0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This idea of changing the voting mechanics is only another overreact against a currently non-issue, since all workers are still active.Instead of focusing on attacking yunbi and whoever support the anti-dilution ideas, why don't you guys try to bring more knowledge and awareness to those who1) don't vote, directly or indirectly2) trade on centralized exchange instead of using the dex3) leave their bts on centralized exchange for a very long time, way more than the time needed for "just" buy and sell4) ask some proxies to review their current vote (jakub(21M) is voting only for 2 of 6 development-worker; fav(12M) could remove his support to refund-1 plus is voting only for 1 development-worker; clayop (5M) could remove his support to refund-3; mindphlux(5M) could remove support from refund-1; and so on)You guys are always so ready to attack these "anti-dilution gang" and name them "irrational" "stupid" "nonsense" "bts destroyer" and so on... The reality is just that they are normal people as all fo you, that only thinks differently then you are. They have different views on what is best for bitshares. That's all.So please, focus on the real problem and on real solution, without overreacting all the time.About this coind/days vothing thing. Just look here:http://cryptofresh.com/u/poloniexcoldstoragehttp://cryptofresh.com/u/btc38-public-for-bts-coldpoloniex cold wallet (420M) last movement --> more than 2 months ago!btc38 cold wallet (360M) last movement --> never moved funds! almosth 5 months!So your idea of coin days would only really increase the central exchanges voting power!
Quote from: liondani on March 30, 2016, 12:04:59 amQuote from: Bhuz on March 29, 2016, 10:21:11 pmSo your idea of coin days would only really increase the central exchanges voting power!Actually I think not, because in that case I assume many "shareholders" would move their coins from centralized exchanges to their own accounts so their cold wallets amounts would significant decrease... perhaps slowly but they would (depended on how fast shareholders get "educated" and... convinced)Why would they move their bts if they are not doing it now? If they really care about voting they would already move their funds back. It is clear that most users don't really care about voting, no matter the increased power the coin days could bring them.Edit: the point is "educating" them, as you said; not change the rules and voting mechanics
Quote from: Bhuz on March 29, 2016, 10:21:11 pmSo your idea of coin days would only really increase the central exchanges voting power!Actually I think not, because in that case I assume many "shareholders" would move their coins from centralized exchanges to their own accounts so their cold wallets amounts would significant decrease... perhaps slowly but they would (depended on how fast shareholders get "educated" and... convinced)
So your idea of coin days would only really increase the central exchanges voting power!
Why would they move their bts if they are not doing it now? If they really care about voting they would already move their funds back. It is clear that most users don't really care about voting, no matter the increased power the coin days could bring them.
This idea of changing the voting mechanics is only another overreact against a currently non-issue, since all workers are still active.Instead of focusing on attacking yunbi and whoever support the anti-dilution ideas, why don't you guys try to bring more knowledge and awareness to those who1) don't vote, directly or indirectly2) trade on centralized exchange instead of using the dex3) leave their bts on centralized exchange for a very long time, way more than the time needed for "just" buy and sell4) ask some proxies to review their current vote (jakub(21M) is voting only for 2 of 6 development-worker; fav(12M) could remove his support to refund-1 plus is voting only for 1 development-worker; clayop (5M) could remove his support to refund-3; mindphlux(5M) could remove support from refund-1; and so on)
You guys are always so ready to attack these "anti-dilution gang" and name them "irrational" "stupid" "nonsense" "bts destroyer" and so on... The reality is just that they are normal people as all fo you, that only thinks differently then you are. They have different views on what is best for bitshares. That's all.So please, focus on the real problem and on real solution, without overreacting all the time.About this coind/days vothing thing. Just look here:http://cryptofresh.com/u/poloniexcoldstoragehttp://cryptofresh.com/u/btc38-public-for-bts-coldpoloniex cold wallet (420M) last movement --> more than 2 months ago!btc38 cold wallet (360M) last movement --> never moved funds! almosth 5 months!So your idea of coin days would only really increase the central exchanges voting power!
Quote from: Pheonike on March 29, 2016, 09:42:22 pmPeople who keep there BTS on exchanges are constantly buying and selling which means the coin-days total will not grow as fast of those who hold. Therefore the people who hold will gradually gain more voting power because their coin-days are not constantly getting destroyed.They are buying and selling, but BTS stay in same aggregated wallet. Only numbers in centralized exchange database are changing.
People who keep there BTS on exchanges are constantly buying and selling which means the coin-days total will not grow as fast of those who hold. Therefore the people who hold will gradually gain more voting power because their coin-days are not constantly getting destroyed.
It's rewarding those who hold and keep their BTS in their account. It's those people who more than likely care about the long-term value of BTS. Short-term people are ones most likely to sell or keep their BTS on other exchanges. Therefore they should not have as much sway in decisions. At minimum they maintain the votes they currently have.
woah, bad idea. why discourage new prospective shareholders?
You own the network, but who pays for development?
Quote from: onceuponatime on March 29, 2016, 04:51:03 amQuote from: Pheonike on March 29, 2016, 04:49:10 amIn many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.That seems to make a lot of sense if there is a practical way to accomplish it.This is an interesting idea that might be worth exploring more.
Quote from: Pheonike on March 29, 2016, 04:49:10 amIn many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.That seems to make a lot of sense if there is a practical way to accomplish it.
In many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.
<Off Topic> So I tried to use the forum search to find a definition of "coin days" but as usual lots of mentions but time consuming to weed thru them to discover an answer. This gives me an idea to create a "BitShares Glossary" where terminology like this can have a definition. Ideally this would be a sticky post at the top of the "General Discussion" board. I'll see if I can make that happen and start working on it, but it won't happen this week.<On Topic>
This is actually a pretty clever way to manipulate votes to get the end you desire using the proxy system. Promote your proxy by appealing to people's greed (get paid money to vote for me), then vote for this dividend proposal which you know will never get passed, and later vote for your real objective (vote for refund worker to cut off funds to workers). You get voting power from all these people who will likely never pay attention to your full voting slate after their initial proxy to you.I've never been a particular fan of the proxy idea (I don't like representative government in general), and I guess this shows one problem with a proxy system where you don't have to renew your proxy occasionally.
Quote from: sasashui on March 28, 2016, 11:53:40 amwhy don't you consider believers will come and buy BTS for dividend ? this is a good way to get "POS" Good idea Those are another group of believers.
why don't you consider believers will come and buy BTS for dividend ? this is a good way to get "POS"
Quote from: sasashui on March 27, 2016, 02:51:51 amQuote from: onceuponatime on March 24, 2016, 06:16:32 pmQuote from: xeroc on March 24, 2016, 06:11:20 pmSorry .. but I don't get it .. Why should the shareholders agree for being paid out of the reserves? IMHO that is just stupid .. it kills the networks ability to fund future profit at the benefits fo some stupid/greedy people ?!?What am I missing here?You are missing the fact that sociopaths and psychopaths make up a certain (~3%) part of any population.That‘s no doubt about that poloniex、btc38 had make a contribution to the BTS,I think they can creat a worker and vote himself , Maybe you will say they are crazy ,but The capital market is always crazy.assuming that some has many BTS, or he can get many votes like this ,creat a worker and vote hinself , but he doesn't work ,so what?Rely on the moral ? or rely on the rule ?If this will come sooner or later, better sooner than later. Let them do it, drive the price down, so real believers can buy in cheaper.
Quote from: onceuponatime on March 24, 2016, 06:16:32 pmQuote from: xeroc on March 24, 2016, 06:11:20 pmSorry .. but I don't get it .. Why should the shareholders agree for being paid out of the reserves? IMHO that is just stupid .. it kills the networks ability to fund future profit at the benefits fo some stupid/greedy people ?!?What am I missing here?You are missing the fact that sociopaths and psychopaths make up a certain (~3%) part of any population.That‘s no doubt about that poloniex、btc38 had make a contribution to the BTS,I think they can creat a worker and vote himself , Maybe you will say they are crazy ,but The capital market is always crazy.assuming that some has many BTS, or he can get many votes like this ,creat a worker and vote hinself , but he doesn't work ,so what?Rely on the moral ? or rely on the rule ?
Quote from: xeroc on March 24, 2016, 06:11:20 pmSorry .. but I don't get it .. Why should the shareholders agree for being paid out of the reserves? IMHO that is just stupid .. it kills the networks ability to fund future profit at the benefits fo some stupid/greedy people ?!?What am I missing here?You are missing the fact that sociopaths and psychopaths make up a certain (~3%) part of any population.
Sorry .. but I don't get it .. Why should the shareholders agree for being paid out of the reserves? IMHO that is just stupid .. it kills the networks ability to fund future profit at the benefits fo some stupid/greedy people ?!?What am I missing here?
Quote from: btswildpig on March 25, 2016, 07:01:13 amQuote from: tonyk on March 25, 2016, 05:28:46 amAfter being taken the ability to actively vote against ideas like this... I find myself pretty much agreeing with the approach...Let distribute all available fund to stake holders and then finance any development we find appropriate on a case by case bases.what?This will be "voting 'for' only" brought to its purest form...haha , I'm pretty sure this proposal is for morking the "vote against function being taken out"So this is more a protest vote against the change which makes it easier to vote in bad workers?
Quote from: tonyk on March 25, 2016, 05:28:46 amAfter being taken the ability to actively vote against ideas like this... I find myself pretty much agreeing with the approach...Let distribute all available fund to stake holders and then finance any development we find appropriate on a case by case bases.what?This will be "voting 'for' only" brought to its purest form...haha , I'm pretty sure this proposal is for morking the "vote against function being taken out"
After being taken the ability to actively vote against ideas like this... I find myself pretty much agreeing with the approach...Let distribute all available fund to stake holders and then finance any development we find appropriate on a case by case bases.what?This will be "voting 'for' only" brought to its purest form...
Quote from: Thom on March 26, 2016, 03:44:26 pmWe discussed this briefly in the last mumble. If this starts to gain more traction those against it must become more proactive in countering it with a wave of opposition. Now that negative votes are off the table that is more difficult as there is no longer a direct way to negate the votes in favor of this communistic welfare scheme.OK so it is more difficult to stop a bad worker with negative votes removed?In which case this could be seen as a protest against that change. Which perhaps also makes it easier for others to vote in bad workers that previously the active majority of shareholders/proxies had been able to vote against?
We discussed this briefly in the last mumble. If this starts to gain more traction those against it must become more proactive in countering it with a wave of opposition. Now that negative votes are off the table that is more difficult as there is no longer a direct way to negate the votes in favor of this communistic welfare scheme.
I'm thinking about this from a DAC and community point of view.This is totally shitty move and our community should decide some guidelines how we will deal with stuff like this.Forum should be reserved only for productive efforts. We really shouldn't have to deal with shit like this here. Just remove the cancer before it gets too big. I've seen too many times that communities start to suffer when they don't get rid of bullies and antiproductive persons soon enough.
So this is basically a direct attack against Bitshares. While some of us are trying to build a world changing financial platform, these guys go totally "fuck everything, we just want to us Bitshares to get money for ourselves" and ruin the development.I suggest that anybody who votes for those workers will get lifetime ban on this forum. That's the least we can do, our community doesn't need to tolerate behavior like that.
puzzle of motivation: https://youtu.be/CTSO0SDtPaw wikipedia will never success because of the fuck bitshares worker.
Small BTS shareholders may be willing to proxy their vote for an annual ...even ultimately to the detriment of their investment, especially if they thought the pools/proxies intentions were good.