106
General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 13, 2018, 03:36:56 pm »
One positive is nobody voted 'Don't care' so at least we are all engaged
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'm assuming the vote above is just informative - I guess the Committee have the authority make the decision and if they decide they want to put it to a worker vote on chain they do?
Sure informative, like CNN or fake news.
Rather than admit the sentiment is against this change, those pushing for it will keep trying to spin inputs until they get what they want, damned be the shareholders and contrary opinions.
As a bitshares supporter I do not like the constant trail of uncertainty and paranoia strewn about.
Open ledger's DNS was hacked, for a while, and no one cared about security. But here now you post as if security is a major concern.
What is the procedure to resolve a breach, beyond calling BM? That info would be beneficial to the community.
And no one named Kristen works with me on Spark. Yo must be talking about bitspark.
Although I was concerned about seeing this topic in public, and introduced by a total newbie to the forum, I commented. Not adding ideas to how to break the system as much as what we should be weary of.
Nevertheless, I don't believe such vulnerabilities should be discussed in public. I have thus suggested that this thread / topic be removed.
Although significant improvements can and should be made to provide a trusted way to discuss these things, it should not be public for obvious reasons, and should not allow anonymous newbies, no matter how well intentioned, to participate. Trust must be earned, and that come from being known, and that takes observation of person's actions and words over a period of time. Instantaneous trust is worthless.
I suggested keybase as a secure app we could use for secure, private comminications. Most of the devs are already on keybase, as are some witnessses, includning myself.
The forum has a "graveyard" .. i'd recommend move it there instead of "deleting" it
I like this idea. It is good to look into the past every once in a while
Confirmed. I voted to remove Gravity.io from bitsharestalk.org.Well, gravity *IS* a graphene fork. They do stuff and even presented @ GrapheneDev Conference in Shanghai.
Not sure if they use the forums still, but gravity seems legit
Gravity.io moved on to another project called UCommunity, earlier in August. Confirmed personally in their TG that website, project and open-source github - FINISHED.
Their ex Community Manager - Brendan (@iamredbar) can confirm.
CheeĀ®s
While I still have control of the Twitter account and am an admin on the old Telegram chat, the project is done. They did not let me know they were joined with Ucommunity until I started asking questions.
I'm for holding that option open however i don't agree its being decided by a small group which CryptoKong already mentioned if somebodies asset can be seized or not.
Thats a risk i personly don't like since it has nothing to do with community consense but something similar with banks where a few holds the majority of voting rights
Tough one... I'm actually quite unsure where I stand on this one... How many people is 50%+1 for commitee majority? Less than 10 I presume. Its a very small number of people that governments can put pressure on to seize assets. I dont like that at all. On the other side of things... its good to have options to be able to stay compliant. I lean towards my first point than my second but i am in the middle.