Proxy: fav - Journal

[abit]

How about cass's worker proposal, and why?

[fav]

Committee member bitcrab supported and encouraged an exchange to break the statu quo on not voting with user funds https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20920.0.html

I recommend to not vote for him.

[fav]

#8     refund-100k-2 (1.14.24) - approved
#9     refund-100k-1 (1.14.23) - approved
#14    refund-100k-3 (1.14.25) - rejected
#15    refund-100k-4 (1.14.26) - rejected

#10    burn-100k-1 (1.14.19) - approved
#11    burn-100k-4 (1.14.22) - rejected
#12    burn-100k-2 (1.14.20) - approved
#13    burn-100k-3 (1.14.21) - rejected

[tonyk]

Trust me, tonyk - I learned my thing what it means to believe someone to what he/she is saying regarding bitshares. I always presumed that committee members are trusted community members and have no desire to manipulate - I've proven wrong, and the committee guidelines attempt to fix that so it cannot happen again.

The last vote you've just cast  shows you have not...  :(

Last time it was bitcrab, this time it was bm...what difference does it make, in your mind, who is feeding the misleading information?

[abit]

I'll vote for a refund worker if it's setup and handled by the committee and if there's a proposal.

Good point.

[fav]

I'll vote for a refund worker if it's setup and handled by the committee and if there's a proposal.

[abit]

Technically, the refund400k is

Code Select Expand


>>> get_object 1.14.0
get_object 1.14.0
[{
    "id": "1.14.0",
    "worker_account": "1.2.90742",
    "work_begin_date": "2015-10-20T17:30:00",
    "work_end_date": "2035-12-31T00:00:00",
    "daily_pay": "40000000000",
    "worker": [
      0,{
        "total_burned": "1742631985322"
      }
    ],
    "vote_for": "2:65",
    "vote_against": "2:66",
    "total_votes_for": "21716971826670",
    "total_votes_against": "7192913280182",
    "name": "refund400k",
    "url": ""
  }
]

Looks like the fund to this worker is "burned".

[xeroc]

the refund worker is used to set a lower threashold for the required approval to get any funding as a worker ..

Workers are paid from the top worker down until either the daily available funds have been totally used .. or the refund worker is hit that refunds all of the restin in daily pay back to the reserve pool ..
Having alot of votes for the refund worker means that getting an actively paying worker is more difficult as you need (at least) more votes then the refund worker

[tonyk]

@fav How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".

how I understand it:

the current worker is a "poll" that's used to see if we want this feature.
the $300 go to xeroc for maintining the proposal.

now don't ask me why CNX wants us to pay someone to maintain a proposal, no idea. won't vote for this as it's overly complicated in my opinion.

So you are voting AGAINST having the Stealth GUI implemented?

I'm not voting in this poll as I'm not okay with the fine print.

as for stealth in general - I don't see it as a priority right now, however, if we get it for free thanks to onceuponatime, they can go for it.

I would suggest not withholding your vote for the refund worker  based on technicality... if you cast your vote for it now, the stealth will be out at least temporarily.

[fav]

@fav How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".

how I understand it:

the current worker is a "poll" that's used to see if we want this feature.
the $300 go to xeroc for maintining the proposal.

now don't ask me why CNX wants us to pay someone to maintain a proposal, no idea. won't vote for this as it's overly complicated in my opinion.

So you are voting AGAINST having the Stealth GUI implemented?

I'm not voting in this poll as I'm not okay with the fine print.

as for stealth in general - I don't see it as a priority right now, however, if we get it for free thanks to onceuponatime, they can go for it.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

@fav How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".

how I understand it:

the current worker is a "poll" that's used to see if we want this feature.
the $300 go to xeroc for maintining the proposal.

now don't ask me why CNX wants us to pay someone to maintain a proposal, no idea. won't vote for this as it's overly complicated in my opinion.

So you are voting AGAINST having the Stealth GUI implemented?

[fav]

@fav How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".

how I understand it:

the current worker is a "poll" that's used to see if we want this feature.
the $300 go to xeroc for maintining the proposal.

now don't ask me why CNX wants us to pay someone to maintain a proposal, no idea. won't vote for this as it's overly complicated in my opinion.

[abit]

@fav How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".

[abit]

@fav I wonder why you vote against worker refund400k (1.4.0)?
And @mindphlux ?

refund400k - intentional. there's no official written proposal or explanation on it - the bare minimum in my opinion.

mindphlux - thanks for pointing that out, clearly not intentional

edti: seems like @mindphlux has no active worker

I meant @mindphlux is also voting against that refund400K proposal.

@xeroc would you please draft a document for the refund400k proposal? Or better help committee-account to create a refund proposal to replace the current one? OK let's move this discussion to worker proposal board.

[fav]

@fav I wonder why you vote against worker refund400k (1.4.0)?
And @mindphlux ?

refund400k - intentional. there's no official written proposal or explanation on it - the bare minimum in my opinion.

mindphlux - thanks for pointing that out, clearly not intentional

edti: seems like @mindphlux has no active worker