BitShares Forum
Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: mindphlux on October 15, 2015, 05:25:23 am
-
Dear community,
we're still being attacked by people that run bots to create domain-like names on our blockchain, hoping to sell them one day.
playgame registered by btxlaomo
www.playgame.com registered by btxlaomo
www.lotte.com registered by btxlaomo
acc.hulu registered by buycoin
acc.pray registered by buycoin
acc.jianguo registered by buycoin
acc.creative registered by buycoin
bts.yourporn registered by buycoin
acc.yahoo registered by buycoin
acc.tudou registered by buycoin
acc.sony registered by buycoin
It seems that over 3000 accounts were created since launch. BM has adjusted the creation fee to 5 BTS. Unfortunately after lifetime cashback, that equals a 1BTS fee, which is not enough to deterrent those spammers.
Therefore, I propose to adjust the account creation fee to 95 BTS. This equals a net fee of 19 BTS after 80% cashback. Since the fee is still below 100 BTS, it will not vest for 90 days, thus causing no trouble for our public faucets.
Please vote for my commitee member mindphlux. I will send a transaction at around 8PM GMT+2 to change the fee, if I get enough votes.
Best regards
mindphlux
-
I can get behind this, unless a more advanced user can explain to me in a convincing fashion why I shouldn't.
So, I'll wait a bit and see what counter-knowledge, if any, unfolds.
-
I like to support this to make it harder for the squatters/spammers. I have a concern though. How does an average non-technical user claim back their vested fees from the webwallets?
-
I like to support this to make it harder for the squatters/spammers. I have a concern though. How does an average non-technical user claim back their vested fees from the webwallets?
I believe this is correct, if I'm wrong I'll learn something ...
Go to the + icon to create a new account, but once at that page select "Existing Accounts" and you will be back at the screen that lets you choose an account to claim funds to. This is where you can claim vested funds.
-
+5% supporting
-
I like to support this to make it harder for the squatters/spammers. I have a concern though. How does an average non-technical user claim back their vested fees from the webwallets?
I believe this is correct, if I'm wrong I'll learn something ...
Go to the + icon to create a new account, but once at that page select "Existing Accounts" and you will be back at the screen that lets you choose an account to claim funds to. This is where you can claim vested funds.
Or you can go to Settings -> Wallets I guess? Don't have anyting vesting myself to test..
-
+5%
-
I like to support this to make it harder for the squatters/spammers. I have a concern though. How does an average non-technical user claim back their vested fees from the webwallets?
I believe this is correct, if I'm wrong I'll learn something ...
Go to the + icon to create a new account, but once at that page select "Existing Accounts" and you will be back at the screen that lets you choose an account to claim funds to. This is where you can claim vested funds.
Or you can go to Settings -> Wallets I guess? Don't have anyting vesting myself to test..
you can't vest in GUI at the moment. it's the same vest as transaction fees (highlighted you the issue in the GUI thread)
-
I'm sure this feature can be added within a week by our frontend developers, it should not be a reason not to raise the account creation fee to combat the spam.
Also note that each node and witness needs to keep ALL account names in RAM, so the spam is actually costing us more RAM. It might not be extreme yet, but imagine 1 million spam names would be alot of RAM that is consumed that would not be nescessary otherwise.
EDIT: Normal users cannot create accounts so they are not hurt by this price increase. Only lifetime users, faucets and registrars can create new accounts, and they can claim 80% back using the soon-to-be-developed frontend feature or the CLI wallet, if they really need the fees back. Faucets and registrars already use the CLI Wallet I suppose.
-
I like to support this to make it harder for the squatters/spammers. I have a concern though. How does an average non-technical user claim back their vested fees from the webwallets?
I believe this is correct, if I'm wrong I'll learn something ...
Go to the + icon to create a new account, but once at that page select "Existing Accounts" and you will be back at the screen that lets you choose an account to claim funds to. This is where you can claim vested funds.
Or you can go to Settings -> Wallets I guess? Don't have anyting vesting myself to test..
I may have missed it. I do not see a function to claim vested bts from there.
I'm sure this feature can be added within a week by our frontend developers, it should not be a reason not to raise the account creation fee to combat the spam.
Also note that each node and witness needs to keep ALL account names in RAM, so the spam is actually costing us more RAM. It might not be extreme yet, but imagine 1 million spam names would be alot of RAM that is consumed that would not be nescessary otherwise.
If genuine new users are not hurt by this move, ie the feature will be there, I fully support an immediate increase to the fees.
-
+5%
-
voted +5%
-
voted +5%
-
+5%
-
+5%
-
Dear community,
we're still being attacked by people that run bots to create domain-like names on our blockchain, hoping to sell them one day.
playgame registered by btxlaomo
www.playgame.com registered by btxlaomo
www.lotte.com registered by btxlaomo
acc.hulu registered by buycoin
acc.pray registered by buycoin
acc.jianguo registered by buycoin
acc.creative registered by buycoin
bts.yourporn registered by buycoin
acc.yahoo registered by buycoin
acc.tudou registered by buycoin
acc.sony registered by buycoin
It seems that over 3000 accounts were created since launch. BM has adjusted the creation fee to 5 BTS. Unfortunately after lifetime cashback, that equals a 1BTS fee, which is not enough to deterrent those spammers.
Therefore, I propose to adjust the account creation fee to 95 BTS. This equals a net fee of 19 BTS after 80% cashback. Since the fee is still below 100 BTS, it will not vest for 90 days, thus causing no trouble for our public faucets.
Please vote for my commitee member mindphlux. I will send a transaction at around 8PM GMT+2 to change the fee, if I get enough votes.
Best regards
mindphlux
I know Mindphlux in person and have worked together with him on a few projects. He is a reliable and hard working individual and an excellent programmer! He has my trust. +5%
I will vote when I get home.
-
how to become a committee ?
-
voted
-
voted
-
I think another change should be used sign ups shouldn't get 80% fee back. Also how can we consider squatting fee?
-
That is a code change, not a parameter change like I am proposing. You require a worker proposal for a code change and funding to do this change. I'm only intend to do the parameter for now, to see how the spammers react.
-
+5%
-
wanted to spur further discussion as well. I think we should think about increasing cost for names that don't have any numbers. even if it is split with a dash or a period " . " it should still cost as much as a normal username
-
We will increase the fees today unless someone suggests otherwise.
-
Mindflux now has both a witness and a committee member. Is this not frowned upon?
-
Mindflux now has both a witness and a committee member. Is this not frowned upon?
I back mindphlux as a witness nut have not researched his posts to assess his alignment with my philosophical point of view.
I do endourse the proposal to raise account registration fees to 95 BTS.
-
I oppose to increase the fees at this point.
You call these people spammers but they might have other business objectives that may bring value to bts.
Have you thought that some people may want to register many names and then offer them in the future for free to new members attracting them to in the ecosystem by offering them their desired name?
Don't just make a decision because someone says so. Bring Vote or something and vote based on stake and don't change anything just yet when most people haven't even started to use the new bts2.
-
I oppose to increase the fees at this point.
You call these people spammers but they might have other business objectives that may bring value to bts.
Have you thought that some people may want to register many names and then offer them in the future for free to new members attracting them to in the ecosystem by offering them their desired name?
Don't just make a decision because someone says so. Bring Vote or something and vote based on stake and don't change anything just yet when most people haven't even started to use the new bts2.
non-premium names have to include numbers or dots for example. so no, I don't think your argument has much value. unless your friends use all numbers in their nicks, and I guess than won't be a problem in the future
-
Mindflux now has both a witness and a committee member. Is this not frowned upon?
witnesses are the most active people at the moment, makes sense for them to be aware of problems and to try to fix them.
I agree that this is not the best solution for the future though
-
I oppose to increase the fees at this point.
You call these people spammers but they might have other business objectives that may bring value to bts.
Have you thought that some people may want to register many names and then offer them in the future for free to new members attracting them to in the ecosystem by offering them their desired name?
Don't just make a decision because someone says so. Bring Vote or something and vote based on stake and don't change anything just yet when most people haven't even started to use the new bts2.
non-premium names have to include numbers or dots for example. so no, I don't think your argument has much value. unless your friends use all numbers in their nicks, and I guess than won't be a problem in the future
dots and dashes should be part of premium names
-
+5%
-
I don't like these decisions on the spot at all. These things should have been thought and discussed previously. You can't through a plan for over a month and day one because some people register a lot of names you realize that maybe it wasn't a good plan after all and changing the fees like that on the spot.
So until everyone can Vote with their stake for such decisions I don't think you should change things and keep them as is..
I don't even know how much each name costs, what is premium name and which one no premium anymore since we keep changing our definition of things..
-
I don't like these decisions on the spot at all. These things should have been thought and discussed previously. You can't through a plan for over a month and day one because some people register a lot of names you realize that maybe it wasn't a good plan after all and changing the fees like that on the spot.
So until everyone can Vote with their stake for such decisions I don't think you should change things and keep them as is..
I don't even know how much each name costs, what is premium name and which one no premium anymore since we keep changing our definition of things..
consider that it will burn more BTS. There is a net benefit.
-
We will increase the fees today unless someone suggests otherwise.
Implemented. An account creation fee increase to 9,500,000 satoshis (95 BTS) was proposed by init0 in block 55396, and was approved by all init accounts in block 55418.
The increase entered its review period at 14:20:00 UTC; no new signatures can be added after that time. It will become finalized at 15:20:00 UTC; provided a majority of the committee members still approve of it at that time (it is possible for committee members to revoke their approval or be voted out during the review period), it will execute, causing the fee change to be scheduled for the next maintenance interval. The change should actually go into effect at 16:00:00 UTC.
Until finalization occurs at 15:20:00 UTC, you can inspect the proposal object from the command line with the command:
get_object 1.10.5
We eventually want to have a GUI for creating, approving, and inspecting proposals, and transition the committee from init accounts to community members. We also eventually plan to increase the review period to two weeks, to allow the community time to have meaningful review of committee actions before they are implemented, and vote out any committee members who support proposals which might damage the network.
However experience with testnets has taught us that, until the network has been running smoothly for some time, it is good to have a short review period (currently 1 hour) to allow us to react more quickly to issues like this one as they arise.
-
This is proposal change knock out openledger?
-
I don't like these decisions on the spot at all. These things should have been thought and discussed previously.
This much I do agree with. However, given lack of detailed planning CNX has chosen not to do, but instead has chosen to go forward with the BitShares 2.0 rollout now, it's important to take the bull by the horns and pre-emptively stop irrepairable harm that may arise from a rapid and dramatic increase in the number of accounts, which directly corelates to VPS RAM requirements. The general model that has been discussed is the gradual increase of server resources in proportion to adoption and growth of actual users that broadcast transactions and trade on the network. These name speculators are imposing a rather high cost for infrastructure without coresponding revenue.
We cannot let that continue. I do agree this should have been addressed before release. This very issue surfaced shortly after 2.0 was announced in June where action was also taken. CNX didn't learn then from their mistake so now we have to deal with this issue again.
I haven't seen any evidence this attitude will infiltrate the minds at Cryptonomex anytime soon if at all. I hope they will start to learn, but I have seen nothing that gives me confidence they have yet.
So much is required to carry out a successful product launch, not just the technical implementation. With the lackluster response of the marketcap and the various posts I see here in the forum I sure hope we're not seeing history repeat itself for the long haul.
For now I remain optimistic. It's still very early. Unless Cryptonomex can start crossing tees and dotting eyes real soon we will begin to see the market settle into an overall negative response to 2.0. Should that happen it doesn't mean the demise of Cryptonomex. The team may become successful with other people handling all other aspects, relegating CNX to the primary role of technology innovators which they have clearly demonstrated. Perhaps not to the degree that Charles Hoskinson and acedemia expects, but adequate for industrial adoption and as a resume for consultation services, allowing the team to survive as a unit.
I truly hope Stan & Dan can see they have much to learn about rolling out new products, especially in this crypto space. So many details yet to be handled, and until they are it opens the door for bad press and negative reviews.
-
I am not sure, whether this is good place to ask, but could you guys explain how this voting works? I guess you are doing that by the wallet? Could anyone explain to the community how things like this actually happen. Screenshots would be useful! :)
-
I am not sure, whether this is good place to ask, but could you guys explain how this voting works? I guess you are doing that by the wallet? Could anyone explain to the community how things like this actually happen. Screenshots would be useful! :)
you vote for commitee members on your account page in the voting tab.
the commitee members make propsals to change stuff like fees etc... and vote on it.
-
you vote for commitee members on your account page in the voting tab.
the commitee members make propsals to change stuff like fees etc... and vote on it.
But where is the final voting? On blockchain? What was the result of this voting? Details, details, details!
-
you vote for commitee members on your account page in the voting tab.
the commitee members make propsals to change stuff like fees etc... and vote on it.
But where is the final voting? On blockchain? What was the result of this voting? Details, details, details!
You can view the result of the voting here:
https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/explorer/committee-members
-
Please remove your votes from my commitee member, I am stepping down since it is a potential conflict of interest, and I do not want to be in that position. The vote has been successful, that is all thst counts.
-
Please remove your votes from my commitee member, I am stepping down since it is a potential conflict of interest, and I do not want to be in that position. The vote has been successful, that is all thst counts.
+5% .. I like this.. not because I think you should remove yourself but because you are putting bitshares interests before your own. Well done... even though you are still voted in :)