Quote from: Customminer on July 10, 2017, 09:13:24 pm

If it's the case that they have lost access, there should be no intervention by the network similar to ETH & DAO.

A sure way of finding out if this is the case, is if someone with a balance greater than the hot wallet attempts to withdraw their BTS..

The shareholders will decide. We have a sophisticated governance system, which makes potential forks like this fair and possible. Settling this on-chain fast and efficiently will show other chains who have been in similar situations how powerful our system really is.

If you think there should be no intervention, your stake will have its say.

I'd find it hard to believe that a decentralized exchange network would opt to bail out a centralized exchange, but you're right that it should be put to a vote if found to be a reality.

Great to see you take on the challenge of becoming a Bitshares witness, you've 100% got my vote! You've already displayed your ability to run a steem witness & have been running several gridcoin nodes for the gridcoin blockchain explorer you created (primary gridcoin explorer).

Quote from: Brekyrself on July 10, 2017, 07:10:10 pm

Good time to analyze which witnesses were quick to react with this situation.

I know xeldal, lafona and sahkan are updating. no idea about the others

Surely their 'missed blocks' statistic is going to go through the roof soon? Might spur a shift in voting intent!

BUMP!

Can we talk about this 'refund400k' worker proposal? It is currently active in the BTS network and previous posts in this thread seem to indicate that it's destroying the 400k BTS each day instead of refunding it to the reserve pool..

I created a thread on steemit regarding this issue https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/refund400k-not-refunding-but-rather-burning-destroying-400k-bts-day

I would massively appreciate more information being provided, there's a surprising lack of information regarding this active worker proposal & many are confused about its purpose.

Thanks,
CM.

If we make BTS holders eligible for profit-sharing/dividends, what are your thoughts on only distributing dividends to users who have recently participated in witness/committee voting? So as to incentivize voting?

Thrown together an additional BSIP 21 regarding the 'coin-age' statistic that both BSIPs 19 and 20 referenced: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/bsip-0021-draft-introducing-the-coin-age-statistic-to-bitshares-assets-input-would-be-massively-appreciated

I'd greatly appreciate input on the contents of these 3 BSIPs, I'll refine the BSIPs with your input.

Best regards,
CM

Quote from: Customminer on July 04, 2017, 12:38:10 am

Quote from: yvv on July 03, 2017, 09:33:57 pm

Quote from: Akado on April 20, 2017, 09:53:06 am

BitShares is better technically and on the aspect of having a true decentralized and stable token. However that is not everything. Waves is way better funded, has more momentum and way better PR than BitShares. Their DEX even if it isn't as good, looks better. So people will naturally go there becasue user experience matters.

Either way, I think what matters the most and what ends up making the difference in the end will be liquidity. People trade where's volume. So better pump these bots, which are one of the best things happening to Bts imo. Anyone can provide liquidity even if only a tiny bit.

Btw, the way that was handled on Twitter was bad. It doesn't look good or show confidence on BitShares' product. Just focus on BitShares and bringing in liquidity, let others alone. The tech is here, so it's just a matter of time until the cliente looks better and liquidity increases.

I think BitShares should take advantage of this altcoin bubble to hire someone or a team of UX experts to do a rework. It will end eventually and might be harder to do so in the future.

Have to agree with this.

Among things which waves has and bitshares does not have is funding, solid business plan and dev team which sticks to it. TPS is not a bottleneck for wide adoption, user experience is.

This simply isn't true, Bitshares has a serious amount of funding at its disposal within the reserve pool, you just need a solid worker proposal in order to be funded; we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars within the reserve pool, much more than waves.

Reserve pool does not have hundreds of millions of dollars, it has a bunch of bullshit tokens. Try to use them for development and their price will go down fast, we have already seen this. Waves have different kind of funding. They don't need to dilute their tokens to fund the development, because they already sold them, and they can do with their funds whatever they want. They don't depend on fees, and they don't need to go through worker proposal bullshit each time they need to fix a flaw in their exchange. This is a big advantage they have over bitshares.

Bitshares are not bullshit tokens, to suggest so is absurd. Given that there have been multiple successful worker proposals whilst the Bitshares price has increased in value I don't see a correlation between spending a few thousand and the decrease in marketcap. Waves performed an ICO (potential securities fraud much?), worker proposals aren't required for upgrades to the network (the witnesses just need to upgrade their hardware), if waves doesn't have worker proposals then their funding is held centralized without input from the community?

You've got my vote!