Quote from: bitcrab on January 08, 2016, 01:42:41 pm

Quote from: Samupaha on January 08, 2016, 08:19:26 am

I guess you are behind this bitcrab? You have been very vocal against Bytemaster, so you decided to go and urged this exchange (is it Yunbi?) to start voting?

yes, I am behind this, I am not against bytemaster, but I believe Bitshares need more decentralization in decision making.

so I'd like to get more stake into voting.

I am not able to urge anyone, all what I can do is to tell them my ideas and suggest.

Come on, you have been protesting everything that Bytemaster does very actively, this is clearly an attack purely against him.

If you had honestly wanted to help the progress of decentralization you would have asked opinions of other members of the community first. There are very good reasons for why this is not good for Bitshares.

That said, I'm not totally against of exchangest voting. But that would require a few things to happen:
- The exchange informs all customers about this, and preferably also asks them explicitely if this is accetable or not. Did they do it on this case?
- The exchange informs the Bitshares community about this. In this case they didn't.
- The exchange explains their motivation to vote. Are they going to be an active member of the community? Are they going to do more business with Bitshares than just selling BTS? This is really important because exchanges can be our competitors. It might be a serious problem if our competitors start to influence our decisions.
- If exchange is using a proxy, the proxy should explains it's reasons for voting. In this case they are voting laomao who has not published any information of his voting reasoning.

If an exchange is seriously interested in Bitshares and wants to become an active member of the community because they believe in Bitshares, we can welcome them.

But this case is totally fucked up. So what should we do about it? Should we contact Yunbi and ask them to remove their votes?

exactly speaking, I am against bytemaster in some cases, but in most cases I support him, otherwise I would have left Bitshares for months,I think Bitshares need him, I think the relation between bytemaster and committee should be as that between CEO and board, or President and Congress.

Opposition make sense, especially in bitshares community where there are too much simple followers.

yes, things should be better if there's more communication in advance, but it is not late even the communication begin from now.

I'd like to provide more info about yunbi according to my understanding about them and communication with them, I don't guarantee it's exact.

yunbi is an exchange that believes very much on decentralization and application value,   they have taken off litecoin and dogecoin because they don't think these coins make sense, they are only simple altcoins.

they do not want to be active members in community, because they do not have so much time/resource for BTS, they get many information of BTS from my side, they vote mainly because they would like to help to make the committee more diversified/dencentralized.

laomao is the COO of yunbi, he do not have much time to spend on BTS. if you think community know too little about laomao, maybe I can suggest them to set me as proxy?

there is a QQ group of yunbi, 2442579, if you need to contact them and get known more, you can join to find laomao and the CEO.

don't complain why they do not want to spend time on BTS, they have told me:"we really hope BTS can have a good future, but we have little confidence on this, we are not sure it is decentralized, we can keep the trading pair, but we do not want to pay more resource on it."

they now only put their hot wallet in voting, they may put also the cold wallet in voting next week.

This is a terrible idea. Exchanges didn't expend any capital to acquire that voting stake, so if they so chose, they can attack the network with zero cost using their stake to vote.

they have no cost, but they need to be responsible for their users, if they do not want lose customers.

Whenever there is voting power threating the king bytemaster will lead to the rule changes. BTS is bytemaster's private toy, he won't allow being challenged.

I don't think what you said is true, I'd like to know how @bytemaster think about this.

exchange vote may change the status of voting apathy, that's good to the community.

users surely have the right to withdraw their BTS if they do not agree on whom to vote with the exchange, the relation is like miner and mining pool, if a miner do not like one pool, he for sure can switch to another pool.

hope polo can join soon.

Quote from: bitcrab on January 07, 2016, 12:22:02 pm

Quote from: xeroc on January 07, 2016, 11:06:12 am

Quote from: svk on January 06, 2016, 08:05:58 pm

Unless @theoreticalbts or @bytemaster can explain the "missing" permissions that relate to bit assets I can't do much about this.

I say "missing" because they're not part of the definitions here: https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/blob/62c22fbf18d748531c468e0d7a88d08eddbd6f20/libraries/chain/include/graphene/chain/protocol/types.hpp#L84

and I've tried searching through the code but I can't find anything explaining how bit asset permissions.

https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/blob/master/libraries/wallet/wallet.cpp#L2319-L2336
It seems all that is needed is another 'bitasset"-specific json object:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/blob/master/libraries/chain/include/graphene/chain/protocol/asset_ops.hpp#L87-L110

do you mean the only way is to create another privatized smartcoin to replace TCNY, if need to get the initial issuer permissions and flags?

I guess he mean the attributes which svk didn't find are in another object, the "bitasset" object, not the "asset" object.

got it.

Quote from: chryspano on January 06, 2016, 05:19:23 pm

Quote from: lil_jay890 on January 06, 2016, 02:41:00 pm

fiesty... plus CNX can push through anything they want.  Market realizes it and that's why your seeing people sell.  Centralization.
Who exactly our my friends?

No, they can't push through anything they want, and market often realizes $h!t!
I would like to know what market "realized" when btc price fell to $3, I supose those that didn't listen to "market" back then and bought btc with a 30% premium from virwox or ebay were complete idiots. If they want to sell, let them sell.


There is a 90% you can try to get votes from, but often I see people focusing on the less than 10% that "BM and friends" has. Where is your call to arms? If you didn't manage to get any votes/support.....maybe you are in the minority.

Ok so bitcoin is a success story where people were wrong about the direction, that happens very rarely.  Companies that lose 90% of their value almost never come back. Also, what about all the other alts that have been crushed and stayed crushed??? paycoin anyone?

People are assuming that I think the projects that CNX are doing are bad and will hurt BTS.  I never said that.  I think CNX having the ability to control all projects and features added to BTS is the roadblock.

The problem is, and it's been stated before by many people, is that CNX has the ability at any time to vote in a proposal via their voting power and their minion's proxies.  Don't kid yourself and think that somehow thousands of strangers from across the planet will somehow come together and vote in unison.  CNX also controls the majority of the committee via direct supporters or inits.  BTS has been crushed by the merger, the never there 1.0, and the botched released of bitshare 1.666 (2.0 - some original features).  These events were all centrally controlled and coordinated by CNX.  If everything they have ever done has caused BTS to lose value, why would you think their next "feature" would come to any other result?  It's this fear that is keeping other devs and business's from building on BTS.  It's the ever shifting rules.  I have lobbied for CNX to step away from the table and let stability creep in, but that will never happen since CNX is the main benificiary of the BTS charity.

Bottom line:  Until CNX is not the Dominant player in Intellectual BTS capital AND actual BTS... Bitshares will be viewed as a centralized coin.  They can be one of the above, but not both.

agree, that's why I insist to push the decentralization process of Bitshares.
now seems there's only one way to go - invite exchanges to vote.