I now found something not so awesome in tether/omni protocol, when I tested today, in omnichest it is displayed that the balance of 36uReNqhMapzN3iZCMiLESCWt6qjijBTHv is 12.3 USDT, however in the web client it is displayed 2.3 USDT as balance.
 
the relevant transaction is http://www.omnichest.info/lookuptx.aspx?txid=8a707e8db2d78bd83afb86ca3f8177ed1377daa7b6a0513525f68669d1e8d9cc, which does not appear in the tether web client.



I worry whether tether/omni protocol is strong enough as a solution.

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community, however, it is not right to say that China stakeholders want to stop development.

anyway, we built the worker proposal mechanism means stakeholders are not supposed to support any development, they will vote based on their judgment. so developers need to explain the necessity and fair price of their work.

yes, as you had said, talented developers do not like to explain, anyway, maybe other people can explain instead of them? under the worker proposal system voters definitely need to understand they are paying for useful and effective job.

for example, AFAIK, most of China stakeholders do not think they need the BSIP10 feature, how they feel when they are aware they need to pay 50k/day for this?

I was also told by one Chinese programmer, "in my view ***'s work make sense, however the quality need to be improved."

please do not be scared by what yunbi did, 4 worker are still there and I think it's not easy to vote them out. and new workers still have chance to be voted in if enough voters are convinced.

yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.

2 weeks passed, any further inputs?

Quote from: bitcrab on February 10, 2016, 02:59:42 pm

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on February 08, 2016, 09:44:22 pm

Also, we propose to implement this new fee schedule for LTM-only for a period of time, and offer it to basic members only later. This way, we effectively upgrade memberships into premium products. As more and more features are added to LTM, we may increase the account upgrading fee accordingly.

I think the fee schedule should be offered to all the members from the beginning, to make a distinction in offering time regarding core fee schedule will make the basic user feel even worse and is not good for attracting more new users.

Sorry I didn't get your point. Imo it's a good strategy that provide difference services to VIPs and normal users.

they are already offered different service in the proposed fee schedule, for transfer fee:
for LTM: $0.018, 80% cash back.
for basic user :$0.018 no cash back.
right?
what I said is no need to implement this in different time for LTM and basic user.

I think we can try it, yes Chinese people rarely use mailing list, but mailing list is indeed  a good tool to organize tasks.

Thanks! Happy New Year!

anyone can explain what "zero fee" proposal really mean?