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 - Digital Lucifer

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25
16
@bitcrab: please don't try to play with the parameters of bitEUR. Leave it to the westerns. Thanks.

Where are the Westerns? what have they done with bitEUR? how much bitEUR have they supplied? have they tried to connected bitEUR with EURO? do they really care the business development of bitEUR?

For both BitUSD and BitEUR to be related to USD and EUR in last 5 years this blockchain was missing proper corporate structure and internal legal department for it (e.g. people hired by holders and paid through worker for 10 years to do just that - legal for blockchain and its needs according to laws and regulations).

Having in mind that within very own beginning bytemaster had wrong concept and knowledge on legal, he launched BitShares 2.0 as DAO but structured as DAC - which in real world is actually quite big legal overstep.

DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization/s) would be structured as non-profit organization and BTS token claimed as Utility. In non-profit organization there would be no shares and % of ownership would be not tradeable/transferable within holders or in any stock sense. Hence the whole idea behind Stichting BBF, that expensive legal opinion letter and no-action letter from SEC. But if anyone knew that we were...

DAC (Decentralized Autonomous Company/ies) who is structured as bunch of for-profit companies operating and sharing responsibilities on the blockchain (how operation as well as legal and financial ones) and hence the type of a company, holders would be actually able to trade the stocks within the company and own them (shares).

BBF coming to all of these conclusions after taking over responsibility on blockchain is finally re-inventing whitepaper and DAC as Decentralized Autonomous Cooperation, where nobody would be having obligations of legal agreements between each other unless they are written in paper and signed by real identities - which worked for fair part of the blockchain while left other half in dark due to inability to satisfy requirements.

Then last year, Ryan R. Fox as US Citizen had smart attempt to translate DAC into new meaning Decentralized Autonomous Community, where there would be no requirements for legal but was also cutting blockchain even shorter to enable itself for any business agreements.


So, point is - no, Westerners who actively participated blockchain activities were too busy fixing a lot of structure, terminology and legal issues just to maintain it in space. Unfortunately to this day there was no legal clearing for making it possible to happen (listings of BitEUR or BitUSD).

Now, since my legal structuring on my own hand will help these missing processes and abilities to show and use stablecoins in the future, I request/ask on behalf of West that bitUSD as representation of western token and fiat stablecoin (where China/Asia has complete zero legal ability to do anything with it publicly or outside China) for 2nd chance that we westerners do it correct way.

If positions of Chinese holders are issue here, they would just need to spend some time on closing them and moving to bitCNY and it would be very acceptable process - since we don't want to damage anyone but just to restore health to certain parts of blockchain that are becoming very important in real world (future cashless society and importance of stablecoins).



Chee®s

17
Is there any chance to push this for BitUSD as well ? There is some focus from different large world entities on stablecoins (due to covid-19 epidemic) and some members around here even know which entities I'm talking about. Their focus is in on-chain collateral stablecoins because they are only truly decentralized and restoring to BitUSD real value through BAIP2 would be very important.

Please consider question/suggestion slowly and reach me if you need any more specific info.

Chee®s

18
If the ETA, team details, costs and worker itself are not available for voting and/or discussion by 15. April 2020, official BitShares Core dev team will include BSIP in upcoming full worker.

Chee®s


19
And most important part that you missed... Escrow.

Ask BBF who negotiated the terms and asked them to be escrow for all these upcoming workers and based on what.

Also, while you're there, ask them is Move centralized owner of brand or we (as we always did), agreed to collaboration and decentralization where

Move Institute is owner of trademark on word
BBF handling ownership of trademark on logo.

You might reconsider your actions, it's still not late for you to stop being so wrong, so we can actually together make BitShares better instead of whatever is your intent atm.

Chee®s

20
1) Domain - given by original owner, never asked for it. Why nobody else picked it 2017 ? Ended up in non-profit as a request of community. Maybe community would be happier if I gave it back to CNX ?

2) your idea was for me to take on core worker. I was the only one willing to spend months on actually assembling core work, not just ask for money like other offers did without even idea what to do. I hold no core team, I manage core team for 35$/h which is nearly 5x less than previous manager

3) you as someone who was publicly destroying BBF in all groups this is a twist. We are attorney and a legal representative for the blockchain/community not the legal. Best part, i'm not even on the worker. Unless holders and move doesn't come to agreement what will be done that worker holds only legal liability for this ecosystem without taking single BTS. Small thanks would be nice if not vote

4) once you, alt and cn-vote demonstrated very wrong centralization event of refund400k, I did what I had to protect the brand. You as holder had  BBF as legal representative 2.5 years to do so, and any of you holders individually for circa now 7 years. It's my fault you haven't paid 1200 euros or just made the order but I did ?

Worried what might happen ? Worry not. BitShares can only be better not worse. Did no damage to it in 3 years and will not change in a lifetime. I will protect it from any damage though, without ask, blink or consensus (e.g. trademark)

And for ignorance on BBFs worker and position around the blockchain, why just not reach them out directly but just stiring publicly fire ?

And to be clear - even cn-vote group came to reason and all they needed was someone willing really to break language barrier, while you in the meantime drifted away from it, without any concrete reason apart from trademark initiative that made you turn 180 degrees. You have some handles there ? What's up for real ? 

Chee®s

21
20$+ to the pool is better than 0$ to the pool. Is there any other bsip profitable for reserve pool you holders came up with ?

And how is illegal P2P lending profitable for the blockchain ?

Chee®a

22
Quote
Why Gateway not pay?
2) You can't increase fees on transactions when you have no business or customers. Binance can, we cannot.

“chicken-or-the-egg”

This is a very complex problem.

Quote
3) DEX is NOT BITSHARES. It's time to filter businesses who "wants to build" to the one who are legit and have liquidity (wanna do business) and ones who dont wanna do business and are illegal.

ok,want to learn the Binance DEX(https://www.binance.org/)?I don't think so.

Quote
4) What sane business&development manager will let everyone fuck his project for free ?

en, the project still get the transaction fees, not free.

Quote
BSIP86 ISSUE

Just a small group people discuss it, even me just have a little words in the ISSUE, no body want to think and read it seriously,and even no Chinese version,how many members of CN-VOTE know what‘s the means of this BSIP? only less.

I don't like this BSIP86 in this mini mainnet releases as it is not so important, just can get a very little income from it.

I have quit all the groups of BTS long time ago, as i can't get any valuable discussion, maybe they more like to participate in the battle of steem.

I even don't like quietly any more, somebody have injured the bts holders and bitassets once and once again, and can't or not want to get any lessons from it. maybe i should be quietly like blocktrads, sell 35M bts and hold 7M BTS of community, and say “ i don't trust them.”

Quote
spammer

I like this words, abit and bitcrab call me that, i like to be it, they think they know and right, let the time show.

or you can ban me as a spammer for a year,so i will can't question anything in here,they also have a quiet environment to do what they like or want to do, that's very equal and reasonable.

Ill be simple with math and numbers, since words means nothing in this case and there is no "chicken-or-egg" in business terminology. Maybe it does in agriculture, but not here.

Currently BitShares blockchain has
Weekly: <1400 unique accounts
Daily average: 200 unique accounts
OPS Average: 215000
TX Average: 1.44 per second

24 hours = 86400 seconds

Total daily TX average: 124416

Basic member regular transaction fee to place order: 0.04826 BTS
Lifetime member regular transaction fee to place order: 0.00965 BTS

If we TAKE MID AVERAGE between basic and lifetime we get

Average member regular transaction fee: ‭0.019305‬ BTS

Moment of truth...

124416 TX * ‭0.019305‬ BTS = 2401.85088 BTS per day (if we have full day of regular transactions)

At the current ticker price of BTS this blockchain and project is making

DAILY PROFIT FROM FEES: 2401.85088 BTS @ 0.017224 USD = 41.37 USD

Monthly: Daily * 30 = 1241.1 USD


Costs of bitshares.org and news.bitshares.org monthly are x3 that.

What profits you are talking about and why i still need to let anyone build for free or list for free or operate on TOTALLY UNPROFITABLE BLOCKCHAIN AND OUR OWN BUSINESS FOR FREE ?

Chee®s

 

23
Worker is now posted on chain with worker ID 1.14.256.

Public accounting is available as always

Personally supported.

BEOS support since 1 hour ago.

Thanks for all compromises made, time and effort you spent on preparing this worker and dealing with me through it. Good luck to all the teams in upcoming workers and deliveries.

Chee®s

24
Thanks to GBAC and Linda for translation.


I've seen in DPOS forums that few Chinese members are against BSIP for market fee sharing and is complaining on how blockchain already collect fee from users, and in general against this worker. But I haven't seen them last 30 months doing nothing apart stiring fire, being unhappy and constantly "knowing" for better but never doing it themselves. Step up with solutions if you have better, nobody stops you and nobody ever did, but stop saying shit that has no sense or brain behind closed doors because ill be reading them. Always.

And to be clear for one fact about this project. BitShares exists 7 years, and NOT A SINGLE GATEWAY made it profitable for the blockchain in that period of time. It did made it for themselves. Fees collected from the blockchain would not be sufficient even if we would be having 100M USD volume a day with our fee structure over the past and to not mention that only reason WHY BITSHARES IS NOT PROFITABLE IS BECAUSE EVERYBODY CAN BUILD AND EARN FROM IT FOR FREE WHILE BLOCKCHAIN GETS NOTHING.

So, yes, it's time to stop doing everything and giving everything for free. Thanks for your support.

Chee®s

Must be clear,nothing in BTS is free,every transaction will pay the transaction fee.

If BTS can't feed himself with these transaction fees,why not to increase the transaction fee?

If we charge the fees from BSIP86, so give a reason to these GATEWAYs:

why they should build a business in BTS,not in other block chain?

why they should build a Gateway not a Bridge?



Quote
    Valid range of that parameter is [0, 100%].

why is 100%,not should be [0, 1%]?

I think no one like this valid range of that parameter is [0, 100%], too dangerous for a business.


FEES/INCOME ISSUE:

1) Why Gateway not pay for software to fork ? Why Gateway not pay listing in wallet ? Why bitshares.org owner has to bare legal responsibility for free ? Why gateway not call itself BitShares so it marketing more people to the blockchain itself ?
2) You can't increase fees on transactions when you have no business or customers. Binance can, we cannot.
3) DEX is NOT BITSHARES. It's time to filter businesses who "wants to build" to the one who are legit and have liquidity (wanna do business) and ones who dont wanna do business and are illegal.
4) What sane business&development manager will let everyone fuck his project for free ?

CB perfect example what happens when you let someone run for free for so long without any legal due dilligence, and what consequences it leaves on us.


BSIP86 ISSUE:

We already had discussion and nobody will push 0,100 as even me was never ok with it who isnt gateway owner. You just failed to follow up on time or participate when consensus actually did, now you're just creating fire for nothing. 

25% is tax in some countries, VAT on operations and sales - so we are not asking anything here that is not reasonable. Maybe we dont like governments, but they still do make money and we are not. Guess we are doing it wrong, not them.

Now for a holder who missed discussion on github for MONTHS, failed to respond in all groups when it was actually discussed and not being willing to read or do proper due dilligence -

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/253

Check this out.

I have nothing against you, but you really need to start participate more quietly and spend more actual effort participating - now you're being classified as a spammer just because you THINK you know but you DONT want to read/hear.

Chee®s

25
Thanks to GBAC and Linda for translation.


I've seen in DPOS forums that few Chinese members are against BSIP for market fee sharing and is complaining on how blockchain already collect fee from users, and in general against this worker. But I haven't seen them last 30 months doing nothing apart stiring fire, being unhappy and constantly "knowing" for better but never doing it themselves. Step up with solutions if you have better, nobody stops you and nobody ever did, but stop saying shit that has no sense or brain behind closed doors because ill be reading them. Always.

And to be clear for one fact about this project. BitShares exists 7 years, and NOT A SINGLE GATEWAY made it profitable for the blockchain in that period of time. It did made it for themselves. Fees collected from the blockchain would not be sufficient even if we would be having 100M USD volume a day with our fee structure over the past and to not mention that only reason WHY BITSHARES IS NOT PROFITABLE IS BECAUSE EVERYBODY CAN BUILD AND EARN FROM IT FOR FREE WHILE BLOCKCHAIN GETS NOTHING.

So, yes, it's time to stop doing everything and giving everything for free. Thanks for your support.

Chee®s

26
Bsip64 has not been voted active.

Quoted from the English version of worker above:

"Important Notice to BTS Core Token Holders

By approving this worker you're not approving BSIP's available for voting on chain that are included in this worker. To avoid any delays with mainnet release upon delivery of this worker, please provide vote of support to listed BSIP's within 45 days from the worker start."


Chee®s

27
After long and productive discussion with holders from the East, we agreed that some implementations and fixes cannot wait, but we also agreed that we cannot squeeze 2 mainnet releases in 6 months worker.

As a compromise and demand for urgent deployment before actual full core worker, I'm coming here on behalf of holders and core team to present you new 2020-core-prelude mini worker

2020-core-prelude 2 months (8.7 weeks) worker

Github - English version

PDF - English version (accessible from China)

Worker is sent to Linda Tian for translation and to the escrow to go on-chain, more updates to follow.

Chee®s

Which holders from east?

Why BSIP87 is more important than BSIP77?  need some reason.

1) Everyone I was able to reach by WeChat and it's respective groups.
2) It's not that it's less important. It's more important to people with significant stake who are publicly agreeing to it and requesting it to be implemented. From the developers perspective, BSIP87 is far easier implementation that requires less time in testing over BSIP77.

Chee®s

1. En, i can't get any informations from this respective groups in any public outlet,seems they are mysterious.
2. I can't get any enough reason for BSIP87, maybe just they like it.

I think BSIP74 and BSIP77 is enough for this mini mainnet releases, maybe incloud BSIP 64, so we may make a deployment in 1 month.

Besids, BSIP74 still have some problems need to check.

Ok, they can do what they like, wish they can destroy the bitassets totally.

Best regards.

To be clear, I've personally originally have wanted full workers and list of BSIP's that satisfy all sides. Result is that there is a requirement for this to happens and here we are. Even though i respect your sentiment, i would still advise you to cheer up. Overlapping worker will be published in less than 2 months that will include both of mentioned BSIP's and will be proper worker as original intentions were.

Hence why worker name has `prelude` in it.

Chee®s

28
After long and productive discussion with holders from the East, we agreed that some implementations and fixes cannot wait, but we also agreed that we cannot squeeze 2 mainnet releases in 6 months worker.

As a compromise and demand for urgent deployment before actual full core worker, I'm coming here on behalf of holders and core team to present you new 2020-core-prelude mini worker

2020-core-prelude 2 months (8.7 weeks) worker

Github - English version

PDF - English version (accessible from China)

Worker is sent to Linda Tian for translation and to the escrow to go on-chain, more updates to follow.

Chee®s

Which holders from east?

Why BSIP87 is more important than BSIP77?  need some reason.

1) Everyone I was able to reach by WeChat and it's respective groups.
2) It's not that it's less important. It's more important to people with significant stake who are publicly agreeing to it and requesting it to be implemented. From the developers perspective, BSIP87 is far easier implementation that requires less time in testing over BSIP77.

Chee®s

29
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll]BSIP87:Force Settlement Fee
« on: March 20, 2020, 09:29:52 am »
Included in 2020 prelude core worker and supported.

Chee®s

30
I generally support the new UI worker and the team behind it, however I do have one concern:

Something I would like to see, in addition to the offering, is added budget for 6 month commitment - beyond the contract period - for a single developer to perform code review ONLY on community submitted PR's.  This would be only for continuity's sake; in the event that there is another lapse in full "UI dev team" funding.   

Those with control of the github repo generally slow down and do nothing unless they are being funded; which is understandable as they are not paid.  However, that inaction drags down any ability for pro bono work to continue.   Then since there is no pro bono work... we must fund the new "dev team" ...or get nothing.   That negative feedback loop is frustrating and invokes a sense of conflict of interest.

It is untenable to have a buggy UI representing Bitshares with pull requests open by the public in the time lapsing between funding efforts.

I support this worker, but I also support a "no lapse community code review" addendum.




Love the idea, but would be creating it as separate worker with limit-budget every 6 months.

If the regular UI is not voted in that one can always serve as a replacement to keep UI up-to-date for community efforts and releases.

Chee®s

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25