BitShares Forum
Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: jakub on October 19, 2015, 11:21:48 am
-
Following BM's appeal for establishing a foundation of proxies, I'd like to offer my service as a proxy for BTS voting.
I believe I'm in a good position for this role as I follow the forum quite closely and I've been participating in almost every mumble session this year.
The background
I've been aware of BitShares almost since the initial concept came into existence and was immediately in love with the idea. I have enormous admiration for BM's talent for inventing and designing powerful incentive schemes. His logical mind and technological insight are absolutely brilliant for me.
However, I've always been a bit critical about some of his business decisions and the way those decisions were handled & executed. I'd say I've agreed with almost all his views and strategic choices (including the most controversial ones, like the 2014 merger) but I've had lots of issues with the way he has communicated and implemented them. For an example of my approach please refer to this thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19078.0.html) regarding the 2.0 launch. And I agree with Charles Hoskinson (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18893.msg244959.html#msg244959) that even the best inventions have to be properly communicated to be able to succeed. So I'd say that as much as the strategic decisions were damn good, the operational ones (including the communication strategy) could have been much better.
But I don't expect anybody to excel at everything so I've always defended the "BM owes us nothing" attitude on this forum. Even if things are clearly mismanaged I generally believe that it's our shared responsibility and BM should not take any more blame than anybody else here. For me, he's free to do whatever he wants (as any of us here) and even if he sells & quits now I'll still be grateful for what he's done.
With the release of 2.0 I see the beginning of a new era: BM finally gave us a tool to transfer power from himself to us and to relieve him in the areas he is clearly not very good at, i.e. communicating BitShares ideas and making operational business decisions. So this is the time when the community needs to take over from him and by becoming a proxy I'd like to be part of this process.
Short-term vision
Regarding the current situation after the 2.0 launch, I believe there are two crucial stakeholders we should take care of at this initial stage: the traders and the merchants. If the traders are happy they will give us liquidity for SmartCoins and thus a product to sell. If the merchants are happy they will give the "normal users" a reason to acquire and spend their SmartCoins.
The traders will be happy if we give them these things:
- a good trading UI
- competitive transaction fees for executing market orders
- stable rules for SmartCoins shorting
The merchants will be happy if we give them these things:
- an opportunity to significantly lower their costs of receiving payments
- an opportunity to earn extra income by referring new users to BTS
It might sound a bit harsh but IMO the so called "normal users" are irrelevant to us at this stage, i.e. there is really not much we can do to attract them right now. They will either come to us due to their political views / lifestyle choices (BTS as an alternative to the corporate world, desire to take part in something meaningful) or because the merchants will convince them to do so using their own incentives. They won't come because we can offer a better UX (the best we can do - and should do - is match the legacy systems UX) or lower prices (they are insensitive to pricing as on average they make only a few on-line payments a month). The situation might change when "normal users" start using SmartCoins for everyday expenses (i.e. when BTS expands into off-line transactions via mobile phones or partnering with debit cards) but if this happens we will already be in a position to embrace that and significantly lower the fees.
This is a good summary of my vision for BTS in the next 6-12 months:
good trading interface -> liquidity for SmartCoins -> SmartCoins become truly useful -> the referral program kicks in
Short-term priorities
At the current moment, in my view the absolute priority is the GUI. Other features (e.g. the bond market) can wait but the UI has always been our weakest point and this needs to change, especially that for the first time in our history we have a very solid foundation for the GUI in the form of web sockets and react.js. Right now I cannot help with coding but I do care about the GUI a lot which can be measured by the number of issues I've reported on github (https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues/created_by/neura-sx).
I'm quite open to the idea that the current GUI made by CNX might evolve into a live demonstration of Graphene's capabilities and third-party solutions (like Moonstone (http://www.moonstone.io/)) will gain more momentum. But before that happens we definitely need a very good UI for the traders and should do everything to make them happy as without them we have no liquidity and thus no product to sell.
I strongly agree with BM's concept of a DAC which implies that a blockchain network needs to be economically sustainable. For me, inflation is only acceptable as a temporary emergency solution or to finance IT development (shareholders investing in their own company) but not as a long-term method of subsidizing business operations. In the long run, BTS holders should not be forced to subsidize BTS users and this is what inflation does in my view.
And last but not least, we need much better communication both inside and outside the community. For a start I'd support:
- publishing a short-term road-map utilizing the results of this poll (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19178.0.html).
- publishing a clear set of rules regarding SmartCoins shorting and guidelines for collateral position management
- publishing a white-paper describing the 2.0 implementation of SmartCoins
Our competition
In my view, our main competitors are not other crypto-currencies because we have a unique product that no-one else has: price-stable assets free of counterparty risk. Thus we compete mainly with PayPal and on-line usage of debit cards. Therefore we should reach to merchants already accepting bitcoins but we should not waste time on old-school bitcoiners: they are emotionally attached to their concept and we have a bigger fish to fry in other demographics. I agree that in the long run, our target market is South America, East Asia and Africa, not the western world.
Voting
As for witnesses, initially I am going to support witnesses according to their efforts during the 2.0 testing. The number of supported witnesses will be in the range of 19-25 as I agree with BM's argumentation that it's better to have fewer of them but pay them well and have them properly vetted. I'm still in the process of compiling the list so please forgive me if I've missed someone important and let me know if your witness deserves to be added due to your efforts during the tests.
As for committee members, my current priority will be keeping the existing pricing strategy unchanged (except lowering the market orders fees if the traders clearly demand a change in this respect). In the future (but not as a priority), I am inclined to support transaction fees proportional to the amount being transferred.
As for workers, my priority will be upgrading the trading interface to a Poloniex standard, implementing the worker proposal functionality in the GUI and gradually bringing all the existing 2.0 features to the GUI level.
Conclusion
I wish Dan Larimer and Charles Hoskinson (CH) could join together again, but as that seems to be currently impossible, we need to "recreate" a virtual CH using the wisdom of the proxy functionality. And when I mention CH, it's not his views that are important here. What matters for me is that someone like him would constitute a perfect complement to BM's talent and a healthy counterbalance. So I'm talking here from an HR manager's perspective (though I'm not one) and CH is just a symbol here, not for his opinions but for his skills. For me, CH's skills begin where BM's skills end: BM invents great things and CH perfectly communicates them to both the insiders (the community) and the outsiders (the outside world). IMO we badly need some form of CH here (though Stan has been doing an amazing job lately) and hopefully the improved DPOS system and proxy votes will finally enable the community to play this role.
So if you agree with the above opinions and/or if you generally support BM's point of view but would like to see better execution / implementation / communication of his ideas, please consider setting my BTS account (https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/account/jakub/voting) named jakub as your proxy.
My current voting slate:
http://www.cryptofresh.com/u/jakub
-
You'll have my vote.
-
+5%
-
Your posts / thoughts always seemed to be grounded in rationality.
You have my vote too. Just have to finally import to 2.0... ;)
-
nice summary .. +5%
-
An excellent post jakub, I agree with 95% of it.
I'm inclined to switch my proxy from fav to you, but will not for now b/c I believe monitoring the witnesses is an important role right now, and fav is doing great at it.
I strongly agree with the sentiment you expressed concerning the transition from CNX control of business decisions / policy to the decentralized model of governance they built for us. As I posted elsewhere, if we as a community are "too busy" or otherwise won't / can't setup to take charge this ecosystem and it's vision will slowly either grind to a halt and disappear or some other leadership with a different vision / agenda will take over and go in a direction t h e y want, which may not be one which is a principled or freedom supporting.
We've been given the opportunity to go to the moon, will you climb aboard or just watch the rocket disappear into the sky? The choice is up to each one of us.
I applaud your initiative jakub and believe you're on the right track. +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
-
I would have agreed with most (the CH part definitely NOT one I am agreeing with) of the OP, if this sentence was not there:
"Even if things are clearly mismanaged I generally believe that it's our shared responsibility and BM should not take any more blame than anybody else here."
How can I have a shared responsibility with BM?
I personally asked 7 times (do you want me to dig out the posts and PMs?) asking for an explanation of the margin call ratio[I did not know at the time that the short's trap included more new elements than the ration itself]. He did not say a single word until after the fact.
Or maybe sharing responsibilities mean me taking the losses on my short positions and him hiding the facts from the world? What the... crazy logic that is?
-
I agree with a lot of what was stated aside from a few points that I don't think really have any place in regards to bitshares future and how votes should be directed. (ie. the infatuation with CH). It does give me some insight into who you turn to for answers, and thus will impact the proxy vote. So for CH fans it answers their need for this.
What would be your preferred method of communication as a proxy in terms of how you are deciding on certain votes? Or will it just be something you will do without any discussions or revealing your positions on matters?
I am asking this more along the lines of what would you find ideal.. rather than trying to fit into one way or another.
+5%
-
I agree with a lot of what was stated aside from a few points that I don't think really have any place in regards to bitshares future and how votes should be directed. (ie. the infatuation with CH). It does give me some insight into who you turn to for answers, and thus will impact the proxy vote. So for CH fans it answers their need for this.
Regarding CH, I respect his opinions but it's not the case that I agree with everything he says. But actually CH's views are not important here. What matters for me is that someone like him would constitute a perfect complement to BM's talent and a healthy counterbalance. So I'm talking here more as an HR manager (though I'm not one). For me, CH's skills start where BM's skills end: BM invents great things and CH perfectly communicates them to the outside world. IMO we badly need some form of CH here (though Stan has been doing an amazing job lately) and hopefully the improved DPOS system and proxy votes will finally enable the community to play this role.
What would be your preferred method of communication as a proxy in terms of how you are deciding on certain votes? Or will it just be something you will do without any discussions or revealing your positions on matters?
I value discussions. So the ideal sequence of events will be first to discuss, then announce how I'm going to vote and then do the actual voting.
-
I would have agreed with most (the CH part definitely NOT one I am agreeing with) of the OP, if this sentence was not there:
"Even if things are clearly mismanaged I generally believe that it's our shared responsibility and BM should not take any more blame than anybody else here."
How can I have a shared responsibility with BM?
I personally asked 7 times (do you want me to dig out the posts and PMs?) asking for an explanation of the margin call ratio[I did not know at the time that the short's trap included more new elements than the ration itself]. He did not say a single word until after the fact.
Or maybe sharing responsibilities mean me taking the losses on my short positions and him hiding the facts from the world? What the... crazy logic that is?
I understand your position and that's why in this thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19191.0.html) as much as I argued with clout's approach, I did not argue with you saying that the rules had been unexpectedly changed.
What I mean by shared responsibility is that we need to accept BM as a whole, with all his genius and all his drawbacks, and do our best to compensate for those drawbacks.
Hopefully the 2.0 launch was the last time BM was in a position to have too much responsibility without us being able to control it.
-
I've added to my witnesses rnglab for his (her?) role in the tests (and also 2.0 internationalization efforts) and datasecuritynode for his great overall commitment to BTS.
-
Virtual Hoskinson? He'd suffer a hostile divestment and be pushed out by virtual DL....this is getting really meta and really weird.
-
I would have agreed with most (the CH part definitely NOT one I am agreeing with) of the OP, if this sentence was not there:
"Even if things are clearly mismanaged I generally believe that it's our shared responsibility and BM should not take any more blame than anybody else here."
How can I have a shared responsibility with BM?
I personally asked 7 times (do you want me to dig out the posts and PMs?) asking for an explanation of the margin call ratio[I did not know at the time that the short's trap included more new elements than the ration itself]. He did not say a single word until after the fact.
Or maybe sharing responsibilities mean me taking the losses on my short positions and him hiding the facts from the world? What the... crazy logic that is?
I understand your position and that's why in this thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19191.0.html) as much as I argued with clout's approach, I did not argue with you saying that the rules had been unexpectedly changed.
What I mean by shared responsibility is that we need to accept BM as a whole, with all his genius and all his drawbacks, and do our best to compensate for those drawbacks.
Hopefully the 2.0 launch was the last time BM was in a position to have too much responsibility without us being able to control it.
@tonyk, I've had another go at this issue and arrived at two conclusions:
(1) We must admit that BM offered a thorough explanation of the 2.0 shorting rules 2 days before the short squeeze occurred (and then BM discussed it further in the mumble session). I agree it should have been announced (and discussed and made sure everybody is aware) before Oct 13th but still there were more than 24 hours to grasp the new rules and act (but on the other hand maybe the price drop was the result of bit-assets shorters exiting their positions when they understood the new rules). I'm not trying to defend BM, just trying to be objective.
(2) You said you didn't like the CH part, but this is exactly what I meant when I wrote "I wish we had CH on-board" - that we need a better communication policy and this equally refers to communicating new concepts to the community and making sure people understand the rules before they might affect them.
And this is how the proxy vote can help us to prevent such issues from happening ever again: next time we have a new feature about to be deployed and my judgement tells me it hasn't been communicated well, I'll vote to postpone it.
-
I would have agreed with most (the CH part definitely NOT one I am agreeing with) of the OP, if this sentence was not there:
"Even if things are clearly mismanaged I generally believe that it's our shared responsibility and BM should not take any more blame than anybody else here."
How can I have a shared responsibility with BM?
I personally asked 7 times (do you want me to dig out the posts and PMs?) asking for an explanation of the margin call ratio[I did not know at the time that the short's trap included more new elements than the ration itself]. He did not say a single word until after the fact.
Or maybe sharing responsibilities mean me taking the losses on my short positions and him hiding the facts from the world? What the... crazy logic that is?
I understand your position and that's why in this thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19191.0.html) as much as I argued with clout's approach, I did not argue with you saying that the rules had been unexpectedly changed.
What I mean by shared responsibility is that we need to accept BM as a whole, with all his genius and all his drawbacks, and do our best to compensate for those drawbacks.
Hopefully the 2.0 launch was the last time BM was in a position to have too much responsibility without us being able to control it.
@tonyk, I've had another go at this issue and arrived at two conclusions:
(1) We must admit that BM offered a thorough explanation of the 2.0 shorting rules 2 days before the short squeeze occurred (and then BM discussed it further in the mumble session). I agree it should have been announced (and discussed and made sure everybody is aware) before Oct 13th but still there were more than 24 hours to grasp the new rules and act (but on the other hand maybe the price drop was the result of bit-assets shorters exiting their positions when they understood the new rules). I'm not trying to defend BM, just trying to be objective.
(2) You said you didn't like the CH part, but this is exactly what I meant when I wrote "I wish we had CH on-board" - that we need a better communication policy and this equally refers to communicating new concepts to the community and making sure people understand the rules before they might affect them.
And this is how the proxy vote can help us to prevent such issues from happening ever again: next time we have a new feature about to be deployed and my judgement tells me it hasn't been communicated well, I'll vote to postpone it.
Absolutely man!
PS
Are you a lawyer by any chance?...any way you should be for shure...no shame, fact or reason stand on your way!
-
I would have agreed with most (the CH part definitely NOT one I am agreeing with) of the OP, if this sentence was not there:
"Even if things are clearly mismanaged I generally believe that it's our shared responsibility and BM should not take any more blame than anybody else here."
How can I have a shared responsibility with BM?
I personally asked 7 times (do you want me to dig out the posts and PMs?) asking for an explanation of the margin call ratio[I did not know at the time that the short's trap included more new elements than the ration itself]. He did not say a single word until after the fact.
Or maybe sharing responsibilities mean me taking the losses on my short positions and him hiding the facts from the world? What the... crazy logic that is?
I understand your position and that's why in this thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19191.0.html) as much as I argued with clout's approach, I did not argue with you saying that the rules had been unexpectedly changed.
What I mean by shared responsibility is that we need to accept BM as a whole, with all his genius and all his drawbacks, and do our best to compensate for those drawbacks.
Hopefully the 2.0 launch was the last time BM was in a position to have too much responsibility without us being able to control it.
+5%
you have say what I want to say. so good!
-
PS
Are you a lawyer by any chance?...any way you should be for shure...no shame, fact or reason stand on your way!
No, I'm not. But I am thinking now maybe I should be one if I've somehow managed to get (at least partial) endorsement from tonyk and Thom.
Thank you. I've learned a lot from you.
-
I really like the potential of proxies. One simple service to shareholders you could do is to identify which identity (real world or forum id) the delegates (maybe we could establish "delegate" as a term that encompasses witnesses, committee members and workers; helpful of one tries to refer to all three!) and belong to if that is not obvious. The two candidates from your list I have in mind are: bhuz and mrs.agsexplorer.
This takes away a lot of effort (research /ask what ids these belong to) that would have been done by each shareholder indidvually (more or less) otherwise.
-
I really like the potential of proxies.
It took me a while to realize how important the proxy concept is.
It's a practical tool to exercise our power to influence the BTS short-term and long-term strategy as opposed to the theoretical power we had before.
(It's worth noting that in 0.x we had a similar concept of voting slates but to me it was too obscure and not clearly promoted on the GUI level)
One simple service to shareholders you could do is to identify which identity (real world or forum id) the delegates (maybe we could establish "delegate" as a term that encompasses witnesses, committee members and workers; helpful of one tries to refer to all three!) and belong to if that is not obvious. The two candidates from your list I have in mind are: bhuz and mrs.agsexplorer.
This takes away a lot of effort (research /ask what ids these belong to) that would have been done by each shareholder indidvually (more or less) otherwise.
I'm looking forward to dposhub (http://www.dposhub.com/) being released as I see it as a perfect tool to implement identity differentiation between the delegates.
Right now all I could do is go through the October 5 Test Network thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18751.0.html) and check who was doing what.
Undoubtedly @fav is doing a great job (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18959.0.html) of micromanaging the witnesses but I won't be able to approach this level of detail.
Hopefully this won't be necessary once 2.0 settles down.
-
I really like the potential of proxies.
It took me a while to realize how important the proxy concept is.
It's a practical tool to exercise our power to influence the BTS short-term and long-term strategy as opposed to the theoretical power we had before.
(It's worth noting that in 0.x we had a similar concept of voting slates but to me it was too obscure and not clearly promoted on the GUI level)
One simple service to shareholders you could do is to identify which identity (real world or forum id) the delegates (maybe we could establish "delegate" as a term that encompasses witnesses, committee members and workers; helpful of one tries to refer to all three!) and belong to if that is not obvious. The two candidates from your list I have in mind are: bhuz and mrs.agsexplorer.
This takes away a lot of effort (research /ask what ids these belong to) that would have been done by each shareholder indidvually (more or less) otherwise.
I'm looking forward to dposhub (http://www.dposhub.com/) being released as I see it as a perfect tool to implement identity differentiation between the delegates.
Right now all I could do is go through the October 5 Test Network thread (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18751.0.html) and check who was doing what.
Undoubtedly @fav is doing a great job (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18959.0.html) of micromanaging the witnesses but I won't be able to approach this level of detail.
Hopefully this won't be necessary once 2.0 settles down.
A natural consequence to me would be to integrate a froum with BTS, a forum (social media focused) webwallet / front end application for Bitshares (as opposed to the exchange interface of openledger). See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=17388.0
-
good move +5% +5% +5%
Following BM's appeal for establishing a foundation of proxies, I'd like to offer my service as a proxy for BTS voting.
I believe I'm in a good position for this role as I follow the forum quite closely and I've been participating in almost every mumble session this year.
The background
I've been aware of BitShares almost since the initial concept came into existence and was immediately in love with the idea. I have enormous admiration for BM's talent
-
UPDATE:
(1) Cancelling my support for riverhead as has resigned:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18959.msg248121.html#msg248121
(2) Intending to support mindphlux worker proposal (as soon as it becomes visible in the GUI):
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19317.0.html
-
Thanks for the support jakub.
Also mr.agsexplorer is forum handle boombastic.
-
As an early investor in "people & ideas" I agree with your profound analysis in many ways. It is not self-evident that we have come so far and I am grateful. There was no other project since 2011 that convinced me enough to invest resources. The "smart guys" have delivered such an impressing product and I support every effort to make it successful.
Voting for this proxy. +5%
-
OP: Are you still active? Will you vote for committee members?
-
OP: Are you still active? Will you vote for committee members?
Still active.
I've just updated my votes to include committee members and workers as they've become visible in the GUI.
I've also added my support for 2 more witnesses: liondani & maqifrnswa.
-
I've just added my support for 2 more witnesses:
- cyrano (as I've learned that @pc is behind it - a valuable BTS developer)
- b33lz38v8 (as I've learned that http://os.merkabahnk.io/ (http://merkabahnk) is behind it - a valuable BTS partner)
-
- cyrano (as I've learned that @pc is behind it - a valuable BTS developer)
Thanks!
-
Here is my standing regarding the recent worker proposal from CNX (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19890.0.html):
#1 It was a disaster, it's good that it's been retracted.
#2 Generally yes but I can't say I understand it fully. Hope to hear more details from BM.
#3 It's nice but low priority for me. I think we have many more important things on our plate than this, e.g. bringing all BTS functionality to the GUI level.
#4 Excellent, especially the standardized API for trading bots.
#5 Excellent, definitely needed for the BTS gateways to have such tools integrated into the GUI.
-
OP: Are you still active? Will you vote for committee members?
Still active.
I've just updated my votes to include committee members and workers as they've become visible in the GUI.
I've also added my support for 2 more witnesses: liondani & maqifrnswa.
thank you very much! :)
-
I've removed my support for 2 committee members: bitcrab and clayop as they support a significant reduction of transfer fees.
IMO this will completely undermine the referral program.
-
I've removed my support for 2 committee members: bitcrab and clayop as they support a significant reduction of transfer fees.
IMO this will completely undermine the referral program.
+5%
looks like they're outvoted. this proposal http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.13 can't pass
-
I'll be supporting this committee proposal:
http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.15
as described in this thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20073.0.html
In the long run my goal will be to keep the transfer fees in the range of $0.15-$0.20 as IMO this is needed for the referral program to work.
However in the short term perspective I think it's better to have this compromise and thus alleviate the split we are having in the community.
-
I am also supporting this worker proposal by CNX:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20089.0.html
As BM says: "This is a micro proposal for a small change to the BitShares network to lower fees in the event an order is not filled."
-
I'm supporting worker proposal 1.14.9 "Bitshares UI Project Coordinator" as described here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20144.0.html
(1) wmbutler has a proved track record (he is asking for a salary AFTER proving his value when working for free)
(2) his actions are appreciated by the devs:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20144.msg259073.html#msg259073
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20144.msg259365.html#msg259365
(3) this role is very much needed
-
u r now PROXYFIED..
your¨statements are spot on. As far as i can gather
Keep up the good work
-
u r now PROXYFIED..
your¨statements are spot on. As far as i can gather
Keep up the good work
Thanks :)
This is a roadmap that I've recently created. Just take a look to see how long this list has become:
http://neura-sx.github.io/roadmap
-
This is my stance on the forced settlement issue:
The committee can either stay as an observer and watch the bitshares flaw exploiters eat him up OR it can stop the flaw exploiters from taking advantage of the flaw and level the playing field.
I get your point and kind of agree with it but not for the reasons you provide.
You treat this situation as if a system flaw has been unexpectedly discovered and thus an emergency action was required.
This is my interpretation of the current situation: CNX delivered the 2.0 code but failed to deliver proper documentation and as a result businesses like transwiser have been operating under false assumptions. Therefore it is justified to give those business some leeway to be able adjust to the newly discovered circumstances.
In the near future, when (hopefully) proper documentation is finally released, there will be no excuse to give any businesses a special treatment and bend the rules for them, even if they are the only ones supplying a given service. The consistency of the rules is much more important than the fate of any single business in the ecosystem.
Committee members like @mindphlux making decisions not based on merit will be losing my support.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261692.html#msg261692
Instead I'll support @BunkerChain Labs .
I'd also support @Xeldal - if he decides to become a Committee member.
-
Regarding this worker proposal:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19351.0.html
I'll be voting against as I agree with @fav that it is way too expensive in comparison to the benefits offered.
-
I'd support @Xeldal too!
as for bunker, I'm not sure. His ideals may be great, but actions... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18935.30.html meh
-
I'd support @Xeldal too!
as for bunker, I'm not sure. His ideals may be great, but actions... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18935.30.html meh
There's your actions @fav ! https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20350.0.html :D
-
+5%
I support your proxy initiative @jakub! Your overall focus is great and you have a good grasp of many of the core issues we are dealing including protocol design.
-
+5%
I support your proxy initiative @jakub! Your overall focus is great and you have a good grasp of many of the core issues we are dealing including protocol design.
Thanks, @merivercap
I'm attempting to launch a new website dedicated do BitShares. It's still work-in-progress but here is a quick preview:
http://neura-sx.github.io/
-
A very simple but effective website to concisely provide essential info about the BitShares ecosystem.
Thanks for putting this together jakub. It's a stripped down version of what DPOS HUB was to hoping to provide (crypto-prometheus / dataSecurityNode): https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15832.msg225373.html#msg225373 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15832.msg225373.html#msg225373)
Your site may not be interactive or flashy but you have provided real value by collecting a wide range of info in one place. I'll bet it will serve many quite well and be a starting point for others to embellish or improve upon.
-
Worker proposal 1.14.16 (GUI Development and Maintenance by svk) gets my support.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20655
-
@jakub How about the STEALTH work proposal (1.14.18)? It seems to have already been approved.
-
@jakub How about the STEALTH work proposal (1.14.18)? It seems to have already been approved.
I think STEALTH is important. I have my doubts whether it should be prioritized like that but anyway I think that we need it sooner or later.
I'll give you a marketing perspective - when I demo the GUI to non-crypto people, this question ALWAYS pops up: how come everyone see my balance?
Then I try to explain to them that you can always create another account without telling about it to anyone - but this does not sound very convincing to them.
And then I mention the stealth mode to be introduced soon. And only this seems to do the trick - people look forward to it.
They are used to the fact (or illusion?) that their finances are kept private.
-
I've decided to support the STEALTH worker proposal (1.14.18)
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0008.md
If there was a similar LIQUIDITY worker proposal I'd support that over STEALTH but given the choice we currently have (STEALTH or nothing) I prefer STEALTH.
-
Committee members like @mindphlux making decisions not based on merit will be losing my support.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261692.html#msg261692
I've restated my support for mindphlux.
We still learn our roles (me included) so I thought it's a good thing to be more forgiving.
-
I support xeroc's worker proposal (1.14.17) aimed at much needed documentation efforts:
https://github.com/xeroc/worker-proposals/blob/master/2016-01.md
Also, I've added my support for two witnesses
- delegated-proof-of-steak
- delegate.btsnow
as I've learned that they are run by our core developers: modprobe (Nathan Hourt) & dannotestein.
-
Hi @jakub,
What's your opinion about cass's worker proposal: 1.14.28 Graphic Design / UI/UX Design / Web Development, and why? FYI please take a look at discussion here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20856.0.html
-
Hi @jakub,
What's your opinion about cass's worker proposal: 1.14.28 Graphic Design / UI/UX Design / Web Development, and why? FYI please take a look at discussion here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20856.0.html
I've voted for cass's worker proposal.
He's done a lot of stuff for BitShares and hopefully he'll continue - so IMO he deserves a chance to hold a paid position.
-
I've added support to @abit as a committee member.
My lack of support for him so far was an unintentional omission on my part.
Also, I've removed my support for "refund400k" so that @wmbutler has a better chance to be above the threshold.
-
I've added support to @abit as a committee member.
My lack of support for him so far was an unintentional omission on my part.
Also, I've removed my support for "refund400k" so that @wmbutler has a better chance to be above the threshold.
+5%
-
As one of the participants of this initiative, I'll be supporting the worker proposal 1.14.29 (percentage-based transfer fees).
More details and motivations here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21230.0.html
-
I've removed my support for most of the committee members (except abit and dele-puppy) as I've concluded the current committee is not doing its job properly (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21342.0.html).
Also, I've removed my support for @mindphlux as he has committed a fraud and then another dishonesty when he lied about it (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21212.msg275944.html#msg275944).
I've suggested to him the possibility of donating the ill-earned money to a charity of his choice but he did not take the offer, so for me this matter is closed.
I no longer believe logical thinking prevails in this community and I have the impression that bad decisions regarding the referral program are being made, so I'll be much less active here from now on.
I would be willing to defend logic here, provided logical thinking is valued. Sadly, for me BitShares is drifting away from logic.
If you wish to remove your votes from this proxy, this is a good time to do so.
-
I've removed my support for most of the committee members (except abit and dele-puppy) as I've concluded the current committee is not doing its job properly (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21342.0.html).
Also, I've removed my support for @mindphlux as he has committed a fraud and then another dishonesty when he lied about it (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21212.msg275944.html#msg275944).
I've suggested to him the possibility of donating the ill-earned money to a charity of his choice but he did not take the offer, so for me this matter is closed.
I no longer believe logical thinking prevails in this community and I have the impression that bad decisions regarding the referral program are being made, so I'll be much less active here from now on.
I would be willing to defend logic here, provided logical thinking is valued. Sadly, for me BitShares is drifting away from logic.
If you wish to remove your votes from this proxy, this is a good time to do so.
maybe a stupid question, but .. why don't you run for a committee position instead?
-
I no longer believe logical thinking prevails in this community and I have the impression that bad decisions regarding the referral program are being made, so I'll be much less active here from now on.
I would be willing to defend logic here, provided logical thinking is valued. Sadly, for me BitShares is drifting away from logic.
If you wish to remove your votes from this proxy, this is a good time to do so.
You have been presenting your side of the story well in response to the fee discussion. xeroc has made a proposal (the fee schedule) in response to the on-going discussion and his proposal has received feedback from commitee members. This is the beginning of a feedback-review-fine-tuning process detailed in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21342.msg277418.html#msg277418, a process which you have accepted to be 'a fine plan'. Do let the process take its course from begin to end. Please bear in mind this period is Chinese New Year, a long holiday for the Chinese community and so they are slower or are not responding to the proposal post yet.
Your valuable comments and feedbacks have been and are needed for a robust and comprehensive discussion, without which we will end up with an idea-lacking one-sided story. You should therefore continue this effort to help shape and grow bitshares into a significant force.
I urge you to reconsider your decision. I urge you to continue contributing your bright ideas and insightful knowledge to bitshares.
-
I've removed my support for most of the committee members (except abit and dele-puppy) as I've concluded the current committee is not doing its job properly (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21342.0.html).
Also, I've removed my support for @mindphlux as he has committed a fraud and then another dishonesty when he lied about it (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21212.msg275944.html#msg275944).
I've suggested to him the possibility of donating the ill-earned money to a charity of his choice but he did not take the offer, so for me this matter is closed.
I no longer believe logical thinking prevails in this community and I have the impression that bad decisions regarding the referral program are being made, so I'll be much less active here from now on.
I would be willing to defend logic here, provided logical thinking is valued. Sadly, for me BitShares is drifting away from logic.
If you wish to remove your votes from this proxy, this is a good time to do so.
If what you say is true then you should be continuing to contribute and not giving up.
-
@jakub 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.
-
To me it seems that this proxy isn't active any more.
Last account update: Jan 29
-
Yea, @jakub seems to have disappeared, which is a shame..
-
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Ma9b0a780668eac78e7e5600568948f4fo0%26pid%3D15.1%26f%3D1&sp=68eebe1a08fc8f215fc0073cac681b09)
-
Yea, @jakub seems to have disappeared, which is a shame..
I'd say it's a pity, not a shame. At least he didn't take anything which doesn't belong to him, nor be able to take (except that people worked for BSIP10 will need him to get payment). He did contribute a lot to the ecosystem/community (mostly communication/document work). I believe he will come back some day. Here is one of his latest posts:
I've removed my support for most of the committee members (except abit and dele-puppy) as I've concluded the current committee is not doing its job properly (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21342.0.html).
Also, I've removed my support for @mindphlux as he has committed a fraud and then another dishonesty when he lied about it (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21212.msg275944.html#msg275944).
I've suggested to him the possibility of donating the ill-earned money to a charity of his choice but he did not take the offer, so for me this matter is closed.
I no longer believe logical thinking prevails in this community and I have the impression that bad decisions regarding the referral program are being made, so I'll be much less active here from now on.
I would be willing to defend logic here, provided logical thinking is valued. Sadly, for me BitShares is drifting away from logic.
If you wish to remove your votes from this proxy, this is a good time to do so.
-
Yea, @jakub seems to have disappeared, which is a shame..
I'd say it's a pity, not a shame. At least he didn't take anything which doesn't belong to him, nor be able to take (except that people worked for BSIP10 will need him to get payment). He did contribute a lot to the ecosystem/community (mostly communication/document work). I believe he will come back some day. Here is one of his latest posts:
I've removed my support for most of the committee members (except abit and dele-puppy) as I've concluded the current committee is not doing its job properly (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21342.0.html).
Also, I've removed my support for @mindphlux as he has committed a fraud and then another dishonesty when he lied about it (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21212.msg275944.html#msg275944).
I've suggested to him the possibility of donating the ill-earned money to a charity of his choice but he did not take the offer, so for me this matter is closed.
I no longer believe logical thinking prevails in this community and I have the impression that bad decisions regarding the referral program are being made, so I'll be much less active here from now on.
I would be willing to defend logic here, provided logical thinking is valued. Sadly, for me BitShares is drifting away from logic.
If you wish to remove your votes from this proxy, this is a good time to do so.
I'm not saying it was shameful, "it's a shame" just means it's too bad. He was a valuable member of the community so I hope he returns as well.