Author Topic: Worker Proposal Review  (Read 17969 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #75 on: November 10, 2015, 08:11:03 pm »
[member=5]bytemaster[/member], In your quest to make BitShares more like the centralized exchanges, (your  "0 fees" plan) you have proposed a solution that will once again take BitShares farther away from the centralized exchanges, by creating a "global volume" based fees system that toggles up and down at random times, depending on total global usage of the exchange. As far as I know (I might be wrong), there are no centralized exchanges that do this.

Think about it - you are talking about penalizing people for using the exchange while many other people are using it - how absurd is that? Sure, there might be a logical reason for it (as an anti-spam measure, you cannot have 0 fees without this - or so you have determined), but it will almost certainly be PERCEIVED as a random tax on users.

You can't have uncertainty in the fee schedule. It must be reliable - users must know how much they are going to pay before they initiate the transaction. We can't say "you might get this or you might get that, depending on factors beyond your control." If we do this, Mark my words, we are going to have a bunch of pissed off users every time the global volume increases. We are going to run into the same problem as we have now - people are not going to look at this in a 100% rational way.

They won't see the big picture. They will say "I assumed that I would only pay 2 cents, but a bunch of people were online and trading that day so I ended up paying 10 cents. What a ripoff. Screw this". Sure, this thought might be subconscious, and they might continue trading for awhile, but you will be hitting them where it hurts - their perception. They will have uncertainty - they will never know for certain how much fees they will be paying. In the long term, IMO this is worse than just having them pay a relatively high fixed fee (like we have right now.)

I agree that fee uncertainty is a major problem. As a decentralized exchange somethings will have to be different because we don't have a natural way to do anti-sybil like the centralized counterparts. Fees are an anti-sybil attack solution.

A major goal of BTS 2 was to remove fee uncertainty and that is why every transaction explicitly states the fee that will be paid.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline bytemaster

Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #76 on: November 10, 2015, 08:19:22 pm »
Once upon a time.......(not calling a member on the forum , just a sentence ) , there was something called "the new dilution can be vested in years" . Is that still the case ?

The blockchain supports "dilution being vested for years".

So here is a question, what is the present value of a BitShares to be delivered in 2 years?  You must discount todays BTS price by risk and time value of money. Stated another way, how much additional BTS would we have to pay to convince someone to lock up their BTS liquidity for 2 years. Stated another way, how much BTS would be required as collateral for a USD loan payable in 2 years?

If we have a price of 21M BTS payable upon delivery, then we would have to charge much more for BTS payable in 2 years and might even go out of business if we are unable to finance the work.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

jakub

  • Guest
Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #77 on: November 10, 2015, 08:24:57 pm »
#2 I can't say I understand it fully. More details needed.

#3 It's nice but low priority for me. I think we have many more important things on our plate than this, e.g. bringing all BTS functionality to the GUI level.

#4 Excellent, especially the standardized API for trading bots.

#5 Excellent, definitely needed for the BTS gateways to have such tools integrated in the GUI.

Offline Brekyrself

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #78 on: November 10, 2015, 08:26:26 pm »
Regarding proposal #1:

This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming. 
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead? 

Imo, the problem with the perception of the fees for orders is because they are currently large, but 0.1 BTS would probably be small enough that this would no longer be the case.  At 0.1 BTS, the attacker would have to pay to fill up our TPS with spam, but the fee would seem negligible to traders.  A percentage based fee for trades of 0.2%, plus a 0.1 BTS fee per order (cancelled or not), looks good to me.

I do not think that a 0.2% fee +flat 0.1 BTS would feel different to users than current crypto exchanges.

Agreed with Ander. In my opinion, 0.5 BTS for trading operation would be good (0.1 BTS for LTM).

To some extent lowering the fee to below $0.03 (BTC fees) starts to lose its anti-spam benefits. Once you lose anti-spam benefits you need to start looking into rate limiting. Once you have rate-limiting solutions you might as well take the fee to 0.

At 100 TPS sustained spam and $0.01 per transaction for LTM you end up generating $3600 per hour in revenue. I suppose that might be enough to make spamming unprofitable and unsustainable.  $0.05 for non lifetime member.

So perhaps we can get by with simply lowering most fees and avoid the rate-limiting worker proposal saving $8000 of development time. 

We will still want to have the market fees go into the referral rewards program and implement the cash-back on order cancelation.


This sounds logical to forget about #1.  #2-5  make sense, should be implemented asap, and CNX deserves to be compensated for their work.

Questions:
-What determines an issue that requires workers compared to open issues on GitHub?
-Can CNX post a road-map of issues that are included with the 2.0 launch and another road-map of features they would like to propose for workers?

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #79 on: November 10, 2015, 08:30:20 pm »


you know im not agreeing with every point made here but this guy has a point, we should consider that there are a large number of blockchain specialist groups that will charge far less than the requested funds to produce this code, not to mention audit it. we should seek other options before agreeing to this, and even then a negotiation for the rate they are asking should be had, its pretty clearly skewed.

I would point out that if CNX had produced what was promised in the first place a new worker proposal a month later would not be required... there was a large delay and nothing except the front end really improved, I'm not against funding changes, I'm just not sure if CNX is the ones to do it.

There are five pretty much independent projects on the list. There is no reason why all five contracts should go to same company. If you think that you can do any of these projects cheaper, faster and better, put your name against it. Let's vote.

Offline NotSmart

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #80 on: November 10, 2015, 08:34:26 pm »
The founder team says that they need to be paid a premium because of opportunity costs etc and that by paying them those fees the shareholders will benefit with increased prices. If thats the case why not they take a fraction of the pay in BTS as after all their work will lead to value increase and they will end up more than the $50,000 they asked for.

Honestly it seems more like they realise it's not going to go anywhere and trying to grab as much money as possible. Or they really believe that the price will increase and they are disguising a massive overcharging by talking in dollar terms at a time when their botched up release has run BTS through the ground.

It feels like all those bankers during the meltdown who made their customers bankrupt and got paid millions as bonus as they arranged a bailout.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #81 on: November 10, 2015, 08:37:15 pm »
"We have plenty of qualified coders here who would review the code for next to nothing" ??

Tuck, forgive me if you were being sarcastic (I can never tell), but this statement is absurd. We are talking about writing new code to change the native functionality of the blockchain. Do you honestly think that it is a wise idea to ridicule the idea of asking Cryptonomex (who are more familiar with graphene than anyone else) to audit and test the new code to make sure that it will work? They could do this faster, and more efficiently than anyone else at this stage.

So just to clarify, my understanding: you are talking about hiring someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assuming that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing"?

I'm wondering why Dan is stating that CNX will have to review any code, as if we don't have any other options. There are other options, they are rarely brought up or considered.

Denying or ignoring that fact is just going along with the herd mentality that we see here far too often ... and I like going against the herd because it's the only way this forum will address any topic seriously versus the usual ...

"You da man Dan! Whatever you say is gold! I'm all for it ... with my proxy vote because I'm too lazy to think or vote for myself!"

I am not trying to come to the defense of Cryptonomex, they can defend themselves. I am just stating a FACT - They are the most qualified to audit any new code for graphene, and IMO we certainly want them auditing any new code that will be adopted by the blockchain at this stage- especially since we have still not achieved major adoption and (I would argue) are still vulnerable in many ways. 

It's also a FACT that we don't have to use CNX.

Another FACT is that this forum rarely discusses any alternatives. The forum herd just listens to Dan and immediately announces they back whatever he says, without any further consideration.

Why is that? Where has that mentality gotten us so far?

Why is the majority of the forum so afraid to discuss other options?

Anyone bringing up an alternate opinion gets responses like this one of yours, which focuses on my post and it's intentions instead of discussing/seeking out any alternatives that may be available, while at the same time reiterating that Dan's the best answer we have. How do you know that? Have you sought out third parties within the few hours this proposal was posted? Nope, you haven't. You're just stating Dan's the best answer, when you have no clue if Dan's the best answer because you haven't even considered any alternatives outside of the one I mentioned, which I agree is not the best one, but at least it is one!

I haven't had more than an hour myself to find a better alternative, neither has anyone else, but hey screw all that, let's just go with what Dan says, because we've exhausted all possibilities in those few hours!  ::)

It's as if Dan's the only answer and any other opinions are too "this or that", so let's just go with Dan's idea, because we don't want to have any sort of real discourse, that's too much trouble and time consuming. It's not like we have more than a few hours to decide.  ::)

Hell, v2.0 hasn't been out that long and we're already moving towards v3.0.

So tell me again how great Dan's 2.0 idea was? Oh yeah, so great that he himself is scrapping it after a few weeks.  :-\

By all means, let's just continue to deride anyone else offering to solve the problems with BitShares by calling them "random coders" and rely solely on Dan, because we just don't have the time to think about things!  ::)


Of course we all hope this will change going forward, as outside teams of coders learn to write for graphene, but this has not happened yet.

Why would it happen when they will simply be talked to like a autistic step-child (it's OK, I'm an autistic step-child so I can say that) by Dan and the forum will give responses like yours, as if there's not possibly anyone else in the world as qualified as Dan and time is running out, we must hurry or else the "competition" (where are they again?) will get all our monies!  ::)


Think about it this way

No. Too many people here rely on others to think for them.

- if there were a bunch of people sitting around who were qualified to audit new graphene code - don't you think that they would be writing code themselves as we speak? Where are they? I'm not saying they don't exist, but I am also not just assuming that they DO.

How would you know? In the few hours you've spent reading Dan's proposal, who have you sought out as an alternative?  Who's council did you seek that offered other opinions on the matter? How much were you able to cover in those few hours? Do you really want to make drastic changes to your monetary future that quickly based on the thoughts of one man who history has shown repeatedly has gotten it wrong? I mean, what incarnation of PTS are we on BTW? How many name changes (so we forget the past mistakes) have we been through? How many more must we endure?

Disclaimer : Dan you're the man bro!  But I want alternatives discussed. I want to hear other opinions, other coders thoughts, other alternatives to your ideas proposed, and this forum constantly bowing to your ideas is not helping that progress. At some point we have to give this some time, let others have a chance, which has yet to happen and if things continue this way it never will happen. There never will be others offering to help as long as the Community continue to do whatever Dan says and not even give others the chance to open their mouth or even find out about the opportunity (like now). We might as well slap a disclaimer on all of Dan's Worker Proposal's that reads, "You have two hours to decide or else!".

wow, this is the second post that makes me think you might be suffering from  tonyk's syndrome. Very dangerous condition according to the... crowds! Be advised seek help immidiately! Symptoms include thinking for yourself, voicing your thoughts and quite a distaste for brown nosing, among others.

And on the main subject - while Dan and co might be the only one qualified and willing to do the job, this does not mean they should simply propose something... not even explain why that thing is needed or bother to answer any questions asked regarding their unclear proposal.

If they do not get it yet, with every passing hour they just sit and behave like they are simply entitled to do it  the picture looks more and more like this:

They created a company to do software development. They do something to about 80%. Wait 5 min and decide they will change it and get themselves paid to code another change [necessary or not] and whatever they change does not have to pass any other test but just to involve more coding. They vote themselves to do the work and all is good...at 80% the work done, rinse and repeat.

Yes, Dan start explaining:

why the changes are needed - aka why we NEED 0 fees?

will you finish first what is not finished with 2.0? With no pay?

why the change in fee collection for bitassets? Is this what it sounds like - not letting the LM traders get their discount on 50% or more of their trades?
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

jakub

  • Guest
Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #82 on: November 10, 2015, 08:39:50 pm »
Regarding proposal #1

This is crazy. Over-complicated & horrible idea. First we create a problem (by reducing the fees to 0) and then we try to solve it by very complex procedures.
If we really need to turn the fees upside-down, Ander's alternative proposal seems to do 99% of the job (unless BM can come up with a good reason why not).

But generally I don't like this whole idea of changing the fee structure (i.e. the receiver paying the fee instead of the sender) for the following reasons:

(a) It damages the referral program incentive structure:
- under this proposal, for a referral program business it only makes sense to target online merchants, not online consumers (because they have no incentive to upgrade to LTM)
- under this proposal, BitShares is no longer attractive for merchants - they pay the fees for receiving payments (no difference to legacy systems) and they have no opportunity to earn extra income by acting as a referral program business (as they can no longer target their customers, i.e. online consumers).

(b) I wonder what sales people think of it. Does Max Wright like it? I did not hear him supporting this change. I don't like this idea of changing the rules of the referral program without asking the sales people first. I thought they were happy with things as they are and maybe some of them (like me) have already started to build business models around it and now after a month they find out there is going to be a radical change. And it is a radical change because before this proposal we could target both merchants and consumers. If this proposal is implemented we can only target merchants and we also lose a big selling point for them (i.e. the business opportunity for merchants to earn extra income by taking part in the referral program).

(c) This change would be unfair for people who have already bought their LTM. What if I've bought LTM because I expected to do a lot of online shopping? Under this proposal, my LTM is useless and unnecessary to have. Once again the rules will be changed after the game has started. This is bad.

The only positive thing this proposal can bring is that our pricing policy becomes similar to our competitors'. But as I've pointed out in the other thread we have a unique (and brilliant) referral program which has not been given a chance to prove its value yet. And the current pricing strategy is an integral part of this program, it cannot be changed without affecting the program itself. In other words, a unique referral program requires a unique pricing strategy and we should keep it as one entity or scrap it altogether.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2015, 08:50:08 pm by jakub »

jaran

  • Guest
Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #83 on: November 10, 2015, 08:41:27 pm »



you know im not agreeing with every point made here but this guy has a point, we should consider that there are a large number of blockchain specialist groups that will charge far less than the requested funds to produce this code, not to mention audit it. we should seek other options before agreeing to this, and even then a negotiation for the rate they are asking should be had, its pretty clearly skewed.

I would point out that if CNX had produced what was promised in the first place a new worker proposal a month later would not be required... there was a large delay and nothing except the front end really improved, I'm not against funding changes, I'm just not sure if CNX is the ones to do it.

There are five pretty much independent projects on the list. There is no reason why all five contracts should go to same company. If you think that you can do any of these projects cheaper, faster and better, put your name against it. Let's vote.

Cnx states that they will open source the entire ui for multiuser implementations if they are hired for all proposals... Which is a very very good reason to hire cnx for all proposals

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #84 on: November 10, 2015, 08:46:15 pm »



you know im not agreeing with every point made here but this guy has a point, we should consider that there are a large number of blockchain specialist groups that will charge far less than the requested funds to produce this code, not to mention audit it. we should seek other options before agreeing to this, and even then a negotiation for the rate they are asking should be had, its pretty clearly skewed.

I would point out that if CNX had produced what was promised in the first place a new worker proposal a month later would not be required... there was a large delay and nothing except the front end really improved, I'm not against funding changes, I'm just not sure if CNX is the ones to do it.

There are five pretty much independent projects on the list. There is no reason why all five contracts should go to same company. If you think that you can do any of these projects cheaper, faster and better, put your name against it. Let's vote.

Cnx states that they will open source the entire ui for multiuser implementations if they are hired for all proposals... Which is a very very good reason to hire cnx for all proposals

This is a good point. Let's find out what others can offer and vote.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2015, 08:48:47 pm by yvv »

Offline dannotestein

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
    • View Profile
    • BlockTrades International
  • BitShares: btsnow
Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #85 on: November 10, 2015, 08:52:23 pm »



you know im not agreeing with every point made here but this guy has a point, we should consider that there are a large number of blockchain specialist groups that will charge far less than the requested funds to produce this code, not to mention audit it. we should seek other options before agreeing to this, and even then a negotiation for the rate they are asking should be had, its pretty clearly skewed.

I would point out that if CNX had produced what was promised in the first place a new worker proposal a month later would not be required... there was a large delay and nothing except the front end really improved, I'm not against funding changes, I'm just not sure if CNX is the ones to do it.

There are five pretty much independent projects on the list. There is no reason why all five contracts should go to same company. If you think that you can do any of these projects cheaper, faster and better, put your name against it. Let's vote.

Cnx states that they will open source the entire ui for multiuser implementations if they are hired for all proposals... Which is a very very good reason to hire cnx for all proposals

This is a good point. Let's find out what others can offer and vote.
OR, alternatively, let's negotiate to get the code opensourced for some lesser amount of work (or some other proposal better than #1). #1 seems like a bad idea, for reasons already expressed by others above, let's not just do it to get a bonus that we can probably get some other way.
http://blocktrades.us Fast/Safe/High-Liquidity Crypto Coin Converter

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #86 on: November 10, 2015, 08:59:01 pm »
Yes, if open sourcing ui is really that important, it could be funded through a separate proposal.

Offline bytemaster

Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #87 on: November 10, 2015, 09:00:34 pm »
We have retracted #1.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #88 on: November 10, 2015, 09:01:18 pm »

Are you positive you understand all the element in #2?

As I said up the thread it has some big potential negative impacts, which need addressing.
For example - It seems the LM traders might get the LM discount only on half of their trades.

No I am not certain that I understood it.


This is what i thought the proposal means:

"Under the proposed change, the committee members would change the market fee from 0% to something competitive with centralized exchanges and then revenue earned from these fees would qualify for the referral program"


To summarize: They will add a (0.2%, aka 'competitive with centralized exchanges') trading fee to trades (to go along with eliminating or reducing the flat fee), and then this 0.2% fee would qualify for the referral program, meaning that a lifetime member would get a big discount, and people would be incentivized to refer others to get a portion of their trading fees.  To me, this looked great fro the referral program.


If this proposal is like I understand it, then I support it.  If its something else, then I guess I didnt understand it.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3506
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Ander
Re: Worker Proposal Review
« Reply #89 on: November 10, 2015, 09:05:17 pm »
We have retracted #1.

To those in this thread that says the community always just rubber stamps everything, this is evidence that we dont just rubber stamp everything.


Are there any issues with any of the other proposals that we need to discuss more? 
Things definitely seem to go best when we have a dialogue between devs and community and everyone works to refine and improve each others ideas.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads