Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
QuoteWhy Gateway not pay?
2) You can't increase fees on transactions when you have no business or customers. Binance can, we cannot.
“chicken-or-the-egg”
This is a very complex problem.Quote3) DEX is NOT BITSHARES. It's time to filter businesses who "wants to build" to the one who are legit and have liquidity (wanna do business) and ones who dont wanna do business and are illegal.
ok，want to learn the Binance DEX（https://www.binance.org/）？I don't think so.Quote4) What sane business&development manager will let everyone fuck his project for free ?
en, the project still get the transaction fees, not free.QuoteBSIP86 ISSUE
Just a small group people discuss it, even me just have a little words in the ISSUE, no body want to think and read it seriously，and even no Chinese version，how many members of CN-VOTE know what‘s the means of this BSIP? only less.
I don't like this BSIP86 in this mini mainnet releases as it is not so important, just can get a very little income from it.
I have quit all the groups of BTS long time ago, as i can't get any valuable discussion, maybe they more like to participate in the battle of steem.
I even don't like quietly any more, somebody have injured the bts holders and bitassets once and once again, and can't or not want to get any lessons from it. maybe i should be quietly like blocktrads, sell 35M bts and hold 7M BTS of community, and say “ i don't trust them.”Quotespammer
I like this words, abit and bitcrab call me that, i like to be it, they think they know and right, let the time show.
or you can ban me as a spammer for a year，so i will can't question anything in here，they also have a quiet environment to do what they like or want to do, that's very equal and reasonable.
Worker is now posted on chain with worker ID 1.14.256.
Public accounting is available as always
Thanks to GBAC and Linda for translation.
I've seen in DPOS forums that few Chinese members are against BSIP for market fee sharing and is complaining on how blockchain already collect fee from users, and in general against this worker. But I haven't seen them last 30 months doing nothing apart stiring fire, being unhappy and constantly "knowing" for better but never doing it themselves. Step up with solutions if you have better, nobody stops you and nobody ever did, but stop saying shit that has no sense or brain behind closed doors because ill be reading them. Always.
And to be clear for one fact about this project. BitShares exists 7 years, and NOT A SINGLE GATEWAY made it profitable for the blockchain in that period of time. It did made it for themselves. Fees collected from the blockchain would not be sufficient even if we would be having 100M USD volume a day with our fee structure over the past and to not mention that only reason WHY BITSHARES IS NOT PROFITABLE IS BECAUSE EVERYBODY CAN BUILD AND EARN FROM IT FOR FREE WHILE BLOCKCHAIN GETS NOTHING.
So, yes, it's time to stop doing everything and giving everything for free. Thanks for your support.
Chee®s
Must be clear，nothing in BTS is free，every transaction will pay the transaction fee.
If BTS can't feed himself with these transaction fees，why not to increase the transaction fee?
If we charge the fees from BSIP86, so give a reason to these GATEWAYs：
why they should build a business in BTS，not in other block chain？
why they should build a Gateway not a Bridge?QuoteValid range of that parameter is [0, 100%].
why is 100%，not should be [0, 1%]?
I think no one like this valid range of that parameter is [0, 100%], too dangerous for a business.
Bsip64 has not been voted active.
After long and productive discussion with holders from the East, we agreed that some implementations and fixes cannot wait, but we also agreed that we cannot squeeze 2 mainnet releases in 6 months worker.
As a compromise and demand for urgent deployment before actual full core worker, I'm coming here on behalf of holders and core team to present you new 2020-core-prelude mini worker
2020-core-prelude 2 months (8.7 weeks) worker
Github - English version
PDF - English version (accessible from China)
Worker is sent to Linda Tian for translation and to the escrow to go on-chain, more updates to follow.
Chee®s
Which holders from east?
Why BSIP87 is more important than BSIP77? need some reason.
1) Everyone I was able to reach by WeChat and it's respective groups.
2) It's not that it's less important. It's more important to people with significant stake who are publicly agreeing to it and requesting it to be implemented. From the developers perspective, BSIP87 is far easier implementation that requires less time in testing over BSIP77.
Chee®s
1. En, i can't get any informations from this respective groups in any public outlet，seems they are mysterious.
2. I can't get any enough reason for BSIP87, maybe just they like it.
I think BSIP74 and BSIP77 is enough for this mini mainnet releases, maybe incloud BSIP 64, so we may make a deployment in 1 month.
Besids, BSIP74 still have some problems need to check.
Ok, they can do what they like, wish they can destroy the bitassets totally.
Best regards.
After long and productive discussion with holders from the East, we agreed that some implementations and fixes cannot wait, but we also agreed that we cannot squeeze 2 mainnet releases in 6 months worker.
As a compromise and demand for urgent deployment before actual full core worker, I'm coming here on behalf of holders and core team to present you new 2020-core-prelude mini worker
2020-core-prelude 2 months (8.7 weeks) worker
Github - English version
PDF - English version (accessible from China)
Worker is sent to Linda Tian for translation and to the escrow to go on-chain, more updates to follow.
Chee®s
Which holders from east?
Why BSIP87 is more important than BSIP77? need some reason.
I generally support the new UI worker and the team behind it, however I do have one concern:
Something I would like to see, in addition to the offering, is added budget for 6 month commitment - beyond the contract period - for a single developer to perform code review ONLY on community submitted PR's. This would be only for continuity's sake; in the event that there is another lapse in full "UI dev team" funding.
Those with control of the github repo generally slow down and do nothing unless they are being funded; which is understandable as they are not paid. However, that inaction drags down any ability for pro bono work to continue. Then since there is no pro bono work... we must fund the new "dev team" ...or get nothing. That negative feedback loop is frustrating and invokes a sense of conflict of interest.
It is untenable to have a buggy UI representing Bitshares with pull requests open by the public in the time lapsing between funding efforts.
I support this worker, but I also support a "no lapse community code review" addendum.
Supporting BBF as legal representative should bitshares have one.
Price is also way cheaper 24k compared to 36k and already some years of history.
