BitShares Forum

Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: fav on October 13, 2015, 08:02:30 pm

Title: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 13, 2015, 08:02:30 pm
* Thread will be Updated *

In case you want to give me your voting power, I'll keep all of my votes transparent here.

Under Voting Add:
(http://i.imgur.com/yQYY8Vl.png)

and Publish your Vote:
(http://i.imgur.com/pjEvo0O.png)

Witnesses

Current Total: 17 / 17

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
bue - active testnet Witness
bitcube - active testnet Witness
elmato - active testnet Witness
verbaltech2 - active testnet Witness
b33lz38v8 - active testnet Witness
betaxtrade - active testnet Witness
rnglab - active testnet Witness
wackou

Backup/Waiting/Watch List:
in.abit
liondani
mr.agsexplorer
cyrano

Committee

dele-puppy - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18959.msg250592.html#msg250592
mindphlux - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18959.msg250592.html#msg250592
fav  - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18959.msg250592.html#msg250592
bunkerchainlabs-com

Worker

mindphlux-bitasset-poolfund - 1.14.4 - (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19317.0.html)

Refund Create Order Fees on Cancel - 1.14.7

Github coordinator - 1.14.9

GUI development worker - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20655

#8     refund-100k-2 (1.14.24) - approved
#9     refund-100k-1 (1.14.23) - approved
#14    refund-100k-3 (1.14.25) - rejected
#15    refund-100k-4 (1.14.26) - rejected

#10    burn-100k-1 (1.14.19) - approved
#11    burn-100k-4 (1.14.22) - rejected
#12    burn-100k-2 (1.14.20) - approved
#13    burn-100k-3 (1.14.21) - rejected


All my actions and votes: http://cryptofresh.com/u/fav
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: puppies on October 13, 2015, 08:08:52 pm
Can I ask why no dele-puppy love?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 13, 2015, 08:12:29 pm
Can I ask why no dele-puppy love?

hah! added, I'm still collecting :)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: puppies on October 13, 2015, 08:18:00 pm
Can I ask why no dele-puppy love?

hah! added, I'm still collecting :)

Thanks.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: twitter on October 13, 2015, 08:33:31 pm
please add bue as well. but my fun is not ready yet . need to wait for desktop client for restoring . web wallet is hanging .....
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: phillyguy on October 13, 2015, 08:53:57 pm
* 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 set you as my proxy Fav to test out. I don't see a reason to change it however :-) Thanks for your contributions.

Really impressed with the web wallet at OpenLedger. Transaction confirmation, GUI, it all feels very very slick.

Congrats to all of you who made this happen!
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: ncinic on October 13, 2015, 09:04:51 pm
I haven't got a clue who to vote for, so I made you my proxy "Fav"
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 13, 2015, 09:24:41 pm
I haven't got a clue who to vote for, so I made you my proxy "Fav"

nice, and it's "fav" :)

btw, don't forget to publish your vote
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: noisy on October 13, 2015, 10:05:42 pm
done! :)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: ElMato on October 13, 2015, 10:10:07 pm
@fav would you like to add elmato to your list?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: wackou on October 13, 2015, 10:13:02 pm
wackou is a bit sad to not be on that list  :'(
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 13, 2015, 10:19:30 pm
Elmato, wackos you both participated in the testnet, right?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: wackou on October 13, 2015, 10:37:27 pm
Every single one of them, yes (that includes the ones from last year, too ;) ). I'm not very vocal, but I did report some bugs.

See these links for my PoP (Proof-of-Participation):

https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/357
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18751.msg241476.html#msg241476
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18751.msg241536.html#msg241536
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18699.msg240556.html#msg240556
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: twitter on October 13, 2015, 10:42:37 pm
@fav--- "bue" was in testnet     :)

Elmato, wackos you both participated in the testnet, right?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: triox on October 13, 2015, 11:00:47 pm
Following; please, add me to your slate. I did take part in the final testnet and with decent reliability too.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: cube on October 14, 2015, 04:20:02 am
bitcube needs your love too.  bitcube has actively participated in the various testnets. Please add bitcube.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 14, 2015, 06:56:30 am
bue & wackou added & bitcube
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: cube on October 14, 2015, 07:03:35 am
bue & wackou added & bitcube

Thank you for your support! 
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: wackou on October 14, 2015, 09:16:36 am
bue & wackou added & bitcube

Thank you!  :)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: twitter on October 14, 2015, 11:07:01 am
 +5%  thanks.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: betax on October 14, 2015, 01:02:38 pm
add me fav  please: betaxtrade

Changed proxy to you now.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Thom on October 14, 2015, 01:21:44 pm
Can I ask why no dele-puppy love?

Or verbaltech? Yes I participated in the testnet along with wackou (we're a team).

My witness account is now verbaltech2 however.

You're doing a "Favoulous" job BTW fav, love your work here. Having public accountability to your proxy is a great move, and I love your choices. I just added you as a proxy.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: ElMato on October 14, 2015, 01:48:12 pm
Elmato, wackos you both participated in the testnet, right?

Sure!
Some proofs here
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17962.msg240093.html#msg240093
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18751.msg241827.html#msg241827
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 14, 2015, 04:20:14 pm
elmato & verbaltech2 added
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: dichalcog3nid3 on October 14, 2015, 07:23:15 pm
Hi fav! witness b33lz38v8 is polished and ready to serve on your list!  :D

(http://merkabahnk.io/img/bts/witnesswitness.jpg)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 15, 2015, 06:52:03 am
FYI, I will vote for this proposal https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19055.0.html
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 15, 2015, 06:52:45 am
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?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: dichalcog3nid3 on October 15, 2015, 07:41:33 am
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 15, 2015, 08:28:58 am
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.

voted
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: phillyguy on October 15, 2015, 08:32:59 am

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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 15, 2015, 08:35:35 am

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.

is there a way to see the full voting power?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 15, 2015, 08:37:39 am
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
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: betax on October 15, 2015, 09:01:24 am
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!!!
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Riverhead on October 15, 2015, 09:26:17 am
Thanks fav. Looks like riverhead got fired though
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 15, 2015, 09:36:48 am
Thanks fav. Looks like riverhead got fired though

What happened?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: tonyk on October 15, 2015, 09:37:12 am
Thanks fav. Looks like riverhead got fired though

Well, I did my best to both save money for the BTS eco-system and vote for my 2 favorite. witnesses. aka my ideal number of witnesses is 2.

Now both of them are out   :'(

And my shorts are voting as efficiently as they did in 0.x.x

Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: alt on October 15, 2015, 11:28:45 am
please vote for delegate.baozi, thanks
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: rnglab on October 15, 2015, 02:07:27 pm
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.



Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 15, 2015, 02:13:14 pm
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
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: rnglab on October 15, 2015, 02:36:57 pm
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

Thank you fav
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: triox on October 15, 2015, 03:18:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: jakub on October 15, 2015, 03:53:20 pm
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.

I think he did. He once opened a thread and said:
Quote
In my opinion we should aim for around 17 witnesses rather than 101
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18549.0.html
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on October 16, 2015, 06:12:25 am
I am not sure what to say here.. technically I couldn't get 'on' the testnet because I was stuck at the same issue that had me stuck until now with no wallet.. have 130k+ private keys stopped me... but I eventually did contribute and generated a bug report during testnet.. so does that mean I was in testnet?

Anyways.. please add me for nuclear bunker network protection: datasecuritynode
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 16, 2015, 07:47:05 am
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
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on October 16, 2015, 08:29:51 am
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!  +5%
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 17, 2015, 08:29:00 am
bump!
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: iHashFury on October 17, 2015, 09:54:23 am
Thanks for supporting witness 'delegate.ihashfury'  +5%
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 18, 2015, 12:22:28 pm
bump!
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Riverhead on October 18, 2015, 12:52:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 18, 2015, 12:57:11 pm
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.

are you in the telegram group?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 18, 2015, 03:33:34 pm
deleted vote for wackou

- failed to publish feeds. (last 20 hours ago)
- does not follow current witness settings



[member=448]Xeldal[/member] you seem to have problems with feed publishing too
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: wackou on October 18, 2015, 04:22:56 pm
Can't fix my script now, so I decided to stop publishing feeds instead of publishing wrong ones / with undesirable parameters. Will fix it asap (tomorrow at the latest)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 18, 2015, 08:16:20 pm
added wackou to watch list, looks like they fixed their witness. I'll monitor their performance for 24 hours and vote again
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: lzr1900 on October 18, 2015, 09:41:33 pm
set
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: emski on October 19, 2015, 06:38:24 am
added wackou to watch list, looks like they fixed their witness. I'll monitor their performance for 24 hours and vote again
What 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 .
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 19, 2015, 01:05:47 pm
added wackou to watch list, looks like they fixed their witness. I'll monitor their performance for 24 hours and vote again
What 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 .

emski added to waiting list.

I'm monitoring if there are further issues with feed publication
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 19, 2015, 05:12:50 pm
wackou is stable now, voted again
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 19, 2015, 06:01:43 pm
wackou old 148.878.226,17887 - wackou new after my vote 159.937.469,85653 BTS
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 19, 2015, 09:10:42 pm
fox is not following current witness settings. Deleting my vote in 24 hours
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: puppies on October 20, 2015, 12:41:40 am
Nice job fav.  Very engaged.  Open and honest about reasoning.  So far I think this is a wonderful model for potential proxies to follow.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 20, 2015, 11:45:02 am
fox is not following current witness settings. Deleting my vote in 24 hours

he contacted me - and adjusted the settings. so no un-voting :)

thanks [member=5333]Fox[/member]
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: santaclause102 on October 20, 2015, 01:17:05 pm
This proxy wittness monitoring is so incredible valuable! Thanks fav!  +5% +5% +5%
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Riverhead on October 20, 2015, 01:30:21 pm
Great job!
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Thom on October 20, 2015, 02:40:31 pm
@fav, I think you should modify your OP to include the "witness settings" you expect witnesses to follow.

If I show up on your "24 hour unvote warning" I'd like to have a clue what caused it.

It also helps non-witnesses so they know the criteria you use for inclusion / exclusion.

I expect as time goes on the witnesses will converge on the "right" parameters their nodes should operate under. Your efforts are great at getting us there. +5%

There will be other, deeper levels of operation that will be refined as time goes by, like when we get the backbone system implemented (calling @wackou) and higher degrees of failover support, statistics monitoring and the like in place. We should be encouraging and not too quick to "oust" a witness for their adoption / implementation of new agreed upon "settings". That agreement is not a formal process but rather informal as witnesses communicate and get up to speed on whatever the "new" thingy is.

All in all I think things are progressing fairly well. Getting parameters like the "short squeeze" setting moved up to a more appropriate level of decision makers so as to keep the role of witnesses non-political won't happen quickly, so IMO that particular setting should not be a criteria for inclusion or exclusion.

Minimizing response time to missed blocks and alerts is very important IMO but one or two instances aren't enough data to decide the quality of a witness' service; that is a metric which gets better as more samples are taken.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts I had. Hopefully they're helpful.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 20, 2015, 02:57:02 pm
[member=31]fav[/member], 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 :)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Thom on October 20, 2015, 03:53:35 pm
[member=31]fav[/member], 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 :)

I don't understand fav. The commands in spartako's bot don't list parameters (witness settings). Here are the list of commands:

/help
/price
/missed
/monitor
/stopmonitor
/listmonitor
/status
/feed
/slots
/setslot
/rmslot

These control the bot and the info you get from it, they say nothing about such things as "short squeeze" setting.

Not only that, but you didn't address the point about having those settings / criteria made public so everyone will know what specific criteria YOU are basing your votes on.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 20, 2015, 03:57:32 pm
-snip-

/feed /slots do
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 21, 2015, 05:06:20 am
if there's no official thread on the purpose of worker init0 I will reject it within 24 hours.

We need to establish a certain standard and that means at least an official proposal for workers.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 21, 2015, 09:09:01 am
RE: fee debate

BitShares (Shares!) 40 BTS/TX fee is perfectly fine in my opinion.

However, our bitAssets should be free or close to being free

I will vote for worker: mindphlux-bitasset-poolfund - 1.14.4 - (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19317.0.html) to fund the fee pools as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: tonyk on October 21, 2015, 09:17:41 am
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 .
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Riverhead on October 21, 2015, 09:27:04 am
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 21, 2015, 09:32:48 am
Witness Update: riverhead said he's going to shut down his witness. Cancelling my vote
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: tonyk on October 21, 2015, 09:34:18 am
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.

I think that the fav-(-non favoritism-except for NXT)  [not voting for you or any witness that, I like for that matter], proxy will come here soon and clarify his statements.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Riverhead on October 21, 2015, 12:40:47 pm
Witness Update: riverhead said he's going to shut down his witness. Cancelling my vote

Thanks fav. I am unable to dedicate the time required to run a reliable witness node with accurate feeds and meaningful/timely parameters. I'll still be kicking about if the need arises but there seems to be no shortage of high quality witness candidates that are willing and able to do what is required of the position  +5% .
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Thom on October 21, 2015, 12:45:34 pm
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!  :)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Riverhead on October 21, 2015, 12:58:01 pm
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!  :)

Thanks Thom. This is a long road and the journey has just begun. I have a Bitshares related project starting up that I hope will add more value to the ecosystem than my witness.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 21, 2015, 01:37:07 pm
- rejected init0 worker
- deleted riverhead

unfortunately, windows cli won't let me import my private keys, so voting for mindphlux' workers is not possible until it's visible in the GUI.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 21, 2015, 05:03:57 pm
Witness Update: datasecuritynode is managing delegate.kencode too, killing the purpose of decentralized spirit. cancelling my vote.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 22, 2015, 02:03:12 pm
voted for mindphlux' worker

before / after vote

locked >>> get_object 1.14.4
get_object 1.14.4
[{
    "id": "1.14.4",
    "worker_account": "1.2.22517",
    "work_begin_date": "2015-10-21T11:00:00",
    "work_end_date": "2015-11-21T11:00:00",
    "daily_pay": 1000000000,
    "worker": [
      1,{
        "balance": "1.13.235"
      }
    ],
    "vote_for": "2:73",
    "vote_against": "2:74",
    "total_votes_for": "306627259385",
    "total_votes_against": 0,
    "name": "bitasset-fund-pool",
    "url": "https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19317.0.html"
  }
]

locked >>> get_object 1.14.4
get_object 1.14.4
[{
    "id": "1.14.4",
    "worker_account": "1.2.22517",
    "work_begin_date": "2015-10-21T11:00:00",
    "work_end_date": "2015-11-21T11:00:00",
    "daily_pay": 1000000000,
    "worker": [
      1,{
        "balance": "1.13.235"
      }
    ],
    "vote_for": "2:73",
    "vote_against": "2:74",
    "total_votes_for": "1473484252700",
    "total_votes_against": 0,
    "name": "bitasset-fund-pool",
    "url": "https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19317.0.html"
  }
]
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 22, 2015, 03:03:08 pm
[member=5333]Fox[/member] problems with your feed?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 23, 2015, 05:42:23 pm
Witnesses can now set their location with the spartako bot in the telegram witness channel. I'd like to see all my voted witnesses to set their status. it's important to see how decentralized we are and to evaluate a potential outage impact of cloud hosters
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 26, 2015, 07:05:24 am
our witnesses deactivated RUB and SEK in the price feed for the time being, they bug the price feed.

good job @witnesses for this quick solution!
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 26, 2015, 10:58:03 am
please see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19495.0.html

we need an actual committee. willing to support anyone with a reasonable proposal!
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: abit on October 26, 2015, 05:45:33 pm
Add in.abit please. Active testnet witness.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: puppies on October 27, 2015, 02:46:04 am
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 27, 2015, 05:44:45 am
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.

that's reasonable :)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 27, 2015, 07:09:44 pm
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
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: puppies on October 27, 2015, 11:19:13 pm
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

I proxy through you fav, and I say yes. 

We need more community members
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: maqifrnswa on October 28, 2015, 01:14:58 am
Fav, any comments on:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19485.0.html

Good/bad?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: cube on October 28, 2015, 03:52:02 am
BM has wanted the community to take over some of his responsibilities for some time now.  We have yet to see a significant number community members stepping up to vote on critical proposal.  I support your becoming a committee member to help decide and move on important changes necessary for the growth of bts2.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: iHashFury on October 28, 2015, 10:21:49 am
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

I use you as a proxy and yes I would like to see you on the committee. Please add fav to your proxy
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 28, 2015, 04:15:57 pm
thanks for your feedback.

voted for committee

fav
bitcube
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: cube on October 28, 2015, 04:38:07 pm
Thank you!
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: maqifrnswa on October 28, 2015, 06:59:44 pm
@fav, as a proxy and committee member, I'd appreciate feedback on my worker proposal for a debian based PPA (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19485.0.html). This isn't just for me, but also as a template as what proxies (such as your yourself) expect from worker proposals. Even if you don't like it, reasons as to why or what you would need to approve one would be helpful to the community. I'd like to vote for you for proxy, but that would kill the only votes for the PPA ;-)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 29, 2015, 06:59:25 pm
it seems new committee accounts don't get votes counted (there's a bug)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: cube on October 30, 2015, 04:43:41 am
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
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 01, 2015, 05:11:31 pm
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

thanks!


no major news today, but please tell every BTS HODLer you know to at least set a proxy for their votes. we need to find ways to make stakeholders aware :<
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 02, 2015, 04:28:31 pm
Mandatory update for witnesses: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2/releases
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: liondani on November 02, 2015, 04:42:30 pm
[member=31]fav[/member]

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
}
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 03, 2015, 07:13:59 am
[member=31]fav[/member]

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
}

added as standby witness
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: boombastic on November 03, 2015, 07:35:44 am
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 03, 2015, 07:43:12 am
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.

added as standby witness
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 03, 2015, 04:14:03 pm
committee vote: bhuz
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 06, 2015, 07:53:59 am
yunbi joined the party, so I think witnesses should update their feed script.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: pc on November 06, 2015, 01:59:15 pm
yunbi joined the party, so I think witnesses should update their feed script.

Updated for witness cyrano (hint, hint!)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 06, 2015, 02:15:15 pm
yunbi joined the party, so I think witnesses should update their feed script.

Updated for witness cyrano (hint, hint!)

are you in the telegram group?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: pc on November 06, 2015, 04:37:57 pm
Yes, of course. I signed up on telegram shortly after cube created the witness group.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 06, 2015, 04:41:12 pm
Yes, of course. I signed up on telegram shortly after cube created the witness group.

added as standby :)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: kuro112 on November 06, 2015, 07:11:43 pm
you have my vote, i trust in the fav.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: pc on November 06, 2015, 07:34:39 pm
added as standby :)

Thanks!
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: clayop on November 07, 2015, 06:09:50 pm
[member=31]fav[/member] Why you do not support 45% (14 members) of current witnesses? Any reason?

http://cryptofresh.com/u/fav
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 07, 2015, 06:12:43 pm
[member=31]fav[/member] 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
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: clayop on November 07, 2015, 08:10:17 pm
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?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 07, 2015, 08:18:37 pm
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?

no, initial witnesses are the ones I vote vor. the starters.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: clayop on November 07, 2015, 08:28:36 pm
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 [member=31]fav[/member]  ?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 07, 2015, 08:32:46 pm
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 [member=31]fav[/member]  ?

as mentioned in OP (/17 / 17)

and yes. correct
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: twitter on November 08, 2015, 01:38:27 pm
muse  still need lots of witness . We can direct new joiner to run a witness node for muse
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 10, 2015, 03:46:44 pm
currently evaluating this proposal: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19890.0.html

I will most likely vote against it, if I there's no satisfying answer to:

Quote
ecause 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

and what is the incentive for a regular user to go lifetime?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 10, 2015, 05:57:28 pm
1 question answered:

The proposal reads specifically:

Quote
Because 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.

1 still open.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 10, 2015, 09:08:15 pm
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19890.msg255606.html#msg255606

Proposal #1 (the one I was unsure of) has been retracted, so I will vote for this worker.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 16, 2015, 02:41:53 pm
to block this proposal http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.13 (lower tx fees to nirvana)

I'm voting for bitcube http://cryptofresh.com/u/bitcube

and http://cryptofresh.com/u/init2 init2 until the end of the voting time.

edit: other commitee's against it - fav (1.5.13)  mindphlux (1.5.11)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: robertford on November 18, 2015, 09:53:01 am
Sounds Good! I like it very much.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 18, 2015, 07:07:28 pm
removed the vote on init2. there's a running committee now, I just hope they slow down a bit in the future
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 19, 2015, 06:19:55 am
I am going to vote for https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20089.0.html proposal.

This is something most of the people want who I talked to.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 22, 2015, 09:21:58 am
Took some time to think about open worker proposals, came to a conclusion today.

1. I will vote for https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20144.0.html (github coordinator)

We can talk all we want, but at the end of the day CNX needs external help. 1.5k over 3months is still a hit to our budget at the moment, I agree.

In the end, I think we all profit from a coordinated github which leads to faster bugfixes, and less stress for our codemonkeys.

2. I won't vote for https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.0.html (Stealth TX)

I think privacy is valuable and very much needed, but there are more important things to get bitshares rolling in my opinion. eg. bond market
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: twitter on November 22, 2015, 01:00:19 pm
 +5%  :)  fully support
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 25, 2015, 09:00:21 am
the timing is really bad for this 6 worker proposal https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19351.0.html

rejecting all of them.

we need core development, there's no way to pay 360k (72% of our daily budget) into this. especially when there's no escrow
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: mindphlux on November 25, 2015, 12:16:13 pm
There's only 321k BTS available daily so it's actually more than 100% of the budget. I'll also vote against it as it seems outragious. We need core features, not this.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 30, 2015, 09:39:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: clayop on November 30, 2015, 09:54:12 pm
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.
Please don't define 'us stakeholders' in favor of your judgement.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 30, 2015, 09:57:19 pm
With 'us stakeholders' I mean the people voting through me, as this is my proxy thread.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: clayop on November 30, 2015, 10:00:13 pm
With 'us stakeholders' I mean the people voting through me, as this is my proxy thread.
Ah I see
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 02, 2015, 06:31:23 pm
http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.19 this is a very important proposal to enable one of BitShares core functionalities. Any Committee Member that's not voting for it can and should be considered hostile to our Business in my opinion.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 02, 2015, 09:14:36 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/bHJJfJH.png)

temporary voting for 3 inits until the proposal went through. looks like some committees won't support this essential proposal
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: clayop on December 02, 2015, 09:30:43 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/bHJJfJH.png)

temporary voting for 3 inits until the proposal went through. looks like some committees won't support this essential proposal
Do not over-interpret the fact. Some of committees are merely sleeping now.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 02, 2015, 09:32:21 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/bHJJfJH.png)

temporary voting for 3 inits until the proposal went through. looks like some committees won't support this essential proposal
Do not over-interpret the fact. Some of committees are merely sleeping now.

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 :)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: clayop on December 02, 2015, 09:34:44 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/bHJJfJH.png)

temporary voting for 3 inits until the proposal went through. looks like some committees won't support this essential proposal
Do not over-interpret the fact. Some of committees are merely sleeping now.

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 :)
That can be a prejudice. Please keep your reputation with statement based on facts.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 02, 2015, 10:21:30 pm
Committee Vote:

bunkerchainlabs-com - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20108.0.html
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: lzr1900 on December 03, 2015, 12:09:41 am
傻逼才投你
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 03, 2015, 06:12:30 am
傻逼才投你

consider this your first and last warning from me.

in more important news:

The committee voted for the force settlement 100% (without inits) - finally there seems to be some progress.

I will withdraw my temporary init votes as soon as I get my hands on a computer :)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fuzzy on December 07, 2015, 09:52:01 am
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). 
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: onceuponatime on December 07, 2015, 10:05:42 am
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
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 07, 2015, 10:15:55 am
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Bhuz on December 07, 2015, 10:48:56 am
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 [member=602]fuzzy[/member] 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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 07, 2015, 10:54:19 am

I really embolden [member=602]fuzzy[/member] 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.

that's what I told fuzzy too in another thread, however, he wanted to hear my opinon
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: maqifrnswa on December 07, 2015, 01:24:42 pm
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 [member=602]fuzzy[/member] 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.

[Even if that is not true, that is how it appears interpreted to an outsider]

Exchanges should never do that. In this case, it is relatively minor and early on, but a lesson that must be learned by the system. You set the rules, you enforce the rules, and rules do not change unless there is significant advanced warning. Especially in cases like this, where there actually was nothing wrong with the market/settle/blockchain system.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Bhuz on December 07, 2015, 01:39:05 pm


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.



Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Bhuz on December 07, 2015, 01:51:53 pm


Especially in cases like this, where there actually was nothing wrong with the market/settle/blockchain system.

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.

Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fuzzy on December 07, 2015, 03:00:40 pm
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.

So this could be why none of the committee members have gotten back to me about our committee townhalls...
Perhaps they dont want real transparency, or for the community to give them realtime feedback. 

can you tell me off the top of your head who are the current committee members? 
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Thom on December 07, 2015, 04:31:50 pm
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.

This issue is very confusing, and the quoted post above is a good example of why.

In a nutshell, fav withdrew his support of the committee, yet says bhuz et al are the only ones on the committee doing right by shareholders, and bhuz is the most vocal here in his defense of this committee decision. That is contradictory, or at the very least confusing.

Bhuz chastised maqifrnswa who was basically trying to say "stick to the rules, and stop changing them without advance notice", which sentiment I strongly agree with. Moreover, no evidence to ANY of the claims summarized in this thread have been presented here, either the evidence of the original "emergency" bitcrab et al was raising OR why changing the settlement rules without notice was the only reasonable course of action by the committee.

It sounds like the root of the emergency is inaccurate CNY price feeds. Most of that discussion was held on the private Telegram witness channel NOT this forum as it should have been. I responded to an alert complaining my price feed was "way off". Upon investigation it came to light that "way off" was only 2.5%, so I decided to continue with my existing feed delivery method for now.

I have suggested before that feeds be handled separately from witness operations. This controversy is a good reason why.

Witnesses primary role is securing the network. Feeds have little to do with security. Witnesses need to have a high level of technical knowledge, feed producers do not. Feed producers need to have a good understanding of economics and statistical analysis, witnesses do not.

Unless I'm mistaken, there are only 2 feed scripts in use among the 27 witnesses: xeroc's and wackou's. This "emergency" issue would never have risen to the involvement of the committee if dedicated feed producers were in place, as they would have had an incentive to make sure their feeds are accurate or loose that incentive. That incentive would also stimulate the creative freedom to provide far more variety in feed sources and algorithms aimed at delivering the most accurate feeds, and making adjustments when necessary. Look how long it took for the CNY feeds to become an issue after launch. If this was an issue on October nobody noticed it or brought attention to it.

IMO this represents an epic fail concerning community governance, which was not helped by the manor of communication  (timeliness, chosen media, clarity of thought and disorganized).

Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: maqifrnswa on December 07, 2015, 05:35:38 pm


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.

I have no problems with the committee stepping in to slow things down until they are better understood in this case. I just want you to be aware of how this is perceived by non-bitshares experts (outsiders). The committee can post all they want, and have noble goals, but in the end they have to realize they are weighing pros and cons. Very few decisions don't benefit one group and hurt another. I'd like to see the committee acknowledge that they were aware of the consequences but thought they were justified.

The facts point to JonnyBitcoin being exploited. In the end, exploiting him is probably worth it as his loss was minimal to ensure everyone was on the same page and feeds were made more accurate, but nonetheless something that should be taken seriously.

Facts:
1) The BitShares blockchain was working perfectly as designed. There was no flaw in the blockchain/DEX.
2) JonnyBitcoin was using the system perfectly as designed and profiting from performing an important network roll (supply control arbitrage)
3) Due to a misunderstanding of how the system works, what price feeds do, and how price feeds should be reported, some thought there was a flaw in the system.
4) The system was changed temporarily so people could figure out how they should have been behaving all along, but weren't because of a misunderstanding.

How JonnyBitcoin got hurt:
He was going long on assets he thought were overvalued so that he could settle them for a profit. By turning off forced settling, he and other settlers were stuck with things they already knew were overvalued. In the time it took for settling to be turned back on, the market had already corrected itself and Jonny lost the profit he would have made along with losing value in assets he didn't want to begin with.

Companies have gotten sued for less.

The committee made the decision to hurt one person (or a few people) in exchange for slowing down that system so larger, more important, organizations could readjust and feed scripts could be fixed. As we're starting off, that's probably the right decision - but it should not be taken lightly.


EDIT:
Quote
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.

Feeds are absolute, there is no such thing as an inaccurate feed. All business models and decisions must be based on the feed. Some community members did not like the source of data for the feeds, or how they were calculated. The "accuracy" of the feed must be priced into the value of bitshares. Inaccurate feeds do not mean the system is not working, it just means you need more tolerance for error and thus decreases the value of the system. Increasing accuracy was great, and increased the value of the feeds themselves, but does not mean the system was not working when the feeds were inacuate.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: mindphlux on December 14, 2015, 10:07:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: tonyk on December 14, 2015, 10:12:54 pm
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.

well listing to the forum idiot singing would have helped as well...

PS
sorry fav for posting in your thread, feel free to delete the post if you find it inappropriate/in the wrong thread.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: mindphlux on December 14, 2015, 10:17:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: bitcrab on December 15, 2015, 05:03:38 am
I have explained the whole process as quoted below.

the point is, ATM the system is not ready enough to welcome the force settlement feature, what the committee did is to delay the time for the force settlement going public and at the same time make the system ready.


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.

Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 16, 2015, 05:35:15 am
I will vote for [member=11456]svk[/member] asap.

GUI development worker - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20655

He's one of the active guys working on our GUI
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 18, 2015, 10:08:58 am
Breaking down on [member=120]xeroc[/member] 's worker proposal https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20681.0.html

Quote
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 [member=11456]svk[/member] though)

Very valuable work. If there's a decent ticket/support system implemented to Bitshares.org/OL and other "official" websites, I'd consider $1k per month as reasonable. Bitshares is rather small, so support hours should not go up the roof anytime soon.

Quote
Development of a Python library

answer:

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 ..

ignoring the price feed here, as I consider it very valuable until we got a professional provider.

as for TX signing (offline TX mentioned earlier in the thread) - I'm not sure what to think of it. Offline Signing is probably a 2 out of 10 on the priority list in my opinion.
Waiting for more information on that one, since it stands for, according to my calculation, $2.2k.

Until this is clarified, I will stay neutral on the proposal.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: abit on December 19, 2015, 11:22:21 am
[member=31]fav[/member] I wonder why you vote against worker refund400k (1.4.0)?
And [member=20914]mindphlux[/member] ?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 19, 2015, 12:13:40 pm
[member=31]fav[/member] I wonder why you vote against worker refund400k (1.4.0)?
And [member=20914]mindphlux[/member] ?

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 [member=20914]mindphlux[/member] has no active worker
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: abit on December 19, 2015, 12:50:52 pm
[member=31]fav[/member] I wonder why you vote against worker refund400k (1.4.0)?
And [member=20914]mindphlux[/member] ?

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 [member=20914]mindphlux[/member] has no active worker
I meant [member=20914]mindphlux[/member] is also voting against that refund400K proposal.

[member=120]xeroc[/member] would you please draft a document for the refund400k proposal? Or better help committee-account to create a refund proposal to replace the current one? OK let's move this discussion to worker proposal board.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: abit on December 19, 2015, 01:13:22 pm
[member=31]fav[/member] How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 19, 2015, 01:23:34 pm
[member=31]fav[/member] 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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on December 19, 2015, 02:14:16 pm
[member=31]fav[/member] 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?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 19, 2015, 02:25:42 pm
[member=31]fav[/member] 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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: tonyk on December 19, 2015, 04:49:25 pm
[member=31]fav[/member] 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.

I would suggest not withholding your vote for the refund worker  based on technicality... if you cast your vote for it now, the stealth will be out at least temporarily.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: xeroc on December 19, 2015, 04:50:41 pm
the refund worker is used to set a lower threashold for the required approval to get any funding as a worker ..

Workers are paid from the top worker down until either the daily available funds have been totally used .. or the refund worker is hit that refunds all of the restin in daily pay back to the reserve pool ..
Having alot of votes for the refund worker means that getting an actively paying worker is more difficult as you need (at least) more votes then the refund worker
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: abit on December 19, 2015, 05:19:56 pm
Technically, the refund400k is
Code: [Select]
>>> get_object 1.14.0
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": ""
  }
]
Looks like the fund to this worker is "burned".
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 19, 2015, 05:27:15 pm
I'll vote for a refund worker if it's setup and handled by the committee and if there's a proposal.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: abit on December 19, 2015, 05:39:28 pm
I'll vote for a refund worker if it's setup and handled by the committee and if there's a proposal.
Good point.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: tonyk on December 19, 2015, 11:32:04 pm
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.

The last vote you've just cast  shows you have not...  :(

Last time it was bitcrab, this time it was bm...what difference does it make, in your mind, who is feeding the misleading information?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 03, 2016, 09:03:48 am
#8     refund-100k-2 (1.14.24) - approved
#9     refund-100k-1 (1.14.23) - approved
#14    refund-100k-3 (1.14.25) - rejected
#15    refund-100k-4 (1.14.26) - rejected

#10    burn-100k-1 (1.14.19) - approved
#11    burn-100k-4 (1.14.22) - rejected
#12    burn-100k-2 (1.14.20) - approved
#13    burn-100k-3 (1.14.21) - rejected
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 08, 2016, 04:22:42 pm
Committee member bitcrab supported and encouraged an exchange to break the statu quo on not voting with user funds https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20920.0.html

I recommend to not vote for him.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: abit on January 09, 2016, 06:38:20 pm
How about cass's worker proposal, and why?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 09, 2016, 07:53:19 pm
How about cass's worker proposal, and why?

still thinking about this. my main concern is that we should concentrate on core functionality for now.

workers could hire cass on a "per job" basis and add x amount to their worker proposal to pay him
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: cass on January 09, 2016, 08:46:29 pm
but then i will depend again on a middlemen .. and this is exactly, what i'm trying to avoid ...
(i'm thinking the look and feel is one of the core pillars of a successful product/brand .. without this .. u won't market any product)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 11, 2016, 09:30:25 am
emski removed from waiting list upon request
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: abit on January 11, 2016, 11:13:47 pm
emski removed from waiting list upon request
Sorry, what's "emski"?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 12, 2016, 06:26:34 am
emski removed from waiting list upon request
Sorry, what's "emski"?

an ex witness
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: emski on January 12, 2016, 09:03:56 am
emski removed from waiting list upon request
Sorry, what's "emski"?

I'm no longer hosting BTS witnesses.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: 38PTSWarrior on January 12, 2016, 09:45:54 am
Thanks for your service emski
#sharebits "emski" 1 CHATEAUX
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: btstip on January 12, 2016, 09:52:44 am
Hey 38PTSWarrior, here are the results of your tips...
Curious about ShareBits? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18959.msg271703/topicseen.html#msg271703
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 28, 2016, 03:47:27 pm
Since committee member bitcrab 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:
bitcube
bhuz
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Akado on January 28, 2016, 03:54:20 pm
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?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 28, 2016, 04:02:27 pm
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?

you should ask this in bhuz' thread (?)

I won't support a committee member voting for a, according to my views, bad actor.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Bhuz on January 28, 2016, 04:22:58 pm
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!
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: alt on January 28, 2016, 04:33:09 pm
lol, a good joke
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 28, 2016, 04:43:50 pm
lol, a good joke

also, voting for committee baozi means getting insightful, professional replies.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: pc on January 28, 2016, 04:44:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Bhuz on January 28, 2016, 06:06:54 pm
lol, a good joke

also, voting for committee baozi means getting insightful, professional replies.

At least he replies
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Akado on January 28, 2016, 06:17:17 pm
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. [member=31]fav[/member] did you mean bitcrab?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 28, 2016, 06:23:16 pm
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. [member=31]fav[/member] did you mean bitcrab?

oh shit, you're right. their names are too similiar
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: xeroc on January 28, 2016, 08:14:30 pm
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 with this ..
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
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: clayop on January 28, 2016, 08:16:08 pm
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 with this ..
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
I agree too.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: abit on February 10, 2016, 05:56:08 pm
[member=31]fav[/member] 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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on February 11, 2016, 06:44:40 am
[member=31]fav[/member] 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.

so nothing new. any exchange could take over bitshares in a heartbeat
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: abit on March 28, 2016, 05:11:43 am
[member=31]fav[/member]: What's your opinion about current workers? Will you update your votes?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on June 05, 2016, 06:29:17 am
Voted for she's new worker
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 05, 2017, 11:55:44 am
quick update:

voting for:

[member=11456]svk[/member]
[member=4854]vikram[/member] - remember to communicate please

not voting for:

[member=22994]Chronos[/member] - see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23612.msg301050.html#msg301050
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 13, 2017, 04:19:25 pm
vote updates:

worker https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23698.0.html

witness datasecuritynode
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 14, 2017, 11:40:15 am
removed committee dele-puppy due to inactivity
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: xiangxn on January 16, 2017, 03:34:01 am
You can vote for my witness [xn-delegate], thanks.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23687.0.html (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23687.0.html)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on February 02, 2017, 08:22:35 pm
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.


my thoughts exactly, I will remove any vote for com signaling increase of witness pay for the time being.

- removed vote for bunkerchainlabs-com
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on February 03, 2017, 06:25:06 pm
voted for https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23770.msg302456.html#msg302456
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on February 24, 2017, 06:26:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: JonnyB on February 24, 2017, 06:37:18 pm
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?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on February 24, 2017, 10:12:32 pm
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?

Every vote has the same weight, as far as i know
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on February 25, 2017, 06:33:05 am
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.

I came in a few hrs past this 24hr deadline because of the time I check forums. Lame.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on March 22, 2017, 09:23:29 pm
removed vote for vikram - 3 weeks without even a small report.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on March 27, 2017, 02:55:10 pm
voted for committee openledgerdc
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: sahkan on April 16, 2017, 09:30:32 pm
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.
I was catching up on old topics and just read this... LOL [member=31]fav[/member]
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on April 19, 2017, 04:32:45 pm
voted witness [member=43607]roelandp[/member]
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on April 29, 2017, 04:40:53 pm
voted witness openledger-dc
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on May 10, 2017, 06:22:06 pm
voting for dsn and blckchnd

also, please consider providing HERO feed (if interested, contact xeroc)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on May 13, 2017, 09:17:37 am
unvoted chris4210 comm and alfredo worker

reasoning:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23698.msg305989.html#msg305989

* Alfredo received almost 10x than what as quoted in terms of $

* irresponsible use of money and mismanagement which cost the DAC 1m BTS
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on May 13, 2017, 10:04:57 am
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Permie on May 13, 2017, 01:03:03 pm
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.
Is there a mechanism in place for this?

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) ?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on May 13, 2017, 01:23:14 pm
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.
Is there a mechanism in place for this?

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) ?

there's none currently. but you could use escrow and burn BTS or prolong the worker in case.

or someone just develops bitUSD payments...
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Geneko on May 13, 2017, 01:27:23 pm
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.

There is no need to be that harsh. Then all the workers and witnesses should be vote out. After they all receive payment in BTS (except [member=120]xeroc[/member]).
It is built in our core code. We need to address those issues, but we need consensus first.
 
EDIT: On a second thought you are right. It is fastest way we could change it. Lets vote!
You'll have my support.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: nmywn on May 13, 2017, 01:42:42 pm
[member=120]xeroc[/member] is paid with bitUSD.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23770.0.html
http://cryptofresh.com/u/multisig-worker-2017-01

BTW Just noticed that escrow account has set its own proxy which perhaps shouldn't be: that BTS doesn't belong to them.
Quote
    Every thing that is not paid out after the end of the worker will be settled and returned to the reserve fund
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: xeroc on May 14, 2017, 04:38:03 pm
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 ..
but if this becomes a problem, we can figure out something else ... but we'd need a multisig group for that kind of working aswell and that is additional efforts I spared ..
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: paliboy on May 15, 2017, 07:58:23 am
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?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: xeroc on May 15, 2017, 11:39:52 am
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
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Permie on May 15, 2017, 02:00:19 pm
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

How are you suggesting the committee will be able to accurately reflect the will of the shareholders?

A proportional vote across all current witnesses that are up-for-election could ensure that voting stake is used, but the overall effect of the vote would be exactly neutral to the shareholder vote.
(I'm a bit rusty on the mechanics of voting so this might be based on faulty understanding)

Not all shareholders want to vote for the same things.
How can you use the stake to vote for what the shareholders want?
Vote for what 51% of shareholders want?

Could you also explain why non-voting stake is "bad stake"? I am willing to accept that it is, but I don't understand why currently.
I'm sure other shareholders don't either.

p.s Can anyone tell how many lurkers there are that read these forums as their due diligence before investing in BitShares? My point is that many people may be wanting to find information, but do not want to make an account. So I think it is a good idea to have quick explanations of what we are discussing and why and so forth. Lots/most of this information is available in the BitShares documentation, but having information feeds from all angles certainly doesn't hurt.

I would also suppose that doing a duckduckgo.com search for a specific question about BitShares would more likely lead to a post on this forum, rather than a page in the online official documentation.
I may be wrong.
e.g My post 2 years ago about paper wallet setup for BTS 1.0 is still the top hit for "paper wallet BitShares 2.0"
:)


(Sorry fav if this if your journal is the wrong place for this)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Thom on May 15, 2017, 03:32:33 pm
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

Why would we want to solicit that anyway? I disagree that stake that doesn't vote is "bad stake" when it comes to exchanges. Unless exchanges explicitly disclose their intentions to BTS stakeholders with stake on their exchange about how they intend to vote and give them notice to move their stake if they don't like it, THEN the exchange is misrepresenting those stakeholders. They are aggregating their power to the interests of the exchange not the BTS stakeholders.

We've discussed exchange voting before and IIRC the general consensus is was to consider it a potential problem and contrary to decentralization. It's not the same as proxies, b/c stakeholders can switch their proxy themselves on a dime. Without accountability of exchanges to BTS stakeholders who hold their stake on their exchange, it is centralized and unhealthy for personal freedom.

One could well argue that such stakeholders relinquish their control by using centralized exchanges, and I agree. But should we encourage the legitimacy of this centralization? I think not. Unfortunately we can't control what exchanges do either.

The issue is similar to explaining to people why centralized banking is not in their best interests and convincing them to get out and seek alternatives like digital currencies that support individual freedom and safety from bailins. It's simply a hard nut to crack.

My question to [member=120]xeroc[/member] is in what way did you reach out to exchanges and what did you suggest to them?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on June 29, 2017, 07:32:47 pm
voted: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,24540.0.html
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on July 14, 2017, 05:21:03 pm
voting for BSIP18 worker proposal.




* join us on Discord: http://smarturl.it/btsdiscord *
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: pc on July 14, 2017, 07:47:49 pm
Thanks!
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 05, 2017, 03:59:33 pm
removed vote for OL, as they failed to maintain proper price feeds.

added [member=43537]sahkan[/member] witness instead
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: sahkan on October 06, 2017, 02:42:55 am
removed vote for OL, as they failed to maintain proper price feeds.

added [member=43537]sahkan[/member] witness instead
Thank you for the vote of confidence. I hope OL will get everything corrected soon and get back to active witnessing though.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 18, 2017, 07:57:04 pm
voting for witness [member=42801]startail[/member] - seems very active and participating.

as for the new 2 worker proposals, here's my opinion & I'm NOT voting for any.

Compliance: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25144.msg311604.html#msg311604

Spokesperson: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25143.msg311602.html#msg311602
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: startail on October 19, 2017, 04:07:57 pm
voting for witness [member=42801]startail[/member] - seems very active and participating.

I thank you for your vote in confidence. I will do my best and stay as active as possible. As I mentioned in my post, I think a witness should stay active and visible in the crowd, and that's what I intend to do. I do some coding as well, making smaller help scripts here and there. But just being out there is what I try to do more.

I'd appreciate any and all votes on my witness 'sc-ol', http://cryptofresh.com/u/sc-ol.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 19, 2017, 05:52:44 pm
[member=42801]startail[/member] could you join our discord? https://discord.gg/GsjQfAJ I'll verify you as witness there
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Brekyrself on October 19, 2017, 07:34:51 pm
voting for BSIP18 worker proposal.




* join us on Discord: http://smarturl.it/btsdiscord *

Looks like you removed your votes for this bsip? 
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: pc on October 19, 2017, 08:10:34 pm
xeroc reported that the bsip-18 worker has collected sufficient funds.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 19, 2017, 08:22:22 pm
voting for BSIP18 worker proposal.




* join us on Discord: http://smarturl.it/btsdiscord *

Looks like you removed your votes for this bsip?

bsip 18 and the 5k worker are fully funded already

edit: thx [member=94]pc[/member] didn't see your reply
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 30, 2017, 03:39:29 pm
not voting for BitShares Greater China Rep - same reasons as for spokesperson.

lack of clear goals
lack of tracking

also started voting for refund400k in an attempt to raise the entry bar and to block unwanted workers.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 12, 2017, 02:03:15 pm
not voting for BitShares Greater China Rep - same reasons as for spokesperson.

lack of clear goals
lack of tracking


same for chinese marketing worker
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 12, 2017, 02:07:06 pm
voted for [member=18687]abit[/member] worker.

guy is working since forever for bitshares, without asking for a single cent or creating drama. unlike many other workers, I see real and absolute value in his work.

thank you for being active!
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 13, 2017, 04:37:28 pm
voted for http://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2017-12-infrastructure
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 14, 2017, 05:40:15 am
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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on November 15, 2017, 09:36:55 am
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.

pushed regardless,

(https://i.imgur.com/Gmw2kjO.png)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 17, 2017, 06:37:30 pm
I will approve bitXCD once possible

see: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25496.msg313725.html#msg313725
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on December 29, 2017, 10:10:08 am
voted for [member=46629]etienne_marais[/member] witness https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25461.msg314199.html 

need some fresh, motivated people in my opinion.

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
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 04, 2018, 05:29:08 pm
voted for the new alfredo worker: https://github.com/oxarbitrage/worker-proposals/blob/master/bitshares2018_1.md
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: oxarbitrage on January 04, 2018, 06:08:21 pm
voted for the new alfredo worker: https://github.com/oxarbitrage/worker-proposals/blob/master/bitshares2018_1.md
thank you fav :)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 29, 2018, 06:58:30 pm

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.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 30, 2018, 03:24:21 pm
voted for:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25895.0.html
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,25896.0.html
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 31, 2018, 03:10:08 pm
voted for the new butler UI woker
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on February 01, 2018, 03:39:56 pm
voted for: http://www.bitshares.foundation/worker/budget/2018-02-documentation

updated whitepapers are very much needed.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on February 04, 2018, 09:06:34 am

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 it again, giving this project the benefit of the doubt.

if https://auton.io/ ends up implementing bts dex and is a great product, I reserve the right to remove my vote again, obviously.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on June 30, 2018, 10:59:07 am
voted for bitfest worker
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on July 04, 2018, 02:22:56 pm
will be voting for infrastructure renewal worker https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26778.0
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on July 11, 2018, 05:33:22 pm
voted for:

(https://i.imgur.com/FD3FbgZ.png)

Alfredo needs some extra funds to cover the agreed payment, due to BTS value decline leading to less bitUSD to payout.

Hackthedex - it's escrowed and it's necessary to get some actual pentesting going on. if results are bad, I will remove my vote again.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: bench on July 11, 2018, 10:00:29 pm
We should pay the worker direct with the 0.1% market fee.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26173.0
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on July 18, 2018, 02:33:29 pm
voted for the next UI worker https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2018-08-bitshares-ui
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: startail on July 22, 2018, 09:13:20 am
voted for the next UI worker https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2018-08-bitshares-ui

Thank you for your support @fav.
I've also posted here, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26858.0, regarding our renewal for the UI worker.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on July 28, 2018, 08:09:42 am
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?
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: Digital Lucifer on July 28, 2018, 08:11:57 am
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?

2nd one took the domain down, and actually i had comments/concerns pointed out not long ago. Please check.

Cheers
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on July 28, 2018, 02:27:30 pm
voted for https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26875.0 after their presentation on the hangout today. will closely monitor and amend voting should they not be able to deliver. as usual.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on July 30, 2018, 01:14:11 pm
voted for https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2018-08-flash-global-infrastructure
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on August 17, 2018, 02:30:23 pm
voted for UI proposal by APT (on behalf of Trusty team)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on September 01, 2018, 01:34:57 pm
future updates will be posted even more transparently here: https://bitsharestalk.io/btstalk-projects/@fav/proxy-fav-journal
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: btspp on September 02, 2018, 01:35:50 am
@fav
Hello fav, this is our product download link http://ios.btspp.io/, would you like to add btspp-witness to your list? More introduction: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26903.0
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on October 24, 2018, 02:37:48 pm
since bitsharestalk.io is unusable

voted for BSIP43 + 44
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: btspp on December 03, 2018, 02:52:27 pm
since bitsharestalk.io is unusable

voted for BSIP43 + 44

Hello fav, can you look at this worker proposal? Https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27486.0
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 09, 2019, 03:39:45 pm
removed: refund400k
added:
dexbot
temp-core
refund100k
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on January 11, 2019, 06:41:32 pm
voted https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2019-02-reference-faucet
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on February 13, 2019, 03:23:55 pm
vote worker: bitshares-ui
vote committee: xanoxt (rudex)
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on May 11, 2019, 08:32:25 pm
Voted for bitspark committee
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: BTSMoon on May 13, 2019, 07:09:35 am
Please unvote these witnesses! These witnesses have not yet changed the MCR to 1.6, and they do not follow community consensus!

delegate-1.lafona
blckchnd
openledger-dc
verbaltech2

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28399.0
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on September 14, 2019, 03:57:54 pm
bump
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: abit on September 14, 2019, 07:38:01 pm
bump
For what? I see nothing is new.
Title: Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
Post by: fav on September 16, 2019, 09:23:47 am
bump
For what? I see nothing is new.

because I can.