BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bhuz on November 27, 2015, 06:05:41 pm

Title: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 27, 2015, 06:05:41 pm
Background
The recent release of GUI wallet introduces a 'Force Settlement' button. This Force Settlement function allows some users to exploit the current 'loophole' in the bitCNY market and gain profit at the expense of the bitCNY providers.
(See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20283.0.html and https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20287.0.html)

Transwiser (a major partner who provides bitCNY<->CNY fiat) and a number of Chinese users who depend on this service are suffering big losses.  This is not the worst.  They fear more losses to come.

The Force Settlement function closes the borrow/short positions with lowest collateral ratio and sells their collateral at the settlement price. For the bitCNY market, this means an immediate loss to the shorters (and a gain for the ‘force settle’ users) because bitCNY is trading below the feed price. As we found out, the feed price does not accurately reflect the CNY price.  It is in fact lower than the price listed in major China websites like OKCoin. The price discrepancy created an artificial arbitrage opportunity for the ‘Force Settle’ opportunists.

In addition, the shorters will be forced to sell their collateral even if they have sufficient collaterals to avoid a margin call. 

All this means that the Force Settle opportunists could force settle to exchange bitCNY for BTS on the DEX and then sell them at profit in a centralized chinese exchange eg BTC38.  This HURTS A LOT of bitCNY shorters, no matter the liquidity available in the DEX.

Effectively, they are being forced to sell their collaterals and close their positions against their will.  This introduction of this ‘force settlement’  was not known by the Chinese community at large.  Little wonder that the Chinese community considers this behaviour as ‘robbing the shorters’.


Urgent call for help
bitcrab and alt, representing the Chinese community, called on the committee members for help. After a lengthy and intense discussion (for over six hours), we consider the situation warrants an urgent response as follows:


1) Temporarily SUSPEND the "force settlement" function by raising its fee to 1Billion for about a  week.

This will give us time to put in a remedy:

1) Disable frontend "settlement" button when there are buy orders available above the feed (requires Svk work)
2) Adjust price feed for bitCNY market by including other Chinese exchanges in sourcing CNY prices (xeroc has agreed to work on the changes)
3) Get a CNY liquidity bot to put up buy orders with bids over the feed price and so protecting the shorters from abusing the force settlement function for an opportunistic gain.  ( bitcrab to work on it)

In normal circumstances, the Committee would like to give the Community enough time to discuss the proposals we intend to put up - first with a forum discussion and then setting the proposal period to one week.

As we are facing a crisis now, we would like to ask the Community to support the Chinese’s call for help - and to make this change as soon as possible (within 24 hours) in order to save the Chinese shorters from further losses.

We seek your kind understanding and support for this proposal.

The Bitshares Committee
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: JonnyB on November 27, 2015, 06:12:40 pm
I'm the one whos been buying BITCNY and settling it for bts profit. :-)

what we need for efficient liquid markets is this:

Allow  a buy/sell order that moves with the settlement price +/-  a deviation as a percentage.

Eg.
buy at settlement feed - 2% 
or
sell at settlement feed + 2%

this would allow joe bloggs to add liquidity to all markets very easily and avoid smartcoins being sold below settlement price.

others have suggested we need to copy bitstamps instant buy function where it adds a buy order at highest price and adjusts it to be the highest bid but not buying into the sell wall. This is not the same as what I have suggested above and I don't think it would help.

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: clayop on November 27, 2015, 06:35:46 pm
I'm the one whos been buying BITCNY and settling it for bts profit. :-)

what we need for efficient liquid markets is this:

Allow  a buy/sell order that moves with the settlement price +/-  a deviation as a percentage.

Eg.
buy at settlement feed - 2% 
or
sell at settlement feed + 2%

this would allow joe bloggs to add liquidity to all markets very easily and avoid smartcoins being sold below settlement price.

others have suggested we need to copy bitstamps instant buy function where it adds a buy order at highest price and adjusts it to be the highest bid but not buying into the sell wall. This is not the same as what I have suggested above and I don't think it would help.

The relative order function was discusses in here, but it has some problems IIRC.

Xeroc will release new price feed script next week using more realistic BTC conversion rate to CNY.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Xeldal on November 27, 2015, 06:41:41 pm
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts. 




 
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: JonnyB on November 27, 2015, 06:45:25 pm
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.

this 100%
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: clayop on November 27, 2015, 06:47:11 pm
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.

You're right on that settlement is not a new feature nor wrong. The problem we have now is the feed price of CNY is too low (about 5%) and hence there's possibility to misuse the settlement function for free money (this hurts shorters)

So this proposal is just temporary. Once the price feed is fixed, settlement will be back.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Akado on November 27, 2015, 06:50:13 pm
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: svk on November 27, 2015, 06:52:22 pm
While I could always add it to the GUI if that's agreed upon as a desirable solution, I don't really think that hiding the settle button for certain market conditions will change anything here. I'm sure JonnyBitcoin or someone else who wanted to exploit this kind of situation is savvy enough to use the CLI wallet, which of course lets you make settle orders and has done so since launch. It was also talked about a bit in the announcement of Graphene but I guess none of us saw the implications.

I do think the mechanics behind this are a bit strange and poorly understood, which is no surprise given the complete lack of documentation of the market mechanics in general. To me it seems very harsh on shorters that they can have their positions force called and settled at feed price even though their collateral is more than sufficient. We're already screwing shorters over with the SQP mechanics and now with this as well.

Unfortunately I think the Americans are all off on for Thanksgiving holiday so it comes at a bad time.

Cue @tonyk for some scathing analysis of BM's market mechanics
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: clayop on November 27, 2015, 06:53:47 pm
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

If so, USD and other feeds will become high
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: clout on November 27, 2015, 06:55:15 pm
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts. 
 

If our gateways cannot maintain a tight spread, they are not useful. Transwiser isn't just one gateway for CNY out of many, it is our only CNY gateway. Their loss is our loss. We need people to be less rapped up in the theory behind how these markets should work and instead be more attentive to how these markets work in practice. As of right now Bitshares markets are dysfunctional to the point disrepair. We will collectively fail if we take this approach of "you should have known that the market works this way, its your fault and no one else's". We need to suspend this feature until we understand how to better account for it.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on November 27, 2015, 06:56:13 pm
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

Quote
2) Adjust price feed for bitCNY market by including other Chinese exchanges in sourcing CNY prices (xeroc has agreed to work on the changes)

I'm against disabling the settlement function because BTS2 was designed with it in mind, but I do recognize the issue in the CNY market, people are actively exploiting it. If the suggested remedy plan (adjust fee CNY price and disable button in frontend when there are no bids above feed, provide liquidity so it cannot be exploited) finds support by the community, I will consider voting for this proposal, to temporally disable the function so bleeding can stop and the necessary features can be programmed.

We absolutely need a price floor and the settlement function is the way to establish a price floor.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on November 27, 2015, 07:00:29 pm
While I could always add it to the GUI if that's agreed upon as a desirable solution, I don't really think that hiding the settle button for certain market conditions will change anything here. I'm sure JonnyBitcoin or someone else who wanted to exploit this kind of situation is savvy enough to use the CLI wallet, which of course lets you make settle orders and has done so since launch. It was also talked about a bit in the announcement of Graphene but I guess none of us saw the implications.

I do think the mechanics behind this are a bit strange and poorly understood, which is no surprise given the complete lack of documentation of the market mechanics in general. To me it seems very harsh on shorters that they can have their positions force called and settled at feed price even though their collateral is more than sufficient. We're already screwing shorters over with the SQP mechanics and now with this as well.

Unfortunately I think the Americans are all off on for Thanksgiving holiday so it comes at a bad time.

Cue @tonyk for some scathing analysis of BM's market mechanics

Maybe adding a feature to the blockchain to prevent force settlement when there are bids above the price feed makes more sense. We have to find balance between the shorters and the users/merchants.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Akado on November 27, 2015, 07:01:06 pm
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

If so, USD and other feeds will become high

why not get individual parmeters then, one per asset?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Xeldal on November 27, 2015, 07:01:38 pm
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

exactly.  If its a feed issue, witnesses should move to making the proper adjustments.   blaming it on settlement and making radical changes to benefit an uninformed business is not the right approach.




Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 27, 2015, 07:09:55 pm
Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 
The 'loophole' is not referred to the settlement, but to the current situation on BitCNY market.

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.
No. It is due to a not accurate feed for CNY related markets. This will need a partial refactoring of the pricefeed script by xeroc. He needs time.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.
We are asking for a TEMPORARILY disable of the function, just to give enough time to xeroc (for making the changes in the script) and to bitcrab (to put up a liquidity bot).
Plus: seems that the forced settlement doesn't works as you described. Seems that it currently doesn't take the available bids below the feed.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: clayop on November 27, 2015, 07:19:43 pm
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

exactly.  If its a feed issue, witnesses should move to making the proper adjustments.   blaming it on settlement and making radical changes to benefit an uninformed business is not the right approach.
That's we are waiting for.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 27, 2015, 07:47:23 pm
While I could always add it to the GUI if that's agreed upon as a desirable solution, I don't really think that hiding the settle button for certain market conditions will change anything here. I'm sure JonnyBitcoin or someone else who wanted to exploit this kind of situation is savvy enough to use the CLI wallet, which of course lets you make settle orders and has done so since launch. It was also talked about a bit in the announcement of Graphene but I guess none of us saw the implications.

I do think the mechanics behind this are a bit strange and poorly understood, which is no surprise given the complete lack of documentation of the market mechanics in general. To me it seems very harsh on shorters that they can have their positions force called and settled at feed price even though their collateral is more than sufficient. We're already screwing shorters over with the SQP mechanics and now with this as well.

Unfortunately I think the Americans are all off on for Thanksgiving holiday so it comes at a bad time.

Cue @tonyk for some scathing analysis of BM's market mechanics

When you combine BM's idiotic design decisions [SQP - "Shorts' quality of punishment"], to the ill informed but opinioned BTS early adopters [link *], to the clueless but fast acting committee members [this OP-er]  -

You Get Bitshares.




* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20214.msg261444.html#msg261444





if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

exactly.  If its a feed issue, witnesses should move to making the proper adjustments.   blaming it on settlement and making radical changes to benefit an uninformed business is not the right approach.
+ 1
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Xeldal on November 27, 2015, 07:56:24 pm
By the way:
BTC38 BTS:CNY = .0206 - .0208
Yunbi BTS:CNY = .0205 - .0206
coinmarketcap Avg = .0207
Price Feed BTS:CNY = .0204

Price feed is off by approximately 1% 

BTS:USD avg = .00323
Pricefeed = .00319
Price feed is off by approximately 1%

What is the issue again???? 
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: svk on November 27, 2015, 08:00:30 pm
I've started adding the currently open settle orders to the GUI, there are 4 orders for CNY, 2 for USD, this is what it looks like:

CNY: BTS
(http://i.imgur.com/RL7bQ2E.png)

USD:BTS
(http://i.imgur.com/KGqmhA1.png)

Doesn't look like there are too many people "taking advantage" of this situation.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 27, 2015, 08:05:07 pm
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

exactly.  If its a feed issue, witnesses should move to making the proper adjustments.   blaming it on settlement and making radical changes to benefit an uninformed business is not the right approach.
+ 1

Why people doesn't read the whole post and the subsequent clarifications?

As already stated the witnesses need a new script to fix the issue.
The script will needs a partial refactoring on how to calculate the feed for CNY related markets.
Xeroc needs time to make this happen.


What radical changes? We are not asking to remove the settlement, nor are blaiming it as you already and wrongly stated.
We are asking to temporarily disable the function to have TIME to make the needed fix and in the meanwhile stop the "force settle" opportunists.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: abit on November 27, 2015, 08:09:16 pm
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem
Afaik Transwiser has paused operation.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: abit on November 27, 2015, 08:14:35 pm
As already stated the witnesses need a new script to fix the issue.
The script will needs a partial refactoring on how to calculate the feed for CNY related markets.
Xeroc needs time to make this happen.
My feed prices are always a bit higher than others.
Sources of the difference are:
1. I don't pull btc prices from bitcoinaverage but from btc/cny pair of yunbi/btc38.
2. I ignored other btc pairs of btc38 and yunbi

Wish this helps.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 27, 2015, 08:25:25 pm


As already stated the witnesses need a new script to fix the issue.
The script will needs a partial refactoring on how to calculate the feed for CNY related markets.
Xeroc needs time to make this happen.
My feed prices are always a bit higher than others.
Sources of the difference are:
1. I don't pull btc prices from bitcoinaverage but from btc/cny pair of yunbi/btc38.
2. I ignored other btc pairs of btc38 and yunbi

Wish this helps.

Thanks for the constructive reply.

Afaik xeroc plans to pull the prices for cny markets from btc/cny pair of Chinese exchanges (eg. yunbi, btc38, OKCoin) instead of using bitcoinaverage (still used for btc/usd), as you already do!
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Akado on November 27, 2015, 08:42:01 pm
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

exactly.  If its a feed issue, witnesses should move to making the proper adjustments.   blaming it on settlement and making radical changes to benefit an uninformed business is not the right approach.
That's we are waiting for.

Ok so I'm not technical enough to know how the fees work. But if this is right then it's witnesses fault and incompetence. Being a witness is not only about running a bot. Stuff like this should be checked daily to see if everything is fine.

Proxies monitoring witnesses what are they doing? Is this something that has been happening for a while, meaning it was witness incompetence and proxies (assuming it's their job to monitor witnesses but I guess it isnt') lack of attention or was this something that happened suddenly and no one had time to react yet?

Shouldn't witnesses take this kind of thing into account? If they are, then someone is at fault here.

And don't even come with the arguments I'm quick at pointing fingers. I'm just stating something that's obvious and really important.. This, like I said, if they didn't pay attention to their own feeds or if they could have done something to prevent this while maintaining balance within the system. .
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 27, 2015, 08:43:11 pm
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

exactly.  If its a feed issue, witnesses should move to making the proper adjustments.   blaming it on settlement and making radical changes to benefit an uninformed business is not the right approach.
+ 1

Why people doesn't read the whole post and the subsequent clarifications?

As already stated the witnesses need a new script to fix the issue.
The script will needs a partial refactoring on how to calculate the feed for CNY related markets.
Xeroc needs time to make this happen.


What radical changes? We are not asking to remove the settlement, nor are blaiming it as you already and wrongly stated.
We are asking to temporarily disable the function to have TIME to make the needed fix and in the meanwhile stop the "force settle" opportunists.

I stated something wrongly?????

What?

I have not stated that you whant to remove force sattlement.... read just what you quoted man...just read it....
as for wrong statement do you want me to quote the OP precisely where it is flat wrong and where it is misleading?


Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 27, 2015, 08:51:30 pm
I stated something wrongly?????

What?

I have not stated that you whant to remove force satelment.... read just what you quoted man...just read it....
as for wrong statement do you want me to quote the OP precisely where it is flat wrong and where it is misleading?

I was referring to what Akado and Xeldad said about "witness should move and solve this" and "blaming it on settlement"

You just ended up in the quote thing :P
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: svk on November 27, 2015, 09:03:21 pm
Visualization of settlement orders in the current CNY:BTS market:

(http://i.imgur.com/vv2mDJt.png)

I don't think this should be in by default tbh, but I'll consider enabling it via the settings for advanced users.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Xeldal on November 27, 2015, 09:06:29 pm
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

exactly.  If its a feed issue, witnesses should move to making the proper adjustments.   blaming it on settlement and making radical changes to benefit an uninformed business is not the right approach.
That's we are waiting for.

Ok so I'm not technical enough to know how the fees work. But if this is right then it's witnesses fault and incompetence. Being a witness is not only about running a bot. Stuff like this should be checked daily to see if everything is fine.

Proxies monitoring witnesses what are they doing? Is this something that has been happening for a while, meaning it was witness incompetence and proxies (assuming it's their job to monitor witnesses but I guess it isnt') lack of attention or was this something that happened suddenly and no one had time to react yet?

Shouldn't witnesses take this kind of thing into account? If they are, then someone is at fault here.

And don't even come with the arguments I'm quick at pointing fingers. I'm just stating something that's obvious and really important.. This, like I said, if they didn't pay attention to their own feeds or if they could have done something to prevent this while maintaining balance within the system. .

The real issue is not feeds, nor is it settlement.  The real issue is that a CNY gateway is not making money with their service due to not understanding the market mechanics.  There is little documentation, and a language barrier so I don't really fault anyone for that.   

It sounds like they have suspended their service for the time being, which is the right thing to do.  And is really the only thing that has to be done with this "issue"

The feeds don't appear to be off by more then 1% or so, which is acceptable.  They're certainly not the 5% that's been claimed.

I'm sure witnesses can provide more accurate numbers for the feed, but again 1% is nothing to get worked up about.   Not to mention, 1% off of what? there is no official price of BTS, that we are trying to get closer to, there are simply many market prices aggregated for a fair approximation. So you should expect some variable % difference from your calculations with whatever market of choice you use.

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 27, 2015, 09:07:39 pm
What are the expected total losses from this till the script is fixed
10 BTS? 20BTS? For this our engaged committee is ready to raise the fees?

Here is the fix btw:
replace this
Code: [Select]
for idx in range(0, len(price[base]["BTS"])) :
price["BTS"][quote].append( (float(price[base]["BTS"][idx] /ratio)))

with this... in pricefeeds.py
Code: [Select]
fixThis = 1.01

for idx in range(0, len(price[base]["BTS"])) :

     if base == 'cny' :
          price[quote]["BTS"].append( (float(price[base]["BTS"][idx]*fixThis/ratio)))
     else:
          price[quote]["BTS"].append( (float(price[base]["BTS"][idx] /ratio)))

 :P
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: fav on November 27, 2015, 09:19:17 pm
@Akado it's not a proxies job to monitor. In fact, proxy is not a job at all in this business.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Akado on November 27, 2015, 09:36:00 pm
@Akado it's not a proxies job to monitor. In fact, proxy is not a job at all in this business.

I know I only mentioned because you said you would monitor them if I'm not mistaken.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on November 28, 2015, 03:14:50 am
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.

how can you be so fucking stupid?!

I have heard the word "force settlement" at the BTS2.0 announcement, however there is no detailed doc to describe how it works, my 200k cny short position comes from 1.0.  when 2.0 firstly come, I think it a big improvement that the monthly settlement is removed, but finally I find things are even worse.

actually when the feature is in development, alt has objected it in discussion, but no one care.

considering also the increasing SQR from 1100 to 1500 issue, many shorters are robbed at a moment, why BTS team alwasy be so cruel to shorters, do you decide to drive the shorters away?

do not make money is not a problem, being margin called because of insufficient collateral is not a problem, but if any time another one can force you to sell your BTS to him in a "fair price", that is a big problem,  not only that no matter how you  refined the price feed script the feed price will always diverge from the market price now and then and provide chance to speculators,  but also this kind of settlement will make it no sense for the shorters to short.

I completely believe that BitCNY does not need such a force settlement feature, so if possible i'd like to suggest to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and disable it for BitCNY. and then you can do what you like to BitUSD.

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btswildpig on November 28, 2015, 03:21:18 am
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.


A peg without a price feed(AKA. The original idea of the BitShares whitepaper at 2013 ) was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to PTS and AGS and was a critical feature .
BitUSD and BitCNY have different value just because "it's called BitUSD or BitCNY" .
People gave millions of dollars to BM base on his word "The marker will come to a peg , no price feed was needed" .  It too was thoroughly discussed .

And so what ? It turned out the so called thoroughly discussion was based on faulty understanding of how a financial system works .
After BTS was released last year at August , The peg come online , and guess what ? It didn't work . A price feed was introduced finally .

(another side note : When we thoroughly discussed BTS2.0 , it said "all the dilution can vest for years , no fear of dilution on the market anymore .....and then when it comes to worker proposal , we finally understood "the function is there , we just don't use the option , instead , due to reality , we have to dilute to sell now ....... "" )

(Another side note : The merger was thoroughly discussed , BM must have thought all the possible outcomes . But I doubt he could have expected that BTS will become less marketcap than Doge in the market .")

So ....don't tell me about thoroughly discussed ..... We can't thoroughly discuss something that even BM and the rest of the community were no experts at it to begin with , or until the symptoms manifests .
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btswildpig on November 28, 2015, 03:54:45 am
Everything we do to hurt the stake holders and speculators to please the so-called "real user demand" was based on a white dream  . What kind of real users will use a system that haven't proven itself "too big to fail" like Bitcoin ? At this very early stage , stake holders and speculators are really taking out their money to pay for this eco-system , not the imaginary real user that will never come in the short term or long term (really , ask you aunt , your uncle , to use this system , see how they would react . Yeah ...I tried that one .  )
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Xeldal on November 28, 2015, 03:57:48 am
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.


A peg without a price feed(AKA. The original idea of the BitShares whitepaper at 2013 ) was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to PTS and AGS and was a critical feature .
BitUSD and BitCNY have different value just because "it's called BitUSD or BitCNY" .
People gave millions of dollars to BM base on his word "The marker will come to a peg , no price feed was needed" .  It too was thoroughly discussed .

And so what ? It turned out the so called thoroughly discussion was based on faulty understanding of how a financial system works .
After BTS was released last year at August , The peg come online , and guess what ? It didn't work . A price feed was introduced finally .

(another side note : When we thoroughly discussed BTS2.0 , it said "all the dilution can vest for years , no fear of dilution on the market anymore .....and then when it comes to worker proposal , we finally understood "the function is there , we just don't use the option , instead , due to reality , we have to dilute to sell now ....... "" )

(Another side note : The merger was thoroughly discussed , BM must have thought all the possible outcomes . But I doubt he could have expected that BTS will become less marketcap than Doge in the market .")

So ....don't tell me about thoroughly discussed ..... We can't thoroughly discuss something that even BM and the rest of the community were no experts at it to begin with , or until the symptoms manifests .

I understand the difficulty many people have had with all the changes.  I am one of those who has felt the severe pain of not being clear on something or not knowing some detail even exists, and I spend an extraordinary amount of time here.  I can't imagine if I were to try and keep up in a different language.  I would have given up a long time ago.   I am very frustrated with the ever new mechanics and dysfunctional history that you've described, that we've shared.   

I say 'thorough' only to distinguish that a lot was said and it was not a surprise.  It was by no mean comprehensive.  Perhaps a poor choice of words.

Working with what we have and attempting to build something that's never been done before, I feel we havn't done so bad.  You are right though.  Most involved here are not financial professionals, are not experts in exchange/market theory, and we are learning as we go and hopefully attracting those who are; I think from my perspective we are mostly losing intellectual capital, unfortunately.  I havn't seen many of those whom I considered great analytical minds around here for a long time, including yourself.  I'm hoping that these talents are still out there engaged but silent or busy. IDK

I think the market mechanics still need a lot care and examination.  I don't claim to know what the answers are. 

 
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Xeldal on November 28, 2015, 04:39:54 am
Everything we do to hurt the stake holders and speculators to please the so-called "real user demand" was based on a white dream  . What kind of real users will use a system that haven't proven itself "too big to fail" like Bitcoin ? At this very early stage , stake holders and speculators are really taking out their money to pay for this eco-system , not the imaginary real user that will never come in the short term or long term (really , ask you aunt , your uncle , to use this system , see how they would react . Yeah ...I tried that one .  )

Yes, I've tried the same.  It wasn't pleasant.

What do you think we need right now?  Surely you do not believe that settlement or SQP is the primary cause of the lack of users.  I don't think settlement has hurt anyone; if it has it is arbitrarily small.  I think the worries regarding it are overblown personally and should be fairly easily manageable.  You just have to know about them.

I don't think smartcoins are going to work until a market is built up around it.  And it may still need a lot of changes.  I think they are complicated and difficult to explain.; The fact that they are designed to trade above parity is foreign and unnatural.  But a lot of this need not be visible to a merchant or average user.  The tools on top of smartcoins might be where we get simplicity.  They will just work, and you don't need to worry about how. 

For now, I think UIAs is where the action should be.  A very reputable UIA is nearly as good as a smartcoin, and is free of all the complications and constraints. 

What happened to the private MPA3.0s that were supposed to make MPA1.0 obsolete?   I don't even remember how they were supposed to work.

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 28, 2015, 04:53:36 am
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.


A peg without a price feed(AKA. The original idea of the BitShares whitepaper at 2013 ) was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to PTS and AGS and was a critical feature .
BitUSD and BitCNY have different value just because "it's called BitUSD or BitCNY" .
People gave millions of dollars to BM base on his word "The marker will come to a peg , no price feed was needed" .  It too was thoroughly discussed .

And so what ? It turned out the so called thoroughly discussion was based on faulty understanding of how a financial system works .
After BTS was released last year at August , The peg come online , and guess what ? It didn't work . A price feed was introduced finally .

(another side note : When we thoroughly discussed BTS2.0 , it said "all the dilution can vest for years , no fear of dilution on the market anymore .....and then when it comes to worker proposal , we finally understood "the function is there , we just don't use the option , instead , due to reality , we have to dilute to sell now ....... "" )

(Another side note : The merger was thoroughly discussed , BM must have thought all the possible outcomes . But I doubt he could have expected that BTS will become less marketcap than Doge in the market .")

So ....don't tell me about thoroughly discussed ..... We can't thoroughly discuss something that even BM and the rest of the community were no experts at it to begin with , or until the symptoms manifests .

I understand the difficulty many people have had with all the changes.  I am one of those who has felt the severe pain of not being clear on something or not knowing some detail even exists, and I spend an extraordinary amount of time here.  I can't imagine if I were to try and keep up in a different language.  I would have given up a long time ago.   I am very frustrated with the ever new mechanics and dysfunctional history that you've described, that we've shared.   

I say 'thorough' only to distinguish that a lot was said and it was not a surprise.  It was by no mean comprehensive.  Perhaps a poor choice of words.

Working with what we have and attempting to build something that's never been done before, I feel we havn't done so bad.  You are right though.  Most involved here are not financial professionals, are not experts in exchange/market theory, and we are learning as we go and hopefully attracting those who are; I think from my perspective we are mostly losing intellectual capital, unfortunately.  I havn't seen many of those whom I considered great analytical minds around here for a long time, including yourself.  I'm hoping that these talents are still out there engaged but silent or busy. IDK

I think the market mechanics still need a lot care and examination.  I don't claim to know what the answers are. 

 

Well I hear at least the SQP was discussed today on mumble (place where words fly and  no one have time to think or analyze ) and with vast majority was approved as the next best thing after TITAN.[ Putting it here in writing is not possible, of course, because someone might see through its utter ridiculousness.

And while I might not be the great analytical mind you crave more of, I do intend to stop participating in the discussions here. Discussion consisting  mostly of "BM's next square wheel invention"... after he kindly asked to leave, leave him alone only with his obedient followers who do not think for themselves, analyze or criticize. [link*]



* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20194.msg260153.html#msg260153

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Empirical1.2 on November 28, 2015, 04:55:11 am
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts. 
 

If our gateways cannot maintain a tight spread, they are not useful. Transwiser isn't just one gateway for CNY out of many, it is our only CNY gateway. Their loss is our loss. We need people to be less rapped up in the theory behind how these markets should work and instead be more attentive to how these markets work in practice. As of right now Bitshares markets are dysfunctional to the point disrepair. We will collectively fail if we take this approach of "you should have known that the market works this way, its your fault and no one else's". We need to suspend this feature until we understand how to better account for it.

 +5% We have so few businesses and people supporting BitAssets. If our only CNY gateway & other CNY businesses have a problem, we have a problem.



Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Empirical1.2 on November 28, 2015, 05:17:17 am
after he kindly asked to leave, leave him alone only with his obedient followers who do not think for themselves, analyze or criticize. [link*]
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20194.msg260153.html#msg260153

Either do something to help, shut up, or leave. 

Yeah I got told the same thing before the fantastic merger. (Either shut up, help/follow the great leader or sell.)

I would never set sail on a ship commanded by its passengers.
I would never bet on a ball team coached by its fans.
I would not invest in a company directed by its shareholders.

All is swell. 
If not, sell.

 :)


Unfortunately BM genuinely thinks he is God IIRC. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,10057.msg133746.html#msg133746
I've got used to it and just try to contribute my ideas to improve BTS regardless even if it's critical/disagrees with theirs.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: logxing on November 28, 2015, 05:29:48 am
Stop using the word "Chinese Community" please!
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btswildpig on November 28, 2015, 05:31:08 am
Everything we do to hurt the stake holders and speculators to please the so-called "real user demand" was based on a white dream  . What kind of real users will use a system that haven't proven itself "too big to fail" like Bitcoin ? At this very early stage , stake holders and speculators are really taking out their money to pay for this eco-system , not the imaginary real user that will never come in the short term or long term (really , ask you aunt , your uncle , to use this system , see how they would react . Yeah ...I tried that one .  )

Yes, I've tried the same.  It wasn't pleasant.

What do you think we need right now?  Surely you do not believe that settlement or SQP is the primary cause of the lack of users.  I don't think settlement has hurt anyone; if it has it is arbitrarily small.  I think the worries regarding it are overblown personally and should be fairly easily manageable.  You just have to know about them.

I don't think smartcoins are going to work until a market is built up around it.  And it may still need a lot of changes.  I think they are complicated and difficult to explain.; The fact that they are designed to trade above parity is foreign and unnatural.  But a lot of this need not be visible to a merchant or average user.  The tools on top of smartcoins might be where we get simplicity.  They will just work, and you don't need to worry about how. 

For now, I think UIAs is where the action should be.  A very reputable UIA is nearly as good as a smartcoin, and is free of all the complications and constraints. 

What happened to the private MPA3.0s that were supposed to make MPA1.0 obsolete?   I don't even remember how they were supposed to work.


UIA is a reasonable business .

But that's only if the market cap is big enough . NXT had UIA , only small time players play that . 

All it comes down to is market cap . No marketcap , no real users , no business partners .

I doubt people and organizations would recognize bitcoin this much if its market cap is as small as BitShares .

BitShares had it all backwards . It chased away the speculators , the investors at the very early stage where it needs them the most (just like start-ups need VC instead of finding users to generate income slowly ) .

We can't get real users because the system is not big enough .
Users will not risk their money (yeah ..BTA claims no risk , just like a bank without a decent office asking people to deposit money in their bank ) for a small operation .

I used to believe the real user demand crap , until one day I realize I couldn't even ate at a restaurant below my basic comfort zone ...how could I expect other people to risk their wealth
on something that's based on speculators' liquidity (basic theory of BTA) while the speculators are being treated like they doesn't matter to the system  , only real users does .

Even at today , when the developers propose to dilute to sell on the market , they didn't even know the precious buy order is not provided by the "real user" , but the "speculators" that they think was irrelevant to the greater cause .

As a freely traded object on the market , "demand" will not increase the value or the price of Bitsharws  , because there is always supply . The supply will not decrease just because someone release a nice wallet and have good faith that this wallet is for freedom , life for all human beings .

"The relationship between Supply and Demand"(Really , why other people keep saying if we have development and features , demand increase then price will increase ?? DO they not read books at all ??????  That's not what it says in the books .    ) is what decides the price . And that law hasn't been broken , even gold, with with world wide participant , its price can not go higher at any given cycle even with increasing user demand . The only way to increase the value is if enough investment capital   to come in and balance the relationship between supply and demand over time .  That's how the real world works . Users who buys gold can't not stop Gold's price dropping , only after a period of time (cycles in history) gold's price can recover and go higher . Real user demand sounds good , but in financial market , user demand hardly matters to the price of a freely traded object .

Product and Shares are totally different concepts . BTS are shares , BitCNY are too shares in a different form (still based  on the speculative value of BYS) .
Users buy iPhones and contribute income for Apple . And investment capital (including all kinds of investment and retirement fund ) come to bet on the shares with more P/E ratio .
If Apple screws over the investment capital , no matter how many people uses iPhone , the price of Apple Stock will never recover in years .
That's why there is "customer support" and "investors relationship" department in Apple , because these two are not the same.

That's what's happening with BitShares . It thinks it can success with "real user demand" , just like they think Apple's stock price is the credit of Apple users alone , and not belong to the investment and retirement fund in the US .
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: merivercap on November 28, 2015, 06:47:39 am
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts. 
 

If our gateways cannot maintain a tight spread, they are not useful. Transwiser isn't just one gateway for CNY out of many, it is our only CNY gateway. Their loss is our loss. We need people to be less rapped up in the theory behind how these markets should work and instead be more attentive to how these markets work in practice. As of right now Bitshares markets are dysfunctional to the point disrepair. We will collectively fail if we take this approach of "you should have known that the market works this way, its your fault and no one else's". We need to suspend this feature until we understand how to better account for it.

 +5% We have so few businesses and people supporting BitAssets. If our only CNY gateway & other CNY businesses have a problem, we have a problem.

I agree we really got to be mindful of our most ardent supporters and those like Transwiser who's running a gateway on the platform.   I agree with bitcrabs sentiments and urgency. 

The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.


A peg without a price feed(AKA. The original idea of the BitShares whitepaper at 2013 ) was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to PTS and AGS and was a critical feature .
BitUSD and BitCNY have different value just because "it's called BitUSD or BitCNY" .
People gave millions of dollars to BM base on his word "The marker will come to a peg , no price feed was needed" .  It too was thoroughly discussed .

And so what ? It turned out the so called thoroughly discussion was based on faulty understanding of how a financial system works .
After BTS was released last year at August , The peg come online , and guess what ? It didn't work . A price feed was introduced finally .

(another side note : When we thoroughly discussed BTS2.0 , it said "all the dilution can vest for years , no fear of dilution on the market anymore .....and then when it comes to worker proposal , we finally understood "the function is there , we just don't use the option , instead , due to reality , we have to dilute to sell now ....... "" )

(Another side note : The merger was thoroughly discussed , BM must have thought all the possible outcomes . But I doubt he could have expected that BTS will become less marketcap than Doge in the market .")

So ....don't tell me about thoroughly discussed ..... We can't thoroughly discuss something that even BM and the rest of the community were no experts at it to begin with , or until the symptoms manifests .


I agree.  I was always against forced settlement, but it was probably more about no one really caring enough either way or not knowing exactly what the consequences would be that people just accepted it.  We have to continually discuss and improve the system... we have to learn and adapt and stay on top of how things are actually working. 
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Samupaha on November 28, 2015, 07:15:21 am
First of all, the most important rule of investing: never invest more money than you can afford to lose.

MPA-markets are still very dangerous because there are not enough documentation about market mechanics and risks. You really shouldn't invest much money in a market that you don't fully understand. What we are seeing here is what happens when people invest before they learn all the facts.

Because I haven't understood the MPA-markets well enough, I can't offer any solutions to this problem that you are now having.

But have you considered issuing your own smartcoin?

Privatized SmartCoins (https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/)

BitShares offers entrepreneurs an opportunity to create their own SmartCoins with custom parameters and price feeds.

User-issued SmartCoin managers can experiment with different parameters such as collateral requirements, price feeds, force settlement delays and forced settlement fees. They also earn the trading fees from transactions the issued asset is involved in, and therefore have a financial incentive to market and promote it on the network. The entrepreneur who can discover and market the best set of parameters can earn a significant profit. The set of parameters that can be tweaked by entrepreneurs is broad enough that SmartCoins can be used to implement a fully functional prediction market with a guaranteed global settlement at a fair price, and no forced settlement before the resolution date.

Some entrepreneurs may want to experiment with SmartCoins that always trade at exactly $1.00 rather than strictly more than $1.00. They can do this by manipulating the forced settlement fee continuously such that the average trading price stays at about $1.00. By default, BitShares prefers fees set by the market, and thus opts to let the price float above $1.00, rather than fixing the price by directly manipulating the forced settlement fee.


I haven't heard that anybody has issued a privatized smartcoin yet. Maybe this would be a good opportunity to do it? If you are not satisfied with the default-MPA that Bitshares offers, maybe it would be best to create your own?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: sudo on November 28, 2015, 07:38:09 am
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.

how can you be so fucking stupid?!

I have heard the word "force settlement" at the BTS2.0 announcement, however there is no detailed doc to describe how it works, my 200k cny short position comes from 1.0.  when 2.0 firstly come, I think it a big improvement that the monthly settlement is removed, but finally I find things are even worse.

actually when the feature is in development, alt has objected it in discussion, but no one care.

considering also the increasing SQR from 1100 to 1500 issue, many shorters are robbed at a moment, why BTS team alwasy be so cruel to shorters, do you decide to drive the shorters away?

do not make money is not a problem, being margin called because of insufficient collateral is not a problem, but if any time another one can force you to sell your BTS to him in a "fair price", that is a big problem,  not only that no matter how you  refined the price feed script the feed price will always diverge from the market price now and then and provide chance to speculators,  but also this kind of settlement will make it no sense for the shorters to short.

I completely believe that BitCNY does not need such a force settlement feature, so if possible i'd like to suggest to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and disable it for BitCNY. and then you can do what you like to BitUSD.

 +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Tuck Fheman on November 28, 2015, 07:52:44 am
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

You're doing it wrong!

#sharebits "sudo" 5 PERCENT
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btstip on November 28, 2015, 07:53:29 am
Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261601/topicseen.html#msg261601
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btswildpig on November 28, 2015, 08:01:13 am
#sharebits "btswildpig" 500000000000000000 PERCENT
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btstip on November 28, 2015, 08:01:57 am
Hey btswildpig, here are the results of your tips...
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261605/topicseen.html#msg261605
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Tuck Fheman on November 28, 2015, 08:55:19 am
#sharebits "btswildpig" 500000000000000000 PERCENT

#sharebits "btswildpig" 1 FISTBUMP
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btstip on November 28, 2015, 08:56:14 am
Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261613/topicseen.html#msg261613
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: wallace on November 28, 2015, 09:15:05 am
Everything we do to hurt the stake holders and speculators to please the so-called "real user demand" was based on a white dream  . What kind of real users will use a system that haven't proven itself "too big to fail" like Bitcoin ? At this very early stage , stake holders and speculators are really taking out their money to pay for this eco-system , not the imaginary real user that will never come in the short term or long term (really , ask you aunt , your uncle , to use this system , see how they would react . Yeah ...I tried that one .  )

Yes, I've tried the same.  It wasn't pleasant.

What do you think we need right now?  Surely you do not believe that settlement or SQP is the primary cause of the lack of users.  I don't think settlement has hurt anyone; if it has it is arbitrarily small.  I think the worries regarding it are overblown personally and should be fairly easily manageable.  You just have to know about them.

I don't think smartcoins are going to work until a market is built up around it.  And it may still need a lot of changes.  I think they are complicated and difficult to explain.; The fact that they are designed to trade above parity is foreign and unnatural.  But a lot of this need not be visible to a merchant or average user.  The tools on top of smartcoins might be where we get simplicity.  They will just work, and you don't need to worry about how. 

For now, I think UIAs is where the action should be.  A very reputable UIA is nearly as good as a smartcoin, and is free of all the complications and constraints. 

What happened to the private MPA3.0s that were supposed to make MPA1.0 obsolete?   I don't even remember how they were supposed to work.


UIA is a reasonable business .

But that's only if the market cap is big enough . NXT had UIA , only small time players play that . 

All it comes down to is market cap . No marketcap , no real users , no business partners .

I doubt people and organizations would recognize bitcoin this much if its market cap is as small as BitShares .

BitShares had it all backwards . It chased away the speculators , the investors at the very early stage where it needs them the most (just like start-ups need VC instead of finding users to generate income slowly ) .

We can't get real users because the system is not big enough .
Users will not risk their money (yeah ..BTA claims no risk , just like a bank without a decent office asking people to deposit money in their bank ) for a small operation .

I used to believe the real user demand crap , until one day I realize I couldn't even ate at a restaurant below my basic comfort zone ...how could I expect other people to risk their wealth
on something that's based on speculators' liquidity (basic theory of BTA) while the speculators are being treated like they doesn't matter to the system  , only real users does .

Even at today , when the developers propose to dilute to sell on the market , they didn't even know the precious buy order is not provided by the "real user" , but the "speculators" that they think was irrelevant to the greater cause .

As a freely traded object on the market , "demand" will not increase the value or the price of Bitsharws  , because there is always supply . The supply will not decrease just because someone release a nice wallet and have good faith that this wallet is for freedom , life for all human beings .

"The relationship between Supply and Demand"(Really , why other people keep saying if we have development and features , demand increase then price will increase ?? DO they not read books at all ??????  That's not what it says in the books .    ) is what decides the price . And that law hasn't been broken , even gold, with with world wide participant , its price can not go higher at any given cycle even with increasing user demand . The only way to increase the value is if enough investment capital   to come in and balance the relationship between supply and demand over time .  That's how the real world works . Users who buys gold can't not stop Gold's price dropping , only after a period of time (cycles in history) gold's price can recover and go higher . Real user demand sounds good , but in financial market , user demand hardly matters to the price of a freely traded object .

Product and Shares are totally different concepts . BTS are shares , BitCNY are too shares in a different form (still based  on the speculative value of BYS) .
Users buy iPhones and contribute income for Apple . And investment capital (including all kinds of investment and retirement fund ) come to bet on the shares with more P/E ratio .
If Apple screws over the investment capital , no matter how many people uses iPhone , the price of Apple Stock will never recover in years .
That's why there is "customer support" and "investors relationship" department in Apple , because these two are not the same.

That's what's happening with BitShares . It thinks it can success with "real user demand" , just like they think Apple's stock price is the credit of Apple users alone , and not belong to the investment and retirement fund in the US .

 +5% +5% +5%
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: sudo on November 28, 2015, 10:44:13 am
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.


A peg without a price feed(AKA. The original idea of the BitShares whitepaper at 2013 ) was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to PTS and AGS and was a critical feature .
BitUSD and BitCNY have different value just because "it's called BitUSD or BitCNY" .
People gave millions of dollars to BM base on his word "The marker will come to a peg , no price feed was needed" .  It too was thoroughly discussed .

And so what ? It turned out the so called thoroughly discussion was based on faulty understanding of how a financial system works .
After BTS was released last year at August , The peg come online , and guess what ? It didn't work . A price feed was introduced finally .

(another side note : When we thoroughly discussed BTS2.0 , it said "all the dilution can vest for years , no fear of dilution on the market anymore .....and then when it comes to worker proposal , we finally understood "the function is there , we just don't use the option , instead , due to reality , we have to dilute to sell now ....... "" )

(Another side note : The merger was thoroughly discussed , BM must have thought all the possible outcomes . But I doubt he could have expected that BTS will become less marketcap than Doge in the market .")

So ....don't tell me about thoroughly discussed ..... We can't thoroughly discuss something that even BM and the rest of the community were no experts at it to begin with , or until the symptoms manifests .

 +5% +5% +5%
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on November 28, 2015, 12:43:25 pm

I completely believe that BitCNY does not need such a force settlement feature, so if possible i'd like to suggest to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and disable it for BitCNY. and then you can do what you like to BitUSD.


if the force settlement go public, BitCNY will be more expensive than 1 CNY, and there will be much uncertainty in BitCNY market, transwiser is not necessary to expose itself to these unnecessary risks. transwiser may stop its BitCNY business and  issue its private CNY and act as gateway accordingly.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: pc on November 28, 2015, 02:20:02 pm
Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

+1

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.
+1 +1

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Tuck Fheman on November 28, 2015, 03:39:16 pm
+1 +1

You're doing it wrong!

sharebits "pc" 5 PERCENT
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Empirical1.2 on November 28, 2015, 04:05:31 pm
+1 +1

You're doing it wrong!

sharebits "pc" 5 PERCENT

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it  :)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: 38PTSWarrior on November 28, 2015, 04:16:30 pm
+1 +1

You're doing it wrong!

sharebits "pc" 5 PERCENT

#sharebits "Tuck Fheman" 1 FISTBUMP
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btstip on November 28, 2015, 04:17:33 pm
Hey 38PTSWarrior, here are the results of your tips...
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261663/topicseen.html#msg261663
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Tuck Fheman on November 28, 2015, 04:24:08 pm
+1 +1

You're doing it wrong!

sharebits "pc" 5 PERCENT

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it  :)

That's definitely not your wallet talking.  :P

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Tuck Fheman on November 28, 2015, 04:31:13 pm
+5% +5% +5%

Proper format ...

#sharebits "wallace" 5 PERCENT

repeat as necessary. ;)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btstip on November 28, 2015, 04:32:28 pm
Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...
Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!
Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261667/topicseen.html#msg261667
Created by hybridd (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40140)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: sittingduck on November 28, 2015, 05:04:54 pm
Privatize the smart coin.  Tanswire can have complete control of all Params
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: abit on November 28, 2015, 05:36:28 pm
Privatize the smart coin.  Tanswire can have complete control of all Params
BitCNY is listed on Poloniex. But how about a private-coin?
All about trust.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 28, 2015, 05:43:39 pm
Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

+1

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.
+1 +1

Just FYI

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 
The 'loophole' is not referred to the settlement, but to the current situation on BitCNY market.

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.
No. It is due to a not accurate feed for CNY related markets. This will need a partial refactoring of the pricefeed script by xeroc. He needs time.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.
We are asking for a TEMPORARILY disable of the function, just to give enough time to xeroc (for making the changes in the script) and to bitcrab (to put up a liquidity bot).
Plus: seems that the forced settlement doesn't works as you described. Seems that it currently doesn't take the available bids below the feed.


"Current" as in the moment of writing.

Right now Transwiser stop his business, so the situation on CNY is probably different. Still, this doesn't mean that it could not happen again.

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Xeldal on November 28, 2015, 06:18:04 pm
I guess I'll repeat myself again here in red.  Just FYI.


Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 
The 'loophole' is not referred to the settlement, but to the current situation on BitCNY market.
"loophole" implies a method to circumvent the intended operation.  The described scenario is exactly how it is supposed to work.  So not a loophole
Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.
No. It is due to a not accurate feed for CNY related markets. This will need a partial refactoring of the pricefeed script by xeroc. He needs time.

As I've already described and shown, the feeds are accurate to about 1%.  I've not seen any evidence to the contrary. In addition the feed is a representation of a best approximation of fair.  There is no official price to be within some percent.  Every market is different.  Any enhancement to the feed scripts is welcomed and I support that effort.  But this is not even close to the emergency its being made out to be.
There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.
We are asking for a TEMPORARILY disable of the function, just to give enough time to xeroc (for making the changes in the script) and to bitcrab (to put up a liquidity bot).
Plus: seems that the forced settlement doesn't works as you described. Seems that it currently doesn't take the available bids below the feed.

disabling transwiser is the proper action to take.  Not disabling properly functioning bitshares features to suit transwiser.  I'm aware that settlement may not pull from the bids first.  I already acknowleged this.  This is also not a problem, as its actually an opportunity for the settled short to replace his short order with an instant profit due to an ignorant decision made by the one who used settlement instead of selling to the higher bid. 

"Current" as in the moment of writing.

Right now Transwiser stop his business, so the situation on CNY is probably different. Still, this doesn't mean that it could not happen again.

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on November 28, 2015, 06:21:40 pm
Dear community,

I have reviewed this thread to come up with a decision whether to vote for proposal 1.10.18 or not. I have counted

Code: [Select]
JohnnyBitcoin - reject
clayop - support
Xeldal - reject
clout - support
tonyk - reject
bitcrab - support
btswildpig - support
Empirical1.2 - support
merivercap - support
sudo - support
wallace - support
pc - reject

4 reject, 8 support

I have voted for this proposal.

Best regards
mindphlux
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: merivercap on November 28, 2015, 06:30:45 pm

I completely believe that BitCNY does not need such a force settlement feature, so if possible i'd like to suggest to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and disable it for BitCNY. and then you can do what you like to BitUSD.


if the force settlement go public, BitCNY will be more expensive than 1 CNY, and there will be much uncertainty in BitCNY market, transwiser is not necessary to expose itself to these unnecessary risks. transwiser may stop its BitCNY business and  issue its private CNY and act as gateway accordingly.

Privatize the smart coin.  Tanswire can have complete control of all Params

Privatize the smart coin.  Tanswire can have complete control of all Params
BitCNY is listed on Poloniex. But how about a private-coin?
All about trust.

@bitcrab I've asked about Privatized bitAssets and would have done it to create a design that 1)removed forced settlement and 2) relied more on  the feed price (or setting SQP to 1000).. this was a couple months ago.  However I realized that would expose us to more regulatory risk because we would have control instead of the committee.  We would be acting as custodians and that would require millions in compliance.  I think privatized bitAssets are better for bigger institutions. 

Another option I thought about is to create another public bitCNY, called let's say bitCNY-with-a-better-design-and-liquidity,   via worker proposal and under committee control.  That way we can test out two different designs ... I think the original will die off, but we probably need to find a way to bridge between the two and subsidize transfer differences.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: merivercap on November 28, 2015, 06:31:14 pm
Dear community,

I have reviewed this thread to come up with a decision whether to vote for proposal 1.10.18 or not. I have counted

Code: [Select]
JohnnyBitcoin - reject
clayop - support
Xeldal - reject
clout - support
tonyk - reject
bitcrab - support
btswildpig - support
Empirical1.2 - support
merivercap - support
sudo - support
wallace - support
pc - reject

4 reject, 8 support

I have voted for this proposal.

Best regards
mindphlux

Thanks @mindphlux !
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 28, 2015, 06:37:52 pm
@Xeldal

You actually showed the feed several hours after the committee was informed of the situation.

Your post is from yesterday at 20:00 ish UTC
The committee was informed and checked the feed on 8/9 am of the same day.

At that time the feed was 0.204 while in yunbi there was a price of 0.210, +3%
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Xeldal on November 28, 2015, 07:27:30 pm
@Xeldal

You actually showed the feed several hours after the committee was informed of the situation.

Your post is from yesterday at 20:00 ish UTC
The committee was informed and checked the feed on 8/9 am of the same day.

At that time the feed was 0.204 while in yunbi there was a price of 0.210, +3%
Correct, though this does not support your argument.  The 3% figure was immediately after a 3% - 5% move in the price of BTS.  It takes at least an hour for every witness to report their version of the price.  Short term discrepancies in the price like this are not an issue.  It takes 24 hours for settlement which is plenty of time for witnesses to report accurate numbers.

Dear community,

I have reviewed this thread to come up with a decision whether to vote for proposal 1.10.18 or not. I have counted

Code: [Select]
JohnnyBitcoin - reject
clayop - support
Xeldal - reject
clout - support
tonyk - reject
bitcrab - support
btswildpig - support
Empirical1.2 - support
merivercap - support
sudo - support
wallace - support
pc - reject

4 reject, 8 support

I have voted for this proposal.

Best regards
mindphlux

Lol, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that what you're saying is you know how to count.  That the details are not important so long as more people express 1 opinion vs another.   

What a great representative we have here, a mind we can count on to critically evaluate the information.  /s

I apologize if your analysis went further than simple addition, but it was not expressed if it did. 
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on November 28, 2015, 07:39:27 pm
@Xeldal

I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting me, it is inappropriate. I am trying to stay neutral to this topic.

I was elected by the shareholders and I'm supposed to act in their best interest, that is why this thread was created. Not many people commented, but the majority of the people that commented here were in favor of the compromise presented here.

Why don't you campaign to be a committee member so we can have you as a critical voice in our internal discussions? Seriously, please do it, I'd like to have you there.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 28, 2015, 07:51:38 pm
Why don't you campaign to be a committee member so we can have you as a critical voice in our internal discussions? Seriously, please do it, I'd like to have you there.

@Xeldal

I would vote for you, and I am sure that many others would too.

Please consider to propose yourself as a committee member and in this way help, whit your knowledge, the whole community.
(The committee members are part of the community ofc, so to help the community you should help us in making discussions and decisions with your POV)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Samupaha on November 28, 2015, 07:57:33 pm
@Xeldal

I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting me, it is inappropriate. I am trying to stay neutral to this topic.

I was elected by the shareholders and I'm supposed to act in their best interest, that is why this thread was created. Not many people commented, but the majority of the people that commented here were in favor of the compromise presented here.

If you really are going to act in best interest of shareholders, you should form your own opinions on the matter. There have been good and bad arguments and you should only count the good ones and base your decision on them.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Xeldal on November 28, 2015, 08:04:50 pm
@Xeldal

I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting me, it is inappropriate. I am trying to stay neutral to this topic.

I was elected by the shareholders and I'm supposed to act in their best interest, that is why this thread was created. Not many people commented, but the majority of the people that commented here were in favor of the compromise presented here.

Why don't you campaign to be a committee member so we can have you as a critical voice in our internal discussions? Seriously, please do it, I'd like to have you there.

I don't mean to insult you if you are actually analyzing the information.  It would be a great insult to everyone involved here if you see your job as simply counting opinions, or making decisions base on popularity.  That is the insult.  A committee members job is not to give the people what they vote for or what they want.  A committee member is elected for their knowledge of the system, their principles, their ability to discern complex topics and make informed rational decisions.  A committee member must be willing to make tough and *unpopular decisions because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because, "that's what the people want".  Popular opinion will almost *always be the wrong thing to do.  Most people do not have a clue about economics, markets, trading, business, public psychology etc.  If you go with the popular vote we will be lost and bankrupt in no time.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on November 28, 2015, 08:34:27 pm
@Xeldal

I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting me, it is inappropriate. I am trying to stay neutral to this topic.

I was elected by the shareholders and I'm supposed to act in their best interest, that is why this thread was created. Not many people commented, but the majority of the people that commented here were in favor of the compromise presented here.

Why don't you campaign to be a committee member so we can have you as a critical voice in our internal discussions? Seriously, please do it, I'd like to have you there.

I don't mean to insult you if you are actually analyzing the information.  It would be a great insult to everyone involved here if you see your job as simply counting opinions, or making decisions base on popularity.  That is the insult.  A committee members job is not to give the people what they vote for or what they want.  A committee member is elected for their knowledge of the system, their principles, their ability to discern complex topics and make informed rational decisions.  A committee member must be willing to make tough and *unpopular decisions because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because, "that's what the people want".  Popular opinion will almost *always be the wrong thing to do.  Most people do not have a clue about economics, markets, trading, business, public psychology etc.  If you go with the popular vote we will be lost and bankrupt in no time.

I have spent hours in the internal committee discussion coming up with a compromise that could be presented to the community. Personally I'm against this, but I also see the need to temporarily stop the bleeding while the presented modifications can be made so it cannot be exploited any longer - even though force settlement was designed like this and it's very important that we have a price floor. As long as there are buy orders above the price feed, there's no incentive to use the settlement function, and this is the general sentiment of the compromise:

Stop the bleeding while a bot can be written written that provides liquidity above the price feed so there's no incentive to use the settlement function under normal circumstances. Also adjust the CNY pricefeeds by including more chinese exchanges so the gap is tighter.

There are some people doing arbitrage on purpose, and there's one company loosing money because of this. This is hurting us as a whole.

Again - please join us in the committee, I think your opinions and knowledge would be great in the future.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Xeldal on November 28, 2015, 08:57:21 pm

I have spent hours in the internal committee discussion coming up with a compromise that could be presented to the community. Personally I'm against this, but I also see the need to temporarily stop the bleeding while the presented modifications can be made so it cannot be exploited any longer - even though force settlement was designed like this and it's very important that we have a price floor. As long as there are buy orders above the price feed, there's no incentive to use the settlement function, and this is the general sentiment of the compromise:

Stop the bleeding while a bot can be written written that provides liquidity above the price feed so there's no incentive to use the settlement function under normal circumstances. Also adjust the CNY pricefeeds by including more chinese exchanges so the gap is tighter.

There are some people doing arbitrage on purpose, and there's one company loosing money because of this. This is hurting us as a whole.

Again - please join us in the committee, I think your opinions and knowledge would be great in the future.

Arbitrage is a healthy function of every market.  Nothing should be done to discourage or prevent it. 

Breaking the chain that's causing the bleed is simple to do.  The service that's bleeding simply needs to "turn off" and correct their business plan.  Which it sounds like this has already been done.  No further action from bitshares is required.

The issues we're discussing have little to nothing to do with bitshares not functioning properly, it is wholely because of an outside service not accounting for existing features. 

I don't believe the settlement feature has amounted to any appreciable losses.  They are insignificant as far as I can tell.  And again it is not because of the settlement that there are losses, if any.  The responsibility rest completely on the outside service provider understanding the market they are using and supporting. 

Shutting down features and services to satisfy outside mismanagement is a terrible precedent to set. 

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: merivercap on November 28, 2015, 10:17:36 pm
@Xeldal

I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting me, it is inappropriate. I am trying to stay neutral to this topic.

I was elected by the shareholders and I'm supposed to act in their best interest, that is why this thread was created. Not many people commented, but the majority of the people that commented here were in favor of the compromise presented here.

If you really are going to act in best interest of shareholders, you should form your own opinions on the matter. There have been good and bad arguments and you should only count the good ones and base your decision on them.

@Xeldal

I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting me, it is inappropriate. I am trying to stay neutral to this topic.

I was elected by the shareholders and I'm supposed to act in their best interest, that is why this thread was created. Not many people commented, but the majority of the people that commented here were in favor of the compromise presented here.

Why don't you campaign to be a committee member so we can have you as a critical voice in our internal discussions? Seriously, please do it, I'd like to have you there.

I don't mean to insult you if you are actually analyzing the information.  It would be a great insult to everyone involved here if you see your job as simply counting opinions, or making decisions base on popularity.  That is the insult.  A committee members job is not to give the people what they vote for or what they want.  A committee member is elected for their knowledge of the system, their principles, their ability to discern complex topics and make informed rational decisions.  A committee member must be willing to make tough and *unpopular decisions because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because, "that's what the people want".  Popular opinion will almost *always be the wrong thing to do.  Most people do not have a clue about economics, markets, trading, business, public psychology etc.  If you go with the popular vote we will be lost and bankrupt in no time.

I agree that committee members have discretion and should evaluate decisions based on their judgement of merit.  I encourage mindphlux to continue to refine the decision making process.  However I think what mindphlux did by evaluating the opinions of those that actually had the desire to post on this thread is fine as a fall back option and it's not like he polled the entire community.   It's sometimes better to admit we're not experts especially on complicated subjects and find other ways to make decisions. 

We have to be careful of thinking any of us are experts and that this current design is somehow sacrosanct.  We're conducting an experiment and we should be mindful of people who are actually using the system and proactively inform people of the rules, risks and any major GUI feature updates even if a feature was always in the CLI and 'people should know about it'....   I probably know more about the system than most and I'm building a business on the platform and I don't even want to trade on it right now.  Are you guys trading on it?  If there's so few who even understand the system and so few opinions on the matter, what makes you all so confident that it's that robust? 

I do agree in the long run we cannot be too rash with decision making because there needs to be time for people to weigh in and have discussions.  Hence I think it's appropriate that the OP requested a temporary disablement of the feature.  Also at this time frankly with such a small group of people interested and using the platform we should give more benefit of the doubt and defer to bitcrab/Transwiser who are the ones that are actually using the features to run a real business.   

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: fav on November 28, 2015, 10:43:45 pm

I have spent hours in the internal committee discussion coming up with a compromise that could be presented to the community. Personally I'm against this, but I also see the need to temporarily stop the bleeding while the presented modifications can be made so it cannot be exploited any longer - even though force settlement was designed like this and it's very important that we have a price floor. As long as there are buy orders above the price feed, there's no incentive to use the settlement function, and this is the general sentiment of the compromise:

Stop the bleeding while a bot can be written written that provides liquidity above the price feed so there's no incentive to use the settlement function under normal circumstances. Also adjust the CNY pricefeeds by including more chinese exchanges so the gap is tighter.

There are some people doing arbitrage on purpose, and there's one company loosing money because of this. This is hurting us as a whole.

Again - please join us in the committee, I think your opinions and knowledge would be great in the future.

Arbitrage is a healthy function of every market.  Nothing should be done to discourage or prevent it. 

Breaking the chain that's causing the bleed is simple to do.  The service that's bleeding simply needs to "turn off" and correct their business plan.  Which it sounds like this has already been done.  No further action from bitshares is required.

The issues we're discussing have little to nothing to do with bitshares not functioning properly, it is wholely because of an outside service not accounting for existing features. 

I don't believe the settlement feature has amounted to any appreciable losses.  They are insignificant as far as I can tell.  And again it is not because of the settlement that there are losses, if any.  The responsibility rest completely on the outside service provider understanding the market they are using and supporting. 

Shutting down features and services to satisfy outside mismanagement is a terrible precedent to set.

Which leads to the question whether we build bitshares around  business or businesses around bitshares
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Moon on November 29, 2015, 12:48:14 am
aha,nice, +5%
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Akado on November 29, 2015, 01:08:27 am

Which leads to the question whether we build bitshares around  business or businesses around bitshares

Obviously businesses are built around BitShares, however that's only theoretical. In practice as we can see now, since we are... underdeveloped, we need to be flexible for the first businesses that use BitShares, otherwise we won't take off. Later on when we're big enough and self sustainable, we might do that.


But even then we might face the same problem countries face now, what if a business is just too big to be ignored? Then stuff like banks bail outs will happen. Of course this should all be under the community's voting decisions so it only happens if we want, but still I guess we should keep an open mind.

I've always been adept of the fact business should adapt to BitShares, they definitely should but at this point in time if we can show some flexibility that will pay off in the future I'm all for it, we are still too young. If this includes loosing the few support we have left from the Chinese, things will even get worse.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on November 29, 2015, 04:29:29 am
@bitcrab I've asked about Privatized bitAssets and would have done it to create a design that 1)removed forced settlement and 2) relied more on  the feed price (or setting SQP to 1000).. this was a couple months ago.  However I realized that would expose us to more regulatory risk because we would have control instead of the committee.  We would be acting as custodians and that would require millions in compliance.  I think privatized bitAssets are better for bigger institutions. 

Another option I thought about is to create another public bitCNY, called let's say bitCNY-with-a-better-design-and-liquidity,   via worker proposal and under committee control.  That way we can test out two different designs ... I think the original will die off, but we probably need to find a way to bridge between the two and subsidize transfer differences.

actually I prefer to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and committee can decide to which asset the feature will apply, then for example we can enable this feature for BitUSD and disable it for BitCNY,  by doing so we can also compare the behavior of these 2 MPAs to analyse what force settlement bring to the market and decide further.

if this is not possible, seems I'd best to issue a privatized smartcoin, although a privatized smartcoin may be not easily accepted by the ecosystem.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: merivercap on November 29, 2015, 04:44:33 am
@bitcrab I've asked about Privatized bitAssets and would have done it to create a design that 1)removed forced settlement and 2) relied more on  the feed price (or setting SQP to 1000).. this was a couple months ago.  However I realized that would expose us to more regulatory risk because we would have control instead of the committee.  We would be acting as custodians and that would require millions in compliance.  I think privatized bitAssets are better for bigger institutions. 

Another option I thought about is to create another public bitCNY, called let's say bitCNY-with-a-better-design-and-liquidity,   via worker proposal and under committee control.  That way we can test out two different designs ... I think the original will die off, but we probably need to find a way to bridge between the two and subsidize transfer differences.

actually I prefer to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and committee can decide to which asset the feature will apply, then for example we can enable this feature for BitUSD and disable it for BitCNY,  by doing so we can also compare the behavior of these 2 MPAs to analyse what force settlement bring to the market and decide further.

if this is not possible, seems I'd best to issue a privatized smartcoin, although a privatized smartcoin may be not easily accepted by the ecosystem.

Why don't we enable it for bitCNY and disable it for bitUSD to learn?   :P  Right now the only way to test forced settlement is with bitCNY because there are more buyers than sellers in the bitCNY market.  It couldn't even be tested here because there aren't enough bitUSD buyers. 
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on November 29, 2015, 04:59:54 am
@bitcrab I've asked about Privatized bitAssets and would have done it to create a design that 1)removed forced settlement and 2) relied more on  the feed price (or setting SQP to 1000).. this was a couple months ago.  However I realized that would expose us to more regulatory risk because we would have control instead of the committee.  We would be acting as custodians and that would require millions in compliance.  I think privatized bitAssets are better for bigger institutions. 

Another option I thought about is to create another public bitCNY, called let's say bitCNY-with-a-better-design-and-liquidity,   via worker proposal and under committee control.  That way we can test out two different designs ... I think the original will die off, but we probably need to find a way to bridge between the two and subsidize transfer differences.

actually I prefer to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and committee can decide to which asset the feature will apply, then for example we can enable this feature for BitUSD and disable it for BitCNY,  by doing so we can also compare the behavior of these 2 MPAs to analyse what force settlement bring to the market and decide further.

if this is not possible, seems I'd best to issue a privatized smartcoin, although a privatized smartcoin may be not easily accepted by the ecosystem.

Why don't we enable it for bitCNY and disable it for bitUSD to learn?   :P  Right now the only way to test forced settlement is with bitCNY because there are more buyers than sellers in the bitCNY market.  It couldn't even be tested here because there aren't enough bitUSD buyers.

force settlement is designed to convince the merchant to accept MPA, mainly in US, in China there's no such problem, in China merchant has little chance to use BitCNY, because internet payment such as alipay are too developed and too powerful.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: merivercap on November 29, 2015, 05:32:14 am
@bitcrab I've asked about Privatized bitAssets and would have done it to create a design that 1)removed forced settlement and 2) relied more on  the feed price (or setting SQP to 1000).. this was a couple months ago.  However I realized that would expose us to more regulatory risk because we would have control instead of the committee.  We would be acting as custodians and that would require millions in compliance.  I think privatized bitAssets are better for bigger institutions. 

Another option I thought about is to create another public bitCNY, called let's say bitCNY-with-a-better-design-and-liquidity,   via worker proposal and under committee control.  That way we can test out two different designs ... I think the original will die off, but we probably need to find a way to bridge between the two and subsidize transfer differences.

actually I prefer to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and committee can decide to which asset the feature will apply, then for example we can enable this feature for BitUSD and disable it for BitCNY,  by doing so we can also compare the behavior of these 2 MPAs to analyse what force settlement bring to the market and decide further.

if this is not possible, seems I'd best to issue a privatized smartcoin, although a privatized smartcoin may be not easily accepted by the ecosystem.

Why don't we enable it for bitCNY and disable it for bitUSD to learn?   :P  Right now the only way to test forced settlement is with bitCNY because there are more buyers than sellers in the bitCNY market.  It couldn't even be tested here because there aren't enough bitUSD buyers.

force settlement is designed to convince the merchant to accept MPA, mainly in US, in China there's no such problem, in China merchant has little chance to use BitCNY, because internet payment such as alipay are too developed and too powerful.
Ok.
I personally prefer not to have forced settlement because I think it's unnecessary even though we're going after merchants, but other people and businesses in the community may want it so I'll let them push for it.  I would rather experiment first without it.   Then again I might just find a way to use forced settlement to make money first... tough thing is it might just wipe out the few remaining shorts there are in the system.  We'll see.

BTW your gateway always has been pretty good at exchanging 1CNY for one bitCNY... I remember it was just one or two percent off all the time.. how do you run your gateway business with the spreads so low?   Do you just let others buy and sell to each other as a temporary custodian and when you need extra bitCNY you just create it and purchase it yourself?  Just curious.  Thx.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on November 29, 2015, 06:10:42 am
Ok.
I personally prefer not to have forced settlement because I think it's unnecessary even though we're going after merchants, but other people and businesses in the community may want it so I'll let them push for it.  I would rather experiment first without it.   Then again I might just find a way to use forced settlement to make money first... tough thing is it might just wipe out the few remaining shorts there are in the system.  We'll see.

BTW your gateway always has been pretty good at exchanging 1CNY for one bitCNY... I remember it was just one or two percent off all the time.. how do you run your gateway business with the spreads so low?   Do you just let others buy and sell to each other as a temporary custodian and when you need extra bitCNY you just create it and purchase it yourself?  Just curious.  Thx.

to disable it globally is also ok for me.

yes, that's what will happen, speculators, not merchants are most interested in the force settlement feature, shorters will be robbed, they shorted in 1.0 when they judge BTS is underestimated, but now they are not able to hold their collateral with sufficient collateral ratio, but will be forced to sell the collateral in such a the current low price, isn't it ridiculous?

transwiser provide redeem service for BTC38 and charge 0.3% for fee, in my view, a MPA showed be pegged perfectly and then the market will adopt it, I cannot imagine if BitCNY today worth 1.05 CNY tomorrow worth 1.1CNY, it really has price floor, but who would like to use it? based on this view, I normally keep the BitCNY price in transwiser at 1+-0.5%。and users are more convinced that BitCNY are pegged well.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on November 29, 2015, 07:18:56 am
A committee members job is not to give the people what they vote for or what they want.  A committee member is elected for their knowledge of the system, their principles, their ability to discern complex topics and make informed rational decisions.  A committee member must be willing to make tough and *unpopular decisions because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because, "that's what the people want".  Popular opinion will almost *always be the wrong thing to do.  Most people do not have a clue about economics, markets, trading, business, public psychology etc.  If you go with the popular vote we will be lost and bankrupt in no time.

 +5%

The only pressure the committee should feel right now is to make sure they are considering the next course of action carefully to be the right one.. not the popular one.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: BTSdac on November 29, 2015, 07:29:14 am
the root reason is
use cny buy bts on exchange , people cannot buy a big amount of BTS at a same price , because the process of buy would make price increase
but use bitcny force settle bts can settle his all bitcny to BTS at settle price.
 actually in the world , there is no bank , can convert all cny.   it mean if all people withdraw all their cny from bank ,  this bank must close, and in reality never all people want to withdraw their cny at same time, so bank just need to 10-20% cny stored in center bank to case withdraw,
So to solve this problem ,there are two direction
1.limit total force settle percentage
2.reduce radio of force settle .
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on November 29, 2015, 10:07:25 am
Dear community,

The proposal 1.10.18 has passed last night, the force settlement feature has been disabled by setting a high fee. The following issue on github has been created:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues/560

The frontend team and xeroc have been informed about this issue and have been kindly asked to recognize the importance of the subject. There is the alternative idea to make a change in the backend to buy from the open bids first before resorting to shorts, I'll see if I can have a discussion with @bytemaster regarding this.

A proposal to turn on back the feature is scheduled for Wednesday, December 9th. Hopefully we'll have a liquidity bot next week for the CNY market, and the needed adjustments in the price feed and frontend/backend.

Thank you

Best regards
mindphlux
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: JonnyB on November 29, 2015, 12:29:36 pm
This is bullshit.

Last night large bitCNY holders held and asset that was pegged to CNY.

This morning their bitCNY is not really pegged to anything and subsequently worth a lot less.

Does the bitshares community want to create a stable trustworthy alternative to bank money or not?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 29, 2015, 02:32:36 pm
Dear community,

A proposal to turn on back the feature is scheduled for Wednesday, December 9th. Hopefully we'll have a liquidity bot next week for the CNY market, and the needed adjustments in the price feed and frontend/backend.

Thank you

Best regards
mindphlux

Good luck with turning the feature back on! For starters, bitcrap [yes crap for what he fed you with the last proposal] will claim that the new feed price do NOT follow close enough the 'real price', and will NOT vote for reversal until this is achieved... the precision needed will be 10^-7 to satisfy him.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: jakub on November 29, 2015, 03:00:03 pm
Dear community,

The proposal 1.10.18 has passed last night, the force settlement feature has been disabled by setting a high fee. The following issue on github has been created:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues/560

The frontend team and xeroc have been informed about this issue and have been kindly asked to recognize the importance of the subject. There is the alternative idea to make a change in the backend to buy from the open bids first before resorting to shorts, I'll see if I can have a discussion with @bytemaster regarding this.

A proposal to turn on back the feature is scheduled for Wednesday, December 9th. Hopefully we'll have a liquidity bot next week for the CNY market, and the needed adjustments in the price feed and frontend/backend.

Thank you

Best regards
mindphlux

So we are changing the rules because someone running business around BitShares was ignorant about those rules.
The only excuse that can be offered is lack of proper documentation for BitShares 2.0 - @bytemaster
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: fav on November 29, 2015, 03:33:08 pm
Dear community,

The proposal 1.10.18 has passed last night, the force settlement feature has been disabled by setting a high fee. The following issue on github has been created:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues/560

The frontend team and xeroc have been informed about this issue and have been kindly asked to recognize the importance of the subject. There is the alternative idea to make a change in the backend to buy from the open bids first before resorting to shorts, I'll see if I can have a discussion with @bytemaster regarding this.

A proposal to turn on back the feature is scheduled for Wednesday, December 9th. Hopefully we'll have a liquidity bot next week for the CNY market, and the needed adjustments in the price feed and frontend/backend.

Thank you

Best regards
mindphlux

So we are changing the rules because someone running business around BitShares was ignorant about those rules.
The only excuse that can be offered is lack of proper documentation for BitShares 2.0 - @bytemaster

on top of that, no one lost a single cent prior to the rule change if I understand this correctly. I think it's time to re-evaluate my committee votes sooner rather than later
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on November 29, 2015, 03:56:39 pm
no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Akado on November 29, 2015, 04:00:01 pm
no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

The problem is whether those bad things happen because of BitShares' system rules or simply because someone did not use the right business model. that's the question here.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 29, 2015, 04:02:21 pm
no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

Yes, I know these are the people I try to protect from your crap! The one that bought bitCNY thinking they can sell at the peg by force settlement and now only can do it for 35% loss....only so you can keep your unrealistic promises, while not losing a dime.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on November 29, 2015, 04:08:00 pm
no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

The problem is whether those bad things happen because of BitShares' system rules or simply because someone did not use the right business model. that's the question here.

right, to locate the reason need much communication and discuss, in this case I think to disable the force settle  temporarily is a correct choice.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on November 29, 2015, 04:10:48 pm
no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

Yes, I know these are the people I try to protect from your crap! The one that bought bitCNY thinking they can sell at the peg by force settlement and now only can do it for 35% loss....only so you can keep your unrealistic promises, while not losing a dime.

why 35% loss? who? tell me,  with snapshots at best.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 29, 2015, 04:18:41 pm
no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

Yes, I know these are the people I try to protect from your crap! The one that bought bitCNY thinking they can sell at the peg by force settlement and now only can do it for 35% loss....only so you can keep your unrealistic promises, while not losing a dime.

why 35% loss? who? tell me,  with snapshots at best.

sure... Trying to sell 3000-5000 CNY


(http://i.imgur.com/KSLWfxx.png)


for any somewhat amount worth talking (1000CNY?) buy at 35 sell at 55... 57% spread
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: clayop on November 29, 2015, 04:22:18 pm
no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

Yes, I know these are the people I try to protect from your crap! The one that bought bitCNY thinking they can sell at the peg by force settlement and now only can do it for 35% loss....only so you can keep your unrealistic promises, while not losing a dime.

why 35% loss? who? tell me,  with snapshots at best.

sure... Trying to sell 3000-5000 CNY


(http://i.imgur.com/KSLWfxx.png)


for any somewhat amount worth talking (1000CNY?) buy at 35 sell at 55
Lol
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on November 29, 2015, 04:30:04 pm
no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

Yes, I know these are the people I try to protect from your crap! The one that bought bitCNY thinking they can sell at the peg by force settlement and now only can do it for 35% loss....only so you can keep your unrealistic promises, while not losing a dime.

why 35% loss? who? tell me,  with snapshots at best.

sure... Trying to sell 3000-5000 CNY


(http://i.imgur.com/KSLWfxx.png)

market has no good depth, so you can not sell all these CNY out at a good price, but what's the problem?
suppose I have 1M BTS, I also cannot sell out at a good price , does that mean BTS is overvalued at the feed price?

why BitCNY  need to be selled all out and then can be proved to have value?
there's gateway, you can redeem BitCNY.

it's ridiculous to rob BTS from shorters just to settle the BitCNY!

 




Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: cube on November 29, 2015, 04:46:36 pm
So we are changing the rules because someone running business around BitShares was ignorant about those rules.
The only excuse that can be offered is lack of proper documentation for BitShares 2.0 - @bytemaster

I thank the community for contributing valuable feedback.  However, I think the on-going debate has distracted the community from the objective of the proposal, which is:

A temporary suspension (estimated about a week or so) of the settle function to fix the following:

1) The current price feed script does not take into consideration of CNY fiat prices from China mainly established websites eg OKCoin. Feed price for CNY is lower than the actual figure and this causes an artifical arbitrage opportunity. The author of the scipt, xeroc will be making a fix to the price feed script available soon. abit's idea may help in getting the fix up sooner.

2) A bot is needed to be created to provide bitCNY buy order positions such that the bid are higher or equal to the 'corrected' feed price. bitcrab needs to provide the fund and technical skill to create this bot.

3) Provide a frontend fix with displaying "settlement" button only when there are buy orders available above the price feed.   Svk is working on the fix.

It is important to fix the flaw in the bitshares system now because:

1) Our major partner and only bitCNY<-> CNY provider Transwiser will suffer losses and may be forced to cease this service.  Stopping this crucial service is against the interest of the Bitshares DAC.

2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.


Outside the scope of this proposal
==========================
There are some forum users who are debating for and against a permanent disabling of the settle function.  While they may be useful, the debate/discussion is outside the scope of the proposal. Please open a new thread to voice and discuss the issue.

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 29, 2015, 04:51:18 pm
So we are changing the rules because someone running business around BitShares was ignorant about those rules.
The only excuse that can be offered is lack of proper documentation for BitShares 2.0 - @bytemaster

I thank the community for contributing valuable feedback.  However, I think the on-going debate has distracted the community from the objective of the proposal, which is:

A temporary suspension (estimated about a week or so) to fix the following:

1) The current price feed script does not take into consideration of CNY fiat prices from China mainly established websites eg OKCoin. Feed price for CNY is lower than the actual figure and this causes an artifical arbitrage opportunity. The author of the scipt, xeroc will be making a fix to the price feed script available soon. abit's idea may help in getting the fix up sooner.

2) A bot is needed to be created to provide bitCNY buy order positions such that the bid are higher or equal to the 'corrected' feed price. bitcrab needs to provide the fund and technical skill to create this bot.

3) Provide a frontend fix with displaying "settlement" button only when there are buy orders available above the price feed.   Svk is working on the fix.

It is important to fix the flaw in the bitshares system now because:

1) Our major partner and only bitCNY<-> CNY provider Transwiser will suffer losses and may be forced to cease this service.  Stopping this crucial service is against the interest of the Bitshares DAC.

2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.


Sure...in the meantime while this temporally measures are going on... can transwise put a say 20,000 CNY buy bitCNY order at what they consider "market price"?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Akado on November 29, 2015, 04:58:27 pm
2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.[/b]


Some members are against this specifically because they can't exploit  :)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Empirical1.2 on November 29, 2015, 05:07:42 pm
2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.[/b]


Some members are against this specifically because they can't exploit  :)

Yes I think a few members were looking to force settle and now they've lost out with this result.

While some members are against force settle partly because they weren't prepared for it.

So it's hard to tell how bad/good it is because there's so much bias. It seems that with a few tweaks it could still end up being a good feature.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btswildpig on November 29, 2015, 05:12:26 pm
So we are changing the rules because someone running business around BitShares was ignorant about those rules.
The only excuse that can be offered is lack of proper documentation for BitShares 2.0 - @bytemaster

I thank the community for contributing valuable feedback.  However, I think the on-going debate has distracted the community from the objective of the proposal, which is:

A temporary suspension (estimated about a week or so) to fix the following:

1) The current price feed script does not take into consideration of CNY fiat prices from China mainly established websites eg OKCoin. Feed price for CNY is lower than the actual figure and this causes an artifical arbitrage opportunity. The author of the scipt, xeroc will be making a fix to the price feed script available soon. abit's idea may help in getting the fix up sooner.

2) A bot is needed to be created to provide bitCNY buy order positions such that the bid are higher or equal to the 'corrected' feed price. bitcrab needs to provide the fund and technical skill to create this bot.

3) Provide a frontend fix with displaying "settlement" button only when there are buy orders available above the price feed.   Svk is working on the fix.

It is important to fix the flaw in the bitshares system now because:

1) Our major partner and only bitCNY<-> CNY provider Transwiser will suffer losses and may be forced to cease this service.  Stopping this crucial service is against the interest of the Bitshares DAC.

2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.


Sure...in the meantime while this temporally measures are going on... can transwise put a say 20,000 CNY buy bitCNY order at what they consider "market price"?

You can deposit 50,000 BitCNY to BTC38 per day  (10,000 max per transaction , so you'll need 2 transactions to get 20,000 CNY in BTC38 .  )
Then you can do whatever you want with the 20,000 CNY balance in your BTC38 account, buy BTS, buy BTC ....
The service is also backed by transwiser .
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: JonnyB on November 29, 2015, 05:15:33 pm
2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.[/b]


Some members are against this specifically because they can't exploit  :)

exploit what flaw?

if a market participant can see a way to profit they should do as it makes for a more efficient marketfor everyone.

arbitraging lowers spreads!
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 29, 2015, 05:16:00 pm
So we are changing the rules because someone running business around BitShares was ignorant about those rules.
The only excuse that can be offered is lack of proper documentation for BitShares 2.0 - @bytemaster

I thank the community for contributing valuable feedback.  However, I think the on-going debate has distracted the community from the objective of the proposal, which is:

A temporary suspension (estimated about a week or so) to fix the following:

1) The current price feed script does not take into consideration of CNY fiat prices from China mainly established websites eg OKCoin. Feed price for CNY is lower than the actual figure and this causes an artifical arbitrage opportunity. The author of the scipt, xeroc will be making a fix to the price feed script available soon. abit's idea may help in getting the fix up sooner.

2) A bot is needed to be created to provide bitCNY buy order positions such that the bid are higher or equal to the 'corrected' feed price. bitcrab needs to provide the fund and technical skill to create this bot.

3) Provide a frontend fix with displaying "settlement" button only when there are buy orders available above the price feed.   Svk is working on the fix.

It is important to fix the flaw in the bitshares system now because:

1) Our major partner and only bitCNY<-> CNY provider Transwiser will suffer losses and may be forced to cease this service.  Stopping this crucial service is against the interest of the Bitshares DAC.

2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.


Sure...in the meantime while this temporally measures are going on... can transwise put a say 20,000 CNY buy bitCNY order at what they consider "market price"?

You can deposit 50,000 BitCNY to BTC38 per day  (10,000 max per transaction , so you'll need 2 transactions to get 20,000 CNY in BTC38 .  )
Then you can do whatever you want with the 20,000 CNY balance in your BTC38 account, buy BTS, buy BTC ....

btc38 have not opened this feature for the non Chinese customers (last check 12h ago)

edit: yep..not activated yet!
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Akado on November 29, 2015, 05:17:44 pm
2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.[/b]


Some members are against this specifically because they can't exploit  :)

exploit what flaw?

if a market participant can see a way to profit they should do as it makes for a more efficient marketfor everyone.

arbitraging lowers spreads!

Now that's up to each individual to realize. If there's actually one or if there isn't.

If making a profit in certain circumstances is at the cost of others or at the cost of BitShares reputation  :)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: clayop on November 29, 2015, 05:20:02 pm
So we are changing the rules because someone running business around BitShares was ignorant about those rules.
The only excuse that can be offered is lack of proper documentation for BitShares 2.0 - @bytemaster

I thank the community for contributing valuable feedback.  However, I think the on-going debate has distracted the community from the objective of the proposal, which is:

A temporary suspension (estimated about a week or so) to fix the following:

1) The current price feed script does not take into consideration of CNY fiat prices from China mainly established websites eg OKCoin. Feed price for CNY is lower than the actual figure and this causes an artifical arbitrage opportunity. The author of the scipt, xeroc will be making a fix to the price feed script available soon. abit's idea may help in getting the fix up sooner.

2) A bot is needed to be created to provide bitCNY buy order positions such that the bid are higher or equal to the 'corrected' feed price. bitcrab needs to provide the fund and technical skill to create this bot.

3) Provide a frontend fix with displaying "settlement" button only when there are buy orders available above the price feed.   Svk is working on the fix.

It is important to fix the flaw in the bitshares system now because:

1) Our major partner and only bitCNY<-> CNY provider Transwiser will suffer losses and may be forced to cease this service.  Stopping this crucial service is against the interest of the Bitshares DAC.

2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.


Sure...in the meantime while this temporally measures are going on... can transwise put a say 20,000 CNY buy bitCNY order at what they consider "market price"?

You can deposit 50,000 BitCNY to BTC38 per day  (10,000 max per transaction , so you'll need 2 transactions to get 20,000 CNY in BTC38 .  )
Then you can do whatever you want with the 20,000 CNY balance in your BTC38 account, buy BTS, buy BTC ....

btc38 have not opened this feature for the non Chinese customers (last check 12h ago)

edit: yep..not activated yet!

Use Chinese page and google translation. I think you're smart enough to do it.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Xeldal on November 29, 2015, 05:21:22 pm
Seriously, vote these clowns out of committee immediately.  This is embarrassing.


1) The current price feed script does not take into consideration of CNY fiat prices from China mainly established websites eg OKCoin. Feed price for CNY is lower than the actual figure and this causes an artifical arbitrage opportunity. The author of the scipt, xeroc will be making a fix to the price feed script available soon. abit's idea may help in getting the fix up sooner.
The price feed can always use advancement.  It is not broken, and provides a feed generally within about 1%.  This is no cause for alarm.

2) A bot is needed to be created to provide bitCNY buy order positions such that the bid are higher or equal to the 'corrected' feed price. bitcrab needs to provide the fund and technical skill to create this bot.
This has nothing to do with bitshares function, and should be taken up by those interested.  Not by disabling features through the committee.  This is abuse of power.

3) Provide a frontend fix with displaying "settlement" button only when there are buy orders available above the price feed.   Svk is working on the fix.

not necessary, as anyone using the settlement in this case is giving away free money to the shorts, that can immediately replace their position, using the available bids.  But fine, whatever, doesn't make much difference.   


It is important to fix the flaw in the bitshares system now because:

1) Our major partner and only bitCNY<-> CNY provider Transwiser will suffer losses and may be forced to cease this service.  Stopping this crucial service is against the interest of the Bitshares DAC.
Not a flaw.  The flaw is in transwisers service and if they want to remain solvent they should probably fix it.

2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.[/b]
Again, not a flaw.  And if there is any exploitation, it is of transwisers poor business strategy.  It has nothing to do with bitshares. 


Sure...in the meantime while this temporally measures are going on... can transwise put a say 20,000 CNY buy bitCNY order at what they consider "market price"?


Good point Tonyk.  There are many who own bitCNY and now suddenly they have lost the guarantee of a fair price with settlement, due to too many clowns in committee.   
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: clayop on November 29, 2015, 05:26:48 pm
2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.[/b]


Some members are against this specifically because they can't exploit  :)

exploit what flaw?

if a market participant can see a way to profit they should do as it makes for a more efficient marketfor everyone.

arbitraging lowers spreads!

IIRC, Bitcrab explained the process, when feed price is below the real price (for example, feed price is 0.02, and real price is 0.021)

1) Buy 1000 bitCNY via Transwiser, costing 1003 CNY
2) Settle 1000 bitCNY at 0.02 CNY/BTS . Get 50000 BTS
3) Sell 50000 BTS at 0.021 CNY/BTS. Get 1050 CNY. 4.7% profit.
4) Repeat
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btswildpig on November 29, 2015, 05:29:30 pm
Seriously, vote these clowns out of committee immediately.  This is embarrassing.


1) The current price feed script does not take into consideration of CNY fiat prices from China mainly established websites eg OKCoin. Feed price for CNY is lower than the actual figure and this causes an artifical arbitrage opportunity. The author of the scipt, xeroc will be making a fix to the price feed script available soon. abit's idea may help in getting the fix up sooner.
The price feed can always use advancement.  It is not broken, and provides a feed generally within about 1%.  This is no cause for alarm.

2) A bot is needed to be created to provide bitCNY buy order positions such that the bid are higher or equal to the 'corrected' feed price. bitcrab needs to provide the fund and technical skill to create this bot.
This has nothing to do with bitshares function, and should be taken up by those interested.  Not by disabling features through the committee.  This is abuse of power.

3) Provide a frontend fix with displaying "settlement" button only when there are buy orders available above the price feed.   Svk is working on the fix.

not necessary, as anyone using the settlement in this case is giving away free money to the shorts, that can immediately replace their position, using the available bids.  But fine, whatever, doesn't make much difference.   


It is important to fix the flaw in the bitshares system now because:

1) Our major partner and only bitCNY<-> CNY provider Transwiser will suffer losses and may be forced to cease this service.  Stopping this crucial service is against the interest of the Bitshares DAC.
Not a flaw.  The flaw is in transwisers service and if they want to remain solvent they should probably fix it.

2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.[/b]
Again, not a flaw.  And if there is any exploitation, it is of transwisers poor business strategy.  It has nothing to do with bitshares. 


Sure...in the meantime while this temporally measures are going on... can transwise put a say 20,000 CNY buy bitCNY order at what they consider "market price"?


Good point Tonyk.  There are many who own bitCNY and now suddenly they have lost the guarantee of a fair price with settlement, due to too many clowns in committee.

Actually , BitCNY holders can get a fair price anytime now at BTC38 .
I suspect BTC38 forget to update their English version page , the Chinese version page already says "it accepts no more than 50,000 BitCNY deposit every day directly turn into CNY balance on a 1:1 ratio  ."

It's a more fair price than what you would get in the DEX because the DEX would never give you 1:1 price considering you actually need to sell your BTS at a unfair spread to get the fiat value you need .

So maybe now you can understand how transwiser is providing a peg that merchants would actually use  , unlike the status with BitUSD .

Last time I check , no exchanges accepts BitUSD as deposit , most of them only provides a market place to trade with .
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btswildpig on November 29, 2015, 05:31:11 pm
So we are changing the rules because someone running business around BitShares was ignorant about those rules.
The only excuse that can be offered is lack of proper documentation for BitShares 2.0 - @bytemaster

I thank the community for contributing valuable feedback.  However, I think the on-going debate has distracted the community from the objective of the proposal, which is:

A temporary suspension (estimated about a week or so) to fix the following:

1) The current price feed script does not take into consideration of CNY fiat prices from China mainly established websites eg OKCoin. Feed price for CNY is lower than the actual figure and this causes an artifical arbitrage opportunity. The author of the scipt, xeroc will be making a fix to the price feed script available soon. abit's idea may help in getting the fix up sooner.

2) A bot is needed to be created to provide bitCNY buy order positions such that the bid are higher or equal to the 'corrected' feed price. bitcrab needs to provide the fund and technical skill to create this bot.

3) Provide a frontend fix with displaying "settlement" button only when there are buy orders available above the price feed.   Svk is working on the fix.

It is important to fix the flaw in the bitshares system now because:

1) Our major partner and only bitCNY<-> CNY provider Transwiser will suffer losses and may be forced to cease this service.  Stopping this crucial service is against the interest of the Bitshares DAC.

2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.


Sure...in the meantime while this temporally measures are going on... can transwise put a say 20,000 CNY buy bitCNY order at what they consider "market price"?

You can deposit 50,000 BitCNY to BTC38 per day  (10,000 max per transaction , so you'll need 2 transactions to get 20,000 CNY in BTC38 .  )
Then you can do whatever you want with the 20,000 CNY balance in your BTC38 account, buy BTS, buy BTC ....

btc38 have not opened this feature for the non Chinese customers (last check 12h ago)

edit: yep..not activated yet!

Use Chinese page and google translation. I think you're smart enough to do it.

I suspect BTC38 didn't update  the hint on their English Page . I've informed them . 
So you have tested that using google translation , foreign users can do this too ?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: cube on November 29, 2015, 05:32:03 pm
Seriously, vote these clowns out of committee immediately.  This is embarrassing.

Whether the committee is a clown or you are putting yourself up as a clown is up to the bitshares' shareholders and community to decide.  I am confident the bitshares community at large (and except a few bitshares flaws exploiters who are failing in their attempts and are really really upset about it) is clear and supportive of the work the committee members are doing now.

The price feed can always use advancement.  It is not broken, and provides a feed generally within about 1%.  This is no cause for alarm.

The xeroc's price feed does not take CNY-price source from any of the China established sites such as OKCoin.  xeroc is working on fixing this. 

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: clayop on November 29, 2015, 05:40:19 pm
I suspect BTC38 didn't update  the hint on their English Page . I've informed them . 
So you have tested that using google translation , foreign users can do this too ?

Not that good.... Having English page would be much better.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Samupaha on November 29, 2015, 05:40:58 pm
It is important to fix the flaw in the bitshares system now because:

1) Our major partner and only bitCNY<-> CNY provider Transwiser will suffer losses and may be forced to cease this service.  Stopping this crucial service is against the interest of the Bitshares DAC.

2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.


This seems an awful lot like the traditional finance business. Big banks do irresponsible business, get in trouble and government has to save them because they are too big to fail.

I would rather see that Bitshares treated every business with same rules, whether they are small or big – no privileges to anybody. In the long run that is the best strategy because it is the only way to make sure that our blockchain is mostly used by competent businesses. More we have businesses with working business plans, more we get users and revenue. Bailing out incompetent businesses is not a good way to use our scarce resources.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Akado on November 29, 2015, 05:46:23 pm
It is important to fix the flaw in the bitshares system now because:

1) Our major partner and only bitCNY<-> CNY provider Transwiser will suffer losses and may be forced to cease this service.  Stopping this crucial service is against the interest of the Bitshares DAC.

2) Stopping the opportunist users to exploit the flaws in the bitshares system and gain at the expense of our major partner.  If we allow the opportunistic exploits to happen, words will spread.  Other potential business partners will lose confidence and trust in doing business with the Bishares DAC. This is certainly against Bitshares's interest.


This seems an awful lot like the traditional finance business. Big banks do irresponsible business, get in trouble and government has to save them because they are too big to fail.

I would rather see that Bitshares treated every business with same rules, whether they are small or big – no privileges to anybody. In the long run that is the best strategy because it is the only way to make sure that our blockchain is mostly used by competent businesses. More we have businesses with working business plans, more we get users and revenue. Bailing out incompetent businesses is not a good way to use our scarce resources.

I mentioned this too. Thing is at the moment we are too small not to give this businesses some flexibility. I'm not defending either options as I'm not yet comfortable enough to take a side. But atm BitShares is dependent on these businesses. This situation can have a strong effect on BitShares and it must be taken into consideration


Could someone tell me what happened with the committee member? One single member changed this? Who was it and how did it happen? Was it because he had too many votes?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Xeldal on November 29, 2015, 05:54:12 pm
Actually , BitCNY holders can get a fair price anytime now at BTC38 .
I suspect BTC38 forget to update their English version page , the Chinese version page already says "it accepts no more than 50,000 BitCNY deposit every day directly turn into CNY balance on a 1:1 ratio  ."

It's a more fair price than what you would get in the DEX because the DEX would never give you 1:1 price considering you actually need to sell your BTS at a unfair spread to get the fiat value you need .

So maybe now you can understand how transwiser is providing a peg that merchants would actually use  , unlike the status with BitUSD .

Last time I check , no exchanges accepts BitUSD as deposit , most of them only provides a market place to trade with .

Thats good.  I'm glad to see it.  Does BTC38 also convert 1:1 CNY to bitCNY?  I bet not, and if they do, probably not for very long.

That should be profitable for BTC38 as bitCNY should always trade above par and they can make the difference.  Depending on the bitCNY=>BTS=>CNY conversion and liquidity as you mentioned.

I'd like to see some bitUSD=>USD 1:1 services , that's an easy trade for near guaranteed profits.  I've considered doing this myself on a very small scale but I don't want to mess with US regulation I don't fully understand. 

It would make more sense for an exchange to do it.  Perhaps we'll see this at CCEDK soon.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btswildpig on November 29, 2015, 05:55:52 pm
I suspect BTC38 didn't update  the hint on their English Page . I've informed them . 
So you have tested that using google translation , foreign users can do this too ?

Not that good.... Having English page would be much better.

Translation :
将BITCNY转入到 btc38-cny-kuos-72722并在备注MEMO中填写 您的时代ID
即可完成充值,系统将在1分钟左右为您入账。
转账时,请核对钱包向您展示的头像和左侧图片一致,以免充错地址
Deposit your BItCNY to  btc38-cny-kuos-72722 and put your BTC38 ID as memo  (same operation when you deposit BTS, only different address ) .Your account will be credited within 1 minute . (Note, sometimes more than 1 minute ,depend on btc38)  .
http://www.btc38.com/trade/cnypay.html  please check this site yourself to get the correct deposit address , don't believe me or anyone else who post deposit address on the forum !!

单笔最多充值1万BITCNY,每天累计充值不超过5万BITCNY,超过部分将无法到账。
The system can handle no more than 50,000 BitCNY per day , with 10,000 BitCNY limit on each transaction . If your deposit exceeds the daily limit , the part that exceeds the limit will not be credited .

You guys can test it with small amount first .
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Samupaha on November 29, 2015, 05:57:00 pm
This seems an awful lot like the traditional finance business. Big banks do irresponsible business, get in trouble and government has to save them because they are too big to fail.

I would rather see that Bitshares treated every business with same rules, whether they are small or big – no privileges to anybody. In the long run that is the best strategy because it is the only way to make sure that our blockchain is mostly used by competent businesses. More we have businesses with working business plans, more we get users and revenue. Bailing out incompetent businesses is not a good way to use our scarce resources.

I mentioned this too. Thing is at the moment we are too small not to give this businesses some flexibility. I'm not defending either options as I'm not yet comfortable enough to take a side. But atm BitShares is dependent on these businesses. This situation can have a strong effect on BitShares and it must be taken into consideration

Yes, this can be forgiven once, we are still so small that nobody cares. But when we start to grow this kind of action cannot happen again. All businesses have to be sure that we are not bailing out any bad businesses at the expence of others. Otherwise good businesses don't want to use our blockchain and we'll have only the bad ones.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btswildpig on November 29, 2015, 05:58:31 pm
Actually , BitCNY holders can get a fair price anytime now at BTC38 .
I suspect BTC38 forget to update their English version page , the Chinese version page already says "it accepts no more than 50,000 BitCNY deposit every day directly turn into CNY balance on a 1:1 ratio  ."

It's a more fair price than what you would get in the DEX because the DEX would never give you 1:1 price considering you actually need to sell your BTS at a unfair spread to get the fiat value you need .

So maybe now you can understand how transwiser is providing a peg that merchants would actually use  , unlike the status with BitUSD .

Last time I check , no exchanges accepts BitUSD as deposit , most of them only provides a market place to trade with .

Thats good.  I'm glad to see it.  Does BTC38 also convert 1:1 CNY to bitCNY?  I bet not, and if they do, probably not for very long.

That should be profitable for BTC38 as bitCNY should always trade above par and they can make the difference.  Depending on the bitCNY=>BTS=>CNY conversion and liquidity as you mentioned.

I'd like to see some bitUSD=>USD 1:1 services , that's an easy trade for near guaranteed profits.  I've considered doing this myself on a very small scale but I don't want to mess with US regulation I don't fully understand. 

It would make more sense for an exchange to do it.  Perhaps we'll see this at CCEDK soon.

They sell all their BitCNY to transwiser 1:1  .
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 29, 2015, 06:00:24 pm
Seriously, vote these clowns out of committee immediately.  This is embarrassing.

Whether the committee is a clown or you are putting yourself up as a clown is up to the bitshares' shareholders and community to decide.  I am confident the bitshares community at large (and except a few bitshares flaws exploiters who are failing in their attempts and are really really upset about it) is clear and supportive of the work the committee members are doing now.

The price feed can always use advancement.  It is not broken, and provides a feed generally within about 1%.  This is no cause for alarm.

The xeroc's price feed does not take CNY-price source from any of the China established sites such as OKCoin.  xeroc is working on fixing this.

I hope you do not include me in this wide accusation of yours! I do not posses enough bitCNY to even pay the  former 200 BTS fees for force settlement  and I find myself being one of the most aggravated with the ruthlessness of what is going on around here. Committee manipulations for personal gains, committee member voting based on number of posts on this forum instead of thinking for a second and so on. Just ridiculous.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Akado on November 29, 2015, 06:01:36 pm
This seems an awful lot like the traditional finance business. Big banks do irresponsible business, get in trouble and government has to save them because they are too big to fail.

I would rather see that Bitshares treated every business with same rules, whether they are small or big – no privileges to anybody. In the long run that is the best strategy because it is the only way to make sure that our blockchain is mostly used by competent businesses. More we have businesses with working business plans, more we get users and revenue. Bailing out incompetent businesses is not a good way to use our scarce resources.

I mentioned this too. Thing is at the moment we are too small not to give this businesses some flexibility. I'm not defending either options as I'm not yet comfortable enough to take a side. But atm BitShares is dependent on these businesses. This situation can have a strong effect on BitShares and it must be taken into consideration

Yes, this can be forgiven once, we are still so small that nobody cares. But when we start to grow this kind of action cannot happen again. All businesses have to be sure that we are not bailing out any bad businesses at the expence of others. Otherwise good businesses don't want to use our blockchain and we'll have only the bad ones.

Yes but different circumstances require different measures. At that time we will be big enough to stand on our own without depending on a single business.. or so I hope. At the moment we depend on other businesses to grow so it's not like we can just ignore them. We need then whether we like it or not
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: wallace on November 29, 2015, 06:02:33 pm
Actually , BitCNY holders can get a fair price anytime now at BTC38 .
I suspect BTC38 forget to update their English version page , the Chinese version page already says "it accepts no more than 50,000 BitCNY deposit every day directly turn into CNY balance on a 1:1 ratio  ."

It's a more fair price than what you would get in the DEX because the DEX would never give you 1:1 price considering you actually need to sell your BTS at a unfair spread to get the fiat value you need .

So maybe now you can understand how transwiser is providing a peg that merchants would actually use  , unlike the status with BitUSD .

Last time I check , no exchanges accepts BitUSD as deposit , most of them only provides a market place to trade with .

Thats good.  I'm glad to see it.  Does BTC38 also convert 1:1 CNY to bitCNY?  I bet not, and if they do, probably not for very long.

That should be profitable for BTC38 as bitCNY should always trade above par and they can make the difference.  Depending on the bitCNY=>BTS=>CNY conversion and liquidity as you mentioned.

I'd like to see some bitUSD=>USD 1:1 services , that's an easy trade for near guaranteed profits.  I've considered doing this myself on a very small scale but I don't want to mess with US regulation I don't fully understand. 

It would make more sense for an exchange to do it.  Perhaps we'll see this at CCEDK soon.

They sell all their BitCNY to transwiser 1:1  .

The Bitcny deposited to BTC38 is the same CNY which deposited to BTC38 from bank, so yes it's obviously 1:1, and this business model have been running for a long time.

this is the reason why bitcny have a lot of users in China and most of them not even have a BTS account.

BTS need this kind of real business model, not a talking business model.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btswildpig on November 29, 2015, 06:07:10 pm
This seems an awful lot like the traditional finance business. Big banks do irresponsible business, get in trouble and government has to save them because they are too big to fail.

I would rather see that Bitshares treated every business with same rules, whether they are small or big – no privileges to anybody. In the long run that is the best strategy because it is the only way to make sure that our blockchain is mostly used by competent businesses. More we have businesses with working business plans, more we get users and revenue. Bailing out incompetent businesses is not a good way to use our scarce resources.

I mentioned this too. Thing is at the moment we are too small not to give this businesses some flexibility. I'm not defending either options as I'm not yet comfortable enough to take a side. But atm BitShares is dependent on these businesses. This situation can have a strong effect on BitShares and it must be taken into consideration

Yes, this can be forgiven once, we are still so small that nobody cares. But when we start to grow this kind of action cannot happen again. All businesses have to be sure that we are not bailing out any bad businesses at the expence of others. Otherwise good businesses don't want to use our blockchain and we'll have only the bad ones.

Lol . Transwiser is the only legitimate proof that BitCNY is actually worth 1 CNY .
Without this kind of "bad business" to take risk to ensure a fine peg , no matter how you paint , no merchant in the world would use a crypto token that's suppose to be backed by another crypto token and they need to change their BTA to this weird looking token in order to get their fiat value . Telling them that their BTA is backed by this weird looking token but no one is willing to put up fiat 1:1 at anytime to buy it and they can only get their fiat value by selling this weird looking token on another exchange ...

Yeah , imagine that . tell your friends about this amazing price stable token , see how they react . 
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: JonnyB on November 29, 2015, 06:24:40 pm
This seems an awful lot like the traditional finance business. Big banks do irresponsible business, get in trouble and government has to save them because they are too big to fail.

I would rather see that Bitshares treated every business with same rules, whether they are small or big – no privileges to anybody. In the long run that is the best strategy because it is the only way to make sure that our blockchain is mostly used by competent businesses. More we have businesses with working business plans, more we get users and revenue. Bailing out incompetent businesses is not a good way to use our scarce resources.

I mentioned this too. Thing is at the moment we are too small not to give this businesses some flexibility. I'm not defending either options as I'm not yet comfortable enough to take a side. But atm BitShares is dependent on these businesses. This situation can have a strong effect on BitShares and it must be taken into consideration

Yes, this can be forgiven once, we are still so small that nobody cares. But when we start to grow this kind of action cannot happen again. All businesses have to be sure that we are not bailing out any bad businesses at the expence of others. Otherwise good businesses don't want to use our blockchain and we'll have only the bad ones.

Lol . Transwiser is the only legitimate proof that BitCNY is actually worth 1 CNY .
Without this kind of "bad business" to take risk to ensure a fine peg , no matter how you paint , no merchant in the world would use a crypto token that's suppose to be backed by another crypto token and they need to change their BTA to this weird looking token in order to get their fiat value . Telling them that their BTA is backed by this weird looking token but no one is willing to put up fiat 1:1 at anytime to buy it and they can only get their fiat value by selling this weird looking token on another exchange ...

Yeah , imagine that . tell your friends about this amazing price stable token , see how they react .

The only legitimate proof needed to demonstrate that 1 BitCNY is worth 1 CNY is the forced settlement feature at parity.
1 CNY is probably gonna be worth about 0.95 bitCNY but that is up to the market to decide not transwiser.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: merivercap on November 29, 2015, 07:13:00 pm
Ok.
I personally prefer not to have forced settlement because I think it's unnecessary even though we're going after merchants, but other people and businesses in the community may want it so I'll let them push for it.  I would rather experiment first without it.   Then again I might just find a way to use forced settlement to make money first... tough thing is it might just wipe out the few remaining shorts there are in the system.  We'll see.

BTW your gateway always has been pretty good at exchanging 1CNY for one bitCNY... I remember it was just one or two percent off all the time.. how do you run your gateway business with the spreads so low?   Do you just let others buy and sell to each other as a temporary custodian and when you need extra bitCNY you just create it and purchase it yourself?  Just curious.  Thx.

to disable it globally is also ok for me.

yes, that's what will happen, speculators, not merchants are most interested in the force settlement feature, shorters will be robbed, they shorted in 1.0 when they judge BTS is underestimated, but now they are not able to hold their collateral with sufficient collateral ratio, but will be forced to sell the collateral in such a the current low price, isn't it ridiculous?

transwiser provide redeem service for BTC38 and charge 0.3% for fee, in my view, a MPA showed be pegged perfectly and then the market will adopt it, I cannot imagine if BitCNY today worth 1.05 CNY tomorrow worth 1.1CNY, it really has price floor, but who would like to use it? based on this view, I normally keep the BitCNY price in transwiser at 1+-0.5%。and users are more convinced that BitCNY are pegged well.

Sounds good.  Yeah I agree.
Thanks for the info.  Good to know more about how your business works.  I also think users everywhere will be more convinced that bitAssets are pegged well at  1+-0.5%.  It's confusing and unbalanced any other way. 
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on November 29, 2015, 07:55:52 pm
Just for Shmits and giggles.. WWBD? (What would @bytemaster do)

I have yet to be voted in as a committee member... I'm getting a strong sense that there is more evangelizing the action, and less analysis... I have no idea what kind of consultation is being done or what advisors are being sought so they can work with some balanced data.

Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

It doesn't matter how big or small we are, if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?

Every committee decision should be thinking 5 moves ahead with what result it will produce, instead of reacting with what is right in front of their noses.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on November 29, 2015, 08:22:26 pm
Well said, BunkerChain. I'd like to welcome you on the committee so please vote for BunkerChain Labs

:)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: pc on November 29, 2015, 08:44:37 pm
Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

It doesn't matter how big or small we are, if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?

Every committee decision should be thinking 5 moves ahead with what result it will produce, instead of reacting with what is right in front of their noses.

+1

I would indeed expect a lot more thinking (and possibly less action) from committee members than what we've seen here.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: cube on November 30, 2015, 03:32:55 am
Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

Which part of the proposal you are not convinced? 

Is it fixing the price feed flaw which does not take CNY-price source from China websites?
Is it stopping the bitshares flaw exploiters?
Is it saving our major partner and the only CNY-fiat provider Transwiser from the flaw exploiters?  Should Bitshares let Transwiser die instead?

It doesn't matter how big or small we are, if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?


It is easy to become an armchair critic. Let's become one for the fun of it.

Statisic, no doubt, can help in the analysis of the proposal.  Can you please help the comittee count the following?

1) How many business partners do Bitshares have, right now?
2) How many Bitshares business partners dare to take the regulatory and financial risks and put in capital to provide for fiat onramp and offramp for bitasset tokens, right now?
3) How many Bitshares business partners are doing bitCNY<-> CNY fiat onramp and offramp specifically?

And let us consider the possible consequences if the committee is undecided about stopping the Bitshares flaw exploiters or decided to let the exploits happen:

1) Bitshares flaw exploiters gain from exploiting the price feed flaw and at the expense of Transwiser
2) These flaw exploiters continue to make risk-free monies.
3) Other non-exploiters come to know about it and they are tempted to try.  After all, where in the crypto world can you find risk-free money and easy exploit opportunities?
4) Other non-exploiters join in and become Bitshares flaw exploiters too
5) Transwiser lose substantial money and can no longer surive or Transwiser lose some money and lose interest in providing the bitCNY<-> CNY fiat service
6) Transwiser stops providing bitCNY to fiat onramp and offramp
7) The bitshares community thinks it is okie to let Transwiser die or cease his  bitCNY<-> CNY business
8 ) The community tries to find a Transwiser replacement but other business partners are too scared and/or not interested/not able to become a fiat gateway
9) bitUSD market gets to know about the massive flaw-exploits in bitCNY market and starts to become worried irrationally. Panick set in.
10) Some bitUSD and bitCNY users are losing monies.  They make a huge complaint and demand compensation in the bitshares forum
11) They are not satisfied, they spread their complaints in the bitcointalk forum
12) Users who cannot use the defunct CNY fiat gateway are unhappy and make their complaints in the forum too
13) Bitshares competitors know about the big scandal happening in Bithshares and take advantage of it.  They start trolling against bitshares
14) The public gets to know about the scandal too.  They may not know about Bitshares much but they start to believe Bitshares is a crap coin or a scam coin
15) Some weeks later another exploitable flaw is discovered in the referral codes say the vesting withdraw object, referrers start to lose money because of the flaw exploiters
16) Bitshares Committee likes to disable to vesting withdraw object to stop the exploiters but find their hands are tied because the users who lost big in the bitCNY flaw/exploit fiasco are strongly against it.
17) After setting a bad precedent with allowing the previous flaw exploiters to gain, Bitshares committee has to let the referrers suffer and/or die too
18) The dead referrers are upset and complain against bitshares in bitsharestalk and bitcointalk forums
19) Another opportunity for the bitshares competitors to troll against bitshares
20) The same vicious cycle repeats.  Every users and shareholders are losing confidence in Bitshares.  Bitshares's price and reputation continue to drop into oblivion.


Every committee decision should be thinking 5 moves ahead with what result it will produce..

Let's not stop at 5. 5 is not enough. The committee needs to think at least 10 steps ahead.   Despite the tough decisions, I think the committee has done just that.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: sudo on November 30, 2015, 03:48:13 am
Actually , BitCNY holders can get a fair price anytime now at BTC38 .
I suspect BTC38 forget to update their English version page , the Chinese version page already says "it accepts no more than 50,000 BitCNY deposit every day directly turn into CNY balance on a 1:1 ratio  ."

It's a more fair price than what you would get in the DEX because the DEX would never give you 1:1 price considering you actually need to sell your BTS at a unfair spread to get the fiat value you need .

So maybe now you can understand how transwiser is providing a peg that merchants would actually use  , unlike the status with BitUSD .

Last time I check , no exchanges accepts BitUSD as deposit , most of them only provides a market place to trade with .

Thats good.  I'm glad to see it.  Does BTC38 also convert 1:1 CNY to bitCNY?  I bet not, and if they do, probably not for very long.

That should be profitable for BTC38 as bitCNY should always trade above par and they can make the difference.  Depending on the bitCNY=>BTS=>CNY conversion and liquidity as you mentioned.

I'd like to see some bitUSD=>USD 1:1 services , that's an easy trade for near guaranteed profits.  I've considered doing this myself on a very small scale but I don't want to mess with US regulation I don't fully understand. 

It would make more sense for an exchange to do it.  Perhaps we'll see this at CCEDK soon.

They sell all their BitCNY to transwiser 1:1  .

 +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: dirnet on November 30, 2015, 04:12:21 am
Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

Which part of the proposal you are not convinced? 

Is it fixing the price feed flaw which does not take CNY-price source from China websites?
Is it stopping the bitshares flaw exploiters?
Is it saving our major partner and the only CNY-fiat provider Transwiser from the flaw exploiters?  Should Bitshares let Transwiser die instead?

It doesn't matter how big or small we are, if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?


It is easy to become an armchair critic. Let's become one for the fun of it.

Statisic, no doubt, can help in the analysis of the proposal.  Can you please help the comittee count the following?

1) How many business partners do Bitshares have, right now?
2) How many Bitshares business partners dare to take the regulatory and financial risks and put in capital to provide for fiat onramp and offramp for bitasset tokens, right now?
3) How many Bitshares business partners are doing bitCNY<-> CNY fiat onramp and offramp specifically?

And let us consider the possible consequences if the committee is undecided about stopping the Bitshares flaw exploiters or decided to let the exploits happen:

1) Bitshares flaw exploiters gain from exploiting the price feed flaw and at the expense of Transwiser
2) These flaw exploiters continue to make risk-free monies.
3) Other non-exploiters come to know about it and they are tempted to try.  After all, where in the crypto world can you find risk-free money and easy exploit opportunities?
4) Other non-exploiters join in and become Bitshares flaw exploiters too
5) Transwiser lose substantial money and can no longer surive or Transwiser lose some money and lose interest in providing the bitCNY<-> CNY fiat service
6) Transwiser stops providing bitCNY to fiat onramp and offramp
7) The bitshares community thinks it is okie to let Transwiser die or cease his  bitCNY<-> CNY business
8 ) The community tries to find a Transwiser replacement but other business partners are too scared and/or not interested/not able to become a fiat gateway
9) bitUSD market gets to know about the massive flaw-exploits in bitCNY market and starts to become worried irrationally. Panick set in.
10) Some bitUSD and bitCNY users are losing monies.  They make a huge complaint and demand compensation in the bitshares forum
11) They are not satisfied, they spread their complaints in the bitcointalk forum
12) Users who cannot use the defunct CNY fiat gateway are unhappy and make their complaints in the forum too
13) Bitshares competitors know about the big scandal happening in Bithshares and take advantage of it.  They start trolling against bitshares
14) The public gets to know about the scandal too.  They may not know about Bitshares much but they start to believe Bitshares is a crap coin or a scam coin
15) Some weeks later another exploitable flaw is discovered in the referral codes say the vesting withdraw object, referrers start to lose money because of the flaw exploiters
16) Bitshares Committee likes to disable to vesting withdraw object to stop the exploiters but find their hands are tied because the users who lost big in the bitCNY flaw/exploit fiasco are strongly against it.
17) After setting a bad precedent with allowing the previous flaw exploiters to gain, Bitshares committee has to let the referrers suffer and/or die too
18) The dead referrers are upset and complain against bitshares in bitsharestalk and bitcointalk forums
19) Another opportunity for the bitshares competitors to troll against bitshares
20) The same vicious cycle repeats.  Every users and shareholders are losing confidence in Bitshares.  Bitshares's price and reputation continue to drop into oblivion.


Every committee decision should be thinking 5 moves ahead with what result it will produce..

Let's not stop at 5. 5 is not enough. The committee needs to think at least 10 steps ahead.   Despite the tough decisions, I think the committee has done just that.
+5% +5% +5%
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on November 30, 2015, 04:35:54 am
Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

Which part of the proposal you are not convinced? 

Is it fixing the price feed flaw which does not take CNY-price source from China websites?
Is it stopping the bitshares flaw exploiters?
Is it saving our major partner and the only CNY-fiat provider Transwiser from the flaw exploiters?  Should Bitshares let Transwiser die instead?

It doesn't matter how big or small we are, if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?


It is easy to become an armchair critic. Let's become one for the fun of it.

Statisic, no doubt, can help in the analysis of the proposal.  Can you please help the comittee count the following?

1) How many business partners do Bitshares have?
2) How many Bitshares business partners dare to take the regulatory and financial risks and put in capital to provide for fiat onramp and offramp for bitasset tokens, right now?
3) How many Bitshares business partners are doing bitCNY<-> CNY fiat onramp and offramp specifically?

And let us consider the possible consequences if the committee is undecided about stopping the Bitshares flaw exploiters or decided to let the exploits happen:

1) Bitshares flaw exploiters gain from exploiting the price feed flaw and at the expense of Transwiser
2) These flaw exploiters continue to make risk-free monies.
3) Other non-exploiters come to know about it and they are tempted to try.  After all, where in the crypto world can you find risk-free money and easy exploit opportunities?
4) Other non-exploiters join in and become Bitshares flaw exploiters too
5) Transwiser lose substantial money and can no longer surive or Transwiser lose some money and lose interest in providing the bitCNY<-> CNY fiat service
6) Transwiser stops providing bitCNY to fiat onramp and offramp
7) The bitshares community thinks it is okie to let Transwiser die or cease his  bitCNY<-> CNY business
8 ) The community tries to find a Transwiser replacement but other business partners are too scared and/or not interested/not able to become a fiat gateway
9) bitUSD market gets to know about the massive flaw-exploits in bitCNY market and starts to become worried irrationally. Panick set in.
10) Some bitUSD and bitCNY users are losing monies.  They make a huge complain and demand compensation in the bitshares forum
11) They are not satisfied, they spread their complains in the bitcointalk forum
12) Users who cannot use the defunct CNY fiat gateway are unhappy and make their complains in the forum too
13) Bitshares competitors know about the big scandal happening in Bithshares and take advantage of it.  They start trolling against bitshares
14) The public gets to know about the scandal too.  They may not know about Bitshares much but they start to believe Bitshares is a crap coin or a scam coin
15) Some weeks later another exploitable flaw is discovered in the referral codes say the vesting withdraw object, referrers start to lose money because of the flaw exploiters
16) Bitshares Committee likes to disable to vesting withdraw object to stop the exploiters but find their hands are tied because the users who lost big in the bitCNY fiasco
are strongly against it.
17) After setting a bad precedent with allowing the previous flaw exploiters to gain, Bitshares committee has to let the referrers suffer and/or die too
18) The dead referrers are upset and complain against bitshares in bitsharestalk and bitcointalk forums
19) Another opportunity for the bitshares competitors to troll against bitshares
20) The same vicious cycle repeats


Every committee decision should be thinking 5 moves ahead with what result it will produce..

Let's not stop at 5. 5 is not enough. The committee needs to think at least 10 steps ahead.   Despite the tough decisions, I think the committee has done just that.

All of these questions posed to me are loaded. They all assume suppositions that are clearly being questioned relating to the issue.

It's like asking me: George Bush - Great President, or Greatest President?

This is a good example of the evangelizing methodology I was referring to that I think needs to be separated from analytic and consultative process.

I am not on the 'inside' of the whole thing, so I don't know the facts still on this matter.

From where I sit, the correct response is for transwiser to make it's own executive decision to pause it's operations while it tries to figure out how to better position itself. If 'stopping the bleeding' is what is so critical here... which is what has been used as the reasoning to justify the brash decision making.

Again though, so much of this fiasco has been cloaked in vested interests in all sides, it has made any rational analytics impossible for the community to validate the decision made, and has estranged the Committee Members in how they arrived at this decision.

It is easy to be an armchair critic.. it's also easy to devalue community opinions that differ from those not on the Committee by calling them armchair critics. Nothing fun about that when you are on the receiving end.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: 38PTSWarrior on November 30, 2015, 04:38:36 am
I support the opinion of xeroc, bytemaster or pc.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btswildpig on November 30, 2015, 04:40:32 am
I think the most funny part in all of this is ..... why  even western people use BItCNY and not BitUSD ?

What's so special about BitCNY ?????

There is the answer .
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: sudo on November 30, 2015, 05:00:21 am
so long time passed   bitUSD  still not have a Acceptance dealer  like bitCNY
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: cube on November 30, 2015, 05:46:07 am

I have yet to be voted in as a committee member... I'm getting a strong sense that there is more evangelizing the action, and less analysis...

Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

... if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?



All of these posed to me are loaded. They all assume suppositions that are clearly being questioned relating to the issue.


I am glad that you realise the above are loaded with unhelpful assumptions.  What makes you think that the proposal is 'more evangelizing the action, and less analysis'?  What makes you think that "every business that follows will expect the same"?  What makes you think that the Committee is not handling on a case-by-case basis with clear justification and that each future Committee proposal will not be backed by strong justification?  What makes you think that "the status of Bitshares reputation" would be affected " at that point"?


From where I sit, the correct response is for transwiser to make it's own executive decision to pause it's operations while it tries to figure out how to better position itself. If 'stopping the bleeding' is what is so critical here...


Do you think Transwiser being the first bitCNY to fiat onramp/offramp provider is so stupid as not to think of that?  Seriously? 
Transwiser fully believed in bitshares.  He has ALL his assets locked in bitshares because of the shorting requirements.  He has no realistic and immediate way of unlocking those trapped assets.  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 am not on the 'inside' of the whole thing, so I don't know the facts still on this matter.

Nothing fun about that when you are on the receiving end.

I am glad you realise that it is not fun to be on the receiving end.  So play nice and it will be reciprocated. You can ask objective questions in a polite way instead of putting up unhelpful assumptions and throwing baseless accusations.  I am sure you will get an answer from the Committee soon enough.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: jakub on November 30, 2015, 07:31:57 am
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.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: cube on November 30, 2015, 09:23:08 am
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.

Thanks for your appreciating of the point made.

Although the mechanism for the CNY price feed is outside the bts blockchain and developed separately by xeroc, it is considered an important and integral part of the Bitshares system. Getting external price feeds requires complex logics and codes in the script.  (I thank xeroc for his hard work, time and effort in getting the price feed script up and now putting up extra effort and time to fix the CNY-source feed problem.)

The price feed script does not take into consideration of CNY sources from China's sites and this causes the DEX's bts<->bitCNY settlement price to be lower than what the China centralised exchanges offer. Although this flaw has been there all along, it did not affect Transwiser because he did not have to sell his locked bts collaterals at below market price if he did not wish to (and he has maintained a healthy collaterals ratio to avoid margin calls). The situation changes when the GUI wallet start exposing this price-feed flaw to the public via a new 'Settle' button.  Any users can now force shorters (which include Transwiser) to sell their bts collaterals and buy their bitCNY at below the centralised exchanges' price, anytime and regardless of whether the shorters are willing or not to sell.  The smart exploiters saw an opportunity to make risk-free 'instant money' out of this price feed flaw and at the expense of the shorters and Transwiser.  In short, the price feed flaw is now exposed to the opportunistic exploiters by the new 'Settle' button. It created an artificial and unfair arbitrage opportunity for the flaw exploiters to gain free money.



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.

Transwiser has raised other issues like being uninformed of the 'Settle' function implementation (Although it was discussed in the forum, there was no conclusion nor confirmation communicated) and shared his difficulties.  And you have rightly pointed out that poor documentation has played a part too.  Even though these plaguing issues are real and Transwiser is sufferring from them, they are not the main deciding factor in the proposal.  The main objective is to fix the Bitshares system flaw, stop the flaw exploiters and level the playing field.  Hopefully, the Committee's decisive action would take effect in time to stop any unfair damages to Transwiser and save Bitshares DAC from losing a valuable major business partner.

The consistency of the rules is much more important than the fate of any single business in the ecosystem.

Well said.

The proposal will help in restoring the rule consistency lost due to an unfortunate system flaw that is exposed by the new Settle function and it was happily exploited by the flaw exploiters.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: gamey on November 30, 2015, 10:11:46 am

Talking to a guy recently who is very knowledgable about crypto projects in general... he knew of my past interest in Bitshares and asked me if it is true ...   Is BitShares controlled by a small number of Chinese whales?

I told him I do not know, but such a thing could very well be true...

After reading this thread I really do wonder.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on November 30, 2015, 10:27:53 am
There are several chinese people on the board, that's true. But I wouldn't say it's being controlled by them. There are at least 3 western members, including me.

Want more western members? Please vote for us or vote in other western people to have a more balanced view. It certainly helps.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: lzr1900 on November 30, 2015, 10:42:29 am
you can you up.you can buy more bts for voting.controlled by Chinese whales?what a joke..poor guy foreigner
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: alt on November 30, 2015, 11:17:19 am
I don't know why somebody think of this about Chinese community
Isn't it about the whole BTS system?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Empirical1.2 on November 30, 2015, 12:08:54 pm
I don't know why somebody think of this about Chinese community
Isn't it about the whole BTS system?

This thread is called 'urgent call for help by the Chinese Community'

Some traders have lost money playing by the rules because we changed the rules to help the Chinese community and businesses who were using BitAssets but didn't understand the new rules.

What to do next is about the whole BTS system.

Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 30, 2015, 12:59:18 pm
Some traders have lost money playing by the rules because we changed the rules to help the Chinese community...

False.
Plus: Nobody is forcing anybody else to sell their BitCNY meanwhile the force settlement is temporary disabled.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Empirical1.2 on November 30, 2015, 01:34:48 pm
Some traders have lost money playing by the rules because we changed the rules to help the Chinese community...

False.
Plus: Nobody is forcing anybody else to sell their BitCNY meanwhile the force settlement is temporary disabled.

Are traders going to make the same amount of money they would have made if force settlement wasn't temporarily disabled?

I thought the pause helped stop Transwiser & others losing money to those traders.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 30, 2015, 01:45:43 pm

Are traders going to make the same amount of money they would have made if force settlement wasn't temporarily disabled?

I thought the pause helped stop Transwiser & others losing money to those traders.

Sorry I am not sure to understand what you exactly mean.

If you are referring to the "lose money" due to the currently not available "force settlement" function:
-Nobody is forcing them to sell their BitCNY at lower value instead of wait for the "force settlement" to be back.

If you are referring to the "lose money" due to the currently not available exploitation of the BitCNY market:
-Well, that is NOT "lose money", that is "not gain money exploiting some flaw in the sistem at the expense of the shorters".
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Empirical1.2 on November 30, 2015, 01:50:59 pm

Are traders going to make the same amount of money they would have made if force settlement wasn't temporarily disabled?

I thought the pause helped stop Transwiser & others losing money to those traders.

Sorry I am not sure to understand what you exactly mean.

If you are referring to the "lose money" due to the currently not available "force settlement" function:
-Nobody is forcing them to sell their BitCNY at lower value instead of wait for the "force settlement" to be back.

If you are referring to the "lose money" due to the currently not available exploitation of the BitCNY market:
-Well, that is NOT "lose money", that is "not gain money exploiting some flaw in the sistem at the expense of the shorters".

Yes I mean the second one.  So let me change my statement so it is clear...

We responded to your 'Urgent call for help by the Chinese community' and urgently helped the Chinese community by temporarily disabling forced settlement. 

Some traders have lost money they would have gained, playing by the rules because we changed/suspended the rules to help the Chinese community and businesses who were using BitAssets but didn't understand the new rules.


Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 30, 2015, 01:59:19 pm
@Empirical1.2

If there is a flaw that let an expoiltation to be made, and somebody uses that flaw, I don't think you can call it "playing by the rules". We are trying to fix the flaw.
"Flaw" + "exploit" =! follow the rules
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: btswildpig on November 30, 2015, 02:01:02 pm

Talking to a guy recently who is very knowledgable about crypto projects in general... he knew of my past interest in Bitshares and asked me if it is true ...   Is BitShares controlled by a small number of Chinese whales?

I told him I do not know, but such a thing could very well be true...

After reading this thread I really do wonder.

Some Chinese guy(including some so-called whales )  have asked me if BitShares is an ATM and controlled by a few western developers in I3 . why they can keep bleeding dilution on Chinese , Why the developers can put up a proposal that could grant them more BTS just in 2 month than any single whale in the Chinese community .

Sometimes I just don't know what to tell them .
Guess we all have our troubles .
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: sittingduck on November 30, 2015, 02:26:46 pm
This whole debate is getting out of hand.  As soon as you start throwing out terms like "flaw" it presupposes one correct interpretation.  Let's step back and ask some questions:

What is the precision by which we actually know the value of bitshares?  Based on the daily flux in price and spreads/volume I would say the valuation has a margin of error of at least 10%. 

Any price movements within +\- 10% are noise. It is pure gambling. Anyone with a couple million BTS could move the price by that much in an instant. 

Regardless of the market rules, the price feed should be allowed to be off by several percent without breaking the whole system. 

The parties involved who trade under the assumption that a price feed can be more accurate have unrealistic expectations.

You cannot peg against such volatile asset unless you control the market and play market maker with a large amount of capital on both sides of the trade.

It sucks to be surprised by a misunderstanding of the market.

Claiming there is no documentation is also bull.  Forced settlement rules have been documented on bitshares.org since June under the first feature page linked directly from the home page.  It wasn't hidden in this forum. Just because you claim there isn't proper docs doesn't make it so.

So who is to blame for building a business on smart coins and not even reading bitshares.org which has been translated to multiple languages? 
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: xeroc on November 30, 2015, 02:30:32 pm

Talking to a guy recently who is very knowledgable about crypto projects in general... he knew of my past interest in Bitshares and asked me if it is true ...   Is BitShares controlled by a small number of Chinese whales?

I told him I do not know, but such a thing could very well be true...

After reading this thread I really do wonder.

Some Chinese guy(including some so-called whales )  have asked me if BitShares is an ATM and controlled by a few western developers in I3 . why they can keep bleeding dilution on Chinese , Why the developers can put up a proposal that could grant them more BTS just in 2 month than any single whale in the Chinese community .

Sometimes I just don't know what to tell them .
Guess we all have our troubles .
Anyone can "put up" a proposal and ask for an arbitrary amount of money. Question is if he gets the money ..

I would love to see some chinese initiatives that improve the system and would love to vote for a worker to fund them (if the proposal makes sense)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: alt on November 30, 2015, 02:50:25 pm
why you still talk about Chinese Community?
this is  a problem of BTS, not just for  Chinese Community, what stupid are you?
last time when I ask change SQR from 1500 to 1100, do you think it as a Chinese community problem?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: fav on November 30, 2015, 02:57:47 pm
isn't this whole (non)issue documented here? https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on November 30, 2015, 02:59:41 pm
@alt, I think it is very inapproriate that you call anybody in this community 'stupid'. That is very unprofessional of you.

The problem here in this thread is that some shorters on the bitCNY market (probably chinese people!) didn't know of the force settlement feature, even though it has been on the bitshares.org technlogy page since June 8th. One can blame it on the language barrier perhaps or perhaps missing due dilligence to base a business on a market you did not fully research. That is the real issue here.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: alt on November 30, 2015, 03:13:12 pm
the point is, we need to talk about, if settlement is a flaw, if the answer is yes, we need to fix it, if answer is no, just let it keep there.
but many people always say:
1. it's at there from the beginning
2. it's Chinese's problem
3. I want to hear BM's advice
4. you should know the risk when you short
..................

so, I just want to know, do you really care about BTS or do you really care about who's fault it is?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode on November 30, 2015, 03:23:24 pm
I am glad you realise that it is not fun to be on the receiving end.  So play nice and it will be reciprocated. You can ask objective questions in a polite way instead of putting up unhelpful assumptions and throwing baseless accusations. I am sure you will get an answer from the Committee soon enough.

This is false and completely misses the point of what I and others in community have been trying to make clear to some Committee members here.

I have been very polite, irrespective of this type of defacing tone put towards me and others who are wanting better communication.

Committee needs to get a handle on it's processes and communication.

Community members like @sittingduck seem to understand that the language being used here is dangerous and should not be how issues are looked at.

Please stop calling this a 'flaw'.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on November 30, 2015, 03:35:25 pm
I have read  https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/ long ago, I admit at that time I haven't paid much attention on it, when the first 2.0 version launched, I even forgot the "force settlement", only when the settle button appeared in the latest version light wallet I begin to realize how serious the thing is.

you can say it is my fault to forget it, but anyway now it is a problem and we need to face it and handle it.

if it is possible to disable force settle for BitCNY only, I think it will be the best option. as most of the BitCNY users agree.








Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: sudo on November 30, 2015, 03:40:33 pm
settlement should be Limited within a certain range of collateral rate

when collateral rate of bill  went into for example  ≤150%  bitAsset can start settlement
but when all collateral rate is enough   for example ≥200%  no need to  settlement


bitUSD lack Acceptance dealer    for example 1.1USD sell bitUSD at the same time  1.09 buy bitUSD
provide liquidity & make profit
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: xeroc on November 30, 2015, 03:43:18 pm
....as most of the BitCNY users agree.
I am curious .. how did you evaluate this?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on November 30, 2015, 03:53:48 pm
....as most of the BitCNY users agree.
I am curious .. how did you evaluate this?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20337.0.html
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: fav on November 30, 2015, 04:01:08 pm
....as most of the BitCNY users agree.
I am curious .. how did you evaluate this?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20337.0.html

plot twist, most of the bitcny users disagree too!

(http://i.imgur.com/osqZqhG.png)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Helikopterben on November 30, 2015, 04:38:02 pm

Talking to a guy recently who is very knowledgable about crypto projects in general... he knew of my past interest in Bitshares and asked me if it is true ...   Is BitShares controlled by a small number of Chinese whales?

I told him I do not know, but such a thing could very well be true...

After reading this thread I really do wonder.

Some Chinese guy(including some so-called whales )  have asked me if BitShares is an ATM and controlled by a few western developers in I3 . why they can keep bleeding dilution on Chinese , Why the developers can put up a proposal that could grant them more BTS just in 2 month than any single whale in the Chinese community .

Sometimes I just don't know what to tell them .
Guess we all have our troubles .

Tell them they control bitshares proportionally to their stake and ask them if they have voted.

As far as forced settlement, MPAs are still highly experimental and its difficult (nearly impossible) to tell how things such as forced settlement will work until put into practice in a live environment.  We have found that this parameter can be exploited in illiquid markets and will have to be tweaked, along with other MPA parameters.  You can't blame someone for not understanding the implications.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: pc on November 30, 2015, 04:42:21 pm
Anyone with a couple million BTS could move the price by that much in an instant. 


And THIS is where the real danger of the forced settlement feature lies...
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: gamey on November 30, 2015, 06:29:47 pm

Talking to a guy recently who is very knowledgable about crypto projects in general... he knew of my past interest in Bitshares and asked me if it is true ...   Is BitShares controlled by a small number of Chinese whales?

I told him I do not know, but such a thing could very well be true...

After reading this thread I really do wonder.

Some Chinese guy(including some so-called whales )  have asked me if BitShares is an ATM and controlled by a few western developers in I3 . why they can keep bleeding dilution on Chinese , Why the developers can put up a proposal that could grant them more BTS just in 2 month than any single whale in the Chinese community .

Sometimes I just don't know what to tell them .
Guess we all have our troubles .

Well those really are some dumb questions.  "keep bleeding dilution on Chinese" - as if the blockchain knows the difference between East/West.  One could make the argument that the poor documention is even worse for non-native English speakers, but anyway...  The rest of those questions can be answered by looking at labor market. 

My point was, manipulating the market due to one actor not being able to get their pricing straight is strange to me.  I get why it is done and wish Transwiser wasn't being bled to death for Bitshares sake, but the point is... this thread kinda backs up his question.

I have no idea how many "Chinese whales" there are or what is required for one to be a whale... but this question was asked by an exceptionally knowledgable person and not out of random ignorance.

edit - ^^^^ This means that this is some sort of prevailing perception OR he had some anti-Bitshares person who is a manipulator whispering into his ear.  (Just to make it CLEAR)  This was my point. This person has no interest in BitShares what so ever beyond a passing academic curiosity. In no way were they complaining about the Chinese or anything else because it would be hard for this person to care less. (Yes, sorry for ridiculous explanation, but I feel it is needed since people read non-existent implications into things and then have the nerve to call other's "stupid")
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: maqifrnswa on November 30, 2015, 07:01:12 pm
My point was, manipulating the market due to one actor not being able to get their pricing straight is strange to me.  I get why it is done and wish Transwiser wasn't being bled to death for Bitshares sake, but the point is... this thread kinda backs up his question.

I agree, and this is what I don't understand:
1) Force settlement was working perfectly as intended and has been described for 6+ months
2) Force settlement is pretty much the same situation as in 0.9.* (every position older than 30 days could be settled at feed and in priority of collateralization).
3) Inaccurate price feeds combined with a misunderstanding of the system lead to a mistake in a business model that cost a business money.

The solution should have been to fix the price feeds, better document the system, and correct the business model, not turn off a working and essential feature.

Why is forced settling essential? Since the blockchain cannot exchange 1 bitCNY for 1 real CNY in your bank account, it must give incentives to control supply such that 1 bitCNY is approximately equal to 1 real CNY. Forced settlement accomplishes that when there is an oversupply (profiting the forced settler), and short selling a premium accomplishes that when in undersupply (profitting the short seller, although I think there should be something else more explicitly helping the short seller). This is essential to understand by everyone involved in trading. You can make the argument to increase the fee to settle or to increase the difference between settlement price and feed (both are settings that can be adjusted by the committee), and I agree that those could be good solutions.

I want Transwiser to succeed, but the response of stopping all asset settlement seems to be the equivalent of "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 30, 2015, 07:14:40 pm
The solution should have been to fix the price feeds, better document the system, and correct the business model, not turn off a working and essential feature.

We decided to temporarily disable the settlement feature just to give time to xeroc to "fix" the script.
The script needed a partial refactoring, and obviously xeroc needed time for this.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 30, 2015, 07:24:56 pm
The solution should have been to fix the price feeds, better document the system, and correct the business model, not turn off a working and essential feature.

We decided to temporarily disable the settlement feature just to give time to xeroc to "fix" the script.
The script needed a partial refactoring, and obviously xeroc needed time for this.

I see the script being ready!

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18852.msg262147.html#msg262147

What I fail to see is the proposal to revert back the temporary "solution"
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on November 30, 2015, 07:36:51 pm
The solution should have been to fix the price feeds, better document the system, and correct the business model, not turn off a working and essential feature.

We decided to temporarily disable the settlement feature just to give time to xeroc to "fix" the script.
The script needed a partial refactoring, and obviously xeroc needed time for this.

I see the script being ready!

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18852.msg262147.html#msg262147

What I fail to see is the proposal to revert back the temporary "solution"
We want to check the script and find the "best" settings for it before witnesses mass adoption.

It should not take too much time.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 30, 2015, 07:46:21 pm
The solution should have been to fix the price feeds, better document the system, and correct the business model, not turn off a working and essential feature.

We decided to temporarily disable the settlement feature just to give time to xeroc to "fix" the script.
The script needed a partial refactoring, and obviously xeroc needed time for this.

I see the script being ready!

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18852.msg262147.html#msg262147

What I fail to see is the proposal to revert back the temporary "solution"
We want to check the script and find the "best" settings for it before witnesses mass adoption.

It should not take too much time.

The claim was after the script is available - not after bitcrap approves it to work to its liking

plus It takes time for the proposal to be voted, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on November 30, 2015, 07:58:45 pm
Actually, TonyK, that is wrong. Please see:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261819.html#msg261819

However, we're considering to create the proposal as soon as the new script is tested and adopted by the majority of the witnesses. Which could be as early as tomorrow.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 30, 2015, 08:19:04 pm
Actually, TonyK, that is wrong. Please see:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261819.html#msg261819

However, we're considering to create the proposal as soon as the new script is tested and adopted by the majority of the witnesses. Which could be as early as tomorrow.

Sure you should take your sweet time fixing the mess, rushing is only needed for creating it.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on November 30, 2015, 08:23:19 pm
@tonyk I want to get it re-enabled ASAP and we have a 'meeting' scheduled tomorrow for a witness test-run, once that is through we'll get to the proposal ASAP.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on November 30, 2015, 08:30:12 pm
@tonyk I want to get it re-enabled ASAP and we have a 'meeting' scheduled tomorrow for a witness test-run, once that is through we'll get to the proposal ASAP.

even if the scripts fails to meet the expected precision of 10^-7? Cause let me tell you something, no test run needed, it will fail this test.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on November 30, 2015, 08:31:59 pm
Initial test run results show a 'deviation' towards the real price of about 2% and we're quite happy about that. So no, we're not expecting the price to be meet the precision of 10^-7. A deviation is a given.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: xeroc on December 01, 2015, 10:40:26 am
please give me and the witnesses some time to thoroughly test the changes to the script .. I had to change alot algorithmically and don't want to cause any problems
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Shentist on December 02, 2015, 06:03:58 am
sry to say this, but you could only loose via force settlement if transwiser holds shorts in CNY

if transwiser claims to be in the business of transfering CNY -- bitCNY the question is how did they ended with shorts?

probably, because they needed to created the bitCNY by them self.

i think to shut the force settlement down, is and was a bad example for the committee reaction. i am not clearly understanding this feature and i am only using GUI, so i am not shorting at all.

i will end with a statement of Warren Buffett "never invest in something you don't understand".
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: clayop on December 02, 2015, 06:11:52 am
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Shentist on December 02, 2015, 06:38:31 am
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329

we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .

claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?

not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.

it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.

this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.

the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: fav on December 02, 2015, 06:46:40 am
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329

we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .

claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?

not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.

it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.

this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.

the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.

Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:

- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)

but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on December 02, 2015, 07:00:21 am
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329

we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .

claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?

not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.

it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.

this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.

the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.

Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:

- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)

but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.

to me one thing is strange, you are not an active committee member, but why it's you that manage the committee management board?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: fav on December 02, 2015, 07:03:56 am
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329

we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .

claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?

not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.

it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.

this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.

the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.

Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:

- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)

but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.

to me one thing is strange, you are not an active committee member, but why it's you that manage the committee management board?

strange reasoning there.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on December 02, 2015, 07:10:37 am
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329

we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .

claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?

not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.

it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.

this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.

the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.

everyone can hold CNY short, without explaining to others, and the market need the shorters to provide BitCNY liquidity.

the price feed has deviated, it appears always lower a lot than the actual price, this created an unfair market context that hurt all shorters, developers is now trying to remove the unfairness by refining the scripts, this is all why we paused the force settlement.

understand?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: xeroc on December 02, 2015, 07:21:33 am
I'd like to explain once again that the price feed is actual "not wrong" given the set of exchanges it pulls its data from.

Issue 1): There is no such thing as a single true price if you have an asset traded on more than one exchange
Issue 2): Given a set of several exchange, you can derive either a mean, median, or weighted-by-volume price
Issue 3): If you weight your prices by volume, you need to be careful about exchanges that allow trading without fees

This is why the "old" price feed script does not take exchanges into account that allow free trading. The "new" price feed script allows to
pick different exchanges for different smartcoins (e.g. CNY) and adds those fee-free exchanges as sources.

Hence, once the scripts is proofed stable, witnesses can customize the sources for each asset and have USD be rather "stable" using
weighted-median while CNY can be derived as median over fee-free exchanges, or as weighted via non-free and free exchanges
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: bitcrab on December 02, 2015, 07:41:19 am
I'd like to explain once again that the price feed is actual "not wrong" given the set of exchanges it pulls its data from.

Issue 1): There is no such thing as a single true price if you have an asset traded on more than one exchange
Issue 2): Given a set of several exchange, you can derive either a mean, median, or weighted-by-volume price
Issue 3): If you weight your prices by volume, you need to be careful about exchanges that allow trading without fees

This is why the "old" price feed script does not take exchanges into account that allow free trading. The "new" price feed script allows to
pick different exchanges for different smartcoins (e.g. CNY) and adds those fee-free exchanges as sources.

Hence, once the scripts is proofed stable, witnesses can customize the sources for each asset and have USD be rather "stable" using
weighted-median while CNY can be derived as median over fee-free exchanges, or as weighted via non-free and free exchanges

@xeroc thanks a lot for all you have done for this, you always did great work.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: cube on December 02, 2015, 07:44:48 am
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329

we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot.


It is not just an inaccurate price feed as in a feed with fluctuating price but a feed with a consistently wrong CNY price due to the fact that the algorithm does not pull in any China website sources.  It is like getting USD fiat prices not from the USA but from some other non-related places.  This price figure is simply wrong and cannot be relied upon.  And no matter how you want to call it, the price feed script is flawed.  The flawed price feed in the DEX allowed opportunistic flaw exploiters to gain unfairly at the expense of one side of the long-short players.

The rest of the points are really out of the scope of the proposal.  But for the sake of completeness, let's discuss them.



i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .

claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?

not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.

it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.

this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.

the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.

Out of Scope Discussion
=========================

As you said it, metaexchange "had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC".  AFAIK, nobody - absolutely no businesses are pegging 1 bitBTC : 1 real BTC in the bitshares DEX.  But why?  IMHO, the risk of losses is probably too high to justify any profit.

Transwiser, on the other hand, is literally pegging 1 bitCNY : 1 CNY (with a small fee) and offering this bitCNY to CNY fiat onramp and offramp services to our users.  Transwiser is a real legitimate business that bitshares users benefit greatly.  To say that the Committee saved some speculators is simply a false statement.

The price feed flaw has been there all this while but it was not exposed publicly.  The recent introduction of the 'Settle' button exposes the price feed flaw.  Not surprisingly, the opportunistic flaw exploiters took advantage of it and gained unfairly at the expense of Transiwiser business, as well as other short players.

The 'Settle/Settlement' function has nothing much to do with the whole story.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on December 02, 2015, 09:52:47 am
it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.
More than 99.9% of the people here don't use the cli and did not know how to use the force settlement and so never used it before its GUI implementation.

the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.
We saved shorters from an exploit.
We hurted nobody. We stopped some people to gain money exploiting a flaw at the expenses of shorters.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: monsterer on December 02, 2015, 10:00:03 am
As you said it, metaexchange "had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC".  AFAIK, nobody - absolutely no businesses are pegging 1 bitBTC : 1 real BTC in the bitshares DEX.  But why?  IMHO, the risk of losses is probably too high to justify any profit.

Well, we canned it because demand was so low and costs were high - there was no way we could have priced it 1:1, because the cost of restocking our inventories was much higher than thqat. In the end it was something like 1:1.1 when we pulled support for it.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on December 02, 2015, 10:35:14 am
Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:

- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)

but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.

Shutdown CNY market would have been a worst decision.

Some people are blaiming the temporary suspension of the force settle function just because they can not use it on the CNY market to gain free money at the expenses of the shorters.
Shutting down the CNY market would have had the same results for those people pov...no free money anymore. They would still blaiming the decision.

Plus:
The real "active" markets are mostly btc/bts, usd/bts, cny/bts.

Since both btc/bts and usd/bts have buy orders above the feed, using the force settlement has no sense at all, since you could sell at better price than feed price.
That means that the temporary disable of the force settlement only affect cny market.

BUT, shutting down cny market, not only would prevented the use of the function, but would also completely stopped any trade at all.
No one could have sold or bought cny anymore, and no one could have started to put some buy orders above the feed as now.

So ultimately shutdown the cny market was not a better decision at all.


Transwiser is not the only shorter in cny market. So it is not a better idea.

Pay for a professional price feed provider - I don't think it make any sense at all. There is no "professional price feed" and there is not "right" price feed.
There is "accurate" price feed *considering* external exchanges. So again, it is not a viable solution.

I am not going to reply on the "agenda" and "greed" part. Really. It insult me a bit. I have no gain on temporary disabling the function.


You guys should try to understand that we took that decision only because we think it was really the right thing to do to for the good of the community as a whole.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: fav on December 02, 2015, 11:19:29 am
Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:

- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)

but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.

Shutdown CNY market would have been a worst decision.

Some people are blaiming the temporary suspension of the force settle function just because they can not use it on the CNY market to gain free money at the expenses of the shorters.
Shutting down the CNY market would have had the same results for those people pov...no free money anymore. They would still blaiming the decision.

Plus:
The real "active" markets are mostly btc/bts, usd/bts, cny/bts.

Since both btc/bts and usd/bts have buy orders above the feed, using the force settlement has no sense at all, since you could sell at better price than feed price.
That means that the temporary disable of the force settlement only affect cny market.

BUT, shutting down cny market, not only would prevented the use of the function, but would also completely stopped any trade at all.
No one could have sold or bought cny anymore, and no one could have started to put some buy orders above the feed as now.

So ultimately shutdown the cny market was not a better decision at all.


Transwiser is not the only shorter in cny market. So it is not a better idea.

Pay for a professional price feed provider - I don't think it make any sense at all. There is no "professional price feed" and there is not "right" price feed.
There is "accurate" price feed *considering* external exchanges. So again, it is not a viable solution.

I am not going to reply on the "agenda" and "greed" part. Really. It insult me a bit. I have no gain on temporary disabling the function.


You guys should try to understand that we took that decision only because we think it was really the right thing to do to for the good of the community as a whole.

I disagree.

the whole problem was from a 3rd party price feed, instead of fixing this problem by shutting down the feed, you just change one of the core principles. that's literally the worst thing to do in my opinion.

It's not the committees job to minimize risk for bad businesses or trading decisions nor is it up to you to decide who's allowed to profit and who is not.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on December 02, 2015, 11:37:53 am
I disagree.

the whole problem was from a 3rd party price feed, instead of fixing this problem by shutting down the feed, you just change one of the core principles. that's literally the worst thing to do in my opinion.

It's not the committees job to minimize risk for bad businesses or trading decisions nor is it up to you to decide who's allowed to profit and who is not.

Settlement requires a valid feed, if you shutdown the feed you will not be able to use the settlement at all!

We are not talking of bad businesses or trading decisions!

Plus the pricefeed is a vital function for bitasset, and it is not" really" a 3rd party thing.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: fav on December 02, 2015, 11:41:21 am
I disagree.

the whole problem was from a 3rd party price feed, instead of fixing this problem by shutting down the feed, you just change one of the core principles. that's literally the worst thing to do in my opinion.

It's not the committees job to minimize risk for bad businesses or trading decisions nor is it up to you to decide who's allowed to profit and who is not.

Settlement requires a valid feed, if you shutdown the feed you will not be able to use the settlement at all!

We are not talking of bad businesses or trading decisions!

Plus the pricefeed is a vital function for bitasset, and it is not" really" a 3rd party thing.

well it is, else it would be implemented to the core.

I'd rather not trade an asset knowing there was a bug than to see some people change the core functionality of a trading platform in a heartbeat.

It just doesn't build confidence, and this will be a huge problem in the future imo
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: clayop on December 02, 2015, 12:00:09 pm
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329

we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .

claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?

not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.

it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.

this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.

the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.

Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:

- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)

but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.
@fav if you really want, you can ask witnesses to stop publishing CNY price feed and close the CNY market. But do you really think its the solution?
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: fav on December 02, 2015, 12:17:32 pm
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329

we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .

claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?

not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.

it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.

this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.

the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.

Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:

- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)

but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.
@fav if you really want, you can ask witnesses to stop publishing CNY price feed and close the CNY market. But do you really think its the solution?

temporary until the feed is fixed. too late for that now 
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: tonyk on December 02, 2015, 12:44:27 pm
So do we have it back yet?...or as predicted we are dealing with 'not enough precision issue" or whatever else excuse the master manipulator has come up with now
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: xeroc on December 02, 2015, 12:59:20 pm
I think we have solved the feed price "issue" and have a more accurate CNY price produced ..
Currently testing .. but looking good
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: mindphlux on December 02, 2015, 05:00:52 pm
Update: The new price feed script has been finetuned and tested, and witnesses have been instructed to do an update. I expect us to create a proposal to unlock force settlement pretty soon now.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on December 03, 2015, 08:33:35 am
New proposal to re-enable the force settlement function after fixing the pricefeed script as previously stated in the OP: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20391.0.html
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: fav on December 03, 2015, 08:43:52 am
who locked this thread and why? (not visible in the admin log)
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: Bhuz on December 03, 2015, 11:08:53 am
who locked this thread and why? (not visible in the admin log)

I did fav.

The proposal reached its goal, and in my last post I left the link for the new proposal to re-enable the function as stated in the OP.

It is fine lo lock it now?

Edit: I should have put a note on the last post to say that I was closing the thread. Sorry for that.
Title: Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
Post by: fav on December 03, 2015, 11:43:35 am
who locked this thread and why? (not visible in the admin log)

I did fav.

The proposal reached its goal, and in my last post I left the link for the new proposal to re-enable the function as stated in the OP.

It is fine lo lock it now?

Edit: I should have put a note on the last post to say that I was closing the thread. Sorry for that.

I think we should not close it, since there are some very interesting and related discussions here.