Anyone else noticed that the STEALTH worker proposal is already "approved"?

[Bhuz]

He gets to keep whatever tiny earnings there may be as a bonus for writing a successful proposal.

OT: The funny thing is that, that "tiny" earning is like 60% more of what a witness get in an entire month xD

Good point .. but then on the other hand, I provide the witnesses with useful tools and advice and never charged anyone for it ..

My OT was not about you deserving or not deserving a compensation for your work.
It was just a funny way to point out that witnesses really get tiny earnings as Stan said (without taking in consideration rent cost and man hours), but noone cares.

Back InTopic: I voted for your worker proposal as soon as I saw it, I think this says it all about my thoughts on you deserving a pay

Edit: with "your worker proposal" i mean "Documentation/Technical Support/Python+UI Development (1.14.17)"

[abit]

He gets to keep whatever tiny earnings there may be as a bonus for writing a successful proposal.

OT: The funny thing is that, that "tiny" earning is like 60% more of what a witness get in an entire month xD

Good point .. but then on the other hand, I provide the witnesses with useful tools and advice and never charged anyone for it ..

It's included in another worker proposal, isn't it?

[xeroc]

He gets to keep whatever tiny earnings there may be as a bonus for writing a successful proposal.

OT: The funny thing is that, that "tiny" earning is like 60% more of what a witness get in an entire month xD

Good point .. but then on the other hand, I provide the witnesses with useful tools and advice and never charged anyone for it ..

[cass]

Total Masternodes: 3442 = 3439 actives + 3 inactives [3434 unique IPs] (Last refresh: Sun Dec 20 2015 23:48:04)

https://dashninja.pl/#mnlistdetail

[btswildpig]

Where Stealth could effect the referral programme is the price point, STEALTH will charge $0.5 where DASH charges less than $0.01 and is also already tied into numerous payment processors https://www.dash.org/payment-processors/

So if customers don't like paying 50X more than competitors for privacy and STEALTH doesn't lower the fee, BTS may lose business on other products and services and thus cost referrers & BTS shareholders money.

But DASH doesn't offer price-stable coins, does it?

Dash offers a lot of things , including instant transaction through Master nodes who needs to put down a lot of Dash deposit just to be one .  (I've seen the video , less than a sec . It's not centralized method . )
I still don't get how it does that . Last time I heard , there are thousands of such master nodes already .
Could someone please check ?

[Empirical1.2]

Where Stealth could effect the referral programme is the price point, STEALTH will charge $0.5 where DASH charges less than $0.01 and is also already tied into numerous payment processors https://www.dash.org/payment-processors/

So if customers don't like paying 50X more than competitors for privacy and STEALTH doesn't lower the fee, BTS may lose business on other products and services and thus cost referrers & BTS shareholders money.

But DASH doesn't offer price-stable coins, does it?

  Yes that's the main product imo (+ some others) that will hopefully create demand & justify a premium for BTS STEALTH. 

However Smartcoins still need a few more complimentary features and liquidity incentives added which will likely only be done after Stealth. So you'll be waiting a few months for Stealth and then another few months for the developments that will create the demand for Stealth.

So personally I would prioritize BitAsset liquidity measures first. Some have said that other cool features could be developed via FBA's but only once privacy/Stealth is in place,  so that could be an argument for making Stealth first but I still think BTS will struggle price wise for the next 2-4 months doing the development in that order.

Edit, not that I'm sold that MAKER is the best method to achieve liquidity, sittingduck says both could be developed concurrently.

Shareholders are not paying for anything else first.  Bid up the MAKER asset and create a maker worker to see where that goes.  Both can be done at the same time because they require different skills.

[Bhuz]

He gets to keep whatever tiny earnings there may be as a bonus for writing a successful proposal.

OT: The funny thing is that, that "tiny" earning is like 60% more of what a witness get in an entire month xD

[jakub]

Where Stealth could effect the referral programme is the price point, STEALTH will charge $0.5 where DASH charges less than $0.01 and is also already tied into numerous payment processors https://www.dash.org/payment-processors/

So if customers don't like paying 50X more than competitors for privacy and STEALTH doesn't lower the fee, BTS may lose business on other products and services and thus cost referrers & BTS shareholders money.

But DASH doesn't offer price-stable coins, does it?

[Empirical1.2]

You will never be able to vote with a stealth system. That is kind of the whole point of confidential transactions you don't know how much money everyone has. Voting was the primary way BTS one was compromised.  This does not affect the referral program because stealth transfers do not participate in the referral program because we don't know who is transferring to whom.

It might not matter much, but if you referred a user and they made stealth transaction, you do not earn referral fees on that transaction. So effectively it does affect the referral program.

In terms of the referral programme, I think it's a net gain when combined with other products & services as it make BTS as a whole is more sell-able so you'll probably generate more referrals & make income on their regular transactions.

Atm BTS doesn't really have any amazing products/USP so referring isn't easy.

Where Stealth could effect the referral programme is the price point, STEALTH will charge $0.5 where DASH charges less than $0.01 and is also already tied into numerous payment processors https://www.dash.org/payment-processors/

So if customers don't like paying 50X more than competitors for privacy and STEALTH doesn't lower the fee, BTS may lose business on other products and services and thus cost referrers & BTS shareholders money.

STEALTH will obviously want to maximise profit, so would likely consider lowering their price if demand was stagnant after 3-4 months.

[mint chocolate chip]

You will never be able to vote with a stealth system. That is kind of the whole point of confidential transactions you don't know how much money everyone has. Voting was the primary way BTS one was compromised.  This does not affect the referral program because stealth transfers do not participate in the referral program because we don't know who is transferring to whom.

It might not matter much, but if you referred a user and they made stealth transaction, you do not earn referral fees on that transaction. So effectively it does affect the referral program.

[sittingduck]

You will never be able to vote with a stealth system. That is kind of the whole point of confidential transactions you don't know how much money everyone has. Voting was the primary way BTS one was compromised.  This does not affect the referral program because stealth transfers do not participate in the referral program because we don't know who is transferring to whom. 

[Stan]

IF (just assume) the worker is voted out before Jan 1, will you(or CNX) pay xeroc 300$ for created that work proposal, or BTS holders pay him fully via dilution, or xeroc burn the fund which is already paid to him? If it's voted in, will you charge BTS holders $1000 more or $700 more for implement the hard fork? You put xeroc at a strange position.

He gets compensated in other ways for doing the work.  He gets to keep whatever tiny earnings there may be as a bonus for writing a successful proposal.

[abit]

As I said I'm not too against Stealth given the money is on the table and I'm not overly exposed to BTS currently, but without incentives for voting or keeping BTS off the exchanges it's likely voting turnout may always be fairly low, allowing bad decisions to be pushed through with fairly little stake even if the majority don't agree.

Non sequitur.

Lack of easy Stealth is probably one of the biggest reasons people aren't willing to vote.
Adding new FBAs  is adding reasons to keep BTS off the exchanges as is OpenLedger.
Total participation being low means serious resistance is easy to mount.
And if you don't have enough BTS off outside exchanges right now to vote 'no' with, why should your opinion count?

Believe me, the $45000 work (only for GUI) won't bring new "big" users right away, you'll ask for more money. Because ..
1. current "stealth" implementation is neither unlinkable nor untraceable, thus is unusable imho
2. currently it's unable to vote with "stealth" fund
3. currently it's unable to bid with "stealth" fund

At that time they will face a choice:

1.  Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2.  Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).

Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.

Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.

That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.

This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.

Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.

Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?

Where did you get the one day poll?  Voting continues until Jan 1 as I understand the plan.  No?

Roadmap

Feedback and discussion of this thread: December 8 to December 10, 2015
Presentation of an amended Cryptonomex Worker Proposal: Dec 11, 2015 This worker proposal should include Milestones of what is intended to be accomplished by the end of week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4 and week 5 so that the Community can follow progress in the github.
Voting for Worker Proposal: Dec 11 to January 1, 2016
onceuponatime forwards $45,000 to Cryptonomex: Jan.2, 2016
Cryptonomex does the development and testing of the feature: (4 to 6 weeks)
Hard fork for implementation of the feature: Monday Feb, 15th

IF (just assume) the worker is voted out before Jan 1, will you(or CNX) pay xeroc 300$ for created that work proposal, or BTS holders pay him fully via dilution, or xeroc burn the fund which is already paid to him? If it's voted in, will you charge BTS holders $1000 more or $700 more for implement the hard fork? You put xeroc at a strange position.

[btswildpig]

However, and egg .

然并卵。

[tonyk]

There are features that Cryptonomex wants to implement where privacy is extremely important and there are lots of people that have avoided importing their balances from BitShares 1.0 because of the lack of privacy. Anyone who's got millions of BitShares cares about privacy. So the privacy feature is something that I think is very important and it's actually a barrier to adoption by a lot of people, particularly people with money. It's something we need and it's something that Cryptonomex has already invested the time in to implement at the blockchain level. This proposal helps fund Cryptonomex and it keeps all the guys employed with the revenue they need to do things. So it's a critical proposal in several different ways.

=)

In the mean time I personally would have been more concerned with *asshole1* who took 2000 BTS of yours just for the fun of it last night... I have no clue why did he spared your other milking cow (percent)? Maybe his bot just got over fed and needed a rest/sleep....

[carpet ride]

I may be wrong, but the main issue here is that this asset compromises the integrity of the refer program.

This idea feels ike a shot in the dark but maybe it will inspire someone smarter than I to complete the idea.

• If applications could set their own fees (blockchain + application fee), then the FBAs would be less of a divisive issue.

EG Moonstone charges $1.50 for the blockchain fee and $1.50 for their own profits.  = $3.00 fee.    This way we could still make room for the referrer to get involved and keep the integrity of the program.  The application (e.g. moonstone or openledger) can increase their transaction fee to make margin available for referrers. 

[Buck Fankers]

There are features that Cryptonomex wants to implement where privacy is extremely important and there are lots of people that have avoided importing their balances from BitShares 1.0 because of the lack of privacy. Anyone who's got millions of BitShares cares about privacy. So the privacy feature is something that I think is very important and it's actually a barrier to adoption by a lot of people, particularly people with money. It's something we need and it's something that Cryptonomex has already invested the time in to implement at the blockchain level. This proposal helps fund Cryptonomex and it keeps all the guys employed with the revenue they need to do things. So it's a critical proposal in several different ways.

=)

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

I just think some people are blind... Someone ready to invest a sum of money to integrate a new feature to BitShares, is a bad thing?
How could it be wrong? Do someone actually think that onceup will throw this money out of its window without working his *** out to promote and do something of it which will benefit all the community?

onceuponatime's intentions, although a mystery, aren't really the question in my mind. Of course he's well intentioned enough he's been a bitshares supporter for ages.

it's about throwing the baby out with the bathwater out of desperation to get a new feature developed. Splitting up the value incentive takes away from BTS. Both directly and as a result of causing people (who thought they'd already invested in this feature) to have to buy a new asset, if it get's made available, eventually, and I'm sure it will as onceup has hinted at that-- but that means I'm still trusting somebody in this trustless system.  this is about the precedent it will set.

I'm willing to be patient, and wait until Graphene has proven itself reliable long term and people start to buy into it for what it already is. It will happen even with just maintenance and no real features. features are just gravy. they're a luxury that we can't afford. not socializing the costs robs BTS holders imo.

Really??? We are talking about it? I am lost here... "New feature"+ "someone who will work hard for bts" is a great combo IMO...

because issues get discussed in an ecosystem where voting takes place.


Could somebody explain to me the separation between BitShares the Blockchain, BitShares wallets, and Graphene?

If it's just a wallet feature, and other people are free to develop their own stealth wallets which burn fees, I could live with this arrangement. Kind of a bootstrap until the ecosystem becomes self supporting. But it's not just one wallet, it's a fee being written into the blockchain, just so it can be used by one wallet. or does OpenLedger, constitute the blockchain, powered by Graphene, as it currently exists? Can third party wallets charge fees from the blockchain independently  of openledger, as payment for features openledger doesn't have? If somebody wants to implement their own stealth, can they just write up their own wallet for it? I guess I'm not clear on what it is exactly we're doing, but a hard fork for a fee change does not bode well.

[mangou007]

I just think some people are blind... Someone ready to invest a sum of money to integrate a new feature to BitShares, is a bad thing?
How could it be wrong? Do someone actually think that onceup will throw this money out of its window without working his *** out to promote and do something of it which will benefit all the community?

Really??? We are talking about it? I am lost here... "New feature"+ "someone who will work hard for bts" is a great combo IMO...

[Empirical1.2]

As I said I'm not too against Stealth given the money is on the table and I'm not overly exposed to BTS currently, but without incentives for voting or keeping BTS off the exchanges it's likely voting turnout may always be fairly low, allowing bad decisions to be pushed through with fairly little stake even if the majority don't agree.

Non sequitur.

Lack of easy Stealth is probably one of the biggest reasons people aren't willing to vote.
Adding new FBAs  is adding reasons to keep BTS off the exchanges as is OpenLedger.
Total participation being low means serious resistance is easy to mount.
And if you don't have enough BTS off outside exchanges right now to vote 'no' with, why should your opinion count?

BTS is still reliant on Dan & CNX so opposition to Dan's preffered action is often futile & your and Dan's response is usually along the lines of 'sell if you're not happy' as a result you see opposition and opinions expressed in either falling/rising share price than active voting.

Those people's opinions, who have BTS off-exchange & don't vote,  still count because their decision to support major decisions with increased buying or oppose them with selling has a major impact on BTS's ability to grow and in the case of the dilution model, fund itself.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

But maybe it is OK and all around here are just sheep that does not deserve better than pure dictatorship...

bitcrab is not voting on it because it is not directly related to his business interests, fav managed to came up with technical excuse why not to vote at least for the refund worker [so to effectively rise the barrier to entry above bm single vote deciding the fate of any worker proposal]

Maybe it is exactly what bts deserves, just maybe.

I stand with you on this one tony. I said that the instant talk of all this started.

I pretty much just gave up on arguing though. I can see that my opinion is out-BTS'd.

[Stan]

As I said I'm not too against Stealth given the money is on the table and I'm not overly exposed to BTS currently, but without incentives for voting or keeping BTS off the exchanges it's likely voting turnout may always be fairly low, allowing bad decisions to be pushed through with fairly little stake even if the majority don't agree.

Non sequitur.

Lack of easy Stealth is probably one of the biggest reasons people aren't willing to vote.
Adding new FBAs  is adding reasons to keep BTS off the exchanges as is OpenLedger.
Total participation being low means serious resistance is easy to mount.
And if you don't have enough BTS off outside exchanges right now to vote 'no' with, why should your opinion count?

[tonyk]

For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.

The only people supposing it is BM and his employees (xeroc).

Those 2 weeks to vote on deliberately hidden facts, conveniently fall in the 2 weeks most people will be on vacation/on holiday.


After all why don't you (if not BM) himself come and answer straight this question - Am I going to have to pay the stealth fee if I use the CLI for my stealth transfers or not?-

If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.

One might argue that the holidays are the best time - because things slow down at work and you have time to do a little reading.

If it was a pure GUI feature, there would be no hard fork needed and we wouldn't have to take a vote.  BM explained all this for over 30 minutes in yesterday's Mumble to make sure it was clear.

The entire concept was discussed in several threads for the past several weeks.

Further, this led to the concept of FBAs which are the Flux Capacitor of BitShares.   It is a major new way to enable the funding of new features needed to make moon travel possible.

We will continue to look for ways to add new features to BitShares - That way leads to the Bright Side.

As for the CLI, I don't know.  Good question.

 

it did lead to FBA, didn't it? Really? Interesting...

I am increasingly sure it will not lead the next time...

btw I will be fully supporting stealth real soon... I mean, I see money on the table and  a whole community of idiots, so "why not" I asked myself???

It's amusing I'm personally not too concerned with STEALTH but then again I'm not overly invested in BTS atm either...

You are receiving the same response I got to my dictatorship concerns when dilution was being forced through...

Let us have intelligent debate where every voice is equally heard   

I think BTS is still a benevolent dictatorship at this stage.

Does anyone have a different POV?

What we've got is an ideal case of "silence means consent".  If there is ever a case when apathy turns to anger, then the majority has the ability to remove the benevolent dictator by raising as little as 5% or 10% worth of opposition.  That is less power than the captain of a ship has.  And captains are given such authority for good reasons.

I would never set sail on a ship commanded by its passengers.
I would never bet on a ball team coached by its fans.
I would not invest in a company directed by its shareholders.

All is swell. 
If not, sell.

 

Apparently Shareholders selling BTSX & halving it's value from the time dilution was proposed, was a perfect example of silence means consent    But that worked out alright didn't it?

Just relax...

Relax and enjoy the chance to spend one more paycheck at these prices.   

haha good one

you were either good or lucky, idk for sure, but good for you whatever the cause.

but at least it is better later than never...

PS
I do not consider myself the smartest cookie in the room...it took me just about 10 times shooting myself in the foot.

Good luck for the more persevering one though...

[Empirical1.2]

For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.

The only people supposing it is BM and his employees (xeroc).

Those 2 weeks to vote on deliberately hidden facts, conveniently fall in the 2 weeks most people will be on vacation/on holiday.


After all why don't you (if not BM) himself come and answer straight this question - Am I going to have to pay the stealth fee if I use the CLI for my stealth transfers or not?-

If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.

One might argue that the holidays are the best time - because things slow down at work and you have time to do a little reading.

If it was a pure GUI feature, there would be no hard fork needed and we wouldn't have to take a vote.  BM explained all this for over 30 minutes in yesterday's Mumble to make sure it was clear.

The entire concept was discussed in several threads for the past several weeks.

Further, this led to the concept of FBAs which are the Flux Capacitor of BitShares.   It is a major new way to enable the funding of new features needed to make moon travel possible.

We will continue to look for ways to add new features to BitShares - That way leads to the Bright Side.

As for the CLI, I don't know.  Good question.

 

it did lead to FBA, didn't it? Really? Interesting...

I am increasingly sure it will not lead the next time...

btw I will be fully supporting stealth real soon... I mean, I see money on the table and  a whole community of idiots, so "why not" I asked myself???

It's amusing I'm personally not too concerned with STEALTH but then again I'm not overly invested in BTS atm either...

You are receiving the same response I got to my dictatorship concerns when dilution was being forced through...

Let us have intelligent debate where every voice is equally heard   

I think BTS is still a benevolent dictatorship at this stage.

Does anyone have a different POV?

What we've got is an ideal case of "silence means consent".  If there is ever a case when apathy turns to anger, then the majority has the ability to remove the benevolent dictator by raising as little as 5% or 10% worth of opposition.  That is less power than the captain of a ship has.  And captains are given such authority for good reasons.

I would never set sail on a ship commanded by its passengers.
I would never bet on a ball team coached by its fans.
I would not invest in a company directed by its shareholders.

All is swell. 
If not, sell.

 

Apparently Shareholders selling BTSX & halving it's value from the time dilution was proposed, was a perfect example of silence means consent    But that worked out alright didn't it?

Just relax...

Relax and enjoy the chance to spend one more paycheck at these prices.   

As I said I'm not too against Stealth given the money is on the table and I'm not overly exposed to BTS currently, but without incentives for voting or keeping BTS off the exchanges it's likely voting turnout may always be fairly low, allowing bad decisions to be pushed through with fairly little stake even if the majority don't agree.

[tonyk]

For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.

The only people supposing it is BM and his employees (xeroc).

Those 2 weeks to vote on deliberately hidden facts, conveniently fall in the 2 weeks most people will be on vacation/on holiday.


After all why don't you (if not BM) himself come and answer straight this question - Am I going to have to pay the stealth fee if I use the CLI for my stealth transfers or not?-

If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.

One might argue that the holidays are the best time - because things slow down at work and you have time to do a little reading.

If it was a pure GUI feature, there would be no hard fork needed and we wouldn't have to take a vote.  BM explained all this for over 30 minutes in yesterday's Mumble to make sure it was clear.

The entire concept was discussed in several threads for the past several weeks.

Further, this led to the concept of FBAs which are the Flux Capacitor of BitShares.   It is a major new way to enable the funding of new features needed to make moon travel possible.

We will continue to look for ways to add new features to BitShares - That way leads to the Bright Side.

As for the CLI, I don't know.  Good question.

 

it did lead to FBA, didn't it? Really? Interesting...

I am increasingly sure it will not lead the next time...

btw I will be fully supporting stealth real soon... I mean, I see money on the table and  a whole community of idiots, so "why not" I asked myself???

[Stan]

For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.

The only people supposing it is BM and his employees (xeroc).

Those 2 weeks to vote on deliberately hidden facts, conveniently fall in the 2 weeks most people will be on vacation/on holiday.


After all why don't you (if not BM) himself come and answer straight this question - Am I going to have to pay the stealth fee if I use the CLI for my stealth transfers or not?-

If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.

One might argue that the holidays are the best time - because things slow down at work and you have time to do a little reading.

If it was a pure GUI feature, there would be no hard fork needed and we wouldn't have to take a vote.  BM explained all this for over 30 minutes in yesterday's Mumble to make sure it was clear.

The entire concept was discussed in several threads for the past several weeks.

Further, this led to the concept of FBAs which are the Flux Capacitor of BitShares.   It is a major new way to enable the funding of new features needed to make moon travel possible.

We will continue to look for ways to add new features to BitShares - That way leads to the Bright Side.

As for the CLI, I don't know.  Good question.

 

[puppies]

Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble

[Stan]

At that time they will face a choice:

1.  Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2.  Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).

Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.

Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.

That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.

This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.

Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.

Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?

Where did you get the one day poll?  Voting continues until Jan 1 as I understand the plan.  No?

Roadmap

Feedback and discussion of this thread: December 8 to December 10, 2015
Presentation of an amended Cryptonomex Worker Proposal: Dec 11, 2015 This worker proposal should include Milestones of what is intended to be accomplished by the end of week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4 and week 5 so that the Community can follow progress in the github.
Voting for Worker Proposal: Dec 11 to January 1, 2016
onceuponatime forwards $45,000 to Cryptonomex: Jan.2, 2016
Cryptonomex does the development and testing of the feature: (4 to 6 weeks)
Hard fork for implementation of the feature: Monday Feb, 15th

[tonyk]

But maybe it is OK and all around here are just sheep that does not deserve better than pure dictatorship...

bitcrab is not voting on it because it is not directly related to his business interests, fav managed to came up with technical excuse why not to vote at least for the refund worker [so to effectively rise the barrier to entry above bm single vote deciding the fate of any worker proposal]

Maybe it is exactly what bts deserves, just maybe.

I think most people here have realized bts has been a terrible investment and just want their money back.  They are hoping bm can catch lightning in a bottle and somehow raise the market cap to a level where it's satisfactory to get out.  That's why you see every proposal he makes voted in. People are just hoping one of them sticks and works out.

lol, interesting take.

only problem with this plan - "catch lightning in a bottle" seems a lot more like "shooting oneself in the foot"....repeatedly... with each attempt.

[jakub]

The point is: some shareholders would like to have an FBA to contribute in this funding, and doing so have a future revenue from the FBA's tokens
Some shareholders potentially could vote for this proposal thinking that onceuponatime will sell his shares back in the market, or will pass all his shares to the private investor who seems to be willing to seel those shares back to the BTS shareholders.

The fact is that all the above is totally unclear and made up by "maybe", "probably", "could", and so on...so you are not going to care of that even?

Plus, why don't give the shareholders a fair way to contribute?
Why don't let us vote for a worker to implement the FBA *first, and only *after that, make *real FBAs tokens for STEALTH, prediction market, bond market ect etc?
In this way we could see what is the actualy demand for stealth vs other core features...and only in this way the shareholders have real power to decide.

I understand your point about other shareholders wanting a fair way to contribute.

But from the blockchain's point of view, these two are the only things that matter:
- is the blockchain's 20% participation in the STEALTH revenue stream good enough?
- will this STEALTH project delay other important features?

Fair distribution of this FBAs is not my concern (for me as a shareholder and a proxy).
(Or at least it is not important enough to have an impact on my vote)

[abit]

Shareholders are not paying for anything else first.  Bid up the MAKER asset and create a maker worker to see where that goes.  Both can be done at the same time because they require different skills.

Those who want to "secretly" support MAKER or other FBAs would disappoint since current implement of STEALTH only supports transfer but not support bid/ask or anything else.

[abit]

Why don't let us vote for a worker to implement the FBA *first, and only *after that, make *real FBAs tokens for STEALTH, prediction market, bond market ect etc?
In this way we could see what is the actualy demand for stealth vs other core features...and only in this way the shareholders have real power to decide.

Good point.
By the way @Bhuz looks like you are not voting for or against this proposal either.

You know that "just take it and develop" means that for like 2 months cnx will work basically only on stealth putting in pause all the others things that shareholders would prefer to have first?

Not that bad as we still have svk who is working for UI, and most of this work is in UI. The C++ developers in CNX can still do other things.
//Edit: just saw sittingduck's post after yours.

[fav]

(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)

I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.

 

I don't understand this poll to be honest. someone is ready to throw money at CNX - they should just take it and develop. there's no way that people won't vote FOR the hardfork once it's ready

You know that "just take it and develop" means that for like 2 months cnx will work basically only on stealth putting in pause all the others things that shareholders would prefer to have first?

I'm aware of that and not too happy about it. but talking for 2 months about stuff won't get anything done, and unfortunately that's one of our weaknesses. we talk too much

[sittingduck]

Shareholders are not paying for anything else first.  Bid up the MAKER asset and create a maker worker to see where that goes.  Both can be done at the same time because they require different skills.

[Bhuz]

(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)

I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.

 

I don't understand this poll to be honest. someone is ready to throw money at CNX - they should just take it and develop. there's no way that people won't vote FOR the hardfork once it's ready

You know that "just take it and develop" means that for like 2 months cnx will work basically only on stealth putting in pause all the others things that shareholders would prefer to have first?

[Bhuz]

(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)

I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.

The point is: some shareholders would like to have an FBA to contribute in this funding, and doing so have a future revenue from the FBA's tokens
Some shareholders potentially could vote for this proposal thinking that onceuponatime will sell his shares back in the market, or will pass all his shares to the private investor who seems to be willing to seel those shares back to the BTS shareholders.

The fact is that all the above is totally unclear and made up by "maybe", "probably", "could", and so on...so you are not going to care of that even?

Plus, why don't give the shareholders a fair way to contribute?
Why don't let us vote for a worker to implement the FBA *first, and only *after that, make *real FBAs tokens for STEALTH, prediction market, bond market ect etc?
In this way we could see what is the actualy demand for stealth vs other core features...and only in this way the shareholders have real power to decide.

[fav]

(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)

I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.

 

I don't understand this poll to be honest. someone is ready to throw money at CNX - they should just take it and develop. there's no way that people won't vote FOR the hardfork once it's ready

[abit]

At that time they will face a choice:

1.  Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2.  Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).

Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.

Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.

That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.

This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.

Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.

Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?

The fact is, hard code the 80%/20% split in block-chain level is efficiently discouraging other UI developers (E.G. Moonstone) to produce a better UI, thus CNX could be the only developer for the system. Is it really good for the ecosystem @Stan?

[tonyk]

For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.

And you are hiding the fact that the net revenue for the blockchain will most probably increase as a result.
So what you are advocating is effectively preventing the blockchain from having higher revenues.

How much revenue is STEALTH generating now, i.e. without the GUI support?
Personally I prefer 20% of a much bigger amount than 100% of a negligible amount.
Somebody has to pay for the STEALTH UI - it has to be either a private investor or the blockchain itself.

No I am not... I already shared my take on it...I do think onceUp is the biggest looser (moneywise) in the whole ordeal. Not only he will lose on his bts investment (no I idea how big it is as of now but I am guessing AT LEAST 1/3 to 1/2 of his current 45K bid, and I will not be surprised if it is much more than that), but he must be ready to kiss his 45K one last time on January second, before a long and painful wait to see just some of them back one day...maybe.

[jakub]

(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)

I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.

[abit]

But maybe it is OK and all around here are just sheep that does not deserve better than pure dictatorship...

bitcrab is not voting on it because it is not directly related to his business interests, fav managed to came up with technical excuse why not to vote at least for the refund worker [so to effectively rise the barrier to entry above bm single vote deciding the fate of any worker proposal]

Maybe it is exactly what bts deserves, just maybe.

Tony, BM is as humane as just voted via the "angel" account, he is not abusing his voting power.

[jakub]

For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.

And you are hiding the fact that the net revenue for the blockchain will most probably increase as a result.
So what you are advocating is effectively preventing the blockchain from having higher revenues.

How much revenue is STEALTH generating now, i.e. without the GUI support?
Personally I prefer 20% of a much bigger amount than 100% of a negligible amount.
Somebody has to pay for the STEALTH UI - it has to be either a private investor or the blockchain itself.

[Bhuz]

@tonyk , just to make it clear.
I am not delighted about this STEALTH feature taking so much priority.
I think it could wait till Q2 2016. But I accept this situation as part of the DPOS game we play.

You can accept that eventually the feature will be implemented because the majority of the stakeholders want it...ok

But why don't you want to express your point in this strange "poll", now, voting for or against it?!

And this is a general question to all the main proxies like @fav @clayop @bitcrab and all the others proxies we have.

If you feel this is the right time to implement STEALTH as it is (lacking of untraceability),
If you feel right with the way it is going to happen (no real FBA, plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do whit his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)
THEN vote for it!

If instead you don't feel so good about the above, or have others cons, THEN vote against it!

This worker was made for us to vote and express our point of view! Let's use this poll and let's vote now!
Why should we stay neutral and wait for the "real" one?!

[lil_jay890]

But maybe it is OK and all around here are just sheep that does not deserve better than pure dictatorship...

bitcrab is not voting on it because it is not directly related to his business interests, fav managed to came up with technical excuse why not to vote at least for the refund worker [so to effectively rise the barrier to entry above bm single vote deciding the fate of any worker proposal]

Maybe it is exactly what bts deserves, just maybe.

I think most people here have realized bts has been a terrible investment and just want their money back.  They are hoping bm can catch lightning in a bottle and somehow raise the market cap to a level where it's satisfactory to get out.  That's why you see every proposal he makes voted in. People are just hoping one of them sticks and works out.

[abit]

At that time they will face a choice:

1.  Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2.  Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).

Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.

Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.

That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.

This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.

Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.

Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?

[tonyk]

But maybe it is OK and all around here are just sheep that does not deserve better than pure dictatorship...

bitcrab is not voting on it because it is not directly related to his business interests, fav managed to came up with technical excuse why not to vote at least for the refund worker [so to effectively rise the barrier to entry above bm single vote deciding the fate of any worker proposal]

Maybe it is exactly what bts deserves, just maybe.

[tonyk]

I may be as dumb as Toast (which admittedly is not all that dumb), and I admit I haven't been paying that much attention after helping OnceUp's team figure out an approach, but I'm having a hard time seeing a dictatorship in here:

This shows the current status of voting on a tiny fee for xeroc's effort in setting up a poll, which in turn informs the witnesses about the opinion of the community concerning whether a proposed software patch should be installed.

It would appear that the presumed "dictator" is the six accounts that have bothered to vote wielding about 6% of the community's potential voting power.  How dare they do that!  What blatant unmitigated tyranny!  Off with their heads! 

It also informs the proposers about whether they have enough support to risk spending their own money on developing a product.

Two weeks notice has always been the standard for advance notice in this community.  Few corporations are required give more notice than that for a shareholder's vote.  To take longer than that is to hamstring the corporation's ability to maneuver and compete.

At the end of that time, an investor's real money is going to be spent based on the status of that vote at that time.  As more voters get around to voting before then, that could swing either way - but enough have already agreed to pay Xeroc for setting up the vote, which is all that being "voted in" means at this point.

Then, when the project is complete, the new software will be presented to the witnesses as an opportunity to hard fork by switching to running the new package.

At that time they will face a choice:

1.  Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2.  Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).

Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.

Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.

That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.

This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.

Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.

For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.

The only people supposing it is BM and his employees (xeroc).

Those 2 weeks to vote on deliberately hidden facts, conveniently fall in the 2 weeks most people will be on vacation/on holiday.


After all why don't you (if not BM) himself come and answer straight this question - Am I going to have to pay the stealth fee if I use the CLI for my stealth transfers or not?-

[Stan]

I may be as dumb as Toast (which admittedly is not all that dumb), and I admit I haven't been paying that much attention after helping OnceUp's team figure out an approach, but I'm having a hard time seeing a dictatorship in here:

This shows the current status of voting on a tiny fee for xeroc's effort in setting up a poll, which in turn informs the witnesses about the opinion of the community concerning whether a proposed software patch should be installed.

It would appear that the presumed "dictator" is the six accounts that have bothered to vote wielding about 6% of the community's potential voting power.  How dare they do that!  What blatant unmitigated tyranny!  Off with their heads! 

It also informs the proposers about whether they have enough support to risk spending their own money on developing a product.

Two weeks notice has always been the standard for advance notice in this community.  Few corporations are required give more notice than that for a shareholder's vote.  To take longer than that is to hamstring the corporation's ability to maneuver and compete.

At the end of that time, an investor's real money is going to be spent based on the status of that vote at that time.  As more voters get around to voting before then, that could swing either way - but enough have already agreed to pay Xeroc for setting up the vote, which is all that being "voted in" means at this point.

Then, when the project is complete, the new software will be presented to the witnesses as an opportunity to hard fork by switching to running the new package.

At that time they will face a choice:

1.  Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2.  Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).

Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.

Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.

That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.

This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.

Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.

[jakub]

How you gonna vote after those 2 weeks?  The only option you will have left is by voting with your feet, my friend.

No, during those 2 weeks (or probably much longer) you can vote against the worker proposal.
If CNX deploys STEALTH at a time when this worker proposal is effectively downvoted - I'll agree with you that this would amount to "dictatorship".

[jakub]

@tonyk , just to make it clear.
I am not delighted about this STEALTH feature taking so much priority.
I think it could wait till Q2 2016. But I accept this situation as part of the DPOS game we play.

[tonyk]

152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593  = 6.01%

In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.

That's how DPOS works - those who do not care enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process.
This is exactly how it is supposed to be.

Absolutely NOT - When  changing the blockchain rules are concerned.

Stakeholder are supposed to be given enough time to get informed and react!

[Some decent min amount of required support is a great idea, but who cares about principles when money are on the table ]
Hell even the benign changes done to only the parameters [and not the protocol itself] should take 2 weeks before taking an effect.

But the actual vote will take place after more than 2 weeks - when the code is ready to be deployed and a hard-fork is needed.
The worker proposal created by xeroc is only meant to give CNX an indication if STEALTH has a chance of being accepted.

So stakeholders are given enough time to get informed and react.
So what's your point?

Stop being delusional. The vote is now!

How you gonna vote after those 2 weeks?  The only option you will have left is by voting with your feet, my friend.

PS
I know he did not explained that part either, so that's why you are under this false assumption...it all comingles in this swift action 'plan' over the stakeholders heads.

[jakub]

152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593  = 6.01%

In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.

That's how DPOS works - those who do not care enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process.
This is exactly how it is supposed to be.

Absolutely NOT - When  changing the blockchain rules are concerned.

Stakeholder are supposed to be given enough time to get informed and react!

[Some decent min amount of required support is a great idea, but who cares about principles when money are on the table ]
Hell even the benign changes done to only the parameters [and not the protocol itself] should take 2 weeks before taking an effect.

But the actual vote will take place after more than 2 weeks - when the code is ready to be deployed and a hard-fork is needed.
The worker proposal created by xeroc is only meant to give CNX an indication if STEALTH has a chance of being accepted.

So stakeholders are given enough time to get informed and react.
So what's your point?

[tonyk]

152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593  = 6.01%

In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.

That's how DPOS works - those who do not care enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process.
This is exactly how it is supposed to be.

Absolutely NOT - When  changing the blockchain rules are concerned.

Stakeholder are supposed to be given enough time to get informed and react!

[Some decent min amount of required support is a great idea, but who cares about principles when money are on the table ]
Hell even the benign changes done to only the parameters [and not the protocol itself] should take 2 weeks before taking an effect.

[jakub]

152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593  = 6.01%

In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.

That's how DPOS works - those who do not care enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process.
This is exactly how it is supposed to be.

[tonyk]

Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things?

You are abusing words, @tonyk

onceuponatime offered 45k for a feature he believes in, CNX accepted the offer and additionally the whole thing went through the worker proposal process.
If you believe BitShares should have other priorities, just raise the funds, find developers and get your worker proposal accepted.

I agree with you that maybe STEALTH is not the thing needed the most at this stage (I'd prioritize liquidity over STEALTH) but I would never call it "dictatorship".
This is how DPOS works. People vote with their money here and it just happened that STEALTH got more support at this moment so it will go first.

No I am not!

Can you tell me the total % of BTS voting for this hard fork , which changes the fees from  allocated to BTS and allocated to a private party?

152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593  = 6.01%

In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.

[jakub]

Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things?

You are abusing words, @tonyk

onceuponatime offered 45k for a feature he believes in, CNX accepted the offer and additionally the whole thing went through the worker proposal process.
If you believe BitShares should have other priorities, just raise the funds, find developers and get your worker proposal accepted.

I agree with you that maybe STEALTH is not the thing needed the most at this stage (I'd prioritize liquidity over STEALTH) but I would never call it "dictatorship".
This is how DPOS works. People vote with their money here and it just happened that STEALTH got more support at this moment so it will go first.

[tonyk]

.
@onceuponatime you said you share BM's philosophy. Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things? well I should not ask you that, throwing 45K in the  money sucking hole of BTS, should be enough [although too harsh for my taste] punishment for blindly following the words and not paying attention to the actual actions of the people you trust.

as far as I know he's going to pay with fiat. shouldn't slam a hole in BTS

I know - the statement was supposed to mean "throwing 45,000 USD of your life-savings into the money sucking - never-producing-finished-products Bitshares system".

[fav]

.
@onceuponatime you said you share BM's philosophy. Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things? well I should not ask you that, throwing 45K in the  money sucking hole of BTS, should be enough [although too harsh for my taste] punishment for blindly following the words and not paying attention to the actual actions of the people you trust.

as far as I know he's going to pay with fiat. shouldn't slam a hole in BTS

[tonyk]

This stealthy thingy has a good chance to be the second worst BM's invention.

What is the first one?

Encouraging brown-nosing as a highly desirable treat in the new better world... although when you connect one and 2, dictatorship and brown-nosing, they fit together pretty nicely actually.

[yvv]

This stealthy thingy has a good chance to be the second worst BM's invention.

What is the first one?

[tonyk]

This stealthy thingy has a good chance to be the second worst BM's invention.

-First you ask for an opinion/input. - you get the  input - more or less the input is " cool just wait for its time and make it FBA."

- You disregard this opinion/input - You make it a top priority and maybe FBA, but just pro-forma FBA , otherwise all of it to the single investor.

- In the process it is discovered that you will change the protocol and effectively make an existing feature private by selling it to investors.

-If all this is not bad enough you single handedly voted the worker in.

And what is the next step BM? Claim that this was voter approved decision and hard fork?


You do realizes that in addition to all the negative PR of the above you added a clear and undeniable proof that BTS is centralized entity in which BM does whatever he feels like, whenever he feels like...and if the rest are against such decision it is even better time to show some good dictatorship?

.
@onceuponatime you said you share BM's philosophy. Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things? well I should not ask you that, throwing 45K in the  money sucking hole of BTS, should be enough [although too harsh for my taste] punishment for blindly following the words and not paying attention to the actual actions of the people you trust.

[Samupaha]

Worker proposals get voted in if they have more votes than the refund worker. I don't know if that can be delayed anyway. Of course the payout could be set very high so that it would take several days or weeks to complete and the worker could be voted out during that, but it would mean a lot of dilution.

[abit]

Sorry for mention this again and again in the forum, but I really don't like such kind of rush-for-voting.

http://cryptofresh.com/workers
http://cryptofresh.com/ballots