1 million write operations in the database. This cannot be done during normal block processing. Please modify the spec so that sharedrops are executed during maintenance.

@OpenLedgerApp
Copy link
Contributor Author

We will add sharedrops operations in our BSIP Market Fee Based Asset -#134

We will modify the BSIP MFBA so that sharedrops are executed during maintenance.

@sschiessl-bcp
Copy link
Collaborator

We will add sharedrops operations in our BSIP Market Fee Based Asset -#134

We will modify the BSIP MFBA so that sharedrops are executed during maintenance.

I would recommend to keep them separate as they are different design. Consider that each BSIP requires voter approval. Additionally, it makes sense to have a generic sharedrop operation that can be used for MFBA and also for UIA and SmartCoins.

@OpenLedgerApp
Copy link
Contributor Author

We agree with @pmconrad
So we will modify the BSIP MFBA so that sharedrops are executed during maintenance.

@abitmore
Copy link
Member

abitmore commented Jun 9, 2019

@ryanRfox please assign BSIP number.

@ryanRfox ryanRfox changed the title BSIP Draft: Sharedrop Operation BSIP66: Sharedrop Operation Jun 9, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants