My responce: https://medium.com/@Samupaha/bitcoin-has-a-governance-problem-2dd1b171f45f#.cjxswylmg

Yeah, I have thought about this, but haven't yet contacted anybody. I think these people will need a mobile wallet if they want to take full advantages of Bitshares.

UIA is perfect because they don't get much extra benefits if they would have their own blockchain. There's always a lot of work to keep the blockchain running reliably and safely. With UIA they will get the benefits of cryptocurrency without having to do much work for it.

Quote from: yvv on January 08, 2016, 11:42:17 pm

Exchange is free to vote with BTS which you, dumb assholes, keep in their wallet. This is absolutely just. You give your BTS away, you give your vote away. As simple as this. Don't complain about this, because if you do, you look like idiots.

Although you are correct, this exposes one of the great weaknesses of the POS model, which is highly undesirable, hence the concern.

Exactly, this is why bitcrab's action should have needed throughout discussion first so that everybody would have known the potential problems.  I would have preferred that Bitshares were much bigger until there is an attack against this weakness. There would have been better possibilities to attract traders from the voting exchange to Bitshares exchange.

exactly speaking, I am against bytemaster in some cases, but in most cases I support him, otherwise I would have left Bitshares for months,I think Bitshares need him, I think the relation between bytemaster and committee should be as that between CEO and board, or President and Congress.

Bytemaster doesn't have a position compared to CEO. He is just a powerful shareholder. Also he knows the system best because he invented it, that gives some value for his opinions. But that's not in any way an official position in DAC.

Opposition make sense, especially in bitshares community where there are too much simple followers.

Opposition just for the sake of opposing something isn't valuable. If the opposition can create good criticism and helpful counterproposals, then it will be valuable. So far we have seen mostly just complaining without any credible alternative plans.

they do not want to be active members in community, because they do not have so much time/resource for BTS, they get many information of BTS from my side, they vote mainly because they would like to help to make the committee more diversified/dencentralized.

That's not even remotely good way to create more decentralization. You are just getting more power for yourself. If you really want more decentralization and diversification, you should try to attract more independent actors, people who won't be "simple followers" but rather think with their own brains and vote with their own stake.

don't complain why they do not want to spend time on BTS, they have told me:"we really hope BTS can have a good future, but we have little confidence on this, we are not sure it is decentralized, we can keep the trading pair, but we do not want to pay more resource on it."

With this kind of attitude it's not good if they vote!

Corporation democracy works pretty well because everybody who can vote has skin in the game. It's their own money that they are voting with. If they vote badly, value of their assets go down. And vice versa, if they vote well, value of their assets go up. This will create good incentive to use time and resources to analyze what's the best way to vote.

Voting just because of voting is usually stupid. It will just pollute the votepool with uninformed votes. Voters who vote without having a clear understanding what they are doing are messing the result of the election. If there are lots of uninformed voters, the probability of bad result will go up. In the case of Bitshares this would mean that we'll get bad committee members and untrustworthy witnesses and spend money on useless worker proposals. This will decrease the value of BTS.

It's a problem if an exchange votes because they don't have skin in the game. If they vote badly, they don't depreciate value of their own assets, because they don't own BTS – their customers own it. If Bitshares suffers from bad voting, the exchange itself doesn't suffer. It might even benefit if people start to trade more because price of BTS is going down.

I was thinking about potential problems that exchanges that vote might bring us and got this idea...

The solution is actually quite simple: let's just create bitBTS! Because it's pegged to BTS, it needs only 100 % collateral: 1 bitBTS is backed with 1 BTS.

Then we just recommend that exchanges start to sell bitBTS instead of BTS. Both have excatly the same value, but only real BTS can be used to vote. This is perfect solution for all those people who are just interested in speculation and trading, but not in actual DAC business. Also exchanges wouldn't be anymore in a situation that might create conflicts.

If bitBTS owner wants to become real shareholder of Bitshares DAC and start to vote, he can just come to our exchange and sell or settle bitBTS to BTS.

I urge everybody to remove their votes for bitcrab.

He persuaded an exchange to start to vote with BTS that belongs to their customers. This is not recommended behavior and bitcrab did it without even asking opinions of other members of the Bitshares community.

Quote from: Samupaha on January 08, 2016, 08:19:26 am

I guess you are behind this bitcrab? You have been very vocal against Bytemaster, so you decided to go and urged this exchange (is it Yunbi?) to start voting?

yes, I am behind this, I am not against bytemaster, but I believe Bitshares need more decentralization in decision making.

so I'd like to get more stake into voting.

I am not able to urge anyone, all what I can do is to tell them my ideas and suggest.

Come on, you have been protesting everything that Bytemaster does very actively, this is clearly an attack purely against him.

If you had honestly wanted to help the progress of decentralization you would have asked opinions of other members of the community first. There are very good reasons for why this is not good for Bitshares.

That said, I'm not totally against of exchangest voting. But that would require a few things to happen:
- The exchange informs all customers about this, and preferably also asks them explicitely if this is accetable or not. Did they do it on this case?
- The exchange informs the Bitshares community about this. In this case they didn't.
- The exchange explains their motivation to vote. Are they going to be an active member of the community? Are they going to do more business with Bitshares than just selling BTS? This is really important because exchanges can be our competitors. It might be a serious problem if our competitors start to influence our decisions.
- If exchange is using a proxy, the proxy should explains it's reasons for voting. In this case they are voting laomao who has not published any information of his voting reasoning.

If an exchange is seriously interested in Bitshares and wants to become an active member of the community because they believe in Bitshares, we can welcome them.

But this case is totally fucked up. So what should we do about it? Should we contact Yunbi and ask them to remove their votes?

It seems to be a pretty good consensus here that prediction markets will be a big thing for Bitshares. I agree on a theoretical level, but in practice it's not so simple.

First of all, Augur has a big lead. They have millions of funding. They have a big group of developers and good marketing. So far we have nothing of those.

Question is: if we build the technology, will the funding, devs and users come?

We haven't seen any meaningful interest in building a PM business on top of the Bitshares blockchain. I would consider a team that is serious about PM business to be a requirement for developing it. It's useless to waste scarce resources to a technology that nobody is ready to use yet.

Bitshares is supposed to be a neutral platform for all businesses. The mission of the committee is to decide optimal blockchain parameters so that the Bitshares DAC itself can be profitable. Committee is not supposed to make favors to any spesific businesses which would certainly happen if this was implemented.

We already have a way for businesses to privatize most of the profits of a feature: FBA. Isn't that enough?