I also think that the committee should not be viewed as a single monolithic entity.  I am an individual not 1/11th of the committee.  I don't want any power over any of you, and I don't think that I am more important than any one else.  I will continue to discuss policy both in the forum, and in telegram.  The incredibly slow nature of getting anything done frustrates me to no end, and removing the ability to talk in telegram would slow things down even more.  I have no objection to someone posting all telegram chat in a thread here on the forum,  just post it all, and don't cherry pick things out of context. 

We previously had a poll https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21218.0.html which showed low turnout, but rather wide support for transferring the bitassets collected by the fee pool to a separate account called committee-trade to sell them for bts.  The OP was

The committee has withdrawn the fees collected by the fee pools for our committee owned assets.  We have not yet sold these bitassets into the market.  This is the first of a number of polls to help determine the best way to accomplish this. 

The issue we have run into is that it is impossible to do anything with the committee account in real time.  Even if we got 51% of the committee on at the same time there is a 1 hour review period required for all committee proposals.  Realistically in order to get 51% of the committee to vote on something would take more like at least 12 hours.  The price of these bitassets can change fast, and the price which we set could be completely inappropriate by the time the proposal passes.  This is even more of a risk if we need to cancel a market order.  I think that using the committee account risks causing more damage to the peg than good.

To combat this I have created a new account http://cryptofresh.com/u/committee-trade It has owner permissions set to the committee, so the committee still has control of the account.  The active authority is currently set to myself, bhuz, abit, and xeroc.  abit and xeroc have not agreed to join in, I added them because I don't think they will mind.  Bhuz volunteered to help.  It is currently set as a 2 of 4 multi sig.  Because the committee account owns this account the committee can adjust the active authorities as it sees fit. 

I propose that we iron out exactly who will have active authority on this account, set the permissions properly, and transfer the bitassets held by the committee-account to committee-trade.  Committee-trade can then sell these assets in real time.  We could even devise a simple bot that will set sell walls at a certain percentage over feed price.

The committee currently owns

USD   6,910
EUR   10.24
GOLD   0.00381
SILVER   3.09
CNY   7,870
BTC   0.476

The consensus from earlier conversations was that we would sell these assets into their BTS market at a certain percentage above the peg.  There will be a separate poll to determine the rate above peg which we should target.  What we should do with the BTS received from these sales, is also a separate conversation.  I would like to keep this conversation about whether or not we should use the committee-trade account or the committee-account account to process these sales.  Also if anyone with good knowledge of the cli_wallet wants to step and help by becoming a multi sig active auth please let us know.

Yesterday we adjusted the active authority on the cOmmittee-trade account to add bitcube, and to increase the required weight to 3 of 5.  This should have required the owner authority of the account, which in this case is the committee.  Instead we discovered a bug.  The active authority can be adjusted by the active authority.  It only required abit and I to add bitcube, and to increase the threshold required.  Abit has filed an issue https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/556 

This bug does not increase the risk of having these funds stolen while they are being traded.  This would require that of bhuz, bitcube, abit, xeroc, and myself three of us colluded together to steal these funds.  It does however increase the chance that the account can be stolen.  It effectively removes the ability of the committee to add or remove active authorizations to the account.  This instead needs to be done by the existing active authorities until this bug is fixed.

Please vote for what you think.

Couldn't registrars or referrers just give a refund out to purchasers of LTM or AM?  Is there a valid reason to go beyond this?  I don't currently see one.

I also do not think this is a good idea.  I would like each of my bts to be worth more than 500 sats.

I will be sorry to see you leave Alt.  I have always had the greatest level of respect for you. 

Quote from: sports-owner on February 03, 2016, 10:07:43 pm

Quote from: yvv on February 03, 2016, 09:24:55 pm

This prediction does not make sense, since this war is not declared. There is no official start date, and there will be no official end date. How do you determine if it stopped or not?

That will be up to the committee to decide. 

So they can decide outcome in their favor. Nice trick.

Quote

The description speaks of ending hostilities.  If there are no longer any battles, and people are not getting killed, then I would say hostilities are ended.

People are always get killed even in relatively calm parts of the world. How many hostilities will you need to claim that the war is going on? How are you going to collect hostilities data?

We would have to rely on news reports and human rights organizations.

A peace settlement or long lasting cease fire would result in this market resolving to true. There must be an end to hostilites between Saudi Arabia backed pro government forces, and the Houthi rebels. Anti terrorism activities taken on a small scale against AQAP, or any ISIS affiliate should not prevent this market from paying out.

Seems like a rather clear expectation.  If I am still a committee member I plan on voting true if there is a peace settlment.  There is a long lasting cease fire.  Or there are no recent reports of hostilities between the two sides of this conflict.  I think the chances of any of those three things happening are sadly pretty low.  We will see though.

The way I am viewing this asset is as a bridge to anti war activists that may not be crypto enthusiasts.  It is an interesting means of demonstrating the power of BTS while discussing something that non crypto people will have a passion for.

I'm working on setting up a faucet but am running into an issue
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21311.0.html
Seems to be the same problem from
https://github.com/cryptonomex/faucet/issues/1

Any help on what I am doing wrong would be appreciated

I am working on setting up a faucet.  I am running into an error at the mina deploy stage.  I get
-----> Migrating database
       rake aborted!
       Errno::ENOENT: No such file or directory @ rb_sysopen - /www/tmp/build-14545217352693/config/faucet.yml
       /www/tmp/build-14545217352693/config/application.rb:9:in `read'
       /www/tmp/build-14545217352693/config/application.rb:9:in `<top (required)>'
       /www/tmp/build-14545217352693/Rakefile:4:in `require'
       /www/tmp/build-14545217352693/Rakefile:4:in `<top (required)>'
       (See full trace by running task with --trace)
 !     ERROR: Deploy failed.
-----> Cleaning up build
       Unlinking current
       OK

 !     Command failed.
       Failed with status 1 (19)
Any ideas?