[worker proposal] 201707-bsip18: Worker has been created as "1.14.56"

[Brekyrself]

I think the principle rule should be make SILVER worth 1 SIVLER.
you make SILVER worth x4, it's the same wrong to make it /4,
but obviously the share holders don't care about it.
this is why I quit.
enjoy your fun.

Not every share holder understands all the technical aspects around the BitShares project.  Not everyone will agree on all paths forward however the intention of this BSIP was positive for BitShares.  Companies make decisions like this all the time, trade off's, opportunity costs, are all part of growing an ecosystem.

Why quit when BitShares and the blockchain space is finally coming alive?  You have been a dedicated member to the community, we all appreciate your help and feedback.

[alt]

I think the principle rule should be make SILVER worth 1 SIVLER.
you make SILVER worth x4, it's the same wrong to make it /4,
but obviously the share holders don't care about it.
this is why I quit.
enjoy your fun.

[pc]

1. do you think this is a flaw? or it's a right logic?

I think it is the right logic. When a black swan happens, the peg is broken, and holders of the bitasset can settle their holdings at the price of the least collateralized short. This is the defined behaviour of our smart coins, see for example https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/ :

If this revaluation happens faster than the short positions can be forced to cover, then all SmartCoins are liquidated at the exchange rate of the least collateralized short position. This is similar to an insolvent bank converting its deposits to equity.

The fact that the backing collateral increased significantly in value since the black swan is irrelevant. With the black swan, the collateral put into the settlement fund effectively belongs to the holders of the smartcoins.

2. did you descipe all the rules changed because of BSIP18 really clearly? did you descipe this rule?where have you discuss these?

Yes, see BSIP-18 (emphasis added):

When a market-pegged asset undergoes a global settlement, [,,,] the outstanding debt (the BitAsset long positions) are still collateralized through the settlement pool at the fixed settlement price. It is even possible that the value of the collateral exceeds the nominal value of the MPA significantly.

Bugfix: MPAs that have seen a global settlement cannot be settled after the price feed expires

It has turned out that force-settling an MPA requires a valid price feed even when the MPA has a settlement_price set. This is clearly a bug, since in that case the settlement price is independent from the price feed. Furthermore, publishing price feeds is no longer possible after a global settlement, so the time when settlement is possible at all is limited to the expiration period of the price feed of the MPA.

This bug will be fixed. See https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/664#issuecomment-254056746 for a discussion.

BSIP-18 was discussed here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,24322.0.html .

3. did the share holders really know these rule? and who reviewed these rules? who make the decition to change rule like this?

The shareholders have approved of these rules in the usual process, i. e. through a worker proposal. I can only assume that everyone involved did their due diligence.

4. who will take responsibility for the fault?
5. how do you avoid next mess up?

There is neither fault nor mess up.

[xeroc]

It may be just me, but i still don't get what the problem is ?!

[fav]

keep it civil here.

[alt]

a train was broken and can't move.
you pay somebody repair it, so it moved, and hit to a shit car.
you said the train should move always, the shit car shoud  have be hit if the train no broken.
we can't blame the repai man, we should thanks to the reapir man.
how stupid are you? or how shameless are you? why don't you wait for the shit car pass then start the train?
you are the speake man of Bitshares? or the speak man of workers?
what a fuck  defend.
you only know spend money, never take any responsibility. bull shit

You might want to add that the original promise of bitassets was that in the event of a global settlement/black swan, those that are long on that asset can settle it into collateral at black swan price.
A bug prevented them from being able to do that, so that they were stuck with their long position.
That said, BSIP18 did *NOT CHANGE* any rules but fixed the behavior of the code to match the intention of all documentation around bitassets.

Discussion here:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0018.md#bugfix-mpas-that-have-seen-a-global-settlement-cannot-be-settled-after-the-price-feed-expires
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/664#issuecomment-254056746
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,24322.0.html
http://steem.link/yJByx
and above in this thread

If you need someone to blame, then blame me.
Is this a loss for the ecosystem? I don't think so. Why? Because we have revived bitassets which IMHO is a huge signal.
Did any trader lose? No, because they have been "settled" at black swan time
Did any long lose? No. They actually gained independent of the black swan price, because they can finally settle their long as was promised
Did BTS holders pay the price, yes of course. The network had the bug that prevented longs from setteling to begin with.

Also, if it wasn't for the "bug", someone who was long on SILVER and forgot about it for 3 months would now see the same with BSIP18 as without BSIP18, with the only difference that he is now happier because he **CAN** settle into BTS.

[xeroc]

You might want to add that the original promise of bitassets was that in the event of a global settlement/black swan, those that are long on that asset can settle it into collateral at black swan price.
A bug prevented them from being able to do that, so that they were stuck with their long position.
That said, BSIP18 did *NOT CHANGE* any rules but fixed the behavior of the code to match the intention of all documentation around bitassets.

Discussion here:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0018.md#bugfix-mpas-that-have-seen-a-global-settlement-cannot-be-settled-after-the-price-feed-expires
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/664#issuecomment-254056746
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,24322.0.html
http://steem.link/yJByx
and above in this thread

If you need someone to blame, then blame me.
Is this a loss for the ecosystem? I don't think so. Why? Because we have revived bitassets which IMHO is a huge signal.
Did any trader lose? No, because they have been "settled" at black swan time
Did any long lose? No. They actually gained independent of the black swan price, because they can finally settle their long as was promised
Did BTS holders pay the price, yes of course. The network had the bug that prevented longs from setteling to begin with.

Also, if it wasn't for the "bug", someone who was long on SILVER and forgot about it for 3 months would now see the same with BSIP18 as without BSIP18, with the only difference that he is now happier because he **CAN** settle into BTS.

[alt]

let me tell you what had happend to SILVER first.
1. based BSIP18, when the fork happend, the SILVER holders can ask for a settlement at blackswan price immediately.
    it's about 4000BTS/SILVER.(but the real price is about 1000BTS/SILVER, we have about 9000 SILVER available in the market.)
    this will not stop only when we have enough efficient feed price from witness(maybe 7 or more).
2. about 5 days before the fork, I know this rule from somebody, I think it's unreasonable, and talk to others. but others think this rule is right.
    after some discuss, I am disapoint and give up.
3. somebody who have know this rules begin buy SILVER from market, the SILVER price up to 3000 BTS/SILVER
4. when the fork happen, people sold  SILVER, got BTS at price 4000 BTS/SILVER.
5. the witness act very slowly, after 24hours later, we got enough feed price from them. and the blood stop
6. somebody said nobody lose anyting at this accident. because these BTS which have sold belong to the system. so all BTS holders lose.

here is some question to the community:
1. do you think this is a flaw? or it's a right logic? personally I think it's very easy to avoid this from the code, the settlement shouldn't be allowd unless we got enough price feeds.
2. did you descipe all the rules changed because of BSIP18 really clearly? did you descipe this rule?where have you discuss these?
3. did the share holders really know these rule? and who reviewed these rules? who make the decition to change rule like this?
4. who will take responsibility for the fault?
5. how do you avoid next mess up?

[pc]

If this is a flaw, this has to be corrected, such that when the next black swan happens, we don't have the same problem. @pc, what do you think?

SILVER has been an extreme case (one of several actually, but the only one with significant volume), because BTS has gone up quite a lot since it black swanned.

This *should* not happen again, because in the future witnesses will simply continue to publish a price feed, and with a feed the new mechanisms that were implemented with BSIP-18 will revive such bitassets long before the situation becomes so extreme.

[yvv]

So, it looks like nobody else see any problems with the current black swan revival logic. At least nobody among the biggest proxies. In this case, DPOS rules require to leave it like it is, for good or for bad. This is fair, isn't it?
 

[xeroc]

If this is a flaw, this has to be corrected, such that when the next black swan happens, we don't have the same problem. @pc, what do you think?

I would call this "flaw" by what it is: "free markets". There is one "issue" and that is, BTS price changed quite a bit since most of the settled assets have black swanned.
That means that those that held on their long (e.g. bitSILVER) can now (finally) again settle into BTS. That settlement happens at the price of black swan (as has been the promise of BitShares from day one).
However, a bug prevented those longs from settling if they didn't settle within 24h after the black swan. Now, finally, longs can settle. Actual price of silver changed, settlement price did not.

Also worth noting, there are **NO SHORTERS** on bitSILVER anymore. After a black swan, all collateral is held by committee-account.

[yvv]

the point is there is a flaw before the price feed acitve,
but our share holders and core team don't think it's a flaw.
they will screwed up again.

If this is a flaw, this has to be corrected, such that when the next black swan happens, we don't have the same problem. @pc, what do you think?

[alt]

we don't need to fix it because it already past.
or I should say we can't fix it because it already happen.
when we got enough price feed, the SILVER would be settlement at the price feed.

the point is there is a flaw before the price feed acitve,
but our share holders and core team don't think it's a flaw.
they will screwed up again.

what ever you think it's a flaw or not,
I don't care now. I have lost my pacient to argue with anybody about these things.

Guys, let's calm down and discuss the issue a civilized way. If mistakes were made, lets's identify them clearly and work out a solution on how to correct them.

[fav]

just don't trade it until the market is fully working? I still don't understand the issue here

[yvv]

Guys, let's calm down and discuss the issue a civilized way. If mistakes were made, lets's identify them clearly and work out a solution on how to correct them.