0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: bytemaster on November 13, 2014, 01:04:13 amQuote from: HackFisher on November 12, 2014, 01:50:02 amQuote from: robrigo on November 11, 2014, 07:48:58 pmCan BTS that is locked up in a margin order be included in the snapshot? My gut tells me, probably not. Unless you were to take the initial BTS put up as collateral from each side of the trade?If not, will BTS locked up in orders as collateral be excluded from the total supply the 35% allocation is honoring?yes, as you described, market orders will not be included, the exactly definition would be the balance records in balance db (the balance you see in your wallet).HackFisher... all stake regardless of where it is located should be considered. If you need a script to dump it out for you that can be arranged. Lets not make this complicated.Yes, that's already been changed, market orders will be honored.
Quote from: HackFisher on November 12, 2014, 01:50:02 amQuote from: robrigo on November 11, 2014, 07:48:58 pmCan BTS that is locked up in a margin order be included in the snapshot? My gut tells me, probably not. Unless you were to take the initial BTS put up as collateral from each side of the trade?If not, will BTS locked up in orders as collateral be excluded from the total supply the 35% allocation is honoring?yes, as you described, market orders will not be included, the exactly definition would be the balance records in balance db (the balance you see in your wallet).HackFisher... all stake regardless of where it is located should be considered. If you need a script to dump it out for you that can be arranged. Lets not make this complicated.
Quote from: robrigo on November 11, 2014, 07:48:58 pmCan BTS that is locked up in a margin order be included in the snapshot? My gut tells me, probably not. Unless you were to take the initial BTS put up as collateral from each side of the trade?If not, will BTS locked up in orders as collateral be excluded from the total supply the 35% allocation is honoring?yes, as you described, market orders will not be included, the exactly definition would be the balance records in balance db (the balance you see in your wallet).
Can BTS that is locked up in a margin order be included in the snapshot? My gut tells me, probably not. Unless you were to take the initial BTS put up as collateral from each side of the trade?If not, will BTS locked up in orders as collateral be excluded from the total supply the 35% allocation is honoring?
Quote from: HackFisher on November 13, 2014, 02:51:54 amQuote from: tonyk2 on November 13, 2014, 12:51:02 amQuote from: puppies on November 13, 2014, 12:38:53 amI don't get it.https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11140.msg148175#msg148175https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11269.0Disappointed about your attitude on this forum. After I replied to you in detail in following thread, what you want to express in here?Do you think that I or other PLAY team members can not read English? How could you become a moderate, or are you the representative from BitShares world?It tend to be that people here are become more offensive, which is different from my original impression here one year ago.Quote from: tonyk2 on November 12, 2014, 10:18:18 amQuote from: HackFisher on November 12, 2014, 10:14:22 amQuote from: tonyk2 on November 12, 2014, 10:05:44 amOne and only one question I have is:Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?First, we've already changed that decision hours ago, and pay extra effort to find out in which way PLAY should be allocated to collaterals. This is why we have this forum to communicate with each other, post proposals.Quote from: HackFisher on November 12, 2014, 06:28:00 amWe are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.Second, PLAY DAC is a fork of BitShares Toolkit, A independent DAC, there is no such consensus (Like AGS/PTS) that we MUST honor BTS, or collaterals put on its market or even BitUSDs created using collaterals.This allocation to BTS is also a airdrop, not a part of consensus from BTS or Toolkit.Great...for the hours ago... how should I know that.. anywhere posted or hinted that you even think of doing such a thing?
Quote from: tonyk2 on November 13, 2014, 12:51:02 amQuote from: puppies on November 13, 2014, 12:38:53 amI don't get it.https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11140.msg148175#msg148175https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11269.0Disappointed about your attitude on this forum. After I replied to you in detail in following thread, what you want to express in here?Do you think that I or other PLAY team members can not read English? How could you become a moderate, or are you the representative from BitShares world?It tend to be that people here are become more offensive, which is different from my original impression here one year ago.Quote from: tonyk2 on November 12, 2014, 10:18:18 amQuote from: HackFisher on November 12, 2014, 10:14:22 amQuote from: tonyk2 on November 12, 2014, 10:05:44 amOne and only one question I have is:Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?First, we've already changed that decision hours ago, and pay extra effort to find out in which way PLAY should be allocated to collaterals. This is why we have this forum to communicate with each other, post proposals.Quote from: HackFisher on November 12, 2014, 06:28:00 amWe are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.Second, PLAY DAC is a fork of BitShares Toolkit, A independent DAC, there is no such consensus (Like AGS/PTS) that we MUST honor BTS, or collaterals put on its market or even BitUSDs created using collaterals.This allocation to BTS is also a airdrop, not a part of consensus from BTS or Toolkit.Great...for the hours ago... how should I know that.. anywhere posted or hinted that you even think of doing such a thing?
Quote from: puppies on November 13, 2014, 12:38:53 amI don't get it.https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11140.msg148175#msg148175https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11269.0
I don't get it.
Quote from: HackFisher on November 12, 2014, 10:14:22 amQuote from: tonyk2 on November 12, 2014, 10:05:44 amOne and only one question I have is:Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?First, we've already changed that decision hours ago, and pay extra effort to find out in which way PLAY should be allocated to collaterals. This is why we have this forum to communicate with each other, post proposals.Quote from: HackFisher on November 12, 2014, 06:28:00 amWe are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.Second, PLAY DAC is a fork of BitShares Toolkit, A independent DAC, there is no such consensus (Like AGS/PTS) that we MUST honor BTS, or collaterals put on its market or even BitUSDs created using collaterals.This allocation to BTS is also a airdrop, not a part of consensus from BTS or Toolkit.Great...for the hours ago... how should I know that.. anywhere posted or hinted that you even think of doing such a thing?
Quote from: tonyk2 on November 12, 2014, 10:05:44 amOne and only one question I have is:Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?First, we've already changed that decision hours ago, and pay extra effort to find out in which way PLAY should be allocated to collaterals. This is why we have this forum to communicate with each other, post proposals.Quote from: HackFisher on November 12, 2014, 06:28:00 amWe are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.Second, PLAY DAC is a fork of BitShares Toolkit, A independent DAC, there is no such consensus (Like AGS/PTS) that we MUST honor BTS, or collaterals put on its market or even BitUSDs created using collaterals.This allocation to BTS is also a airdrop, not a part of consensus from BTS or Toolkit.
One and only one question I have is:Why do you believe that people that have the most trust and believe in the BTS system, and therefore have their stake not only in BTS, but more than that - in collateral - deserve no stake in your PLAY DAC?
We are currently evaluating this, and after a few tests, we may honor the market orders (_ask_db, _bid_db, _short_odb, _collateral_db) if the tests showing that it's OK to do so.