The LTB Network Forum

Technical Question: Should the website hold LTBcoin balances for users?

Back to Project Development

Comments

• rotalumis

  

  Offline
  Posts: 285
  1. The LTB network will initially cover the fees for transfers above a certain threshold, while users can send the fee as BTC if they want their withdrawal to happen right away.
     
     5. Eventually, when LTBCOIN has actual value, the fee can be automatically deducted from that balance, if necessary.
     
  Posted on May 13, 2014 at 8:16 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• deweller

  

  Offline
  Posts: 347
  Location: Nashville, TN

  We differ slightly on our approach to #4-5.
  I think the fees should be deducted in LTBc on withdrawal from the very launch.
  I say let's just have faith that LTBc will have value eventually, so if we take the fee payment in LTBc in the beginning it will pay off for the network in the long run.
  

  Posted on May 13, 2014 at 8:25 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• rotalumis

  

  Offline
  Posts: 285

  Gotcha! And agreed. We could value LTBcoin initially based on the value we reward a piece of content with.
  

  Posted on May 13, 2014 at 8:46 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• mmanvil74

  

  Offline
  Posts: 59
  Location: Canada

  As long as we have the possibility to do "off blockchain" transactions/transfers within the LTB system, without needing CounterParty, nor wait for any confirmations, LTBcoin will be more user friendly and more enjoyable to use generally.  
  I think we should let people decide when to make a withdrawal.  Paranoid people might want every cent of their LTBc in cold storage.  Others (like me) will be fine with up to $100 worth of LTBc just sitting on the system so I can use it to tip, buy sponsorships, etc without having to deal with CounterParty (or pay the associated fees).  
  Using my case as an example, if my account exceeds $150 worth of LTBc I might go through the effort of withdrawing the surplus $50 to my "on chain" Counterwallet, but the less I have to do that, the better.  If LTB gets goxed and I lose my $100 that's my loss, oh well. Others might have a different threshold.  I'd be worried if there was an automated system to "sweep" the coins out after a certain balance, that feature might get hacked and they would get swept by a malicious actor.  But again, I am no dev so not sure which aspects are easier or more difficult to secure.

  Posted on May 13, 2014 at 9:26 PM
  Permalink
  1 like
• deweller

  

  Offline
  Posts: 347
  Location: Nashville, TN

  I agree that off blockchain transactions would be more useful in almost every case involving the network itself (tipping, buying ads, promoting content).
  And I agree that I would keep $100 of LTBc in my account and count that as an acceptable risk for the convenience.
  But if the Network is storing a large aggregate amount of LTBc across many accounts, then it becomes an attractive target for hackers.  We would need to take security beyond the level of a typical content publishing platform.  And that is not trivial.
  
  I'm so torn!  There are advantages to both approaches.
  

  Posted on May 13, 2014 at 9:37 PM
  Last Edited: May 13, 2014 at 9:37 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• rotalumis

  

  Offline
  Posts: 285

  Would it be feasible to use any kind of two-factor authentication for withdrawals? I have no idea about the costs involved.
  

  Posted on May 13, 2014 at 10:15 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• adam

  

  Offline
  Posts: 1980
  Location: California, USA

  Hi guys, great discussion - I am very concerned about our liability if we are the ones holding funds.  I like the threshold idea where amounts above the  "I'm comfortable against hacking risk" are transferred to a pre-set cold wallet, and as I've mentioned I like the idea of running a counterwallet installation so the hot wallet is analagous to just that, a wallet with a little cash in it and the overflow cold storage is the vault.
  I think it might be better to partner with someone like http://bitcredits.io to do this, they would manage the security at least at first and have already poked me several times about wanting to be involved with the LTBCOIN project in nearly exactly this way.  @deweller I'll make introductions between you and alex bourget

  Posted on May 13, 2014 at 11:47 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• adam

  

  Offline
  Posts: 1980
  Location: California, USA

  So to summarize I think we should do a hot wallet using a partner like bitcredits or an open source equivilent and have user-customizable "automatic cold storage" thresholds.
  Regarding fees, I agree LTBCOIN is probably desirable at market rate.

  Posted on May 13, 2014 at 11:49 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• rotalumis

  

  Offline
  Posts: 285

  Shouldn't we be looking at the larger payment processors like BitPay and Coinbase too?
  
  The biggest concern about working with a partner becomes their security and procedures and Andreas has already vouched for Coinbase. Smaller partners could turn out to be great, but are they "tried and tested"?
  

  Posted on May 14, 2014 at 8:19 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• rotalumis

  

  Offline
  Posts: 285

  And @Adam, I asked xnova:
  Will it be possible to do "sendmany" style transactions with Counterparty at some point in the future?  That would help save on fees when doing mass payouts to users who have earned a certain threshold of LTBCOIN.

  and he said you had been discussing that with Adam (PhantomPhreak) but was not sure where that got left off. Any news?
  

  Posted on May 14, 2014 at 8:25 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes

Post Reply