Do you mean "do we need the review" or do you mean "do we need percentage-based transfer fees"?
AFAICS the latter has already been decided by the shareholders, and regarding the former I would say that yes, a review is needed before we merge the code.

Thanks for the clarification. Closed issue 203 and removed it from the list.

Quote from: pc on August 16, 2017, 05:05:54 am

This announcement is lacking so much essential information that I can only advise everybody to take extra care in applying their due diligence.

? it's an ANN, there are links to website and whitepaper.

what's up with the hostility here?

Why do you sense hostility when I'm only advising caution? :-)

Neither the website nor the whitepaper provide important facts.

For example, what's the legal/jurisdictional framework for this ICO?
Where is the business plan? (Hint: the whitepaper is not it.)
What prevents them from paying themselves high salaries, eating up any potential profits?
What prevents them from selling their 10% of the $80M they'll be raising after 1 year and leaving the company? (Hint: in real estate you can usually assume ROI after 15-20 years!)
How soon do they plan to raise any profits? (Hint: How long does it take to buy and let houses worth $80M?)

Removed obsolete https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/189
Added BSIP-0022

Personally, I'm pretty sure that BSIP-0022 will not be part of the next hardfork. AFAIK this is still being discussed and nobody is working on it. I also think that it is questionable if this will receive shareholder approval.

Here's a more comprehensive list of hardfork items, together with their current state, estimated work size, and approval status. I'm open to suggestions regarding the size, it's just a rough guesstimate.

Issue	PR	Name	BSIP	State	Size	Approved	Remarks
216	340	Process to Reset a SmartCoin after a Blackswan Event	0018	Review	L	1.14.56
154		Letting settlement_price expire would allow to reuse symbols for prediction markets	0017	Planned	L	N
	23386	Issue: Early withdrawal claims		Review	S	N
143	348	Require voted entities to exist		Review	S	N
338		Margin call order fills at price of matching limit_order but not at a price related to itself or settlement_price		Requested	M	N
342		Rounding issue when matching orders		Requested	M	N
343		Inconsistent sorting of call orders between matching against a limit order and a force settle order		Requested	M	N
353	369	Computation of number of committee members is wrong		Review	S	N
22		[Feature Suggestion] No Fee on User Side with Whitelisted UIA		Requested	S/M	N
59		Audit charging of per-kilobyte fees		Requested	L	N
169		Asset can be registered with null core exchange rate, but not updated		Requested	S	N
138		[Proposal Improvements] Add fee paying account to `available_active_approvals`		Requested	?	N
173		Code review of [BSIP10] percentage based transfer fee	0010	Review	L	1.14.29
186	612 *	Implement simple rate limited free transaction feature		Review	L	N?	https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21462.30.html
267		implement rotating standby witnesses		Requested	M?	N
170		new_options should be optional in asset_update_operation		Requested	M?	N
199		[Request] Require owner key for change of asset-issuer		Requested	M	N
197		Account_update_operation requires both owner authorities and active authorities when owner presents		Requested	S	N
269		Fix recursive account permissions		Requested	S	N
202		Hard fork request: correct wrong voting proxy settings		Requested	S	N
125		When signing a block that updates the signing witness's signing key, use correct signing key		Requested	S	N
210		Authorities on custom_operation are not checked correctly		Review	?	N	See https://github.com/FollowMyVote/graphene/commit/373700e717b2353eb485316f4bc93ab0d2468e05
188		New OP for issuer to reclaim fee pool funds		Requested	M	N
146		proposal_delete_operation issues		Requested	S	N
214		Unable to propose a proposal with an `approve_proposal` operation		Requested	S	N
		Introducing expiring votes for Witnesses, Committie members & Proxies within the Bitshares network	0022	Discussion	M?	N

I was surprised to find that we have quite a few things in the queue that are already implemented. Apparently some things have been more or less forgotten and need to be updated and reviewed in-depth. We should focus on those, IMO, and possibly add a few of the 'S' items as well.

Edit 2017-08-31: PR #23 has been superceded by #386

I'm against going above the 2^53 limit. We don't know which/how many (possibly private) applications are affected because they rely on double precision.
I wouldn't mind a careful increase to 2.5*10^15, for example.

Found the reference: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares1-core/blob/master/libraries/blockchain/include/bts/blockchain/config.hpp#L31-L39

Is there a detailed description of the blocknet protocol available somewhere? blocknet.co is just meaningless marketing mumbo-jumbo. Their github documentation tells how to integrate a bitcoin clone, but nothing about how things actually work.

What Coins Does the Decentralized Exchange Support?

The Blocknet was designed to maximise interoperability, and so most blockchain tokens may be integrated with no coding required.

The current integration requirements are:

* Support for OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
* A stock JSON RPC interface from Bitcoin Core

BitShares is so different from bitcoin-clones that these requirements don't even make sense.