1666
General Discussion / Re: TCNY has been accepted by BTC38.
« on: January 13, 2016, 12:29:58 pm »
Thanks everyone.
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.
I don't think this is the end of the world by any means.
I don't think I'll use yunbi anymore, but I was not a regular customer so they won't be missing much.
Trying to get three entities to control the majority of voting in the name of decentralisation is rather silly.
This is seeming more and more like an attempted coup. Please inform me if I've misread this.
How did you get so disenfranchised? what do you hope to accomplish?
I'm glad that clayop is back in the committee. It's too bad that we lost two witnesses in the process.
There was still 5 hours to spare to get your votes in while you were busy posting in forums here. If you can post in forums, you telegram any questions you have or vote. You choose not to support the protection measure. Proof is in the blockchain. There is still more that needs to be done.
all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't.
at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.
yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.
as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.
I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.
don't worry.
The committee members (primarily puppies) have been working on measures through the weekend to protect Bitshares against scenarios of bad proposals being passed. We finally did a test today that at the time did not have clayop voted in (congrates btw!)... it got support from every committee member except one.
not same, it's easy for exchange to understand what they are doing, and to judge whether voting conflict with their interest.
Yes, and they could easily decide that it's in their best interests to vote out all the delegates and vote in their own unique set. Giving one entity so much power is a very bad idea.
Sending a new born puppy out to fight dogs.. or throwing a new born bird out of the nest before it has feathers.. that's not in the interest of the new born. In both instances they have not had time to grow and develop. In this instance it's the same.
You may have just caused more businesses to run from using Bitshares.. for what exactly?
there's no social contract/consensus that exchange should not vote, the problem is only how exchange should communicate with their users on this issue.
from committee perspective, the problem is how to define the rule to prevent one big account from controlling the whole network, maybe one option is to restrict the committee number one account can at most vote.
no proff to tell that exchanges are more likely to abuse power, they do not spend capital for the stake, but they are responsible for their users.
Once you let the genie out of the box, you won't be able to put it back in.
降低手续费其实也没用,免费也照样
0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5=0.03125
So technically bitcrab's proposal in another thread makes sense. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20858.0.html