151
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Committee Candidate] Xanoxt-committee, RuDEX & Russian Community Representative
« on: February 13, 2019, 11:41:12 am »
voted
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.
152
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Fee Schedule] Updating Fees - proposal created (2 weeks expiration)
« on: February 12, 2019, 12:53:46 pm »
FYI. New Fee schedule adjustment has been postponed pending further conversation and agreement on a gradual raise. The fees will only be adjusted to the previously agreed USD prices (i.e. adjusted for BTS price decrease since)
A new proposal for this will be created soon.
A new proposal for this will be created soon.
153
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Dice Game Smart Contract
« on: February 01, 2019, 12:33:55 pm »154
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 比特股再不振作起来，山寨货都来抢风头了
« on: January 05, 2019, 03:48:23 pm »
Seems to me the chosen airdrop accounts were PURPOSELY chosen to have active key=memo key.
I would not enter any of my keys on that site.
Even if legit, it's terribly planned (a signed message would suffice) and I'm inclined to think it's a way to harvest keys and steal funds
I would not enter any of my keys on that site.
Even if legit, it's terribly planned (a signed message would suffice) and I'm inclined to think it's a way to harvest keys and steal funds
155
General Discussion / Re: Option on the Bitshares Exchange. CALLCNY05MARCH19
« on: December 31, 2018, 09:39:55 pm »
Not really, things did not exactly go down like that as is perfectly visible in a full history explorer such as open-explorer.io.
As I said, we know what the relation to the hack knows.
Also, we all know eror404 is a well known scam account so that doesn't make things any better.
Anyway, authorities will handle this I'm sure.
As I said, we know what the relation to the hack knows.
Also, we all know eror404 is a well known scam account so that doesn't make things any better.
Anyway, authorities will handle this I'm sure.
156
General Discussion / Re: Option on the Bitshares Exchange. CALLCNY05MARCH19
« on: December 31, 2018, 05:03:57 pm »The issuer needs to appear hear and explain his ties to the OL hack and explain the on-chain truth.
Please refrain from further advertising this until then.
The Issuer has no relation to the OL hack.
You can get acquainted with the history described by me above and draw your own conclusions. Sorry, I can add nothing more to this.
In my opinion, the money stolen from OL should rather be sought in the OL itself. (only my opinion)
As DL said, don't change the question, we know what the relation of oliverstone7 to the hack is. What we are asking is what is your relation to the issuer of this asset.
157
General Discussion / Re: Option on the Bitshares Exchange. CALLCNY05MARCH19
« on: December 31, 2018, 10:43:00 am »@Neych
Please comment on Alex's remark
This is a very interesting story.
As far as I know, there was an alah-iraq account on which all the stolen money went.
At some point the account was hacked (on behalf of which the money came to the account)
But the problem for Allah Iraq was that there was about 40 thousand dollars on the account that was hacked by him, but all of them were pledged. And Allah-Iraq made a transfer of about 20 thousand dollars to unlock the funds.
As far as I know this money, he no longer saw, because all of them were immediately transferred to other accounts.
But I know for sure that the amount that was later transferred to Oliverstone was returned back to the sender’s account in full.
The subsequent history of this money is unknown.
This is unclear...are you suggesting a scammer is no longer at fault because he was hacked himself?
FWIW, I dont see anything under oliverstone7 that suggests he returned the funds... Even if he did (which OL should be able to confirm) , getting caught and returning the funds hardly changes status from scammer to non-scammer.
The truth is (and this is not story) that most of the funds during the breach were funnelled to insigner5 and walwet-a who then blind-transferred it to oliverstone7.
So we ask again,
What is your connection with the creators of this asset? (employee3 / oliverstone7)
Interested parties would like to know.
158
General Discussion / Re: Option on the Bitshares Exchange. CALLCNY05MARCH19
« on: December 31, 2018, 08:57:07 am »
This asset seems related to bts account: oliverstone7
Oliverstone7 was the receiver of the stolen funds from the OL hack.
PLEASE avoid until explanations (if any) are presented
Oliverstone7 was the receiver of the stolen funds from the OL hack.
PLEASE avoid until explanations (if any) are presented
159
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy:baozi - proxy for anti-dilution
« on: December 29, 2018, 03:18:57 pm »
This thread is quite old.
Alt has updated his reasoning about not voting (worker performance and transparency) and although I don't necessarily agree with him, dilution was no longer one of his reasons.
At the end of the day, dilution is minimal/non existant at this point. Even if all daily budget was spent on workers for a whole year(which it never was) , it's still only 4% added to the circulating supply. And not only was only about half of that actually spent even with most workers voted in, but 90% of that bts was used to buy bitassets so created demand that caused an equivalent amount*1.75 of bts to be locked up as collateral.
So the dilution argument is no longer alt's reason imho
Alt has updated his reasoning about not voting (worker performance and transparency) and although I don't necessarily agree with him, dilution was no longer one of his reasons.
At the end of the day, dilution is minimal/non existant at this point. Even if all daily budget was spent on workers for a whole year(which it never was) , it's still only 4% added to the circulating supply. And not only was only about half of that actually spent even with most workers voted in, but 90% of that bts was used to buy bitassets so created demand that caused an equivalent amount*1.75 of bts to be locked up as collateral.
So the dilution argument is no longer alt's reason imho
160
General Discussion / Re: would you support a cheater as the wintess?
« on: December 29, 2018, 08:39:37 am »it's really hard for me to teach you guys some common sence...@alt, You're wrong on this one.can you told me how obvious he is not follow the median price?
Crazybit FINALLY updated his feeding script (which you were right to be upset about) but he is not cheating now.
He is not FOLLOWING median price, instead his feed is SETTING median price most of the time (which means he is very accurate)
This becomes obvious if you don't track by hand but instead use zapata's tracker to look at his and other witnesses feeding activity: http://pricefeed-tracker.dex.trading/
did you see the snapshot about how exactely his feed price change after the median price?
and thank you, this chat show more clear that how exactely every 5 meniutes his price followed the median price. just choose the price from crazybit and median price.
in case you don't know how to see the chart, I will tell you the detail:
1. open http://pricefeed-tracker.dex.trading/
2. input crazybit in publisher,
3. input 2018/12/26 10:00:00 am in "From"
4. check the box "feed median"
you will see a chart like below, you can see every 5 minutes(10:15, 10:20, 10:35, 11:00, 11:05, 11:10 etc), the feed price from crazybit will followed the median price.
10:05 just above the median
10:10 crazybit's feed becomes the median
10:15 just above the median
10:20 just above the median
10:25 crazybit's feed becomes the median
10:30 just above the median
10:35 same as median
10:40 no change fed
10:45 no change fed
10:50 same as median
11:00 below median
11:05 below median
11:10 below median (shortly after , someone else feeds below crazybit so crazybit's feed becomes the median)
11:15 no change fed (although median has increased)
11:20 same as median
11:25 no change fed
11:30 no change fed
11:35 same as median
11:40 same as median
and so on...
It's much more random than you make it seem.
Also, a GOOD price feed will set or match the median much more often.
If we were talking about the MEAN, it would be very suspicious I agree , as it would be VERY unlikely to be matched exactly.
Median however is just a value in the set of feeds. i.e. at any given time at LEAST once of the feeds will be the median price. If it's a good feed, this will happen more often than not. As some witnesses use the same or very similar scripts, it's very likely that MORE than 1 witness will feed that price.
the probability of the match of his price and median price is less than lottery ticket.
no it isnt... MEDIAN != MEAN
161
General Discussion / Re: would you support a cheater as the wintess?
« on: December 29, 2018, 08:05:38 am »@alt, You're wrong on this one.can you told me how obvious he is not follow the median price?
Crazybit FINALLY updated his feeding script (which you were right to be upset about) but he is not cheating now.
He is not FOLLOWING median price, instead his feed is SETTING median price most of the time (which means he is very accurate)
This becomes obvious if you don't track by hand but instead use zapata's tracker to look at his and other witnesses feeding activity: http://pricefeed-tracker.dex.trading/
did you see the snapshot about how exactely his feed price change after the median price?
and thank you, this chat show more clear that how exactely every 5 meniutes his price followed the median price. just choose the price from crazybit and median price.
in case you don't know how to see the chart, I will tell you the detail:
1. open http://pricefeed-tracker.dex.trading/
2. input crazybit in publisher,
3. input 2018/12/26 10:00:00 am in "From"
4. check the box "feed median"
you will see a chart like below, you can see every 5 minutes(10:15, 10:20, 10:35, 11:00, 11:05, 11:10 etc), the feed price from crazybit will followed the median price.
10:05 just above the median
10:10 crazybit's feed becomes the median
10:15 just above the median
10:20 just above the median
10:25 crazybit's feed becomes the median
10:30 just above the median
10:35 same as median
10:40 no change fed
10:45 no change fed
10:50 same as median
11:00 below median
11:05 below median
11:10 below median (shortly after , someone else feeds below crazybit so crazybit's feed becomes the median)
11:15 no change fed (although median has increased)
11:20 same as median
11:25 no change fed
11:30 no change fed
11:35 same as median
11:40 same as median
and so on...
It's much more random than you make it seem.
Also, a GOOD price feed will set or match the median much more often.
If we were talking about the MEAN, it would be very suspicious I agree , as it would be VERY unlikely to be matched exactly.
Median however is just a value in the set of feeds. i.e. at any given time at LEAST once of the feeds will be the median price. If it's a good feed, this will happen more often than not. As some witnesses use the same or very similar scripts, it's very likely that MORE than 1 witness will feed that price.
162
General Discussion / Re: Question To All Active Witnesses #2
« on: December 28, 2018, 10:48:02 pm »No, witnesses' opinions are important. Take crazybit for example, he feeded ridiculous prices for a while, witnesses do have some level of control and influence over the market. If traders do not know individual witnesses' consensus regardless of proxies, we are in the dark when making decisions
It was the proxies' job to vote him out.
There is NO such thing as individual consensus. there's either consensus or individual opinions. Witnesses are supposed to do their job according to the consensus reached by the stakeholders.
Right now , this is accurate price & 105 MSSR. If some witness is not doing this , he needs to be voted out....WHY he does it is irrelevant
163
General Discussion / Re: Question To All Active Witnesses #2
« on: December 28, 2018, 10:30:44 pm »decreasing mssr will increase margin call price, which means wall is harder to eat, which means less cny will be removed from the system. This sounds very similar to BSIP42, can you clarify the difference?
Little difference... I believe the BSIP42 premise was and is correct. I just think it was applied unequally and overprotected debt holders which lead to it failing. The previous BSIP42 implementation did not account for big drops/heavy downtrends properly which lead to risk accumulation.
Just to be clear. This is all theory of what I WANT to happen.
As it stands I'm feeding fair and accurate (to my knowledge) market price and the MSSR and MCR values that have been voted for.
Which basically points out the flaw in your original question. Witnesses execute according to consensus. Current vote is for 105 MSSR, thats what we will feed.
What we "want" is irrelevant. if 105 MSSR leads to the margin wall not being eaten , take it up with the proxies that voted it active and leave witnesses alone.
164
General Discussion / Re: Question To All Active Witnesses #2
« on: December 28, 2018, 09:25:22 pm »
If bitAsset Value> Asset value (i.e. premium), effective margin call should be lowered...either by decreasing mcr or mssr
Opposite when in discount..
My suggestion is recorded here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27360.msg324958#msg324958
Opposite when in discount..
My suggestion is recorded here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27360.msg324958#msg324958
165
General Discussion / Re: Question To All Active Witnesses #2
« on: December 28, 2018, 09:18:45 pm »
I want the wall to be eaten when it should be eaten and not eaten when it shouldn't be (i.e. I want dynamic MCR/MSSR)
