Can I ask why no dele-puppy love?
Can I ask why no dele-puppy love?
hah! added, I'm still collecting :)
* Thread will be Updated *
In case you want to give me your voting power, I'll keep all of my votes transparent here.
(http://i.imgur.com/yQYY8Vl.png)
Witnesses
Current Total: 10
mindphlux.witness - active testnet Witness
bhuz - active testnet Witness
spartako - active testnet Witness
delegate.ihashfury - active testnet Witness
delegate-1.lafona - active testnet Witness
dele-puppy - active testnet Witness
spectral - active testnet Witness
xeldal - active testnet Witness
fox - active testnet Witness
riverhead - active testnet Witness
I haven't got a clue who to vote for, so I made you my proxy "Fav"
Elmato, wackos you both participated in the testnet, right?
bue & wackou added & bitcube
bue & wackou added & bitcube
Can I ask why no dele-puppy love?
Elmato, wackos you both participated in the testnet, right?
Hi fav! witness b33lz38v8 is polished and ready to serve on your list! :D
Hi fav! witness b33lz38v8 is polished and ready to serve on your list! :D
are you in our telegram chat? did you participate in testnet?
Hi fav! witness b33lz38v8 is polished and ready to serve on your list! :D
are you in our telegram chat? did you participate in testnet?
Affirmative fav! I am on the telegram chat (Desktop + Mobile) and under bot monitor.
The test network was my training environment/learning center. I checked out every single tag. This window of opportunity allowed me to prepare for launch, being fully ready to serve under 12 hours after release. My duty now is to serve and scale with the network.
FYI, I will vote for this proposal https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19055.0.html
FYI, I will vote for this proposal https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19055.0.html
Just saw your activity in the explorer of the web wallet. So cool being able to watch it like that.
add me fav please: betaxtrade
Changed proxy to you now.
add me fav please: betaxtrade
Changed proxy to you now.
voted.
Witnesses are now 17 / 17 - every new witness means an old one will be deleted. I go with the 17 witness cap bytemaster recommended
Thanks fav. Looks like riverhead got fired though [emoji14]
Thanks fav. Looks like riverhead got fired though [emoji14]
Hi fav, I've just set you as my voting proxy.
changed my witness account from "bitshares-argentina" to "rnglab", "1.6.45"
Still need to get voted back since yesterday's fork, my nodes crashed while out of town with no internet coverage.
Hi fav, I've just set you as my voting proxy.
changed my witness account from "bitshares-argentina" to "rnglab", "1.6.45"
Still need to get voted back since yesterday's fork, my nodes crashed while out of town with no internet coverage.
added you to waiting list, I'm currently voting for 17 witnesses, which is my cap
I go with the 17 witness cap bytemaster recommended
I go with the 17 witness cap bytemaster recommended
I don't think bytemaster ever recommended to have 17 witnesses. He threw that number as acceptable after seeing how few people are participating in the testing phase. It was damage control - at least that's my understanding of the situation.
In my opinion we should aim for around 17 witnesses rather than 101https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18549.0.html
Update:
commmittee mindphlux unnvoted, proposal went through
also, I decided to vote in rnglab and datasecuritynode, currently 19/17 voted in. I will try to slim down to 17 over time / filter out bad performers
Thanks fav. Looks like riverhead got fired though (http://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji14.png)
What happened?
Thanks fav. Looks like riverhead got fired though (http://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji14.png)
What happened?
Just not enough votes. Now that I'm home and can focus on getting feeds running (using Xeroc's tools currently) and witness node monitoring, etc. I can start to campaign for votes.
added wackou to watch list, looks like they fixed their witness. I'll monitor their performance for 24 hours and vote againWhat exactly do you monitor ?
added wackou to watch list, looks like they fixed their witness. I'll monitor their performance for 24 hours and vote againWhat exactly do you monitor ?
If you need more diversity you may add my witness :
(get_witness emski
{
"id": "1.6.36",
"witness_account": "1.2.5568",
})
What I offer is acceptable performance, acceptable response rate (updates), sufficient hardware & bandwidth (at least for now), seed node (not sure why it wasn't included in default seed nodes) . Reference for this statement are my delegates record from bitshares 1.0 .
fox is not following current witness settings. Deleting my vote in 24 hours
@fav, I think you should modify your OP to include the "witness settings" you expect witnesses to follow.
@fav, I think you should modify your OP to include the "witness settings" you expect witnesses to follow.
those settings are communicated by witness consensus in the witness telegram channel. also, the telegram bot displays current settings :)
-snip-
RE: fee debate
However, our bitAssets should be free or close to being free
RE: fee debate
However, our bitAssets should be free or close to being free
Why I am not surprised?... oh well in the "perfect system" in your opinion( NXT ) they are almost free...
and I assume you mean our IOUs, when you say our bitAssets .
RE: fee debate
However, our bitAssets should be free or close to being free
Why I am not surprised?... oh well in the "perfect system" in your opinion( NXT ) they are almost free...
and I assume you mean our IOUs, when you say our bitAssets .
I understand it as using bitAssets (bitUSD, etc) should be nearly free but moving BTS around should be expensive.
Witness Update: riverhead said he's going to shut down his witness. Cancelling my vote
Sorry to see you leave that role Riverhead. Was kindof hoping to see you move up the food chain into a committee member slot.
Wish you all the best in your future endeavors! :)
please see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19495.0.html
we need an actual committee. willing to support anyone with a reasonable proposal!
please see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19495.0.html
we need an actual committee. willing to support anyone with a reasonable proposal!
I am not sure we have the same understanding of how the committee is supposed to work.
What would you consider a reasonable proposal? What we have right now is BM Not that I am opposed to BM having control.
I would support a reduction of the account creation fee back to 95bts.
voted committee:
dele-puppy
mindphlux
both support lower trading fees and lower account creation fees.
also, fav is now a committee account, asking my voters - should I vote for myself?
current agenda/proposal:
- lower trading fees
- lower account creation
- keep referral and Lifetime Membership relevant
voted committee:
dele-puppy
mindphlux
both support lower trading fees and lower account creation fees.
also, fav is now a committee account, asking my voters - should I vote for myself?
current agenda/proposal:
- lower trading fees
- lower account creation
- keep referral and Lifetime Membership relevant
it seems new committee accounts don't get votes counted (there's a bug)
it seems new committee accounts don't get votes counted (there's a bug)
An issue is raised with github: https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/404
@fav
Consider including my standby witness "liondani" to your list.
I am ready to produce block's like the old good times :)
get_witness liondani
{
"id": "1.6.48",
"witness_account": "1.2.376",
"last_aslot": 0,
"signing_key": "BTS6zT2XD7YXJpAPyRKq8Najz4R5ut3tVMEfK8hqUdLBbBRjTjjKy",
"vote_id": "1:59",
"total_votes": "2437778836840",
"url": "https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,6406.msg248483.html#msg248483",
"total_missed": 0,
"last_confirmed_block_num": 0
}
Hi Fav,
mr.agsexplorer has been an active testnet witness as well. Can you add it to your slate? I am managing this witness myself.
Thanks.
yunbi joined the party, so I think witnesses should update their feed script.
yunbi joined the party, so I think witnesses should update their feed script.
Updated for witness cyrano (hint, hint!)
Yes, of course. I signed up on telegram shortly after cube created the witness group.
added as standby :)
@fav Why you do not support 45% (14 members) of current witnesses? Any reason?
http://cryptofresh.com/u/fav
I still support the initial witnesses until one drops off perfomance wise. then I'll vote for the next in the standby list.
I don't care what BM or others vote, mostly BM at this point
I still support the initial witnesses until one drops off perfomance wise. then I'll vote for the next in the standby list.
I don't care what BM or others vote, mostly BM at this point
You meant other witnesses you didn't vote for have lower performance than inits?
Clarification from telegram discussion.
1) Fav's maximum number of witness support is 17.
2) Fav adds when witnesses ask him to add on his slate.
Is it correct @fav ?
Quoteecause this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.
so someone can flood some 0.1 BTS txs and I have to pay whatever fee is currently setup? how can I refuse transactions as a receiver?
and what is the incentive for a regular user to go lifetime?
The proposal reads specifically:QuoteBecause this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.
This would indicate the sender pays nothing and the receiver pays the fee. The discount is for RECEIVING transactions then, not SENDING transactions, if I may interpret that.
This is PURELY a cosmetic change. The minimum transfer would be fee + 1 satoshi and the merchant would only see a gain of 1 satoshi. From the user's perspective they paid the merchant $0.20, but the merchant only pocketed $0.01. In no case can one user drain funds from another by spamming.
in light of the current power abuse of the current committee due to a non-issue (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20356.0.html) I left the private committee group and told them they lost my support.Please don't define 'us stakeholders' in favor of your judgement.
bhuz, mindphlux and bitcube are the only people representing us stakeholders in the committee in my opinion.
(puppy don't know, he did not participate in the current fiasco at alll)
further actions to be discussed.
With 'us stakeholders' I mean the people voting through me, as this is my proxy thread.Ah I see
(http://i.imgur.com/bHJJfJH.png)Do not over-interpret the fact. Some of committees are merely sleeping now.
temporary voting for 3 inits until the proposal went through. looks like some committees won't support this essential proposal
(http://i.imgur.com/bHJJfJH.png)Do not over-interpret the fact. Some of committees are merely sleeping now.
temporary voting for 3 inits until the proposal went through. looks like some committees won't support this essential proposal
That can be a prejudice. Please keep your reputation with statement based on facts.(http://i.imgur.com/bHJJfJH.png)Do not over-interpret the fact. Some of committees are merely sleeping now.
temporary voting for 3 inits until the proposal went through. looks like some committees won't support this essential proposal
yeah, but I won't be able to react in a timely manner since I will be sleeping/working by the time the vote takes place :)
傻逼才投你
it is late for me and I am about to pass out at my keyboard, but was informed of something quite interesting and would like to delve in a bit further in hopes of someone giving me the cliffs notes version so I don't have to read through the entire thread right now and can save it for a bit further into the future.
Here is a link to a thread I think is worth talking about. Espcially interested in what fav was talking about with committee members using their positions to help themselves as opposed to bitshares. I am listening and hoping someone can update me and potentially provide me with some detailed evidence (if possible).
it is late for me and I am about to pass out at my keyboard, but was informed of something quite interesting and would like to delve in a bit further in hopes of someone giving me the cliffs notes version so I don't have to read through the entire thread right now and can save it for a bit further into the future.
Here is a link to a thread I think is worth talking about. Espcially interested in what fav was talking about with committee members using their positions to help themselves as opposed to bitshares. I am listening and hoping someone can update me and potentially provide me with some detailed evidence (if possible).
My guess is that Fav was talking about this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.0.html
in light of the current power abuse of the current committee due to a non-issue (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20356.0.html) I left the private committee group and told them they lost my support.
bhuz, mindphlux and bitcube are the only people representing us stakeholders in the committee in my opinion.
(puppy don't know, he did not participate in the current fiasco at alll)
further actions to be discussed.
I really embolden @fuzzy to take the time to read the whole post and make his mind out of it.
I am pretty confident that he will more than able to see the Committee decision as a way to protect Bitshares DAC and its community as a whole.
The only people aggressively trying to push their own agenda were the ones that was pretty upset only because they could not expoit the bitCNY market meanwhile the settle was temporary disabled.
(eg. JonnyBitcoin posts are pretty clear about this)
I really embolden @fuzzy to take the time to read the whole post and make his mind out of it.
I am pretty confident that he will more than able to see the Committee decision as a way to protect Bitshares DAC and its community as a whole.
I actually interpreted the situation in the opposite way. By changing the rules, people exploited JonnyBitcoin because he was the only one that was correctly following the rules. When some didn't like that he was following the well publicized rules to which everyone agreed, they changed the rules to favor themselves. It sounds like those that changed the rules exploited the system.
Especially in cases like this, where there actually was nothing wrong with the market/settle/blockchain system.
it is late for me and I am about to pass out at my keyboard, but was informed of something quite interesting and would like to delve in a bit further in hopes of someone giving me the cliffs notes version so I don't have to read through the entire thread right now and can save it for a bit further into the future.
Here is a link to a thread I think is worth talking about. Espcially interested in what fav was talking about with committee members using their positions to help themselves as opposed to bitshares. I am listening and hoping someone can update me and potentially provide me with some detailed evidence (if possible).
My guess is that Fav was talking about this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.0.html
correct.
here is what I wrote earlier in this thread:in light of the current power abuse of the current committee due to a non-issue (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20356.0.html) I left the private committee group and told them they lost my support.
bhuz, mindphlux and bitcube are the only people representing us stakeholders in the committee in my opinion.
(puppy don't know, he did not participate in the current fiasco at alll)
further actions to be discussed.
Settlement was disabled on a rushed decision by the committtee because Transwiser (bitcrab) stated, that transwiser is facing monetary losses.
We learned later, that they never lost a single cent prior to the disabling, and it was communicated as a "miscommunication" (some call it lying).
further, there were some people aggressively trying to push their own agenda, probably to please their whale voters.
that's the short version, and why I told the former committee they lost my support.
it is late for me and I am about to pass out at my keyboard, but was informed of something quite interesting and would like to delve in a bit further in hopes of someone giving me the cliffs notes version so I don't have to read through the entire thread right now and can save it for a bit further into the future.
Here is a link to a thread I think is worth talking about. Espcially interested in what fav was talking about with committee members using their positions to help themselves as opposed to bitshares. I am listening and hoping someone can update me and potentially provide me with some detailed evidence (if possible).
My guess is that Fav was talking about this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.0.html
correct.
here is what I wrote earlier in this thread:in light of the current power abuse of the current committee due to a non-issue (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20356.0.html) I left the private committee group and told them they lost my support.
bhuz, mindphlux and bitcube are the only people representing us stakeholders in the committee in my opinion.
(puppy don't know, he did not participate in the current fiasco at alll)
further actions to be discussed.
Settlement was disabled on a rushed decision by the committtee because Transwiser (bitcrab) stated, that transwiser is facing monetary losses.
We learned later, that they never lost a single cent prior to the disabling, and it was communicated as a "miscommunication" (some call it lying).
further, there were some people aggressively trying to push their own agenda, probably to please their whale voters.
that's the short version, and why I told the former committee they lost my support.
I actually interpreted the situation in the opposite way. By changing the rules, people exploited JonnyBitcoin because he was the only one that was correctly following the rules. When some didn't like that he was following the well publicized rules to which everyone agreed, they changed the rules to favor themselves. It sounds like those that changed the rules exploited the system.
Absolutely not.
The committee's posts are pretty clear about what the situation and the reasons for temp disabling the function were.
Your interpretation does not really make sense. People exploited JohnnyBitcoin, really!? How so? Did JohnnyBitcoin lose anything?
Please do not turn around facts.
You are free to not believe in what the committee have done, for whatever strange reason you could have. But twist facts like this is really unbelievable.
The market was working with an inaccurate feed.
The settlement function relies on an accurate feed to determine the price of the settle.
So, there was indeed something not working as it should.
I've just seen this thread with this debate in progress, so I'd figure I should write down my side regarding this fiasco
1) We, the committee members at the time, were approached by transwiser (led by bitcrab) that the new settle button in the frontend is causing transwiser to loose money, people are actively exploiting it and have already suffered losses
2) The suggestion from bitcrab at the time was to disable the feature permanently
3) After further discussion, a compromise was reached - turn if off for one week, and allow the witnesses to adjust the price feeds for the CNY market, there was really a 2% gap there.
So far so good.
Before casting my vote, I specifically asked if transwiser is indeed ALREADY loosing money on this issue, and I was told that this was the case. This was the sole reason why I was voting for this proposal in the first place.
After the vote has passed, I asked bitcrab again in the committee channel if money was indeed lost or not - answer was that transwiser lost no money, and the action was needed to protect CNY shorters from the 'evil' settlers
Later on, this was blamed on miscommunication between chinese language and english language, but personally I felt misled and also feel like I was fed wrong information and this whole episode feels cheated, one could also call it power abuse. The fact alone that bitcrab is acting as committee member and submitted a proposal that deals with his company has a bad aftertaste.
As a result, I came up with the idea to create a common set of committee guidelines how a proposal is submitted, to make sure such misleading cannot happen again.
the "SQP1500" event is really a big shame for Bitshares. it has very bad influence to Bitshares' reputation, it put a big doubt on how bitshares can do good change management and protect user's benefits from being hurt. every developer, committee member, witness should remember this event and try to prevent similar things from happening in the future.
in the past several days, committee did some change to the blockchain parameters, the route is disable force settlement ->upgrade price feed scripts->change max settle volume of from 20% to 2% ->enable force settlement. the former 2 are finished, the latter 2 will take affect in several hours.
actually it's not easy to do all this, many debates happened in the process, but finally the result is satisfactory, I am proud that the committee can finish this as a whole.
now let's review what happened and why they should happen.
force settlement is a new feature of bts2.0, it is announced in the documents several months ago, however many users, including me, recognize what this feature bring only after the settle button appear in latest light wallet.
force settlement is a powerful tool, it can bring price floor to smartcoin, it can also be used by speculators to manipulate the market, so while introducing this feature, it is very important to config the environment carefully to try to prevent it from being abused, and protect the user's benefits.
but even 2 days ago, 2 things are not ready to welcome the force settlement.
1. for BitCNY, the settlement price provided by witness is always obvious lower than the actual price.
2.the max settle volume parameter is wrongly set to 20%, according to the design it should be set to 2%.
these 2 factors give speculators big chance to manipulate the market, and expose the shorters to big risks. when several days ago I tried my best to persuade committee members to disable the force settlement temporarily I am only aware of factor 1, not aware of factor 2.
committee finally agree to disable the force settlement temporarily with unwillingness from some members, and then the work to upgrade the feed price script began, I'd like to say thanks for all the members that participated the new script coding and test, yesterday the new script work well.
and then the 20% max settle volume problem come to committee's vision, after some debate and response from BM, 2 proposals are created to change the 20% to 2% and enable the force settlement at almost the same time.
in the whole process I behaved rude and tough now and then, I apologize here if I had hurt someone's feeling, but I don't regret to what I have done, In many cases the only thing I focus is to ensure what should be done really be done, nothing else.
many said all I did is for my own benefits, sure, if the system introduce risk features without well prepared environment and put all shorters to big risk, shouldn't I fight for them, including myself?
someone tell me that I over evaluate the risk, but, from a perspective of a financial system, the key point is to kill the possibility of easy market manipulation at design, this is relevant to many users' assets, not kids' game.
someone said I help shorters but hurt longers, surely shorters need more care, because in Bitshares only shorters face the risk of being margin called or force settled, and have big possibility to be exploited. there's no leverage tradings designed for longers and longers have no such risks to bear. I really helped shorters, but I haven't hurt longers, at most I removed their chance to exploit shorters.
I am glad to see a user wrote this after knowing what had happened:I missed that post from bytemaster. And cryptofresh doesn't seem to indicate who created the proposal. It would have been nice for committee members to be explicit about this as their rationale for quickly voting the 20%-->2% change, otherwise it looks to stakeholders like you're not being deliberate enough, especially after the previous controversial proposal that was voted through. Anyway, it looks like things are falling into place. Thanks.
Lots of Documentation (e.g. docs.bitshares.eu), Whitepapers, BSIPs,
General Technical Support for BitShares (e.g. in the forums), and
Some improvements in the Graphene-UI (by far not as many as @svk though)
Development of a Python library
could you please elaborate on "Development of a Python library," ?https://github.com/xeroc/python-grapehenlib
I plan to add transaction construction and signing to it as I had it already in the previous network.
But as the underlying wire format changed, I need to rewrite alot of code and add alot of different transaction types (i.e. operations).
Then we could have a simple python tool for instance for offline-signing of transactions .. not just the Javascript and C++ implementation
Also the development of price feed scripts and other tools for witnesses take their time.
Another idea I have is to do some statistical analysis over block chain parameters .. e.g. for committee members ..
@fav I wonder why you vote against worker refund400k (1.4.0)?
And @mindphlux ?
I meant @mindphlux is also voting against that refund400K proposal.@fav I wonder why you vote against worker refund400k (1.4.0)?
And @mindphlux ?
refund400k - intentional. there's no official written proposal or explanation on it - the bare minimum in my opinion.
mindphlux - thanks for pointing that out, clearly not intentional
edti: seems like @mindphlux has no active worker
@fav How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".
@fav How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".
how I understand it:
the current worker is a "poll" that's used to see if we want this feature.
the $300 go to xeroc for maintining the proposal.
now don't ask me why CNX wants us to pay someone to maintain a proposal, no idea. won't vote for this as it's overly complicated in my opinion.
@fav How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".
how I understand it:
the current worker is a "poll" that's used to see if we want this feature.
the $300 go to xeroc for maintining the proposal.
now don't ask me why CNX wants us to pay someone to maintain a proposal, no idea. won't vote for this as it's overly complicated in my opinion.
So you are voting AGAINST having the Stealth GUI implemented?
@fav How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".
how I understand it:
the current worker is a "poll" that's used to see if we want this feature.
the $300 go to xeroc for maintining the proposal.
now don't ask me why CNX wants us to pay someone to maintain a proposal, no idea. won't vote for this as it's overly complicated in my opinion.
So you are voting AGAINST having the Stealth GUI implemented?
I'm not voting in this poll as I'm not okay with the fine print.
as for stealth in general - I don't see it as a priority right now, however, if we get it for free thanks to onceuponatime, they can go for it.
Technically, the refund400k isCode: [Select]>>> get_object 1.14.0Looks like the fund to this worker is "burned".
get_object 1.14.0
[{
"id": "1.14.0",
"worker_account": "1.2.90742",
"work_begin_date": "2015-10-20T17:30:00",
"work_end_date": "2035-12-31T00:00:00",
"daily_pay": "40000000000",
"worker": [
0,{
"total_burned": "1742631985322"
}
],
"vote_for": "2:65",
"vote_against": "2:66",
"total_votes_for": "21716971826670",
"total_votes_against": "7192913280182",
"name": "refund400k",
"url": ""
}
]
I'll vote for a refund worker if it's setup and handled by the committee and if there's a proposal.Good point.
Trust me, tonyk - I learned my thing what it means to believe someone to what he/she is saying regarding bitshares. I always presumed that committee members are trusted community members and have no desire to manipulate - I've proven wrong, and the committee guidelines attempt to fix that so it cannot happen again.
How about cass's worker proposal, and why?
emski removed from waiting list upon requestSorry, what's "emski"?
emski removed from waiting list upon requestSorry, what's "emski"?
emski removed from waiting list upon requestSorry, what's "emski"?
Since committee member bitcube is actively trying (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21204.0.html) to kill bitshares, I will remove any other committee member who's voting for him.
Removed:
bitcrab
bhuz
Since committee member bitcube is actively trying (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21204.0.html) to kill bitshares, I will remove any other committee member who's voting for him.
Removed:
bitcrab
bhuz
I have not checked cryptofresh yet, but isn't baozi (alt) and bitcrab the only ones proposing the 1 bts fee? Isn't bitcube, "pc" or "cube" here on the forums? I always mess it up.
Btw, is there a way to down vote committee members the same way we do with proposals?
Since committee member bitcube is actively trying (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21204.0.html) to kill bitshares, I will remove any other committee member who's voting for him.
Removed:
bitcrab
bhuz
lol, a good joke
Since committee member bitcube is actively trying (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21204.0.html) to kill bitshares, I will remove any other committee member who's voting for him.
I have not checked cryptofresh yet, but isn't baozi (alt) and bitcrab the only ones proposing the 1 bts fee? Isn't bitcube, "pc" or "cube" here on the forums? I always mess it up.
lol, a good joke
also, voting for committee baozi means getting insightful, professional replies.
Since committee member bitcube is actively trying (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21204.0.html) to kill bitshares, I will remove any other committee member who's voting for him.
I have not checked cryptofresh yet, but isn't baozi (alt) and bitcrab the only ones proposing the 1 bts fee? Isn't bitcube, "pc" or "cube" here on the forums? I always mess it up.
bitcube(committee) = cube(forum)
The connection between me and cube is that cube ran my delegate back in the old 0.9 chain.
I don't see (bit)cube being mentioned anywhere in the thread referenced above.
Since committee member bitcube is actively trying (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21204.0.html) to kill bitshares, I will remove any other committee member who's voting for him.
I have not checked cryptofresh yet, but isn't baozi (alt) and bitcrab the only ones proposing the 1 bts fee? Isn't bitcube, "pc" or "cube" here on the forums? I always mess it up.
bitcube(committee) = cube(forum)
The connection between me and cube is that cube ran my delegate back in the old 0.9 chain.
I don't see (bit)cube being mentioned anywhere in the thread referenced above.
Thats it! thanks pc!
neither did I. Thought I missed something. @fav did you mean bitcrab?
I agree with this ..Since committee member bitcube is actively trying (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21204.0.html) to kill bitshares, I will remove any other committee member who's voting for him.
Removed:
bitcrab
bhuz
Is there any proposal voting going on?
Answer: NO
There is NO proposal going on.
There is only some free discussion on the forum.
So you basically are voting "pro" and "against" some committee even before a proposal started and those committee could express their vote? .... Nice!
Oh, and if you unvote me because I am currently supporting bitcrab with my so little stake, you should know that I am really supporting ALL the current committee members (you know, we are the only ppl that step up to do something really, and I believe in cooperation, and team work).
So at the end of the day, you should unvote me once, and upvote me 9 times!
I agree too.I agree with this ..Since committee member bitcube is actively trying (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21204.0.html) to kill bitshares, I will remove any other committee member who's voting for him.
Removed:
bitcrab
bhuz
Is there any proposal voting going on?
Answer: NO
There is NO proposal going on.
There is only some free discussion on the forum.
So you basically are voting "pro" and "against" some committee even before a proposal started and those committee could express their vote? .... Nice!
Oh, and if you unvote me because I am currently supporting bitcrab with my so little stake, you should know that I am really supporting ALL the current committee members (you know, we are the only ppl that step up to do something really, and I believe in cooperation, and team work).
So at the end of the day, you should unvote me once, and upvote me 9 times!
committee members should be allowed to discuss and find solutions ..
proposing changes is helpful to identify what issues people might face with it if they were executed
@fav Please vote for the refund or burn workers.
IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.
By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.
I would like to first read how the current witnesses plan to use the additional funds and dont want to see them lay back and enjoy the free money.
only 5 witnesses answered the call to action within 24 hours https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23826 - as a consequence I deleted my vote for all other witnesses.
(http://i.imgur.com/A1x9D9p.png)
hopefully the change to 3bts will bring in some fresh and motivated witnesses. I will gladly add them to my slate.
only 5 witnesses answered the call to action within 24 hours https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23826 - as a consequence I deleted my vote for all other witnesses.
(http://i.imgur.com/A1x9D9p.png)
hopefully the change to 3bts will bring in some fresh and motivated witnesses. I will gladly add them to my slate.
Thanks, I have added the ones I wasn't already voting for.
Do you know if my share weight is spread across all the witnesses I elect. Or if i voted for just 1 witness would they get more?
only 5 witnesses answered the call to action within 24 hours https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23826 - as a consequence I deleted my vote for all other witnesses.
(http://i.imgur.com/A1x9D9p.png)
hopefully the change to 3bts will bring in some fresh and motivated witnesses. I will gladly add them to my slate.
only 5 witnesses answered the call to action within 24 hours https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23826 - as a consequence I deleted my vote for all other witnesses.I was catching up on old topics and just read this... LOL @fav
(http://i.imgur.com/A1x9D9p.png)
hopefully the change to 3bts will bring in some fresh and motivated witnesses. I will gladly add them to my slate.
and to add a lessons learned:Is there a mechanism in place for this?
Worker payment should be in bitUSD, and I won't vote for any future worker that does not denominate in bitUSD.
and to add a lessons learned:Is there a mechanism in place for this?
Worker payment should be in bitUSD, and I won't vote for any future worker that does not denominate in bitUSD.
My understanding is that worker proposals denote payment in bts.
Would 'payment in bitUSD' require constantly updating the worker to change the bts payrate (to reflect a new bts:USD price) ?
and to add a lessons learned:
Worker payment should be in bitUSD, and I won't vote for any future worker that does not denominate in bitUSD.
Every thing that is not paid out after the end of the worker will be settled and returned to the reserve fund
BTW Just noticed that escrow account has set its own proxy which perhaps shouldn't be: that BTS doesn't belong to them.That's true ... but stake that doesn't vote is bad stake ..
BTW Just noticed that escrow account has set its own proxy which perhaps shouldn't be: that BTS doesn't belong to them.That's true ... but stake that doesn't vote is bad stake ..
So should exchanges start voting as well?I have already tried reaching them.
So should exchanges start voting as well?I have already tried reaching them.
For exchanges, I would actually recommend they delegate their voting power to a proxy that is maintained by a group of trusted individuals and owned by the committee.
That way, the exchanges do need to do politices, the stake could still vote and the shareholders have ultimate control over the voting power
So should exchanges start voting as well?I have already tried reaching them.
For exchanges, I would actually recommend they delegate their voting power to a proxy that is maintained by a group of trusted individuals and owned by the committee.
That way, the exchanges do need to do politices, the stake could still vote and the shareholders have ultimate control over the voting power
removed vote for OL, as they failed to maintain proper price feeds.Thank you for the vote of confidence. I hope OL will get everything corrected soon and get back to active witnessing though.
added @sahkan witness instead
voting for witness @startail - seems very active and participating.
voting for BSIP18 worker proposal.
* join us on Discord: http://smarturl.it/btsdiscord *
voting for BSIP18 worker proposal.
* join us on Discord: http://smarturl.it/btsdiscord *
Looks like you removed your votes for this bsip?
not voting for BitShares Greater China Rep - same reasons as for spokesperson.
lack of clear goals
lack of tracking
I'm still in committee with the weakest stake allocated, but I will not vote for https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25293.0.html - this is too hasted and short sighted.
voted for the new alfredo worker: https://github.com/oxarbitrage/worker-proposals/blob/master/bitshares2018_1.mdthank you fav :)
voted for https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25615.msg314195.html market making bot
although it's not exactly what I imagined (managed solution, easy to use), I will keep a close eye on development. vote is temporary
voted for https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25615.msg314195.html market making bot
although it's not exactly what I imagined (managed solution, easy to use), I will keep a close eye on development. vote is temporary
removed my vote for the dexbot. I'm very concerned that one of the arise scheme enablers seems to be in the management of this project. which makes me question the intents of the team.
voted for the next UI worker https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2018-08-bitshares-ui
so we have currently 2 ui workers coming up, one changes the background but maybe not great in terms of UI, the other one builds - as far as I know - on the existing base but done by experienced designers(?)
1st: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26873.0
2nd: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26875.0
voting for both would mean unvoting half of the other workers, as they're asking for a lot of money.
opinions?
since bitsharestalk.io is unusable
voted for BSIP43 + 44
bumpFor what? I see nothing is new.
bumpFor what? I see nothing is new.
In response to the fraud that is BSIP76, "fox" continued to publish accurate pricing data. The result was swift: votes were removed by those complicit with the fraud and the most senior block producer was removed from active production. Restoring your vote will move the needle on toward freedom from price-feed manipulation,
removed support for every witness except blckchnd.Hey, just wanted to say thanks for your support in the past. I appreciate your vote. At this point I don't believe I will be voted in because I am strongly against price setting. It is unfortunate that in the cross fire all other smartcoins lose price feeders because certain actors feed only what they need. Anyway just wanted to say thanks!
If you're a witness and you run with default settings (non-fucked up smartcoins) post here and highlight me on telegram. will vote for you.