Proposal: open-source DASH gateway on Ripple

Will you fund this? Please, only MNO.

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 76.2%

  • No

    Votes: 3 14.3%

  • Abstain

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Total voters
    21
It's not my attempt to troll you here, and your obviously very knowledgeable about these matters. But most masternode owners or are not.
But it's very clear to me that Ripple aims to works to replace settlement networks, via the use of an open transparent ledger. With different benefits for different party's.

And now we have a business ask use to fork over 15k USD for intergation, at the same time they already added something such as REP for FREE !!!
I find this insulting to ask DASH masternode owners for a handout, especially seeing, dash it's codebase is based on bitcoin, which should make it not that hard to implement other than (instant sent).

Now you are aligning yourself with them by saying "This is a co-opetition proposal to Pre-Proposal: Create the first DASH gateway on Ripple."
Just to be clear:
DEFINITION of 'Coopetition'
Coopetition is the act of cooperation between competing companies; businesses that engage in both competition and cooperation are said to be in coopetition.

Read more: Coopetition http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coopetition.asp#ixzz4gtYXS6O5
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
Click to expand...

Perhaps I miss interpret your meaning here, but cooperating with them, is already a no go for me. If you meant you have competing offer on the table than that would 180 degree difference to me personally. It should be a bit more clear do how becomes the owner of the code you will write.

(I voted no with my MN votes on them, I have not yet voted on this one yet)
 
It's not a competition proposal, since it has no "either-or" clause.

Actually, if both proposal will get implemented, both ripple ledger and dash would win. That's why "coopetiion": both proposals are competing for the limited budget, yet implementation of both proposals would bring more benefit for the community. First thing that comes to mind: GateHub is a marketing/sales/onramp channel for (claimed, I've not personally verified it) 100k users, but they are closed source. This proposal gives access to zero existing users, but has more potential since it provides an open source solution.

Given both will be implemented, anyone would be able to set up an open, free, ripple gateway and get a tap on gatehub's users via Ripple's DEX.
 
First thing that comes to mind: GateHub is a marketing/sales/onramp channel for (claimed, I've not personally verified it) 100k users
Click to expand...
I have my doubt's as well about their claims.

Given both will be implemented, anyone would be able to set up an open, free, ripple gateway and get a tap on gatehub's users via Ripple's DEX.
Click to expand...

Nope, heavily disagree DASH should build it's own version of Gatehub's exchange/gateway.

Would you be able to do that ?
 
The philosofers coin said:
Would you be able to do that ?
Click to expand...
I think that's what he is planning. He wants to build an open source software so anyone can run such gateway.
Akhavr said in his first post:
Working gateway with no KYC as a proof-of-concept. Further gateway operation might be funded either from fees or by DASH network (a separate proposal).
Click to expand...
So I am assuming that, yes, he wants to run such node, either with fees or without fees but subsidised by Masternodes.
 
The philosofers coin said:
Nope, heavily disagree DASH should build it's own version of Gatehub's exchange/gateway.

Would you be able to do that ?
Click to expand...

Not quite like theirs. More open, versative and without KYC and AML. If that would require go dark (on Tor), it will go dark :)

And it all would be open source.

If anyone would like to use the code to establish regulated gateway - I would welcome it.
 
TheSingleton said:
@akhavr Hey got an update on how things are going?
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm a bit stuck, since I can put much less of my own time than I've expected.

Here's the screencast status from month ago. https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ge72hwllupzjiv/Dash-Ripple Gateway Report 2017.06.15.mp4?dl=0 I'm trying to push team harder, but ICO project sucked anyone likely to be competent from the market (including from 42 Coffee Cups team).

Hopefully soon I'll be able to upload another screencast report, presenting a version, operating on the testnet.
 
akhavr said:
Short update.

Due to an unfortunate course of events (mostly personal, I've communicated them with @tungfa ), this project is got severely delayed.

Yet,
  1. I will definitely deliver it before the end of the year
  2. Until the delivery, funds didn't, aren't, and wouldn't move as anyone can check on https://explorer.dash.org/address/Xb5aFKNfx6itExgSsq29bpzi1ujXnHDS3n
Feel free to ask questions.
Click to expand...

yes can confirm
i have been in touch with akhavr multi times reg this
he asked me to hold / escrow the coins (transparency)
i needed to refuse (to not be personal involved with proposals) so i am happy (as agreed) he posted the explorer address and we can all see coins are save and untouched
the deal is 2-3 month and this should be sorted / deliver
 
akhavr said:
Short update.

Due to an unfortunate course of events (mostly personal, I've communicated them with @tungfa ), this project is got severely delayed.

Yet,
  1. I will definitely deliver it before the end of the year
  2. Until the delivery, funds didn't, aren't, and wouldn't move as anyone can check on https://explorer.dash.org/address/Xb5aFKNfx6itExgSsq29bpzi1ujXnHDS3n
Feel free to ask questions.
Click to expand...
Oh no! Not again! Not another lamassu! Not another developer's wife got pregnant!

Dash community doesnt care about your personal events.
If you are unable to deliver the project, then the money should be given to the one who will be capable to deliver this open source project.
Of course whatever it will be delivered should meet the specifications you set, and your opinion should be heard about it.

Unfortunately all the above require a governance decision to be taken by the masternodes, for this and for any other project in the futture.
But governance questions are expensive, and nobody will ask a question like this to the masternodes in order to create a law.
Because stupids and spies bought masternodes in order to stop governance.

I think this will be my next preproposal
 
Last edited:
This is part of why we need to move away from the pay and pray and more towards legal contracts with a legal entity. I'm not questioning the proposer's intentions at this point, but in most other professional environments, the employer has much more leverage in situations like this than the masternode network currently has.
 
TroyDASH said:
This is part of why we need to move away from the pay and pray and more towards legal contracts with a legal entity.
Click to expand...

Won't work in my case. By limiting to legal contracts with a legal entities you're severely limiting the available project options.
 
akhavr said:
Won't work in my case. By limiting to legal contracts with a legal entities you're severely limiting the available project options.
Click to expand...
.
What do you mean by that? It sounds to me like it would be limited to only good, agreeable options...
 
TroyDASH said:
.
What do you mean by that? It sounds to me like it would be limited to only good, agreeable options...
Click to expand...

No. You would be limited only by projects, that are capable of registering a legal entity in an established regulated environment of first world countries.
 
akhavr said:
No. You would be limited only by projects, that are capable of registering a legal entity in an established regulated environment of first world countries.
Click to expand...

What places are you referring to where individuals can't even have contractual agreements? As a general rule I don't think it is a good idea to make agreements where all the money is paid up front for a service, with no recourse at all if the service is not delivered or not delivered on time. The way that this is handled may be different from country to country but I think in most cases there should be something..
 
TroyDASH said:
What places are you referring to where individuals can't even have contractual agreements?
Click to expand...

Enforceable agreements? Through litigation? ;)

TroyDASH said:
As a general rule I don't think it is a good idea to make agreements where all the money is paid up front for a service, with no recourse at all if the service is not delivered or not delivered on time. The way that this is handled may be different from country to country but I think in most cases there should be something..
Click to expand...

Escrow?
 
TroyDASH said:
Yes, exactly. The escrow agent does not even have to be in the same jurisdiction. An enforceable contract can govern the release of funds
Click to expand...

Then you don't need a legal entity - just another escrow parties on a multisig address.
 
akhavr said:
Then you don't need a legal entity - just another escrow parties on a multisig address.
Click to expand...

Multisig could be used but even if you use multisig, a contract can bind the escrow party to govern when they can sign to release the funds,...etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top