This is our proposal:
https://wiki.unsystem.net/index.php/DarkWallet/Overview

These are our priorities:
https://wiki.unsystem.net/index.php/DarkWallet#Priorities

We're under-resourced, and making a multi-currency wallet that
integrates new protocol layers is not serving the people who crowd
funded us. There are several protocol layer projects now all competing:
Colored Coins, MasterCoin, BitShares, Freimarket, Ethereum and others. I
don't think it's wise to spend our time committing to VHS or Betamax
when it's not clear what happens and *none* of these technologies are
production ready. We have to complete the privacy and blockchain
scalability tools and this is not easy work. It's extremely difficult
and more and more questions keep opening up.

Have you seen Ethereum?

http://ethereum.org/ethereum.html

The project is active and very interesting. They need resources, and
would be great if you could work together.

My main gripe with BitShares is that it adds the missing features to
Bitcoin as extensions rather than looking what can be enabled in Bitcoin
to make these features a possibility (which is what the Freimarket guys
did). Ethereum is much more interesting than the other protocol layers
because it's creating a generic computing platform with a consensus on
the results. You can do all of MC, BS, FM, ... whatever protocol layer
and much much more with Ethereum.

vitalik is the author.

On 01/01/14 21:14, Daniel Larimer wrote:
> From the perspective of the wallet, it would be multi-currency and focus
> almost entirely on browser side management of keys. The browser would
> simply fetch the latest transactions, scan them, update balances, and
> enabling the building of transactions. The time and effort involved on
> the wallet side would actually be very minimal once you have the
> infrastructure for a Bitcoin wallet.
>
> We are building a separate block explorer that will display a live feed
> of market conditions so the wallet wouldn't have to focus on building
> the charts.
>
> Bottom line, I don't think that it would require much risk to Dark
> Wallet's current design. There are about 8 'output types' that would
> need to be managed, every transfer has a unit, and otherwise very
> similar logic to a bitcoin wallet.
>
> I haven't looked at the web-based wallets, but CryptoKit seems to be the
> biggest competitor to DarkWallet.
>
> Anyone who has doubts about BitShares should schedule a Skype call with
> me. The white paper needs to be refreshed to add clearer explanations.
>
> You all have a lot of talent and I would like to maximize the benefit we
> can give society by working together.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 1, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Thomas Hartman <thomashartman1@???
> <mailto:thomashartman1@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> I confess I don't follow how bitshares will work although I read the
>> whitepaper. In other words I have some doubts.
>>
>> But I'll give BitShares the benefit of the doubt for the purposes of
>> this response and instead ask: what sort of architecture would be most
>> cobducive to what you propose?
>>
>> In other words, what should the components be, and where should the
>> interfaces be, to promote maximal opportunities for collaboration
>> while minimizing risk that one or both projects could fail?
>>
>> Personally I'm taking a close look at sx tool with a view to
>> refactoring it and plugging it into other codedbases I'm working on. I
>> haven't taken a close look at darkwallet yet but I'm curious what you
>> think with fresh beginner mind hat on.
>>
>> On Jan 1, 2014 11:58 AM, "Daniel Larimer"
>> <dlarimer@???
>> <mailto:dlarimer@invictus-innovations.com>> wrote:
>>

>>     All,
>>        I would like to make a proposal that we combine your work on
>>     the Dark Wallet with my work on BitShares.  The result would be a
>>     browser-based client that enables everyone to buy/sell/short and
>>     deal in options all manner of currencies.

>>

>>        I am prepared to fund such an effort if we can agree on some
>>     basic specs and costs.

>>

>>        I think we would all make a lot more progress by working
>>     together if possible.

>>

>>        What do you think?

>>

>>     Dan
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net <http://unsystem.net/>
>>     https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem

>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>