I posted my witness update today. You can find it on Whaleshares here:
https://whaleshares.io/stateofthewitnesses/@lets-share-waylz/verbaltech2-bitshares-witness-update

or on steemit here:
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@full-steem-ahead/verbaltech2-bitshares-witness-update

If you find this information useful please give an upvote.

Thank you!

I highly recommend that people who are voting for this proxy should think again what they are doing.

Bitshares isn't just another pump'n'dump currency but a DAC. This means we are a company that is creating services and products for paying customers.

Currently baozi is voting against every worker proposal except refund and burn workers. This is basically same thing as voting for destruction of Bitshares. Without any development we are pretty much unable to serve our customers. Without customers we can't be a succesful company and make money.

For example xeroc's worker proposals are highly valuable for DAC because they enable other businesses to build on Bitshares blockchain. By voting against these proposals, you are voting for restraining other businesses and developers using Bitshares. Is that really what you want?

Also the whole antidilution talk is misleading. There is no dilution anymore in Bitshares. The quantity of BTS is hardcapped to 3.7 billion. If you want to grow the portion of BTS that is in the reserve pool, it is much better choice to try to get more paying customers rather than deny a salary for a worker. It is true that not paying a salary for a employee is a way to save money for a company, but it is also highly risky way of action because it is very hard for a company to become succesful and make lots of money without any employees.

So I think you have misunderstood the concept of DAC. If you don't like the current model that we have now (no dilution, reserve pool) you should suggest a better model rather than bluntly hamper the development of Bitshares. Voting for baozi is not helping anybody, on the contrary it is a way to decrease the value of BTS which will harm all of us.

I totally agree with you. This seems to be the same sentiment returning as we saw in the last bear market of 2015 and 2016. It severely hurt our progress. Now that we have solid dev teams for core and UI here comes alt and boazi to HALT ALL workers under the guise of "anti-dilution".

There is no dilution going on here. The amount of BTS is fixed, set in stone.

It is crazy to push for this and I sincerely hope proxies join together to defeat this wave of ANTI-PROGRESS.

Your idea makes perfect sense Alex, but need to get an attorney to weigh in if it is likely to be considered a security to USA jurisdiction. If so, perhaps maintain option of payment in BTS.

Ofc there is the issue of the changes required to witness payment / vesting code, severing it from a fixed amount of BTS per block. Not sure if that will be a major issue to deal with. Not even sure why vesting for witness pay was ever involved tho, seems that could be eliminated IMO.

If there were an option to set a "multiplication FACTOR", whereby the BTS paid per block were calculated by a formula like:

committee witness rate setting (currently 1 BTS / block) * FACTOR == BTS paid per block, then if USA witnesses want to retain current pay method their FACTOR = 1, otherwise FACTOR is set to value that takes feed price into account to achieve a USD / CNY / EUR pay rate.

That would also require additional committee parameters to set USD / CNY / EUR pay rate values.

Haven't thought this thru in detail through, so may have some issues that haven't occurred to me.

I agree fox. I don't think we need the overhead of a totally new wallet in order to provide HW wallet functionality.

Not that a simple sign / transfer in / transfer out wallet design wouldn't also be nice to have, just not an initiall requirement for HW.

Quote from: alt on November 30, 2018, 04:06:35 am

why don't we improve step by step?
I guess reduce MSSR will be more easy to reach the concenses.
But dynamic tuning the MCR is not acceptable for me,  at least you need to give enough time to the shorters before adjustment the MCR.
you just can't make me margin call when you decide to increase the MCR next seconds. I consider this as   manipulation.

I understand that letting witness tune MCR introduce much uncertainty, so now in my mind it will be better if we can do this in another way, like:

1.witnesses just feed market price and premium.

2.system tune MCR periodically based on the fed premium, for example the rule can be: system adjust MCR every hour, if premium is inside -2%-1%, do not adjust the MCR, otherwise, tune it 0.001(start point 1.75) to according direction. 

maybe need to set max and min limit on MCR, for example 1.25-2.

however I am not sure whether this is technological possible and whether community can reach consensus on this.

This sounds like the most reasonable proposal I've seen from you @bitcrab:
- it requires honest market price reporting
- it sets limits on MCR adjustment
- preserves baseline collateral at 1.75

Clearly trade-offs are required between various "feed factions" that want their advantage / opinions implemented. This is easier to understand, easier for witnesses. Will it work?

Depends on the goals you have. We need to define those, otherwise we'll all vacillate between appeasing one camp or another.
Main things we need to define is what is minimum safety - i.e. absolute limits on MCR and how tight the peg must be held.
Another consideration is do we need to define different sets of limits when market is "volatile", and how to define what metrics to use to say market is volatile. You could define criteria that sets a boolean "isVolatile" flag, or, it could be an analog value from 0 (stable) to 1 (volatile). Perhaps this is same or similar to what is now labeled "premium". Can't say I understand how "premium" is calculated and what factors are involved. 

Also, why not publish a report to describe all this great knowledge learned from experimentation so we ALL can learn? Still waiting on that. If you've learned so much please summarize these "golden lessons" for those of us with lessor economic skills. Please help raise our understanding with a summary.

Too bad more people didn't contribute ideas and easy to understand descriptions like this one offered by @clockwork.

Take a look and please help so the next round of experiments will be more orderly and constructive to achieve the goal of a tighter peg but with well known limits to provide safety.

Quote from: ljk424 on November 21, 2018, 01:23:18 pm

BTS（比特股）登录BIONE交易所的公告
https://bione.cc/a/detail1542792667000.html

They have no impressum, or do state what is the legal entity behind the exchange (at least I couldn't find one). On the site and the "Contact" or "Join us" buttons are not functional.

Not a very good sign of a reliable reputation either.