Graphene GUI testing and feedback

[Xeldal]

[EstefanTT]

It seems that the "VISIT WEBSITE" link in th e deposit tab of metaexchange and blocktrades is the same. Both lead to blocktrades.

Another thing I notice, I explained it in the telegram chat but it's probably better in here :

When you got to the page to create a asset and click on create an asset, you are stuck on this asset creation page, you can't go back anywhere. If you create or not the asset doesn't change the fact that any button of the client is responding except for the ones to do the asset. So you can't go back to overview or trade or other tabs.

[liondani]

i personally think the prefixes has to been in the wallet displayed and when you make it METAEX.BTC and different colors like suggested could also help.

 

METAEX.BTC

[Shentist]

Your worry about not being able to access your assets is completely unreasonable and unfounded, all we're talking about here is limiting the default market pairs as well as the gateway providers.

i compared to the MAKER wallet and in their wallet i cannot recieve or send other tokens as MKR, DAI and OPEN assets, because this functions are not included at all.

Not sure what you mean by that.

in the maker wallet i cannot recieve or send BTS

Through an integrated gateway no, they decided to limit the gateways. But as far as I can tell the Transfer function is unchanged, and if you have BTS in your account you will be able to use it however you like.

ah, ok. then i missunderstand the "send" button. It shows no options, because i have no funds in this wallet. ok, my bad. then it is everything fine. speaks nothing with the default pairs to be some chosen pairs. maybe you can look some post above i made suggestions how we could maybe make different pairs clearer.

i personally think the prefixes has to been in the wallet displayed and when you make it METAEX.BTC and different colors like suggested could also help.

[svk]

Your worry about not being able to access your assets is completely unreasonable and unfounded, all we're talking about here is limiting the default market pairs as well as the gateway providers.

i compared to the MAKER wallet and in their wallet i cannot recieve or send other tokens as MKR, DAI and OPEN assets, because this functions are not included at all.

Not sure what you mean by that.

in the maker wallet i cannot recieve or send BTS

Through an integrated gateway no, they decided to limit the gateways. But as far as I can tell the Transfer function is unchanged, and if you have BTS in your account you will be able to use it however you like.

[Shentist]

Your worry about not being able to access your assets is completely unreasonable and unfounded, all we're talking about here is limiting the default market pairs as well as the gateway providers.

i compared to the MAKER wallet and in their wallet i cannot recieve or send other tokens as MKR, DAI and OPEN assets, because this functions are not included at all.

Not sure what you mean by that.

in the maker wallet i cannot recieve or send BTS

[svk]

Your worry about not being able to access your assets is completely unreasonable and unfounded, all we're talking about here is limiting the default market pairs as well as the gateway providers.

i compared to the MAKER wallet and in their wallet i cannot recieve or send other tokens as MKR, DAI and OPEN assets, because this functions are not included at all.

Not sure what you mean by that.

[Shentist]

Your worry about not being able to access your assets is completely unreasonable and unfounded, all we're talking about here is limiting the default market pairs as well as the gateway providers.

i compared to the MAKER wallet and in their wallet i cannot recieve or send other tokens as MKR, DAI and OPEN assets, because this functions are not included at all.

[svk]

I'll be making the asset names clickable in the next update so you can keep the full names if you prefer. It was a change requested by the Maker team and it made sense to me to apply it for Openledger as well. I doubt there are many people actually trading the EUR:EUR* pairs etc but I can understand that it's confusing for those few of you who do, but having a whole mess of UIAs makes little sense to newcomers so the more it looks like the actual asset the better imo.

In the end I reckon we should remove all non-OPEN assets from Openledger (default pairs) and even the bridges and gateways. They'll all be available in the light client but Openledger should prioritize their own assets in their hosted wallet.

Right, you can always count on members of this community to overreact and proclaim gloom and doom at the slightest thing...

My suggestions for openledger were just that, suggestions! Yes I said "we" but that doesn't mean I would do it myself, nor that it absolutely will be done. You may notice that I never made any commits to the OL repo, that's handled by Valentine.. You can't deny that it would make sense for Openledger to prioritize their own offerings though?? In the end it's up to Ronny to decide that though.

There's also a wallet at bitshares.org/wallet which should remain a standard wallet offering the full complexity and all gateway providers, same for the light client. Again, suggestions, not a roadmap...

Sometimes I wonder why I bother tbh..

@svk

if you read your original post carefully and assume that you don't know how things are working in the "innercircle" you have to admit, that your post left the
impression, that you directly decide about the features. From this perspective it is a major statement.

I am worried i woke one day up and i can't access anymore my assets, because someone decided to do something, without public discussion.

So my quesion is not answered "where can i find the discussion about removing the Prefixes for UIAs in the wallet?" After your post i assume there is
not such a discussion and this leads me to some major points here.

We have a committe who votes on fees etc. but we just pay for the development of a wallet, but in the end the community has nothing to say what should
be done or not done in the official repo. This is something to discuss. I personal have the feeling that most of the developers are not using the webwallet on
a daily basis for trading.

At the moment Openledger is treated as BitShares, so if the strategy of the Openledger is changing i see no reason why every major button on bitshares.org leads to
the openledger wallet and not to a wallet hosted by the community.

cheers

Well most of the time I do decide, because I'm the only one actually working on the GUI, and if I had to vet every decision I'd never get anywhere. Your worry about not being able to access your assets is completely unreasonable and unfounded, all we're talking about here is limiting the default market pairs as well as the gateway providers. You'd still be able to search for and add any market pairs you like. Some of those changes were mentioned here for example: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21997.0.html

I'm pretty sure I've seen several people asking for a way to hide the prefixes for gateway assets before, but seeing how the search function on this forum is useless I don't wanna waste my time looking for it.

[Shentist]

I'll be making the asset names clickable in the next update so you can keep the full names if you prefer. It was a change requested by the Maker team and it made sense to me to apply it for Openledger as well. I doubt there are many people actually trading the EUR:EUR* pairs etc but I can understand that it's confusing for those few of you who do, but having a whole mess of UIAs makes little sense to newcomers so the more it looks like the actual asset the better imo.

In the end I reckon we should remove all non-OPEN assets from Openledger (default pairs) and even the bridges and gateways. They'll all be available in the light client but Openledger should prioritize their own assets in their hosted wallet.

Right, you can always count on members of this community to overreact and proclaim gloom and doom at the slightest thing...

My suggestions for openledger were just that, suggestions! Yes I said "we" but that doesn't mean I would do it myself, nor that it absolutely will be done. You may notice that I never made any commits to the OL repo, that's handled by Valentine.. You can't deny that it would make sense for Openledger to prioritize their own offerings though?? In the end it's up to Ronny to decide that though.

There's also a wallet at bitshares.org/wallet which should remain a standard wallet offering the full complexity and all gateway providers, same for the light client. Again, suggestions, not a roadmap...

Sometimes I wonder why I bother tbh..

@svk

if you read your original post carefully and assume that you don't know how things are working in the "innercircle" you have to admit, that your post left the
impression, that you directly decide about the features. From this perspective it is a major statement.

I am worried i woke one day up and i can't access anymore my assets, because someone decided to do something, without public discussion.

So my quesion is not answered "where can i find the discussion about removing the Prefixes for UIAs in the wallet?" After your post i assume there is
not such a discussion and this leads me to some major points here.

We have a committe who votes on fees etc. but we just pay for the development of a wallet, but in the end the community has nothing to say what should
be done or not done in the official repo. This is something to discuss. I personal have the feeling that most of the developers are not using the webwallet on
a daily basis for trading.

At the moment Openledger is treated as BitShares, so if the strategy of the Openledger is changing i see no reason why every major button on bitshares.org leads to
the openledger wallet and not to a wallet hosted by the community.

cheers

[svk]

Right, you can always count on members of this community to overreact and proclaim gloom and doom at the slightest thing...

My suggestions for openledger were just that, suggestions! Yes I said "we" but that doesn't mean I would do it myself, nor that it absolutely will be done. You may notice that I never made any commits to the OL repo, that's handled by Valentine.. You can't deny that it would make sense for Openledger to prioritize their own offerings though?? In the end it's up to Ronny to decide that though.

There's also a wallet at bitshares.org/wallet which should remain a standard wallet offering the full complexity and all gateway providers, same for the light client. Again, suggestions, not a roadmap...

Sometimes I wonder why I bother tbh..

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

In the end I reckon we should remove all non-OPEN assets from Openledger (default pairs) and even the bridges and gateways. They'll all be available in the light client but Openledger should prioritize their own assets in their hosted wallet.

So let me see if I get it right.

BTS pays a worker  for the GUI development... this development 'improves' the wallet by removing non-OPEN assets from the wallet (aka reducing the available choices to customer-owners-BTS-holders).... and this is all done so OL's products are not confused with the products of the competitors.. [products hidden include the BTS flagship product - the bitAssets -as well, isn't it]
In this whole thing OL pays nothing because?... ok, all right, it is the leading wallet for BTS....

Nothing personal svk, I just think this flashes out how the whole worker system is screwed in far more ways than one.... and @BunkerChain Labs  I see how you see the system being attacked by the so called "anti-dilutionalists"... if you are able to see the trueth regardless of your own agenda/bias... the above is an example  how it is attacked by full-on-No-checks-dilutionalists  as well.
Things/stuff is very rarely black or white...

I agree with you @tonyk ... a move like that is effectively removes what is supposed to be a 'network effect' that is supposed to encourage others to join the ecosystem. If there is no shared space for newcomers coming in the 'default' channel to Bitshares, then this is private.. and shouldn't be supported by a Worker or Bitshares.

What is the value proposition of the network effect if they are all going to be hidden from sight? Why would a business bother attempting to contribute to OpenLedger development in this kind of situation?

There would be less confusion if there was more information on what people are using... but of all the development of the wallet this somehow has taken a backseat to rearrangements and stars.

I understand with svks work he is designing and coming up with ways to make the wallet better that doesn't require constant input from the community... but this kind of change really requires feedback.

If this change happens then Ronny should be paying svks development wages and not Bitshares.

[tonyk]

In the end I reckon we should remove all non-OPEN assets from Openledger (default pairs) and even the bridges and gateways. They'll all be available in the light client but Openledger should prioritize their own assets in their hosted wallet.

So let me see if I get it right.

BTS pays a worker  for the GUI development... this development 'improves' the wallet by removing non-OPEN assets from the wallet (aka reducing the available choices to customer-owners-BTS-holders).... and this is all done so OL's products are not confused with the products of the competitors.. [products hidden include the BTS flagship product - the bitAssets -as well, isn't it]
In this whole thing OL pays nothing because?... ok, all right, it is the leading wallet for BTS....

Nothing personal svk, I just think this flashes out how the whole worker system is screwed in far more ways than one.... and @BunkerChain Labs  I see how you see the system being attacked by the so called "anti-dilutionalists"... if you are able to see the trueth regardless of your own agenda/bias... the above is an example  how it is attacked by full-on-No-checks-dilutionalists  as well.
Things/stuff is very rarely black or white...

[Shentist]

I'll be making the asset names clickable in the next update so you can keep the full names if you prefer. It was a change requested by the Maker team and it made sense to me to apply it for Openledger as well. I doubt there are many people actually trading the EUR:EUR* pairs etc but I can understand that it's confusing for those few of you who do, but having a whole mess of UIAs makes little sense to newcomers so the more it looks like the actual asset the better imo.

In the end I reckon we should remove all non-OPEN assets from Openledger (default pairs) and even the bridges and gateways. They'll all be available in the light client but Openledger should prioritize their own assets in their hosted wallet.

if this is planed, pls remove openledger as the default wallet on the offical website.

[svk]

I'll be making the asset names clickable in the next update so you can keep the full names if you prefer. It was a change requested by the Maker team and it made sense to me to apply it for Openledger as well. I doubt there are many people actually trading the EUR:EUR* pairs etc but I can understand that it's confusing for those few of you who do, but having a whole mess of UIAs makes little sense to newcomers so the more it looks like the actual asset the better imo.

In the end I reckon we should remove all non-OPEN assets from Openledger (default pairs) and even the bridges and gateways. They'll all be available in the light client but Openledger should prioritize their own assets in their hosted wallet.