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.


Messages - bitcrab

Pages: 1 ... 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 [115] 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 ... 129
1711
General Discussion / Re: proposal to restrict voting numbers for committee members
« on: January 03, 2016, 11:47:48 am »
Quote from: Samupaha on January 03, 2016, 11:15:48 am
The rules of the real DAC are not changed whenever somebody is unhappy with the result of current voting.

If you want to change the rules, you have to make a case that will prove that the new rules produce good and fair results no matter who are the voters or the candidates. The point of this is to have a sufficient mechanism to elect reliable people to change blockchain parameters. Not just this time but every time.

I don't even see any reason why there is a need to decrease Bytemaster's power on blockchain parameters. On the contrary, I would like him to take more active participation on these decisions, because he knows the system best. So far he hasn't changed or proposed any parameters that I would consider harmful for Bitshares.

ya, there are always people that like to live under the rule of a dictator, because he think the dictator is the wisest people he ever met.

but humankind finally select democracy, not because they cannot find wise people to be the ruler, but because they come to understand that unrestricted right will always lead to disaster.

can anyone prove that each time the elected US President is always relied person? no one can prove, but few US people think US need to go back to monarchy, like north Korea. no need to explain.

DAC is not compatible with dictator, we built committee in order to push the decentralization, not to put it under one people's control, I think this is easy to understand.

it's ok for you to trust BM mostly, you can support him by voting, but this is not the consensus of the whole community. the community need a mechanism to avoid dictatorship.





1712
General Discussion / Re: [BSIP] Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER
« on: January 03, 2016, 09:01:35 am »
Quote from: jakub on January 03, 2016, 07:45:38 am
You saying "definitely not acceptable" at this stage is definitely not helpful.

sorry for saying that, but 1% and 300 BTS is really scary, and it is not mentioned in the BSIP that the value is just an example.

1713
中文 (Chinese) / Re: transwiser/bitcrab 2016 Q1 计划
« on: January 03, 2016, 08:03:22 am »
美国政府也没穷死啊

1714
中文 (Chinese) / transwiser/bitcrab 2016 Q1 计划
« on: January 03, 2016, 05:04:48 am »
1.扩大TCNY生态，争取时代尽快接受TCNY充值。
2.扩大TUSD生态，争取通过合作尽快实现TUSD提现。
3.开拓内外盘间做市，达到一定规模。

推荐人制度木已成舟，不太容易撼动，以我对这帮混蛋的了解，也许只有一个办法可能有用，那就是我首先成为一个比他们更成功的推荐人，为此，我希望能有个钱包自动给被推荐人赠送BTS的程序，实现比如bitcrab自动发送100个BTS给以bitcrab为推荐人注册的用户，每天10个名额。

继续推进BTS的去中心化，这很难，但很重要，我觉得，要么离开这里，要么正视这个问题，就算是象堂吉诃德大战风车那样也得干，刚刚在论坛发了一个建议：建议限制每个账户最多选3个理事，目的是限制一家独大的账户控制理事会。如果社区反应比较积极，接下去会发BSIP.希望大家能去跟帖表达自己的支持：https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20858.0.html


1715
General Discussion / Re: [BSIP] Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER
« on: January 03, 2016, 04:13:32 am »
if I am correct, the proposal can be summarized like this:

charge 1% of the transfered value. 6 BTS as minimum. 300 BTS as maximum.

for a lot of users, this is raising their burden. definitely not acceptable.

my proposal:

charge 0.3% of the transfered value, at least 3 BTS, at most 30 BTS.
and the 3 parameters can be adjusted while necessary.


 

1716
General Discussion / Re: proposal to restrict voting numbers for committee members
« on: January 03, 2016, 03:50:35 am »
Quote from: Samupaha on January 02, 2016, 04:29:50 pm
What is exactly the problem you are trying to solve here? I think the system works as it should be working. Those who have the most BTS will have the most voting power.

Bigger problem right now is that we don't have enough high quality committee members. One reason is the lack of GUI for committee, I suspect that many aren't interested using the text client.

Correct if I'm wrong, but I have the understanding that when shareholders vote for committee, they don't vote only for individual members but for size of the committee also. If everybody votes for only three members, there won't be more than three members in the committee, and that's pretty much centralized then.

we have more people that can act as good committee members, such as @clayop, @Bhuz, but they are now not voted in.
on the contrary, we now have 5 inits accounts in the committee that taken the places.



one fact is, among the current 11 active committee members, I am the only one that do not depend on BM's support.
if one owns enough voting power, he can control all, and the necessary voting power is far less than 50%.
we can not call such a  platform a DAC. we need to make it a real DAC, this is the problem I want to solve.
everyone voting 3 committee members will not result in centralization, because it is clearly not always the same 3 be voted.



1717
General Discussion / Re: proposal to restrict voting numbers for committee members
« on: January 02, 2016, 03:48:11 pm »
Quote from: abit on January 02, 2016, 03:36:51 pm
Quote from: xeroc on January 02, 2016, 03:05:52 pm
Quote from: sittingduck on January 02, 2016, 02:55:38 pm
We had this debate two years ago with agent 86. How we do it now is the same way as corps.  Your approach has weaknesses greater than those you are attempting to fix.
I can confirm this ..
what we need are committee members and or loyal proxies with more (combined) voting power than any attacker .. thats all we need
Imo votes for committee members are different than votes for witnesses.
If one have enough voting power to let herself stay as active witness, she may do something bad with it.
But if one have enough voting power to stay in committee, she'll have less influence since there is at least one more voting round and a review period for decision making.
yes, so I don't think my proposal "has greater weaknesses than attempting to fix", we need to make balance in decision making, if the one with most voting power can control the whole committee, there will be no balance. dictatorship will come... 

1718
General Discussion / Re: proposal to restrict voting numbers for committee members
« on: January 02, 2016, 03:14:48 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on January 02, 2016, 03:05:52 pm
Quote from: sittingduck on January 02, 2016, 02:55:38 pm
We had this debate two years ago with agent 86. How we do it now is the same way as corps.  Your approach has weaknesses greater than those you are attempting to fix.
I can confirm this ..
what we need are committee members and or loyal proxies with more (combined) voting power than any attacker .. thats all we need

how can you differentiate loyal proxies and attackers? A user with 5% voting power is loyal proxy and with 3% voting power is attacker?

1719
General Discussion / proposal to restrict voting numbers for committee members
« on: January 02, 2016, 02:48:18 pm »
we now have voting in Bitshares 2.0, this made the platform far more decentralized than 1.0 stage.
but it is still too centralized, one important reason is the voting rule for committee members, as each account can vote as many committee members as he/she like, a person with 5% BTS can easily control the committee.
if we need real decentralization, we need to change this, I propose to restrict that one account can only vote at most 3 committee members.this will bring more decentralization and prevent dictatorship.
any thoughts?
I will prepare a BSIP issue if this get positive feedback from community.

1720
General Discussion / Re: Regarding MAS and my Vision
« on: January 02, 2016, 02:39:06 pm »
Quote from: abit on January 02, 2016, 11:49:02 am
Quote from: bitcrab on January 02, 2016, 10:25:06 am
you have the right to select your way to make profit.
but please push/speed up the decentralizaiton  process of Bitshares.
now we have voting, it's more decentralized than 1.0 stage.
but it is still too centralized, one reason is the voting rule, as each account can vote as many committee members as he/she like. so if one person hold 5% of BTS, he can actually control the committee.
maybe we can restrict that one account can only vote at most 3 committee members, then it will do good to decentralization and prevent dictatorship.
Good idea. Rather than asking BM to do this, how about submit a proposal (perhaps a BSIP or "voting" worker proposal)? I think it's not hard to implement the limit but may need some efforts to maintain backward-compatibility.

seems some more discussion are needed before creating a BSIP-issue, let me post in a new thread.

1721
General Discussion / Re: Regarding MAS and my Vision
« on: January 02, 2016, 10:25:06 am »
you have the right to select your way to make profit.
but please push/speed up the decentralizaiton  process of Bitshares.
now we have voting, it's more decentralized than 1.0 stage.
but it is still too centralized, one reason is the voting rule, as each account can vote as many committee members as he/she like. so if one person hold 5% of BTS, he can actually control the committee.
maybe we can restrict that one account can only vote at most 3 committee members, then it will do good to decentralization and prevent dictatorship.

1722
General Discussion / TUSD come at the last day in 2015
« on: December 31, 2015, 11:27:11 am »
main difference between BitUSD and TUSD:
 
Code: [Select]
      "feed_lifetime_sec": 86400/21600,
      "minimum_feeds": 7/3,
      "force_settlement_offset": 0/100,
      "maximum_force_settlement_volume": 2000/200,
     

like TCNY, the purpose to define TUSD is to make exact pegging possible, we believe exact pegging is necessary for merchant use and is possible with the help of gateway.

the force_settlement_offset of TUSD is 1%,  less than that of TCNY(2%),  we hope this can bring better liquidity.

transwiser plan to cooperate with gempay.com for withdrawing TUSD to bank as fiat. we hope this will benefit the promotion of smartcoin.

hope everyone enjoy it. :) @xeroc could you please update the price feed script for TUSD when you have time? :) thanks  a lot.

1723
General Discussion / Re: Q1 2016 Expectations for BitShares
« on: December 28, 2015, 07:45:59 am »
150 transfers per day...so few...

1724
General Discussion / Re: Poll on Bitshares referral program
« on: December 27, 2015, 08:49:09 am »
Quote from: Xypher on December 27, 2015, 07:09:39 am
In all honesty, the referral program looks like a good idea on paper but in reality - atleast over the six past months we haven't been able to prove its viability or use.
In addition, basic economics would tell you , if an individual is required to spend money to access a system and then expect others within the network to use the syste to make money, it looks more or less like a ponzy scheme. Am not saying it is, am just stating what it looks like to the average consumer. In addition, it looks a lot similar to the time paypal decided to offer referrals, but paypal had a million USD to do this in its kitty, we barely have anything in terms of marketing spends and in addition expect any new players coming to the ecosystem to bear the expenses. Even when I asked who's doing this, we only had names of individuals who are already in our ecosystem. Which is a fair deal, but in terms of mass market acquisition, I still don't see it working when I look at the fees involved.

agree.
in Paypal referral program, the reward to the referrer is not from the referral, referral need not to pay more than the common transaction fee.
in Bitshares referral program, a new common user need not only to pay to the network, but also to the referrer.
so called viral growth is only in theory.

when I plan to run business on Bitshares, I do not need referral program,  I only hope the fee can be kept low enough. now although referrer can get some cashback from what the referral paid, but it is more difficult to persuade the new users to join.

1725
General Discussion / Poll on Bitshares referral program
« on: December 26, 2015, 03:27:35 pm »
referral program is always in big debate, and how to handle it is an important topic for the community, this is just a survey, could  you please express your opinion on this and explain a little detailed if possible?

Pages: 1 ... 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 [115] 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 ... 129

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 18 queries.