616
General Discussion / Re: Unfortunately, it seems clear to me ..
« on: March 18, 2018, 10:44:45 pm »A social contract between some parties who no longer associate with BTS, ultimately the only social contract which should have been established is a worker proposal.In this case, not only need approval of BTS holders but also STEALTH holders. There is a somewhat "social contract".In a hardfork, yes.This will ultimately raise a few questions about the STEALTH token which is a FeeBacked Asset that has been given by Dan for the development of Stealth. If the backend devs where to continue its development using funds from the reserves, it would only be fair to re-evaluate how well those that currently hold STEALTH (those that have interest in its development and usage), performed in the last 2-3 years.If solely implemented by the bitshares-core dev worker proposal then non-FBA is appropriate, otherwise fair enough. There'd be nothing stopping the copy/pasting of the stealth code without the FBA though right?
For me, it never made sense to work on STEALTH only so that some other people (STEALTH holders) can earn money of it.
But that requires (as usual) a BSIP and the approval of BTS holders.