Author Topic: Hardfork schedule proposal  (Read 4331 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline oxarbitrage

Hardfork schedule proposal
« on: August 13, 2017, 06:16:07 pm »
I identified 4 big groups of issues that require hardfork and added them in the form of milestones:

https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/milestones

We have 27 issues that require hardfork, no dates had been added but the plan is to discuss and add dates to them. i think we should do BSIP018 first but i leave this for shareholders/community consideration. We should maybe try to add more issues to the BSIP018 fork.

Please feel free to change/suggest changes, this is just one form of identify and separate the hardfork issues but may not be the best.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12915
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2017, 07:17:37 pm »
I agree with adding some of the minor fixes to the bsip18 HF aswell bit ofc only after thorough testing on the testnet .. each of those issues separately ..

Imho
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2017, 03:49:52 pm »
Thanks Alfredo!

IMO every hardfork requires shareholder approval. Most of the hardfork issues are yet to be implemented. IMO we should include some of the low-hanging fruit into the BSIP-0018 hardfork and focus on finishing up a release.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline oxarbitrage

Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2017, 03:51:57 pm »
i agree with that [member=94]pc[/member] and so also [member=120]xeroc[/member] . we neeed to decide what can we move to bsip 18 and leave the rest for a future release.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2017, 09:19:25 pm »
Here's a more comprehensive list of hardfork items, together with their current state, estimated work size, and approval status. I'm open to suggestions regarding the size, it's just a rough guesstimate.

IssuePRNameBSIPStateSizeApprovedRemarks
216340Process to Reset a SmartCoin after a Blackswan Event0018ReviewL1.14.56
154Letting settlement_price expire would allow to reuse symbols for prediction markets0017PlannedLN
23386Issue: Early withdrawal claimsReviewSN
143348Require voted entities to existReviewSN
338Margin call order fills at price of matching limit_order but not at a price related to itself or settlement_priceRequestedMN
342Rounding issue when matching orders RequestedMN
343Inconsistent sorting of call orders between matching against a limit order and a force settle orderRequestedMN
353369Computation of number of committee members is wrongReviewSN
22[Feature Suggestion] No Fee on User Side with Whitelisted UIARequestedS/MN
59Audit charging of per-kilobyte feesRequestedLN
169Asset can be registered with null core exchange rate, but not updatedRequestedSN
138[Proposal Improvements] Add fee paying account to `available_active_approvals`Requested?N
173Code review of [BSIP10] percentage based transfer fee0010ReviewL1.14.29
186612 *Implement simple rate limited free transaction featureReviewLN?https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21462.30.html
267implement rotating standby witnessesRequestedM?N
170new_options should be optional in asset_update_operationRequestedM?N
199[Request] Require owner key for change of asset-issuerRequestedMN
197Account_update_operation requires both owner authorities and active authorities when owner presentsRequestedSN
269Fix recursive account permissionsRequestedSN
202Hard fork request: correct wrong voting proxy settingsRequestedSN
125When signing a block that updates the signing witness's signing key, use correct signing keyRequestedSN
210Authorities on custom_operation are not checked correctlyReview?NSee https://github.com/FollowMyVote/graphene/commit/373700e717b2353eb485316f4bc93ab0d2468e05
188New OP for issuer to reclaim fee pool fundsRequestedMN
146proposal_delete_operation issuesRequestedSN
214Unable to propose a proposal with an `approve_proposal` operationRequestedSN
Introducing expiring votes for Witnesses, Committie members & Proxies within the Bitshares network0022DiscussionM?N

I was surprised to find that we have quite a few things in the queue that are already implemented. Apparently some things have been more or less forgotten and need to be updated and reviewed in-depth. We should focus on those, IMO, and possibly add a few of the 'S' items as well.

Edit 2017-08-31: PR #23 has been superceded by #386
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 04:35:30 pm by pc »
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4481
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2017, 09:47:48 am »
Thanks for the list.
It's sad that my screen is too narrow, had a hard time to read.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2017, 03:05:31 pm »
Shortened the links, should be better now
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline questionsquestions

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2017, 06:26:21 pm »
I'd like to bring to your attention BSIP-0022 (https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/bsip-0022-draft-introducing-expiring-votes-for-witnesses-committie-members-and-proxies-within-the-bitshares-network-an)

It would be extremely useful to have this functionality in the next hard fork so that active accounts have a better chance of being considered in any votes.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2017, 06:49:53 pm »
Removed obsolete https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/189
Added BSIP-0022

Personally, I'm pretty sure that BSIP-0022 will not be part of the next hardfork. AFAIK this is still being discussed and nobody is working on it. I also think that it is questionable if this will receive shareholder approval.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2017, 04:40:48 pm »
[member=23]bitcrab[/member] Are you still interested in issue 203 (Hard fork request: re-enable some permission settings of TCNY) ?

I have tried to ping hipster wrt issue 269 on steem and steemit.chat, but no reply so far.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1895
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2017, 05:15:05 pm »
[member=23]bitcrab[/member] Are you still interested in issue 203 (Hard fork request: re-enable some permission settings of TCNY) ?

I have tried to ping hipster wrt issue 269 on steem and steemit.chat, but no reply so far.

I have given up TCNY and also TUSD, no need to spend resource on them.
Email´╝Ü[email protected]

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2017, 06:59:46 pm »
Thanks for the clarification. Closed issue 203 and removed it from the list.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2017, 12:10:28 am »
do we really need this?

Quote
Code review of [BSIP10] percentage based transfer fee   

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2017, 04:21:45 pm »
Do you mean "do we need the review" or do you mean "do we need percentage-based transfer fees"?
AFAICS the latter has already been decided by the shareholders, and regarding the former I would say that yes, a review is needed before we merge the code.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12915
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2017, 09:30:35 am »
Do you mean "do we need the review" or do you mean "do we need percentage-based transfer fees"?
AFAICS the latter has already been decided by the shareholders, and regarding the former I would say that yes, a review is needed before we merge the code.
I thought about fees a little too ...
do you thing we can have something like this:

The asset issue sets an attribute for his asset on "what fee type is used". Then we can offer
* flat fee (BTS only) .. no fee pool
* flat fee with fee pool
* percentage based fee (BTS only)
* percentage based fee with fee pool
* bandwidth-based according to BTS reserved by issuer
* bandwidth-based according to BTS reserved by user (only for committee-owned/approved assets)
* any other type of fee that can/could/may be implemented

How difficult would it be to modify the code such that the "fee" part of it becomes more "plugin"-ish?
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH