First Organized Mutually Agreed Proposal

[Akado]

I admit I didn't understand the first proposal so I didnt give any input on it. But I would support that. Community probably just doesn't think it's worth the money asked? Maybe if Dan proposed the first one again with a different wording and in more detail people could understand it (asssuming it was not just me).

Unless that proposal also meant lowering fees? Or would just work on top of already existing fees?

The proposal tried to achieve a differentiation between p2p transfers and user-to-merchant transfers.

IIRC
The goal was to allow p2p transfers to have 0/low fee while keeping the user to merchant transfers with higher fee (the user would not see any fee, it would be on merchant side, tempting him to became a lifetime member to vest the fees from the users who purchase from him)

I have to say that I was fine with low or even 0 p2p transfer fee, since if I imagine bitshares used by the masses, I see the users utilizing it more for trades or for purchase from merchant than for moving money around from friends to friends...

In case of network spamming (high TPS in the last hour) the p2p fee would be higher (it would not be refunded to the user)

Edit: anyway the fees involved would be changeable by the committee as usual

It's a matter of knowing if P2P transactions or using merchants (PSPs, stores, exchanges, etc) are higher.

If merchants provide more transactions, it might be sustainable. If they don't, it isn't.

Thanks for the explanation.

[Bhuz]

I admit I didn't understand the first proposal so I didnt give any input on it. But I would support that. Community probably just doesn't think it's worth the money asked? Maybe if Dan proposed the first one again with a different wording and in more detail people could understand it (asssuming it was not just me).

Unless that proposal also meant lowering fees? Or would just work on top of already existing fees?

The proposal tried to achieve a differentiation between p2p transfers and user-to-merchant transfers.

IIRC
The goal was to allow p2p transfers to have 0/low fee while keeping the user to merchant transfers with higher fee (the user would not see any fee, it would be on merchant side, tempting him to became a lifetime member to vest the fees from the users who purchase from him)

I have to say that I was fine with low or even 0 p2p transfer fee, since if I imagine bitshares used by the masses, I see the users utilizing it more for trades or for purchase from merchant than for moving money around from friends to friends...

In case of network spamming (high TPS in the last hour) the p2p fee would be higher (it would not be refunded to the user)

Edit: anyway the fees involved would be changeable by the committee as usual

[Akado]

Why cant we have it like Ripple? I dont know what algorithm/tech they use but https://ripple.com/build/transaction-cost/

The current transaction cost required by the network is typically 0.01 XRP (10,000 drops), although it sometimes increases due to network load.

I mean, they're costumers are different than ours I believe, they serve a different purpose like providing services for big FI. But do you think users wouldn't like that? It also depends on how it would be implemented.

Once again, that was basically what the #1 bm's proposal could do. The one that the community made him to retract.

I admit I didn't understand the first proposal so I didnt give any input on it. But I would support that. Community probably just doesn't think it's worth the money asked? Maybe if Dan proposed the first one again with a different wording and in more detail people could understand it (asssuming it was not just me).

Unless that proposal also meant lowering fees? Or would just work on top of already existing fees?

[bitcrab]

I for one feel like a proud papa to see my baby grow up and start working without me.

I think that it is great that these changes can be made without me.  I will sit this round out because I would rather prove things are decentralized than overrule the committee decisions with my influence.

glad to see what you say BM.

actually Bitshaes is always blamed as "centralized", in China users often feel unsafe because of the uncontrolled rule change,  I am often asked: "I heard that if BM decide to do a hard fork, he can do that in several hours with just writing a post in forum, is that true?" and I can only answer :"that's not true,  but seems BM is really too powerful, he is both Angel and Ghost, community are trying to lock the Ghost part."

I tried to build the committee because I also suffered from the unexpected rule change, below pic is what happened to my account at 16th, Oct, my CDP is margin called because of the unexpected collateral ratio chage, and this is not all.


we need change, we need hard fork, and we need the upgrade like 1.0 to 2.0. however we need all these changes under good control, I am glad to see that we now have tools such as committee and work proposal for community to participate the change management.

I hope sometime later when someone ask me the same question as above, I can say:"No, Bitshares is definitely decentralized, BM is the chief scientist of Bitshares, and he keep on proposing creatively but all the proposal need to be approved by the community before implementation."

let's move the decentralization process ahead.

do you agree with me? 

[Bhuz]

Why cant we have it like Ripple? I dont know what algorithm/tech they use but https://ripple.com/build/transaction-cost/

The current transaction cost required by the network is typically 0.01 XRP (10,000 drops), although it sometimes increases due to network load.

I mean, they're costumers are different than ours I believe, they serve a different purpose like providing services for big FI. But do you think users wouldn't like that? It also depends on how it would be implemented.

Once again, that was basically what the #1 bm's proposal could do. The one that the community made him to retract.

[Akado]

Why cant we have it like Ripple? I dont know what algorithm/tech they use but https://ripple.com/build/transaction-cost/

The current transaction cost required by the network is typically 0.01 XRP (10,000 drops), although it sometimes increases due to network load.

I mean, they're costumers are different than ours I believe, they serve a different purpose like providing services for big FI. But do you think users wouldn't like that? It also depends on how it would be implemented.

[Bhuz]

@Op:
I would recommend to write a lengthy article and describe your choice for ALL fees as well as add a discussion of advantages and disadvantages ..
Putting the new fees online without proper justification will result (as we see here) and many people complaining that don't understand the difficulties of the optimization you are trying to achieve

Yes, fully agree!

This was a horrible way of doing committee work. Of course this is just a baby-DAC taking its first steps, but I would have hoped a little more mature behavior here.

I will speak for myself and not for all the committee:

I really thought, maybe naively, that another thread about fees was pretty useless since in the last week or two, we saw a huge number of threads and posts discussing the transfer fee without reaching a common goal.
I, again naively, also thought that the decision we took was not going to get much complains, because to me (and to the all committee) it is really a good starting point and a good compromise between all the discussed point of view.

At the end of the day, we listened to both parties, and we tried to please both.
-Who was complaining for lowering transfer fee (way much lower than 30 BTS), at least saw a little improvement towards that direction. They felt listened.
-Who thought that the transfer fee should be kept high (and no one asked to raise it over 40 BTS anyway) for the referrals/business side of bitshares, saw only a little decrease in their *currently* possible revenues.
On this very last point, I (and again all the committee) was&are pretty sure to not really damage/ruin any business related plan, since the decrease is not huge at all and the proposed change had fav support. And we all know that fav has put a lot in this and would never support that decision if he thought that it would ruin his business.

Anyway, the most important thing is learn from mistakes.
There was obviously a huge lack of communication on the committee part toward the community.
We learned this lesson and we will not make this mistake again.

[Samupaha]

@Op:
I would recommend to write a lengthy article and describe your choice for ALL fees as well as add a discussion of advantages and disadvantages ..
Putting the new fees online without proper justification will result (as we see here) and many people complaining that don't understand the difficulties of the optimization you are trying to achieve

Yes, fully agree!

This was a horrible way of doing committee work. Of course this is just a baby-DAC taking its first steps, but I would have hoped a little more mature behavior here.

[roadscape]

This didn't get approved right?

It was approved

[btstip]

Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...

• bytemaster: has been credited 1 FISTBUMP

Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://btstip.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!

Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20073.msg258807/topicseen.html#msg258807

Created by hybridd

[Tuck Fheman]

I for one feel like a proud papa to see my baby grow up and start working without me.

I think that it is great that these changes can be made without me.  I will sit this round out because I would rather prove things are decentralized than overrule the committee decisions with my influence.

#btstip "bytemaster" 1 FISTBUMP

[topcandle]

This didn't get approved right?

[roadscape]

I wouldn't change the scale until the vesting issue is looked at.. feels like shooting in the dark otherwise

I'd like to note that rushing to change the fee scale was in fact unnecessary, now we know it was just a faucet issue.. I was concerned we'd cause more problems by changing dozens of parameters trying to catch a bug in the dark. But nothing blew up.. so at least that's good

(And nobody has confirmed if fee_per_kbyte is subject to the scale parameter.. tho its looking like the assumption is correct)

Honestly I don't know how the committee ideally should do things and in what manner etc., so I don't really blame or fault anyone here.  (this, i think is why i didn't post earlier)  but I think we will figure it out.

I hope not to discourage anyone from continuing with their committee seat, its not a desirable position to hold but it is needed.  We just need to slow down and do things properly.  Whatever that means. 

 

[btstip]

Hey ebit, here are the results of your tips...

• bytemaster: has been credited 99 ROSE

Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://btstip.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!

Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20073.msg258576/topicseen.html#msg258576

Created by hybridd

[ebit]

 
#btstip bytemaster 99 ROSE