Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - bitcrab

Pages: 1 ... 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 [114] 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 ... 129
1696
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 交易所应该/可以投票吗？
« on: January 06, 2016, 06:43:04 am »
我个人并未觉得中国用户投票意识比国外用户明显淡，不然我也不会在未获BM投票的情况下被投进去。似乎不见得中国用户放在交易所里的BTS比例更大。

BM现在领导着CNX，需要不断给他的团队找活干，总有新想法是可以理解的，问题在于社区要发挥作用，要掌握应该掌握的，没有人愿意给自己戴上镣铐，拿着镣铐的人要想办法去拷上，这次寻求交易所投票可以看做一次尝试，如果能借此建立一个真正的多元化/去中心的理事会，那么也许还有的玩，如果社区连一个理事会都搞不定，那就趁早散了吧。

我有点奇怪，为什么跟帖赞同交易所投票的多，可却有那么多投票反对交易所投票的？

1697
General Discussion / Re: The Benefits of Proof of Work [BLOG POST]
« on: January 06, 2016, 04:21:26 am »
it's interesting idea, but:
1. I am against to make more dilution to do this, if divide some BTS from the reserve pool/income then should be ok.
2.stake should be the only measure for voting weight, "coindays" or "committed stake" can only be used to measure work quantity, but should not be used to determine voting weight.

and I don't think there are exchange risk, if exchange participate vote, then they play a role similar to the mining pools play in bitcoin ecosystem.
if we invite exchange to vote, then can solve the voter apathy problem.

1698
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 交易所应该/可以投票吗？
« on: January 06, 2016, 03:56:03 am »
Quote from: free on January 06, 2016, 03:52:43 am
没用的，就算交易所投票了，BM在弄个交易所白名单，然后禁止交易所投票。。。。
如果他们真的这么没底线，那就让他们在全世界面前秀一下。然后我们再洗手不干，或者去fork一个。

1699
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 交易所应该/可以投票吗？
« on: January 06, 2016, 02:33:32 am »
Quote from: gunailei on January 05, 2016, 04:33:15 pm
大家要把“去中心化”这几个字搞清楚：
1、去中心化指的是网络安全，就是区块链网络的不可更改，不可重复，这个现在没有问题，见证人机制运转很好；
2、投票权可以变更的参数并不涉及到变更网络去中心化的特性，投票权等同于股权，有控股股东的情况也很正常，未必就一定要股权非常分散才对项目发展好，这个不会对网络安全造成影响，也就不存在所谓的中心化问题。
综上所述，交易所就如同股权代管受托机构，投票妥妥的，甚至可以代理行使控股股东权利。

现在没有控股股东，BM手里的BTS也无非只占总量的5%左右，但是问题在于，这样的股份却可以一手遮天，这对于任何一个公司都是不正常的。现在的理事会，已经差不多成了“BM秘书处”。

我承认BM对于Bitshares的重要性，也不反对他继续主导项目，但是，他的权力必须受到制约，他和理事会的关系，应该成为一种类似CEO与董事会，或者总统与国会之间的关系。

去中心化的含义一直在演变，在比特币初生的时代，也许去中心化只意味着每个人都可以参与产生区块，而且网络不会因为任何一个节点的失败而失败。但BTS2.0已经把一些网络特性参数化，把去中心化的含义拓展到了可以以一种民主投票的方式确定网络参数，不排除以后去中心化的含义有更大范围的拓展，anyway现在不用争论这个，现在首先要解决的，是让理事会成为一个真正的理事会，是一个能真正代表社区和股东的理事会，如果这一点都不能做到，那我对于BTS的将来完全没有信心。也无法说服别人（连自己都说服不了）BTS不是中心化的。

这些非常重要，BTS的问题基本上都不是如何维护网络安全的问题，而是如何确定模式，如何管理“模式改变”的问题。

交易所的投票比BM自己的投票是一种更弱的中心，因为如果社区成员认为某交易所有作恶可能，可以随时提现撤出。

没有实力的愤怒毫无意义，于今之计，貌似也唯有借交易所之力，来推进理事会的正常化，望大家与我一起奔走呼告，早日让交易所参与投票。



1700
General Discussion / Re: Big bug in GUI asset update?
« on: January 05, 2016, 03:47:31 pm »
this is an accident, I think there should be a solution to enable the issuer_permissions and flags for TCNY.
 @bytemaster @xeroc @svk @valzav

1701
中文 (Chinese) / 交易所应该/可以投票吗？
« on: January 05, 2016, 08:51:13 am »
提出这个问题是觉得现在Bitshares去中心化进程面临无法破局的囧境。
原来觉得2.0是一个去中心化的开始，但现在看来完全不是这么回事，BM完全没有表现出愿意放弃权力的意愿，当然这可以理解，但却不能听之任之。
为了让理事会免于被BM一手遮天，我提出了一个限制每人可选理事数量的建议https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20858.30.html ，看到的结果是，阻力比我预料的要大。
那么现在能想到的就是还有另外一条路可走，就是发动交易所参与投票，让交易所通过投票来共同促进Bitshares的去中心化。
我个人不觉得交易所投票有什么问题，负责任的交易所投票甚至会给自己加分。
你觉得怎样？

1702
General Discussion / Re: Big bug in GUI asset update?
« on: January 05, 2016, 04:53:49 am »
I have tested and found that now the force settlement feature is actually enabled for TCNY.

according to the design, force settlement/allow witness to provide feed features should both be disabled because of the change but actually not, this is another bug and when in the future the bug be fixed these features will be actually disabled for TCNY, right?

so I wonder whether there are ways to reserve these features for TCNY, as they are important for a smartcoin.





1703
General Discussion / Re: proposal to restrict voting numbers for committee members
« on: January 04, 2016, 04:57:12 pm »
Quote from: Stan on January 04, 2016, 03:48:51 pm
If a company has a billion shareholders each with one share and they all vote for the same people, is it not still decentralized (because they had the option to vote differently)?

If all but one of those shareholders chooses not to vote, thereby allowing the last shareholder to select the committee all by herself, is it not still decentralized (because they still had the option to vote)?

As long as each share has the decentralized option to vote, that's all we can and should do about decentralization.

To do otherwise is to disenfranchise those who choose to vote in an attempt to redistribute their legitimately owned decision power onto others who don't want or deserve it.

Forced decentralization is its own form of tyranny.

this is not forced decentralization, this is seeking more reasonable voting rules.

think of  the US election, 2 senators for each state,  representatives numbers proportional to population, according to your logic, is the senator voting logic deprive the power of the people from the state with more population?

maybe you can say that, but the point is that the designers are seeking some balance, follow the population based logic and meanwhile prevent "Tyranny of Majority" .

we now obviously need to prevent "Tyranny of Dictator", we need to design the rule accordingly. it may deprive the power of one account to control the whole committee, but this is necessary.

1704
General Discussion / Re: proposal to restrict voting numbers for committee members
« on: January 04, 2016, 03:17:14 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on January 04, 2016, 08:28:06 am
Ho does this help AT ALL?
If you only allow to vote for 3 witnesses, then we have 3 witnesses from china, 3 from europe and 3 from the US. all of them will have LESS votes and will be easier to overtake
not easier than now, because each people's voting power will decrease.
diversify will help a global DAC,

Quote
The point of DAC is not decentralization, the point is to make profits. To take care of the profitability we need somebody to make good decisions on blockchain parameters. This is what committee is for. It is not very reasonable to do decentralization just because decentralization. You have to always justify it.
DAC surely should be dencentralized, otherwise it should not be named DAC,

actually in my view currently Bitshares 2.0 is more like a country than a company, because its revenue comes from the fees paid by the shareholders, in another word, more exactly the fees can be called tax.

for a company, normally the more revenue, the better, but this is not the case for a country. high revenue of a country often means high tax rate, and high burden of the people. these all always deactivate the economy.

at first Bitshares announced to be a decentralized autonomous company, but up to now it is not really decentralized yet, we need to improve further, we need to keep updating the management infrastructure to what we really needed,  but anyway decentralization is needed. as a company, we should not put the company under the control of CEO himself. the CEO should report to the board and work under the supervision of the board.

 



1705
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 当前的爆仓规则
« on: January 04, 2016, 02:37:20 pm »
应该不是，外盘流动的是真正的CNY，内盘只是一种衍生品，喂价才能给这二者建立一种联系，内盘流动性高了，定价权会向内盘转移，但依然需要从外盘喂价。

1706
中文 (Chinese) / Re: CASS申请worker了
« on: January 04, 2016, 02:09:58 pm »
40欧元一小时。。。
有能力的小伙伴们也去申请啊。

1707
中文 (Chinese) / Re: transwiser/bitcrab 2016 Q1 计划
« on: January 04, 2016, 03:56:36 am »
@2031654 最左菜单列选voting-》proxy里填上bitcrab，然后PUBLISH CHANGES就好，谢了。 8)

1708
General Discussion / Big bug in GUI asset update?
« on: January 03, 2016, 07:00:16 pm »
I believe there is big bug in the GUI asset update page.
today I found that 2 parameters of TCNY have been changed:

issuer_permissions: old:511 new:79
flag:old:128 new:0

after some checking I found what make this happen, in 23th Dec, I operate in GUI to change the owner of TCNY, after doing that, the unexpected change happened.

this can be proved with a test with no confirmation on TUSD, after changing the description and clicking update asset, below pop up:



issuer_permissions and flag are changed to 79 and 0.

this is big bug and may cause big issue, hope everyone be aware of this and this can be fixed asap.

now seems TCNY get unexpected change:

disabled force setting
disabled global force setting by issuer.
disabled confidential transactions
not allow witness/committee members to provide feeds

the worst is that all these features can not be enabled once disabled.

this is really a tragedy for TCNY. :'( , I need to consider how to handle it.
any suggestions?

1709
General Discussion / Re: [BSIP] Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER
« on: January 03, 2016, 12:09:29 pm »
Quote from: jakub on January 03, 2016, 11:48:00 am
Anyway, before we declare 1% and 300 BTS as "really scary" we should do a basic statistical analysis (i.e. find out the mean value and its deviation) and thus estimate the economic impact of those values across different segments of our users.

maybe needed for another value, but not needed for 1% and 300 BTS, just as if someone sell IPhone 6 Plus to me with the price of 60K CNY, I can tell it scary without thinking.

Quote from: jakub on January 03, 2016, 11:48:00 am
But please do not drag this proposal into yet another transfer fee battle.
The whole point of this proposal is to make transfers below $5 viable while preserving the economic foundation of the referral program.
If you don't like it, you will be able to keep TCNY and TUSD out of it - this whole thing is optional for the issuer.

the whole structure is OK, the point is the value, I must keep sensitive to not allow the fee go up, if it cannot go down.
not only TCNY and TUSD are relevant to me, BTS and main BitAssets are all relevant to me.

1710
General Discussion / Re: proposal to restrict voting numbers for committee members
« on: January 03, 2016, 11:47:48 am »
Quote from: Samupaha on January 03, 2016, 11:15:48 am
The rules of the real DAC are not changed whenever somebody is unhappy with the result of current voting.

If you want to change the rules, you have to make a case that will prove that the new rules produce good and fair results no matter who are the voters or the candidates. The point of this is to have a sufficient mechanism to elect reliable people to change blockchain parameters. Not just this time but every time.

I don't even see any reason why there is a need to decrease Bytemaster's power on blockchain parameters. On the contrary, I would like him to take more active participation on these decisions, because he knows the system best. So far he hasn't changed or proposed any parameters that I would consider harmful for Bitshares.

ya, there are always people that like to live under the rule of a dictator, because he think the dictator is the wisest people he ever met.

but humankind finally select democracy, not because they cannot find wise people to be the ruler, but because they come to understand that unrestricted right will always lead to disaster.

can anyone prove that each time the elected US President is always relied person? no one can prove, but few US people think US need to go back to monarchy, like north Korea. no need to explain.

DAC is not compatible with dictator, we built committee in order to push the decentralization, not to put it under one people's control, I think this is easy to understand.

it's ok for you to trust BM mostly, you can support him by voting, but this is not the consensus of the whole community. the community need a mechanism to avoid dictatorship.





Pages: 1 ... 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 [114] 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 ... 129

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 23 queries.