Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on April 01, 2016, 11:37:34 am

Quote from: Samupaha on April 01, 2016, 10:41:03 am

Quote from: Shentist on April 01, 2016, 08:32:25 am

Quote from: Samupaha on April 01, 2016, 07:27:27 am

This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient.

what does "nontransferable" BTS solve?

It forces exchanges and their customers to use BitBTS instead of BTS. It will also help with voter apathy, because more voting power will go to hands of those who are interested in voting. Those who just want to speculate on BTS price are able to do it with BitBTS.

Quote from: Shentist on April 01, 2016, 08:32:25 am

i assume we can trade them? as poloniex i just need then to trade BTS against POLO.BTS and they have them again on their accounts. For me this
is not the right direction. we are here to get more "financial freedom" but want to restrict it in parts who are not welcomed. We need other solutions.

But why would Poloniex do that? It just makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. From their point of view, it's just much easier to convert everything to BitBTS and use that. Customers can move BitBTS into and out from Poloniex, so they will prefer it to BTS that can't be moved.

When this was discussed a while back, biggest reason for rejection of idea was that it was too difficult to implement. With my proposal it should be possible, because it's broken into several steps that are feasible and practical.

It's a great idea for starting a new network.. but for the existing one.. attempting to make the migration will be just as painful as attempting to get everyone to vote.. so in the end.. we will benefit more if people started voting vs. changing/confusing our core asset model.

If it is good for a new chain, it is also good for an old chain. We should be thinking how to be the best chain in the market, not just apathetically accept that we are in a situation where we can't change anything anymore.

I agree that we shouldn't be planning new features anymore, but this is not a feature for our customers. It's a security feature. It's essential. We have to show to the world that we are capable to fight against threats like badly voting exchanges. The threat isn't only that good workers are downvoted, but this kind of attack can be also committee attack, where somebody changes blockchain parameters in a harmful way. By making BTS nontransferable we effectively disable all possibilities to these kind of attacks.

Quote from: EstefanTT on April 01, 2016, 12:23:40 pm

we could make a list of the biggest account not voting and send to them a lot of 1 UIA transaction with a memo to recall them to vote so we get their attention.

The UIA could be named "voting", I create it, distribute it and every time someone sees a not-voting-account we send to him/her some "voting" UIA.

The memo could be a reminder of the importance of voting and a link to a youtube video explaining how important is to keep bts in the wallet and how to easily vote for proxies.

Good, bad, stupid, interesting idea ?

Not bad, but not necessarily very effective. Our system has a weakness: it doesn't incentivize good voting behavior. We should be thinking how we can change the system to work better, not only think how to act in a bad system so that it wouldn't be so bad. In the long run bad system will always give bad results, even when it's run by good people.

During the hangout today it occurred to me that this could be accomplished if when we launch the sidechain and we can come to an agreement with exchanges, we can have voting power brought back to shareholders while still using their exchanges.

Quote from: svk on March 31, 2016, 09:27:46 pm

In the end I reckon we should remove all non-OPEN assets from Openledger (default pairs) and even the bridges and gateways. They'll all be available in the light client but Openledger should prioritize their own assets in their hosted wallet.

So let me see if I get it right.

BTS pays a worker  for the GUI development... this development 'improves' the wallet by removing non-OPEN assets from the wallet (aka reducing the available choices to customer-owners-BTS-holders).... and this is all done so OL's products are not confused with the products of the competitors.. [products hidden include the BTS flagship product - the bitAssets -as well, isn't it]
In this whole thing OL pays nothing because?... ok, all right, it is the leading wallet for BTS....

Nothing personal svk, I just think this flashes out how the whole worker system is screwed in far more ways than one.... and @BunkerChain Labs  I see how you see the system being attacked by the so called "anti-dilutionalists"... if you are able to see the trueth regardless of your own agenda/bias... the above is an example  how it is attacked by full-on-No-checks-dilutionalists  as well.
Things/stuff is very rarely black or white...

I agree with you @tonyk ... a move like that is effectively removes what is supposed to be a 'network effect' that is supposed to encourage others to join the ecosystem. If there is no shared space for newcomers coming in the 'default' channel to Bitshares, then this is private.. and shouldn't be supported by a Worker or Bitshares.

What is the value proposition of the network effect if they are all going to be hidden from sight? Why would a business bother attempting to contribute to OpenLedger development in this kind of situation?

There would be less confusion if there was more information on what people are using... but of all the development of the wallet this somehow has taken a backseat to rearrangements and stars.

I understand with svks work he is designing and coming up with ways to make the wallet better that doesn't require constant input from the community... but this kind of change really requires feedback.

If this change happens then Ronny should be paying svks development wages and not Bitshares.

Anybody signed an agreement? Do we gave to MS any BTS  rights to let us get on Azure? 

The developers of NEM are very skeptical about their integration...

We spent a considerable amount of time getting this done. Unfortunately,
at the last stage of our submission we were shown the agreement.
In the agreement, to put our solution up there, requires us to give away all our rights.
This is not quite palatable.
read more.... http://blog.nem.io/status-on-the-azure-project/

What if all these pumps with each blockchain that got into Azure was being backed by Microsoft itself as a way to get everyone to give up their rights so they could get into the network without realizing all the consequences?

Lets be honest.. is anybody here surprised at all.. this is Microsoft after all.

Well, let's not get carry away with this anti dilution thing.

Better to look to solve this situation in a smart a peaceful way

I offered one several posts ago based on what the anti-dilutionst thought would be better.

It would require them to contribute based on their own ideas.

I got no response in return thus far.

Meanwhile we appear to have been infiltrated by a now voted in committee member who apparently is attempting to fork bitshares for whatever copycat chinashares they can come up with to compete against Bitshares.

Attempt to stop Bitshares from attracting more developers and stop development, claim to love bitshares and want it to grow.. while secretly building a fork to compete against it. Seems legit.

I support the suggestions thus far.  I think I'm too new to be on the committee, but would like to contribute links, articles and such to the social media venues.

That's great.. you don't need to be on the committee to contribute.

PM me and you can add me to facebook or twitter or whatever you prefer.

Nicely done! 

Quote from: yvv on March 30, 2016, 12:51:08 pm

Quote from: btswildpig on March 30, 2016, 12:44:18 pm

I've already know one guy who brought BTS sold a lot and getting it back by worker dilution .

And who is the guy?

why do you want to know , it's not like he done something wrong . It's just the system that encourage him to do so .

I think he wants to know to verify you are not just making up stuff.