IMO at the current scale of Hive, witnesses doing multisig is likely to be unwieldy. The witness set changes, which means the multisig would need to be updated. And getting ahold of witnesses to sign off on spending the BTC during rapidly changing market conditions (which is probably when you want it) is likely to be challenging. Some of this could be improved with software, but developing and auditing software on a limited budget (and a larger budget is unlikely to make much sense for a $1 million fund) is likely to be more risky than just doing it some other way.
I would just recruit 3-5 trusted community members for the proposal.
This actually makes a lot of sense. Sure it is always nice to try and devise every layer as decentralized. However, there are certain aspects that, for practicality reasons, require some form of centralized management.
A handful of trustworthy vested members handling this is not a vulnerability or too much of a threat.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
how is this better then luna? cause it is people we trust not people they trust?
if the btc is really going to cause that much of an issue. multisig seems to be a mess on btc. i'd rather have a solution without it if it isn't solvable.
Taproot (soft fork) maybe the solution here but i haven't done enough research into it yet to be sure.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Would you admit this post didn’t age well?
Could those 3 to 5 people be rotated through the witness list autonomously?
Once 5 or more have signed the transaction it processes?
If you want to replace signers of a Bitcoin multisig you need to move the coins (potentially $1 million worth in this case) to a new address with a new multisig. To automate this requires some sort of hot wallet software, and which all of the signers would need to have online. This is not trivial and presents significant risk. It would need to be very carefully developed and audited.
Also trading between BTC and HIVE/HBD has to be done somehow, probably through an exchange (which means someone probably has to KYC and interface with the exchange) or perhaps DeFi (adding additional issues, probably including more signers/wallets, and the fact that all Hive DeFi solutions involve a centralized custodian afaik, so further trust required).
If this is a theoretical discussion all sorts of things "could" be done, but if the goal is to actually accomplish something, grasping at challenging decentralization problems when you can get by with something reasonable to accomplish the function is just a huge blocker.
Seems needlessly complicated.
I'm not sure that we can attract enough investment to make it worthwhile.
If we burn half the hive, 200m, hive's price would have to moonshot to get us anywhere near the amounts being discussed, and absent an immediate moonshot we are limited in what we can expect to actually create in hbd.
I'd like to see some projected curves.
The more converted before the price appreciation, the less total hbd we end up with?
Wouldn't burning half the hive also halve what the witnesses and the pool gets?
In HIVE it would but not in value if the price of HIVE went up.
Noted