Issue | PR | Name | BSIP | State | Size | Approved | Remarks |
216 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/216) | 340 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/pull/340) | Process to Reset a SmartCoin after a Blackswan Event | 0018 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0018) | Review | L | 1.14.56 | |
154 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/154) | Letting settlement_price expire would allow to reuse symbols for prediction markets | 0017 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0017) | Planned | L | N | ||
Issue: Early withdrawal claims | Review | S | N | ||||
143 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/143) | 348 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/pull/348) | Require voted entities to exist | Review | S | N | ||
338 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/338) | Margin call order fills at price of matching limit_order but not at a price related to itself or settlement_price | Requested | M | N | |||
342 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/342) | Rounding issue when matching orders | Requested | M | N | |||
343 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/343) | Inconsistent sorting of call orders between matching against a limit order and a force settle order | Requested | M | N | |||
353 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/353) | 369 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/pull/369) | Computation of number of committee members is wrong | Review | S | N | ||
22 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/22) | [Feature Suggestion] No Fee on User Side with Whitelisted UIA | Requested | S/M | N | |||
59 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/59) | Audit charging of per-kilobyte fees | Requested | L | N | |||
169 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/169) | Asset can be registered with null core exchange rate, but not updated | Requested | S | N | |||
138 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/138) | [Proposal Improvements] Add fee paying account to `available_active_approvals` | Requested | ? | N | |||
173 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/173) | Code review of [BSIP10] percentage based transfer fee | 0010 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0010) | Review | L | 1.14.29 | ||
186 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/186) | 612 (https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/612) * | Implement simple rate limited free transaction feature | Review | L | N? | https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21462.30.html | |
267 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/267) | implement rotating standby witnesses | Requested | M? | N | |||
170 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/170) | new_options should be optional in asset_update_operation | Requested | M? | N | |||
199 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/199) | [Request] Require owner key for change of asset-issuer | Requested | M | N | |||
197 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/197) | Account_update_operation requires both owner authorities and active authorities when owner presents | Requested | S | N | |||
269 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/269) | Fix recursive account permissions | Requested | S | N | |||
202 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/202) | Hard fork request: correct wrong voting proxy settings | Requested | S | N | |||
125 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/125) | When signing a block that updates the signing witness's signing key, use correct signing key | Requested | S | N | |||
210 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/210) | Authorities on custom_operation are not checked correctly | Review | ? | N | See https://github.com/FollowMyVote/graphene/commit/373700e717b2353eb485316f4bc93ab0d2468e05 | ||
188 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/188) | New OP for issuer to reclaim fee pool funds | Requested | M | N | |||
146 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/146) | proposal_delete_operation issues | Requested | S | N | |||
214 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/214) | Unable to propose a proposal with an `approve_proposal` operation | Requested | S | N | |||
Introducing expiring votes for Witnesses, Committie members & Proxies within the Bitshares network | 0022 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0022) | Discussion | M? | N |
@bitcrab 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.
Code review of [BSIP10] percentage based transfer fee
Do you mean "do we need the review" or do you mean "do we need percentage-based transfer fees"?I thought about fees a little too ...
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.
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.
my principle for the core:
1. keep logic as simple as possible.
2. every change should have enough good reason, because we don't know if other business depend on this.
without a good reason, we even don't need to waste time to review.
so althrough we have pay for this worker, I don't agree to merge this feature, and don't want to review it.
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.
Issue PR Name BSIP State Size Approved Remarks 216 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/216) 340 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/pull/340) Process to Reset a SmartCoin after a Blackswan Event 0018 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0018) Review L 1.14.56 154 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/154) Letting settlement_price expire would allow to reuse symbols for prediction markets 0017 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0017) Planned L N 23 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/pull/23) Issue: Early withdrawal claims Review S N 143 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/143) 348 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/pull/348) Require voted entities to exist Review S N 338 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/338) Margin call order fills at price of matching limit_order but not at a price related to itself or settlement_price Requested M N 342 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/342) Rounding issue when matching orders Requested M N 343 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/343) Inconsistent sorting of call orders between matching against a limit order and a force settle order Requested M N 353 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/353) 369 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/pull/369) Computation of number of committee members is wrong Review S N 22 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/22) [Feature Suggestion] No Fee on User Side with Whitelisted UIA Requested S/M N 59 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/59) Audit charging of per-kilobyte fees Requested L N 169 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/169) Asset can be registered with null core exchange rate, but not updated Requested S N 138 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/138) [Proposal Improvements] Add fee paying account to `available_active_approvals` Requested ? N 173 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/173) Code review of [BSIP10] percentage based transfer fee 0010 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0010) Review L 1.14.29 186 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/186) 612 (https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/612) * Implement simple rate limited free transaction feature Review L N? https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21462.30.html 267 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/267) implement rotating standby witnesses Requested M? N 170 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/170) new_options should be optional in asset_update_operation Requested M? N 199 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/199) [Request] Require owner key for change of asset-issuer Requested M N 197 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/197) Account_update_operation requires both owner authorities and active authorities when owner presents Requested S N 269 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/269) Fix recursive account permissions Requested S N 202 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/202) Hard fork request: correct wrong voting proxy settings Requested S N 125 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/125) When signing a block that updates the signing witness's signing key, use correct signing key Requested S N 210 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/210) Authorities on custom_operation are not checked correctly Review ? N See https://github.com/FollowMyVote/graphene/commit/373700e717b2353eb485316f4bc93ab0d2468e05 188 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/188) New OP for issuer to reclaim fee pool funds Requested M N 146 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/146) proposal_delete_operation issues Requested S N 214 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/214) Unable to propose a proposal with an `approve_proposal` operation Requested S N Introducing expiring votes for Witnesses, Committie members & Proxies within the Bitshares network 0022 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0022) Discussion M? 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.
May I ask a question about the new logic?
suppose USD already had a blackswan, the black swan price is at 0.1 USD/BTS, SWAN.current_supply is 1M USD
when we enable this new logic, the feed price is 0.2 USD/BTS.
from the descript I can still make a operation bid_collateral_operation(debt_covered: 1M USD, additional_collateral: 1BTS).
then I can get the debt about 1M USD, and all the collection about: 1M/0.1 BTS ?
May I ask a question about the new logic?
suppose USD already had a blackswan, the black swan price is at 0.1 USD/BTS, SWAN.current_supply is 1M USD
when we enable this new logic, the feed price is 0.2 USD/BTS.
from the descript I can still make a operation bid_collateral_operation(debt_covered: 1M USD, additional_collateral: 1BTS).
then I can get the debt about 1M USD, and all the collection about: 1M/0.1 BTS ?
No, this is prevented in the section "Auto-revive after increase of settlement fund value". If the BTS price recovers that much, the settlement fund and debt are turned into a normal short position belonging to the asset issuer (in the case of bitUSD that would be the committee).