The plan is to activate BitShares 5.0 on 2020-09-30.
The key feature in BitShares 5.0 is Automated Market making (AMM) aka liquidity pooling & mining. Code is here: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2260
All changes: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/milestone/31
The plan is to activate BitShares 5.0 on 2020-09-30.
Can we get an overview of each of the changes and why they are proposed?They are not proposed.Proposals can be refused or modified.They are enforced in full against any protocol or community participation where majority doesn't even understand the changes which will be implemented because of lack of any explanation or discussion.
AMM is a strong addition - can we see an overview of how it will work? (I.e. is it deployed on testnet or anything?)Not only these. As of writing there are 59 closed issues and merged pull requests in the same milestone: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/milestone/31?closed=1 .
Can we get an overview of each of the changes and why they are proposed? List copied below for clarity.
Release Notes: BitShares Core 5.0.0
Add extended history tracking for select accounts.
Extended operation history for accounts selected by ID or by registrar
Implement Automated Market Maker (AMM) aka Liquidity Pool
Implement liquidity pool
Remove voting power from liquid BTS and tickets
Remove liquid vp
Remove voting power from liquid BTS and tickets #2262
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2262
New BSIP or BSIP24 discussion: stake lock-up mechanism, count only real "locked" stake as voting stake #83
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/83
Maybe someone explains Abit that BTS is not Steem and that BTS is core token of our ecosystem .
So somebody who is inactive and stacking BTS has in his eyes more value in governance than somebody who is activly using bitshares ecosystem and knows the ins and outs and creates income for bitshares.
The active member having completly no say as he is using BTS in the ecosystem which is the main purpose of BTS.
Maybe Abit can explain to us how somebody who stacks only participates in bitshares growth and i'm not talking about price.
Remove voting power from liquid BTS and tickets #2262
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2262
New BSIP or BSIP24 discussion: stake lock-up mechanism, count only real "locked" stake as voting stake #83
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/83
Maybe someone explains Abit that BTS is not Steem and that BTS is core token of our ecosystem .
So somebody who is inactive and stacking BTS has in his eyes more value in governance than somebody who is activly using bitshares ecosystem and knows the ins and outs and creates income for bitshares.
The active member having completly no say as he is using BTS in the ecosystem which is the main purpose of BTS.
Maybe Abit can explain to us how somebody who stacks only participates in bitshares growth and i'm not talking about price.
My main concern with the proposition is for the stake in collateral. It seems unfair to those holders to limit their influence on voting especially due to the value that their collateral brings to the ecosystem.
BTS locked in collateral could be counted as locked assets. Even if it could be liquidised its also a risky business while making good volume for the bitAsset as well. It could be considered a good thing that the asset is used, and thus should be counted.
Open orders aren't locked, since they are for sale, and shouldn't be counted.
Collateral: I would argue this should be voting because it is not quickly liquidated in case the BTS valuation goes down. Also, people have been asked to go short if they really want to support the system and we would take away their voting right now. Doesn't feel right.
If we were to require a powerup to enable governance features I see the following major issues:
This changes the previous deal which has potentially been used by investors to decide to buy in. Given that BTS is much more decentralized than STEEM (there is no 'steemit inc.') this might open up the possibility for class action suites against a) the proxies who approved that change, and b) the witnesses who applied the change.
Just FYI: Removing liquid BTS from voting power will strip ref UI users of their voting since you can only stake BTS with CLI.
dude you went against consensus and brought trojan in previous release, as a top witness I will not support any code from you
The world is full of good locksmiths: some of them are unethical thieves
Degrades BTS Utility
insulting the only last active core developer on this blockchain
Remove voting power from liquid BTS and tickets #2262
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2262
New BSIP or BSIP24 discussion: stake lock-up mechanism, count only real "locked" stake as voting stake #83
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/83
Maybe someone explains Abit that BTS is not Steem and that BTS is core token of our ecosystem .
So somebody who is inactive and stacking BTS has in his eyes more value in governance than somebody who is activly using bitshares ecosystem and knows the ins and outs and creates income for bitshares.
The active member having completly no say as he is using BTS in the ecosystem which is the main purpose of BTS.
Maybe Abit can explain to us how somebody who stacks only participates in bitshares growth and i'm not talking about price.
Comments from that BSIP in github
TheTaconator DEVQuoteMy main concern with the proposition is for the stake in collateral. It seems unfair to those holders to limit their influence on voting especially due to the value that their collateral brings to the ecosystem.
startailcoon UI DEVQuoteBTS locked in collateral could be counted as locked assets. Even if it could be liquidised its also a risky business while making good volume for the bitAsset as well. It could be considered a good thing that the asset is used, and thus should be counted.
Open orders aren't locked, since they are for sale, and shouldn't be counted.
xeroc DEVQuoteCollateral: I would argue this should be voting because it is not quickly liquidated in case the BTS valuation goes down. Also, people have been asked to go short if they really want to support the system and we would take away their voting right now. Doesn't feel right.QuoteIf we were to require a powerup to enable governance features I see the following major issues:
This changes the previous deal which has potentially been used by investors to decide to buy in. Given that BTS is much more decentralized than STEEM (there is no 'steemit inc.') this might open up the possibility for class action suites against a) the proxies who approved that change, and b) the witnesses who applied the change.
Schiessl UI DEVQuoteJust FYI: Removing liquid BTS from voting power will strip ref UI users of their voting since you can only stake BTS with CLI.
blckchained gateway DEVQuotedude you went against consensus and brought trojan in previous release, as a top witness I will not support any code from you
Litepresence DEV and honest assetQuoteThe world is full of good locksmiths: some of them are unethical thieves
R DEV and security testerQuoteDegrades BTS Utility
I could continue with the statements of honest DEV's on bitshares.
You Ammar belong to a red socket dev caste who thinks like socialist leaders who have nothing and want to control everything claiming that folk can't handle wise decissions.
That's the exect same explanation of eastern communism why they had planned econemy.
Btw you red socket proofed already on iobanker that you totaly failed.I told you a year before that noone nuts enough is going to follow an unethical dev with poor trading fundamentals and law knowledge who proofs himself untrustworthy each time on telegram.
Did something changed after a year of your spamming and garbage claims ?I guess not ?How much debt has your token now after such a long time ?Like $2K in total which you call a great success?
insulting the only last active core developer on this blockchain
LoL this kind of developers as abit must be kicked out from the job as fast as possible
But I'm not surprised why you are supporting broke of the consensus and abit scam
(https://i.imgur.com/VXbN1ML.png)
When I look to your company I laughed hard:
https://www.e-krediidiinfo.ee/14386003-IOBANKER%20O%C3%9C
you have nice office in the middle of the forest, very "trustworthy"
Männimäe, Pudisoo küla Kuusalu vald Harju maakond 74626 (https://www.google.ee/maps/@59.5168151,25.5542202,3a,75y,181.12h,86.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sM2mF2A3PQsWvpx6IasdMcQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DM2mF2A3PQsWvpx6IasdMcQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D112.2209%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
did you google yourself where you registered? Take it easy I made some screenshots for you
(https://i.imgur.com/kiDeeYV.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/vGAtTSr.png)
with such "office" no surprise why you support fraud =)
I had a couple of companies in Estonia lived there for a while and when I saw the place of your company registration I laugh out loud, just FYI if it not Tallinn or Tartu 9 from 10 it is a scam, and then I google it and found your office in the middle of nowhere)))
When you don't find anything wrong with me; you will make it.
why don't you come and give a visit?
I am what I am;Go paint your barn, fake banker maybe somebody notice it and invite you to paint their fence, and you make some money finally, painting fences is a good niche for your "intelligent" race. Because as liquidity provider you suck.
perhaps intelligent race would give you a visit
Voting is used for governance purposes; governance is used for stabilizing the blockchain, it's infrastructure and development;
The other change removing voting from liquid BTS is a huge and fundamental change to the functioning of BTS and should not be introduced without consensus. The previous change with stake multiplier already gives an (excessive in my view) increase in voting strength to stakers.The new changes in 5.0 are necessary too. It's rolled out because the previous changes are insufficient for protecting the platform since corruption evolved.
The removal of voting for collateral was a special case as far as I'm concerned - it was giving disproportionate voting power to a group that had every reason to corrupt the system during bear markets.
The other change removing voting from liquid BTS is a huge and fundamental change to the functioning of BTS and should not be introduced without consensus. The previous change with stake multiplier already gives an (excessive in my view) increase in voting strength to stakers.The new changes in 5.0 are necessary too. It's rolled out because the previous changes are insufficient for protecting the platform since corruption evolved.
The removal of voting for collateral was a special case as far as I'm concerned - it was giving disproportionate voting power to a group that had every reason to corrupt the system during bear markets.
BitShares core recently gave some sneak-peak info about BitShares core 5.0 release, via the community Telegram. Rapid progression is occurring since the recent consensus fixes in BitShares 4.0 happened earlier in July.Could you please point who exectly is bitshares core and by what consensus ?
The new changes in 5.0 are necessary too. It's rolled out because the previous changes are insufficient for protecting the platform since corruption evolved.
I support this update, but we have to obey the consensus by voting, so I have created a poll(ID:289/290), please consider voting for it.
remove the voting power of liquility BTS is a big change, but it's reasonable and acceptable to me, so I will support it.
but we'd best keep enough time for the transition period to prevent abuse of voting power.I support this update, but we have to obey the consensus by voting, so I have created a poll(ID:289/290), please consider voting for it.
remove the voting power of liquility BTS is a big change, but it's reasonable and acceptable to me, so I will support it.Actions speak louder than words.
but we'd best keep enough time for the transition period to prevent abuse of voting power.I support this update, but we have to obey the consensus by voting, so I have created a poll(ID:289/290), please consider voting for it.
BTW, the operation of lock BTS is a good feature,My opinion is exactly the opposite. IMHO airdropping attracts more irresponsible behaviors.
we should give more rights to the locked shares, for example airdrop the fees income to them.
and I encourage vote for the witness who have locked more BTS first.IMHO this is OK but not necessary.
拐着弯骂猴哥,就是你的不对了,不过见证人需要锁仓,如果就是挖了卖搞钱,要他干嘛?少給他挖点就行了