I think at this point I wouldn’t object to some of the Witnesses also being Committee Members. I think that in the long run we’d want to separate out those roles, but we only have so many people in the Community with technical knowledge and right now the Witnesses are the most capable.
I think it would make sense to have the committee members and the proxy voters be one and the same.
I have this question for BM:
In previous hang-outs BM said he was against worker proposals being used for anything that is not related to code development as we have the referral program for that purpose.
So how are we going to encourage people to make effort like writing documentation or taking care of the road-map being updated on a regular basis?
Such efforts cannot be directly linked to the referral program but they are very important and need to be somehow sponsored by the blockchain.
Fuzzy, I think the issue raised by tonyk in this thread
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19102.msg251511.html#msg251511
should definitely be discussed in this coming hangout.
I'm too stupid to understand what the core of the issue is but I do feel that it needs to be addressed by BM asap for two reasons:
- to make sure BM understands tonyk's point of view
- for us to hear BM's point of view and his explanation for non-traders what this is about
IMO it's very dangerous to have such an extreme discrepancy between the devs and the traders.
We need the traders to be happy, especially at this initial stage when liquidity is so low.
Fuzzy, I think the issue raised by tonyk in this thread
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19102.msg251511.html#msg251511
should definitely be discussed in this coming hangout.
I'm too stupid to understand what the core of the issue is but I do feel that it needs to be addressed by BM asap for two reasons:
- to make sure BM understands tonyk's point of view
- for us to hear BM's point of view and his explanation for non-traders what this is about
IMO it's very dangerous to have such an extreme discrepancy between the devs and the traders.
We need the traders to be happy, especially at this initial stage when liquidity is so low.
Nope!!!!
fuzz(y) has a strict policy against asking any question of mine....so sorry but no!!!
What is next for bitshares? Is there a timeframe for the next announcement?And this nicely correlates with my question: when will the official road-map be updated to reflect CNX priorities regarding BTS after the 2.0 launch?
same hereWhat is next for bitshares? Is there a timeframe for the next announcement?And this nicely correlates with my question: when will the official road-map be updated to reflect CNX priorities regarding BTS after the 2.0 launch?
Fuzzy, I think the issue raised by tonyk in this thread
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19102.msg251511.html#msg251511
should definitely be discussed in this coming hangout.
I'm too stupid to understand what the core of the issue is but I do feel that it needs to be addressed by BM asap for two reasons:
- to make sure BM understands tonyk's point of view
- for us to hear BM's point of view and his explanation for non-traders what this is about
IMO it's very dangerous to have such an extreme discrepancy between the devs and the traders.
We need the traders to be happy, especially at this initial stage when liquidity is so low.
Nope!!!!
fuzz(y) has a strict policy against asking any question of mine....so sorry but no!!!
same hereWhat is next for bitshares? Is there a timeframe for the next announcement?And this nicely correlates with my question: when will the official road-map be updated to reflect CNX priorities regarding BTS after the 2.0 launch?
same hereWhat is next for bitshares? Is there a timeframe for the next announcement?And this nicely correlates with my question: when will the official road-map be updated to reflect CNX priorities regarding BTS after the 2.0 launch?
If I actually posted a roadmap of partners and projects, I'd get lambasted for premature hype.
:)
What is next for bitshares? Is there a timeframe for the next announcement?And this nicely correlates with my question: when will the official road-map be updated to reflect CNX priorities regarding BTS after the 2.0 launch?
same hereWhat is next for bitshares? Is there a timeframe for the next announcement?And this nicely correlates with my question: when will the official road-map be updated to reflect CNX priorities regarding BTS after the 2.0 launch?
If I actually posted a roadmap of partners and projects, I'd get lambasted for premature hype.
:)
I'm not asking for a roadmap. I'm looking for what's the next date to look forward to. And whats the general milestones you will hit then. Even something like, we hope to bring in a handful of partners. No need to quantify. No need to go into any details.
same hereWhat is next for bitshares? Is there a timeframe for the next announcement?And this nicely correlates with my question: when will the official road-map be updated to reflect CNX priorities regarding BTS after the 2.0 launch?
If I actually posted a roadmap of partners and projects, I'd get lambasted for premature hype.
:)
I'm not asking for a roadmap. I'm looking for what's the next date to look forward to. And whats the general milestones you will hit then. Even something like, we hope to bring in a handful of partners. No need to quantify. No need to go into any details.
We have a nice group of motivated business development guys who I'm pretty happy with helping us to bring in partners and investors and clients. I'm having several such conversations per week.
Partners and investors and clients are good things to have. They make everything else possible.
Meanwhile, BitShares has the ability to decide its own next moves. What will they be?
same hereWhat is next for bitshares? Is there a timeframe for the next announcement?And this nicely correlates with my question: when will the official road-map be updated to reflect CNX priorities regarding BTS after the 2.0 launch?
If I actually posted a roadmap of partners and projects, I'd get lambasted for premature hype.
:)
I'm not asking for a roadmap. I'm looking for what's the next date to look forward to. And whats the general milestones you will hit then. Even something like, we hope to bring in a handful of partners. No need to quantify. No need to go into any details.
We have a nice group of motivated business development guys who I'm pretty happy with helping us to bring in partners and investors and clients. I'm having several such conversations per week.
Partners and investors and clients are good things to have. They make everything else possible.
Meanwhile, BitShares has the ability to decide its own next moves. What will they be?
Lets do prediction markets like augur and truthcoin and bond markets to complement. We immediately win a newly created business category cause we have resolved scalability. This will take us to jupiter.
It's been 12+ hour. Any raw recordings yet?
or someone can just confirm fuzzy did not bother asking my questions.[no censorship, just the 'no time for them' excuse]
Thanks.It's been 12+ hour. Any raw recordings yet?
or someone can just confirm fuzzy did not bother asking my questions.[no censorship, just the 'no time for them' excuse]
Testzcrypto on soundcloud has one.
Thanks.It's been 12+ hour. Any raw recordings yet?
or someone can just confirm fuzzy did not bother asking my questions.[no censorship, just the 'no time for them' excuse]
Testzcrypto on soundcloud has one.
So, you did ask it fuzz! +5% for that.
The only thing left is BM ducking the follow up question "Why was it kept hidden for well after launch."
But it is a great step on fuzzy's part. You see, fuzz, it is not that dangerous to ask the tough questions - even the long winded prelude that 'the q does not come from you', is not necessary, and can be cut to: "Here is what XYZ asks..."
Nope - the hiding of the new rules is indeed truly real bad element of the whole story, but the rules themselves are bad enough on their own.So, you did ask it fuzz! +5% for that.
The only thing left is BM ducking the follow up question "Why was it kept hidden for well after launch."
But it is a great step on fuzzy's part. You see, fuzz, it is not that dangerous to ask the tough questions - even the long winded prelude that 'the q does not come from you', is not necessary, and can be cut to: "Here is what XYZ asks..."
@tonyk, I'm starting to think you actually enjoy being misunderstood.
From now on I'm going to be very careful when walking over your sarcastic minefield and shall not take a single word of yours at its face value.
Nevertheless, I begin to suspect that your whole point boils down to the conclusion that actually nothing is wrong with the current trading rules and you are just upset that those rules were not communicated clearly before Oct 13th.
Is this correct, tonyk?
walking over your sarcastic minefield
What are you suggesting should be changed, to make this wheel round?And you just replied:
Not trying to discover and/or use new and improved square wheels, comes to mind as a good starting point.Please propose your solution. Describe it in plain & grammatically correct English where each sentence has a subject and a verb and your sarcastic mode is temporarily switched off. What is the alternative to having the SQP defined as it is now?
@tonyk, you've been asked this question before:What are you suggesting should be changed, to make this wheel round?And you just replied:Not trying to discover and/or use new and improved square wheels, comes to mind as a good starting point.Please propose your solution. Describe it in plain & grammatically correct English where each sentence has a subject and a verb and your sarcastic mode is temporarily switched off. What is the alternative to having the SQP defined as it is now?
I've made an effort and now I can say I fully understand BM's concept of SQP but still I cannot see a major flaw in it.
And I do understand in general terms you saying that BM's concept is based on a false assumption (i.e. according to you it assumes an irrational behavior of market participants).
This is where my understanding ends.
I've made an effort and now I can say I fully understand BM's concept of SQP but still I cannot see a major flaw in it.
I've made an effort and now I can say I fully understand BM's concept of SQP but still I cannot see a major flaw in it.
OK attempt #4
If you understand BM's design you must already know that it requires certain market participants [namely short position holders] to buy assets at price 150% [in the original design] above the market price [i.e. feed price].
If you find nothing wrong with this, I really do not think any argument in any language [even perfect English] will make you change your mind.
If you are protecting someone from paying too much you say - you will pay up to [read no mere than] 10% above market price.
and not like it is now - You will pay 50% above market price, but NOT LESS than that.