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 - cube

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 94
301
General Discussion / Re: Smart Coins & Forced Settlement
« on: December 01, 2015, 04:23:00 am »
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on December 01, 2015, 12:23:57 am
Quote from: clayop on December 01, 2015, 12:11:32 am
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on November 30, 2015, 11:56:12 pm
Quote from: clayop on November 30, 2015, 10:53:39 pm
Are you saying CNY/BTS (around 0.0203) or BTS/CNY (around 49)? I was saying CNY/BTS. And bitCNY feed should be higher than CNY because the feed is a price of bitCNY, not CNY Wrong statement. Sorry.
you're not explaining yourself clearly
You didn't answer my question. Tell me when bitCNY has premium than CNY. It's price feed in terms of CNY/BTS is always lower (e.g. 0.0203) than exchanged price (0.0207). Compare USD/BTS depth chart and CNY/BTS chart. You'll find the difference.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on November 30, 2015, 09:32:17 pm
Yes it does temporarily change the design of smartcoin. There was no emergency, if we change rules over non issues like this bitshares will not be trusted in the future. Yes I nearly paid 1 million bts to settle some bitCNY
There was some emergency, because someone (you may know who he is) was enjoying (for example, settled 4,200 CNY) free money with the wrong price feed. And you didn't pay 1 million BTS until your order is filled.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on November 30, 2015, 09:32:17 pm
No transwiser will not be able to sustain their business model if they sell 1 bitCNY for 1 CNY
the price feed isn't out that drastically, you can ask the witnesses to make adjustments but should not change the rules of a smartcoin contract overnight.[/color]
Again, with this small difference, someone was exploiting the system.

Who's the someone? Can you answer?
@clayop
It's no secret I was buying bitCNY for less than the feed and settling it because I am a rational market participant.
I still have a big sub feed price buy wall up and will continue to profit from it again when instant settlement returns. :-)

I'm not exploiting bitshares I'm exploiting transwiser.

How much profit have you gained from your exploits so far?

302
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Committee: bitcube
« on: December 01, 2015, 04:18:28 am »
Quote from: tonyk on November 30, 2015, 10:03:26 pm
How are you voting on the reversal back cube?

Do you mean voting for the 'Settle' function to resume operation once the 'flaw' is resolved?  Yes, certainly.

303
General Discussion / Re: Smart Coins & Forced Settlement
« on: December 01, 2015, 03:40:47 am »
Quote from: tonyk on December 01, 2015, 02:17:15 am

I was damn serious for 3 days straight, alt. The only joke I made was the one above.[about jonny settling my short bitusds]

For the teaching others - take for example this shit:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18475.msg251986.html#msg251986

even after I solve something for supposed bounty no one cares to pay...or explain why they are not paying for the very least.


PS
and brownies I did not get either.
why?
Because they by definition they require not only doing stuff but kissing BM's ass afterwards.

The only thing I actually get from BTS is every changing rules - some even hidden,  seemingly on purpose, that could have cost me 750K BTS if for not very  fast thinking and experimenting to learn what trap BM have in mind for me.

And after all this some whale comes around, makes the committee change the rules with no need for that and EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT LOSE A DIME AND THEY DID NOT KNOW A RULE THAT WAS  KNOWN FOR AGES

give me a break

I can feel you tonyk.  You feel you were unfairly treated.  You are one of the few experienced and smart fellows who dare to speak his mind, although at times in a cryptic and sarcastic manner.  The bad things that happened to you were unfortunate but they do not change the fact that you have made good contributions to the community, in your own way.

Quote from: tonyk on December 01, 2015, 02:17:15 am
And after all this some whale comes around, makes the committee change the rules with no need for that and EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT LOSE A DIME AND THEY DID NOT KNOW A RULE THAT WAS  KNOWN FOR AGES

I can assure you the Committee members are making their decision independently and believe they are doing so for the best interest of Bitshares, not under influence by any so-called whales.  They genuinely felt the need to level the playing field by temporary suspending the 'settle' function and resolving the price feed script 'flaw' (I know, we probably cannot use this term now and have to find a better terminology) but by no means they are changing the rule.

I cannot really speak for others but my own personal view.  I will do the same utmost for you, the referrers or any other users if ever you/they became unfairly exploited due to some system flaws.

304
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Commitee guidelines for future proposals
« on: November 30, 2015, 05:43:06 pm »
Quote from: mindphlux on November 30, 2015, 12:31:50 pm
I support Bhuz's suggestion list.

Distinction between emergency and normal could be:

Bug in the code that is causing a loss or malfunction that threatens the network
It includes not: a specific entity is loosing money because of a misunderstanding or not understanding a specific feature (not having read the whitepaper)

I like to ask for more specific than this.

Bug in the code: what codes? blockchain? cli_wallet, GUI wallet, price feed scripts?  Do we include some of them or all of them?

What about a lack of coverage?  For example, a price feed not getting prices from China websites

Danger to bitshares such as spammers (eg the account creation squatters/spammers) and opportunistic flaw exploiters?  There may be other unknown threats like load stress spam/attack?





305
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Commitee guidelines for future proposals
« on: November 30, 2015, 11:28:17 am »
Quote from: Bhuz on November 30, 2015, 11:21:56 am
I think something like this could be a good start:

1-Make a First forum post to introduce the topic, what we think about it, our pro and cons. Discussion needed here.
2-Gather information and community proposals from the post above.
3-Make a Second forum post with a poll (or another kind of poll less subject to manipulation...idk) including our suggestions and community's more relevant suggestion too.
4-Give time to the community to vote and continue to express their thought.
5-Make a committee proposal with the results we gather from 4-
6-Give to the community enough time to 1)vote for the submitted proposal or 2)unvote committee members

Any other better ideas would be great and welcomed

Thanks for starting up the engine.  I do not have the time to fully analyse but my first impression is: this is a good start.  The suggested steps are useful for a normal and 'non-emergency' proposal.  What about steps for 'emergency/crisis proposals'?  What are the criteria to consider for an emergency proposal versus a non-emergency one?

306
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Commitee guidelines for future proposals
« on: November 30, 2015, 11:01:07 am »
Quote from: mindphlux on November 30, 2015, 10:44:52 am
I posted the relevant screenshot to bitcrab since he asked for it. The fact that this issue was misrepresented is an issue though - both me and Bhuz voted only positive because we thought real money was lost - hence the entire committee proposal was 'rigged', it would have not passed otherwise. I will not go public @ to the community however, since this has been an internal issue.

That is why I insist on blockchain facts so this can not happen again.

I believe you are referring to the point where I misunderstood bitcrab's losses 'now versus future' and discussed that point with you.  I genuinely thought I saw Transwiser mentioned loss and I interpreted it in 'suffering existing loss' and not 'expecting future loss'.  I sincerely apologise for this miscommunication caused by my poor Chinese.  I am saddened by you feeling the "committee proposal was 'rigged'".  Please rest assured that there was never such intention.  I will have to be more mindful of my poor Chinese in my future communication with the Chinese.

I like to add to the 'best practice' that in future proposals, each committee member needs to state the true reasons behind their votes for or against a proposal.  If together as a group, we find the 'true reasons' not strong enough a justification, the individual member is recommended to abstain from making a decision.

307
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Commitee guidelines for future proposals
« on: November 30, 2015, 10:28:48 am »
Quote from: mindphlux on November 30, 2015, 10:24:05 am
The fact that there have been claims that money has been lost by transwiser already while it was not actually true is unsettling. The committee was presented false facts. I based my decisions on that 'fact' which was not true.

Yes, it was an unfortunate  misunderstanding/miscommunication that could have been avoided if we have a set of best practices/guidelines to follow.  Let's work towards this goal.

308
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Commitee guidelines for future proposals
« on: November 30, 2015, 10:15:08 am »
While the affected party may be emotionally affected by the exploits, IMHO, the committee as a whole was calm and has responded in a rational and decisive way.

I do not think it is possible at all nor wise for committee members who are major business partners and stakeholders to abstain from voting on proposals that significantly affect their stake.  BM has been calling for big stakeholders and partners to come forward and volunteer to become a committee member.  I believe his intention is to have high stakeholders/business partners committee members rightly represented and their interested can be protected and furthered in the right direction.  There might be some perceived so-called 'conflict of interest' but in reality, this is what is needed.  Abstraining from making such decision-making would tie the hands of the stakeholders/partners from furthering their interests and stakes in the bitshares DAC.  This is not a desirable outcome nor the result that we want.  I would appreciate it if @bytemaster can share his thoughts on this too.

Nevertheless, I agree with coming up with a set of best practices and guidelines that all committee members can support is the right direction to go. Thank you for starting this initiative.


309
General Discussion / Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
« on: November 30, 2015, 09:23:08 am »
Quote from: jakub on November 30, 2015, 07:31:57 am
Quote from: cube on November 30, 2015, 05:46:07 am
The committee can either stay as an observer and watch the bitshares flaw exploiters eat him up OR it can stop the flaw exploiters from taking advantage of the flaw and level the playing field.
I get your point and kind of agree with it but not for the reasons you provide.
You treat this situation as if a system flaw has been unexpectedly discovered and thus an emergency action was required.

Thanks for your appreciating of the point made.

Although the mechanism for the CNY price feed is outside the bts blockchain and developed separately by xeroc, it is considered an important and integral part of the Bitshares system. Getting external price feeds requires complex logics and codes in the script.  (I thank xeroc for his hard work, time and effort in getting the price feed script up and now putting up extra effort and time to fix the CNY-source feed problem.)

The price feed script does not take into consideration of CNY sources from China's sites and this causes the DEX's bts<->bitCNY settlement price to be lower than what the China centralised exchanges offer. Although this flaw has been there all along, it did not affect Transwiser because he did not have to sell his locked bts collaterals at below market price if he did not wish to (and he has maintained a healthy collaterals ratio to avoid margin calls). The situation changes when the GUI wallet start exposing this price-feed flaw to the public via a new 'Settle' button.  Any users can now force shorters (which include Transwiser) to sell their bts collaterals and buy their bitCNY at below the centralised exchanges' price, anytime and regardless of whether the shorters are willing or not to sell.  The smart exploiters saw an opportunity to make risk-free 'instant money' out of this price feed flaw and at the expense of the shorters and Transwiser.  In short, the price feed flaw is now exposed to the opportunistic exploiters by the new 'Settle' button. It created an artificial and unfair arbitrage opportunity for the flaw exploiters to gain free money.


Quote from: jakub on November 30, 2015, 07:31:57 am

This is my interpretation of the current situation: CNX delivered the 2.0 code but failed to deliver proper documentation and as a result businesses like Transwiser have been operating under false assumptions. Therefore it is justified to give those business some leeway to be able adjust to the newly discovered circumstances.

In the near future, when (hopefully) proper documentation is finally released, there will be no excuse to give any businesses a special treatment and bend the rules for them, even if they are the only ones supplying a given service. The consistency of the rules is much more important than the fate of any single business in the ecosystem.

Transwiser has raised other issues like being uninformed of the 'Settle' function implementation (Although it was discussed in the forum, there was no conclusion nor confirmation communicated) and shared his difficulties.  And you have rightly pointed out that poor documentation has played a part too.  Even though these plaguing issues are real and Transwiser is sufferring from them, they are not the main deciding factor in the proposal.  The main objective is to fix the Bitshares system flaw, stop the flaw exploiters and level the playing field.  Hopefully, the Committee's decisive action would take effect in time to stop any unfair damages to Transwiser and save Bitshares DAC from losing a valuable major business partner.

Quote from: jakub on November 30, 2015, 07:31:57 am
The consistency of the rules is much more important than the fate of any single business in the ecosystem.

Well said.

The proposal will help in restoring the rule consistency lost due to an unfortunate system flaw that is exposed by the new Settle function and it was happily exploited by the flaw exploiters.

310
General Discussion / Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
« on: November 30, 2015, 05:46:07 am »
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on November 29, 2015, 07:55:52 pm

I have yet to be voted in as a committee member... I'm getting a strong sense that there is more evangelizing the action, and less analysis...

Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

... if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?


Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on November 30, 2015, 04:35:54 am

All of these posed to me are loaded. They all assume suppositions that are clearly being questioned relating to the issue.


I am glad that you realise the above are loaded with unhelpful assumptions.  What makes you think that the proposal is 'more evangelizing the action, and less analysis'?  What makes you think that "every business that follows will expect the same"?  What makes you think that the Committee is not handling on a case-by-case basis with clear justification and that each future Committee proposal will not be backed by strong justification?  What makes you think that "the status of Bitshares reputation" would be affected " at that point"?

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on November 30, 2015, 04:35:54 am

From where I sit, the correct response is for transwiser to make it's own executive decision to pause it's operations while it tries to figure out how to better position itself. If 'stopping the bleeding' is what is so critical here...


Do you think Transwiser being the first bitCNY to fiat onramp/offramp provider is so stupid as not to think of that?  Seriously? 
Transwiser fully believed in bitshares.  He has ALL his assets locked in bitshares because of the shorting requirements.  He has no realistic and immediate way of unlocking those trapped assets.  The committee can either stay as an observer and watch the bitshares flaw exploiters eat him up OR it can stop the flaw exploiters from taking advantage of the flaw and level the playing field.


Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on November 30, 2015, 04:35:54 am
I am not on the 'inside' of the whole thing, so I don't know the facts still on this matter.

Nothing fun about that when you are on the receiving end.

I am glad you realise that it is not fun to be on the receiving end.  So play nice and it will be reciprocated. You can ask objective questions in a polite way instead of putting up unhelpful assumptions and throwing baseless accusations.  I am sure you will get an answer from the Committee soon enough.

311
Technical Support / Re: poll for disabling force settlement for BitCNY.
« on: November 30, 2015, 04:17:28 am »
To set the record straight, a topic on permanently disabling force settlement for BitCNY or not, was NOT and is NOT on the Comittee's table.

Back to the discussion of whether to permanently disable force settlement for bitCNY or not:

In my personal opinion, a close discussion/consultation should be made between Transwiser and BM and team first before gathering feedback from the community.  This will help to focus on the main points and make a common decision easier.


312
General Discussion / Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
« on: November 30, 2015, 03:32:55 am »
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on November 29, 2015, 07:55:52 pm
Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

Which part of the proposal you are not convinced? 

Is it fixing the price feed flaw which does not take CNY-price source from China websites?
Is it stopping the bitshares flaw exploiters?
Is it saving our major partner and the only CNY-fiat provider Transwiser from the flaw exploiters?  Should Bitshares let Transwiser die instead?

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on November 29, 2015, 07:55:52 pm
It doesn't matter how big or small we are, if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?


It is easy to become an armchair critic. Let's become one for the fun of it.

Statisic, no doubt, can help in the analysis of the proposal.  Can you please help the comittee count the following?

1) How many business partners do Bitshares have, right now?
2) How many Bitshares business partners dare to take the regulatory and financial risks and put in capital to provide for fiat onramp and offramp for bitasset tokens, right now?
3) How many Bitshares business partners are doing bitCNY<-> CNY fiat onramp and offramp specifically?

And let us consider the possible consequences if the committee is undecided about stopping the Bitshares flaw exploiters or decided to let the exploits happen:

1) Bitshares flaw exploiters gain from exploiting the price feed flaw and at the expense of Transwiser
2) These flaw exploiters continue to make risk-free monies.
3) Other non-exploiters come to know about it and they are tempted to try.  After all, where in the crypto world can you find risk-free money and easy exploit opportunities?
4) Other non-exploiters join in and become Bitshares flaw exploiters too
5) Transwiser lose substantial money and can no longer surive or Transwiser lose some money and lose interest in providing the bitCNY<-> CNY fiat service
6) Transwiser stops providing bitCNY to fiat onramp and offramp
7) The bitshares community thinks it is okie to let Transwiser die or cease his  bitCNY<-> CNY business
8 ) The community tries to find a Transwiser replacement but other business partners are too scared and/or not interested/not able to become a fiat gateway
9) bitUSD market gets to know about the massive flaw-exploits in bitCNY market and starts to become worried irrationally. Panick set in.
10) Some bitUSD and bitCNY users are losing monies.  They make a huge complaint and demand compensation in the bitshares forum
11) They are not satisfied, they spread their complaints in the bitcointalk forum
12) Users who cannot use the defunct CNY fiat gateway are unhappy and make their complaints in the forum too
13) Bitshares competitors know about the big scandal happening in Bithshares and take advantage of it.  They start trolling against bitshares
14) The public gets to know about the scandal too.  They may not know about Bitshares much but they start to believe Bitshares is a crap coin or a scam coin
15) Some weeks later another exploitable flaw is discovered in the referral codes say the vesting withdraw object, referrers start to lose money because of the flaw exploiters
16) Bitshares Committee likes to disable to vesting withdraw object to stop the exploiters but find their hands are tied because the users who lost big in the bitCNY flaw/exploit fiasco are strongly against it.
17) After setting a bad precedent with allowing the previous flaw exploiters to gain, Bitshares committee has to let the referrers suffer and/or die too
18) The dead referrers are upset and complain against bitshares in bitsharestalk and bitcointalk forums
19) Another opportunity for the bitshares competitors to troll against bitshares
20) The same vicious cycle repeats.  Every users and shareholders are losing confidence in Bitshares.  Bitshares's price and reputation continue to drop into oblivion.


Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on November 29, 2015, 07:55:52 pm
Every committee decision should be thinking 5 moves ahead with what result it will produce..

Let's not stop at 5. 5 is not enough. The committee needs to think at least 10 steps ahead.   Despite the tough decisions, I think the committee has done just that.

313
General Discussion / Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
« on: November 29, 2015, 05:32:03 pm »
Quote from: Xeldal on November 29, 2015, 05:21:22 pm
Seriously, vote these clowns out of committee immediately.  This is embarrassing.

Whether the committee is a clown or you are putting yourself up as a clown is up to the bitshares' shareholders and community to decide.  I am confident the bitshares community at large (and except a few bitshares flaws exploiters who are failing in their attempts and are really really upset about it) is clear and supportive of the work the committee members are doing now.

Quote from: Xeldal on November 29, 2015, 05:21:22 pm
The price feed can always use advancement.  It is not broken, and provides a feed generally within about 1%.  This is no cause for alarm.

The xeroc's price feed does not take CNY-price source from any of the China established sites such as OKCoin.  xeroc is working on fixing this. 


314
General Discussion / Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
« on: November 29, 2015, 04:46:36 pm »
Quote from: jakub on November 29, 2015, 03:00:03 pm
So we are changing the rules because someone running business around BitShares was ignorant about those rules.
The only excuse that can be offered is lack of proper documentation for BitShares 2.0 - @bytemaster

I thank the community for contributing valuable feedback.  However, I think the on-going debate has distracted the community from the objective of the proposal, which is:

A temporary suspension (estimated about a week or so) of the settle function to fix the following:

1) The current price feed script does not take into consideration of CNY fiat prices from China mainly established websites eg OKCoin. Feed price for CNY is lower than the actual figure and this causes an artifical arbitrage opportunity. The author of the scipt, xeroc will be making a fix to the price feed script available soon. abit's idea may help in getting the fix up sooner.

2) A bot is needed to be created to provide bitCNY buy order positions such that the bid are higher or equal to the 'corrected' feed price. bitcrab needs to provide the fund and technical skill to create this bot.

3) Provide a frontend fix with displaying "settlement" button only when there are buy orders available above the price feed.   Svk is working on the fix.

It is important to fix the flaw in the bitshares system now because:

1) Our major partner and only bitCNY<-> CNY provider Transwiser will suffer losses and may be forced to cease this service.  Stopping this crucial service is against the interest of the Bitshares DAC.

2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.

Outside the scope of this proposal
==========================
There are some forum users who are debating for and against a permanent disabling of the settle function.  While they may be useful, the debate/discussion is outside the scope of the proposal. Please open a new thread to voice and discuss the issue.


315
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] MUSE/BTC market added to Metaexchange!
« on: November 27, 2015, 02:38:56 pm »
Can we have it in the webwallet?

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 94

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 20 queries.