This stealthy thingy has a good chance to be the second worst BM's invention.
QuoteThis stealthy thingy has a good chance to be the second worst BM's invention.
What is the first one?
.
@onceuponatime you said you share BM's philosophy. Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things? well I should not ask you that, throwing 45K in the money sucking hole of BTS, should be enough [although too harsh for my taste] punishment for blindly following the words and not paying attention to the actual actions of the people you trust.
I know - the statement was supposed to mean "throwing 45,000 USD of your life-savings into the money sucking - never-producing-finished-products Bitshares system"..
@onceuponatime you said you share BM's philosophy. Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things? well I should not ask you that, throwing 45K in the money sucking hole of BTS, should be enough [although too harsh for my taste] punishment for blindly following the words and not paying attention to the actual actions of the people you trust.
as far as I know he's going to pay with fiat. shouldn't slam a hole in BTS
Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things?You are abusing words, @tonyk
Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things?You are abusing words, @tonyk
onceuponatime offered 45k for a feature he believes in, CNX accepted the offer and additionally the whole thing went through the worker proposal process.
If you believe BitShares should have other priorities, just raise the funds, find developers and get your worker proposal accepted.
I agree with you that maybe STEALTH is not the thing needed the most at this stage (I'd prioritize liquidity over STEALTH) but I would never call it "dictatorship".
This is how DPOS works. People vote with their money here and it just happened that STEALTH got more support at this moment so it will go first.
152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593 = 6.01%
In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.
152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593 = 6.01%
In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.
That's how DPOS works - those who do not care enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process.
This is exactly how it is supposed to be.
But the actual vote will take place after more than 2 weeks - when the code is ready to be deployed and a hard-fork is needed.152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593 = 6.01%
In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.
That's how DPOS works - those who do not care enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process.
This is exactly how it is supposed to be.
Absolutely NOT - When changing the blockchain rules are concerned.
Stakeholder are supposed to be given enough time to get informed and react!
[Some decent min amount of required support is a great idea, but who cares about principles when money are on the table ]
Hell even the benign changes done to only the parameters [and not the protocol itself] should take 2 weeks before taking an effect.
But the actual vote will take place after more than 2 weeks - when the code is ready to be deployed and a hard-fork is needed.152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593 = 6.01%
In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.
That's how DPOS works - those who do not care enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process.
This is exactly how it is supposed to be.
Absolutely NOT - When changing the blockchain rules are concerned.
Stakeholder are supposed to be given enough time to get informed and react!
[Some decent min amount of required support is a great idea, but who cares about principles when money are on the table ]
Hell even the benign changes done to only the parameters [and not the protocol itself] should take 2 weeks before taking an effect.
The worker proposal created by xeroc is only meant to give CNX an indication if STEALTH has a chance of being accepted.
So stakeholders are given enough time to get informed and react.
So what's your point?
How you gonna vote after those 2 weeks? The only option you will have left is by voting with your feet, my friend.No, during those 2 weeks (or probably much longer) you can vote against the worker proposal.
I may be as dumb as Toast (which admittedly is not all that dumb), and I admit I haven't been paying that much attention after helping OnceUp's team figure out an approach, but I'm having a hard time seeing a dictatorship in here:(https://i.gyazo.com/1646471f987f199290b50a60a0dce2f1.png)
This shows the current status of voting on a tiny fee for xeroc's effort in setting up a poll, which in turn informs the witnesses about the opinion of the community concerning whether a proposed software patch should be installed.
It would appear that the presumed "dictator" is the six accounts that have bothered to vote wielding about 6% of the community's potential voting power. How dare they do that! What blatant unmitigated tyranny! Off with their heads! :)
It also informs the proposers about whether they have enough support to risk spending their own money on developing a product.
Two weeks notice has always been the standard for advance notice in this community. Few corporations are required give more notice than that for a shareholder's vote. To take longer than that is to hamstring the corporation's ability to maneuver and compete.
At the end of that time, an investor's real money is going to be spent based on the status of that vote at that time. As more voters get around to voting before then, that could swing either way - but enough have already agreed to pay Xeroc for setting up the vote, which is all that being "voted in" means at this point.
Then, when the project is complete, the new software will be presented to the witnesses as an opportunity to hard fork by switching to running the new package.
At that time they will face a choice:
1. Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2. Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).
Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.
Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.
That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.
This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.
Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.(http://dont-tread-on.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sic-Semper-Proof.jpg)
At that time they will face a choice:Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?
1. Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2. Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).
Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.
Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.
That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.
This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.
Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.
But maybe it is OK and all around here are just sheep that does not deserve better than pure dictatorship...
bitcrab is not voting on it because it is not directly related to his business interests, fav managed to came up with technical excuse why not to vote at least for the refund worker [so to effectively rise the barrier to entry above bm single vote deciding the fate of any worker proposal]
Maybe it is exactly what bts deserves, just maybe.
@tonyk , just to make it clear.
I am not delighted about this STEALTH feature taking so much priority.
I think it could wait till Q2 2016. But I accept this situation as part of the DPOS game we play.
For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.
But maybe it is OK and all around here are just sheep that does not deserve better than pure dictatorship...Tony, BM is as humane as just voted via the "angel" account, he is not abusing his voting power.
bitcrab is not voting on it because it is not directly related to his business interests, fav managed to came up with technical excuse why not to vote at least for the refund worker [so to effectively rise the barrier to entry above bm single vote deciding the fate of any worker proposal]
Maybe it is exactly what bts deserves, just maybe.
(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.
And you are hiding the fact that the net revenue for the blockchain will most probably increase as a result.
So what you are advocating is effectively preventing the blockchain from having higher revenues.
How much revenue is STEALTH generating now, i.e. without the GUI support?
Personally I prefer 20% of a much bigger amount than 100% of a negligible amount.
Somebody has to pay for the STEALTH UI - it has to be either a private investor or the blockchain itself.
The fact is, hard code the 80%/20% split in block-chain level is efficiently discouraging other UI developers (E.G. Moonstone) to produce a better UI, thus CNX could be the only developer for the system. Is it really good for the ecosystem @Stan?At that time they will face a choice:Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?
1. Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2. Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).
Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.
Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.
That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.
This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.
Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.
(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.
(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.
(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.
+5%
I don't understand this poll to be honest. someone is ready to throw money at CNX - they should just take it and develop. there's no way that people won't vote FOR the hardfork once it's ready
(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.
+5%
I don't understand this poll to be honest. someone is ready to throw money at CNX - they should just take it and develop. there's no way that people won't vote FOR the hardfork once it's ready
You know that "just take it and develop" means that for like 2 months cnx will work basically only on stealth putting in pause all the others things that shareholders would prefer to have first?
Why don't let us vote for a worker to implement the FBA *first, and only *after that, make *real FBAs tokens for STEALTH, prediction market, bond market ect etc?Good point.
In this way we could see what is the actualy demand for stealth vs other core features...and only in this way the shareholders have real power to decide.
You know that "just take it and develop" means that for like 2 months cnx will work basically only on stealth putting in pause all the others things that shareholders would prefer to have first?Not that bad as we still have svk who is working for UI, and most of this work is in UI. The C++ developers in CNX can still do other things.
Shareholders are not paying for anything else first. Bid up the MAKER asset and create a maker worker to see where that goes. Both can be done at the same time because they require different skills.Those who want to "secretly" support MAKER or other FBAs would disappoint since current implement of STEALTH only supports transfer but not support bid/ask or anything else.
The point is: some shareholders would like to have an FBA to contribute in this funding, and doing so have a future revenue from the FBA's tokens
Some shareholders potentially could vote for this proposal thinking that onceuponatime will sell his shares back in the market, or will pass all his shares to the private investor who seems to be willing to seel those shares back to the BTS shareholders.
The fact is that all the above is totally unclear and made up by "maybe", "probably", "could", and so on...so you are not going to care of that even?
Plus, why don't give the shareholders a fair way to contribute?
Why don't let us vote for a worker to implement the FBA *first, and only *after that, make *real FBAs tokens for STEALTH, prediction market, bond market ect etc?
In this way we could see what is the actualy demand for stealth vs other core features...and only in this way the shareholders have real power to decide.
But maybe it is OK and all around here are just sheep that does not deserve better than pure dictatorship...
bitcrab is not voting on it because it is not directly related to his business interests, fav managed to came up with technical excuse why not to vote at least for the refund worker [so to effectively rise the barrier to entry above bm single vote deciding the fate of any worker proposal]
Maybe it is exactly what bts deserves, just maybe.
I think most people here have realized bts has been a terrible investment and just want their money back. They are hoping bm can catch lightning in a bottle and somehow raise the market cap to a level where it's satisfactory to get out. That's why you see every proposal he makes voted in. People are just hoping one of them sticks and works out.
At that time they will face a choice:Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?
1. Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2. Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).
Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.
Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.
That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.
This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.
Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.
Roadmap
Feedback and discussion of this thread: December 8 to December 10, 2015
Presentation of an amended Cryptonomex Worker Proposal: Dec 11, 2015 This worker proposal should include Milestones of what is intended to be accomplished by the end of week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4 and week 5 so that the Community can follow progress in the github.
Voting for Worker Proposal: Dec 11 to January 1, 2016
onceuponatime forwards $45,000 to Cryptonomex: Jan.2, 2016
Cryptonomex does the development and testing of the feature: (4 to 6 weeks)
Hard fork for implementation of the feature: Monday Feb, 15th
For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.
The only people supposing it is BM and his employees (xeroc).
Those 2 weeks to vote on deliberately hidden facts, conveniently fall in the 2 weeks most people will be on vacation/on holiday.
After all why don't you (if not BM) himself come and answer straight this question - Am I going to have to pay the stealth fee if I use the CLI for my stealth transfers or not?-
For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.
The only people supposing it is BM and his employees (xeroc).
Those 2 weeks to vote on deliberately hidden facts, conveniently fall in the 2 weeks most people will be on vacation/on holiday.
After all why don't you (if not BM) himself come and answer straight this question - Am I going to have to pay the stealth fee if I use the CLI for my stealth transfers or not?-
If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.
One might argue that the holidays are the best time - because things slow down at work and you have time to do a little reading.
If it was a pure GUI feature, there would be no hard fork needed and we wouldn't have to take a vote. BM explained all this for over 30 minutes in yesterday's Mumble to make sure it was clear.
The entire concept was discussed in several threads for the past several weeks.
Further, this led to the concept of FBAs which are the Flux Capacitor of BitShares. It is a major new way to enable the funding of new features needed to make moon travel possible.
We will continue to look for ways to add new features to BitShares - That way leads to the Bright Side.
As for the CLI, I don't know. Good question.
:)
For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.
The only people supposing it is BM and his employees (xeroc).
Those 2 weeks to vote on deliberately hidden facts, conveniently fall in the 2 weeks most people will be on vacation/on holiday.
After all why don't you (if not BM) himself come and answer straight this question - Am I going to have to pay the stealth fee if I use the CLI for my stealth transfers or not?-
If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.
One might argue that the holidays are the best time - because things slow down at work and you have time to do a little reading.
If it was a pure GUI feature, there would be no hard fork needed and we wouldn't have to take a vote. BM explained all this for over 30 minutes in yesterday's Mumble to make sure it was clear.
The entire concept was discussed in several threads for the past several weeks.
Further, this led to the concept of FBAs which are the Flux Capacitor of BitShares. It is a major new way to enable the funding of new features needed to make moon travel possible.
We will continue to look for ways to add new features to BitShares - That way leads to the Bright Side.
As for the CLI, I don't know. Good question.
:)
it did lead to FBA, didn't it? Really? Interesting...
I am increasingly sure it will not lead the next time...
btw I will be fully supporting stealth real soon... I mean, I see money on the table and a whole community of idiots, so "why not" I asked myself???
QuoteLet us have intelligent debate where every voice is equally heard
I think BTS is still a benevolent dictatorship at this stage.
Does anyone have a different POV?
What we've got is an ideal case of "silence means consent". If there is ever a case when apathy turns to anger, then the majority has the ability to remove the benevolent dictator by raising as little as 5% or 10% worth of opposition. That is less power than the captain of a ship has. And captains are given such authority for good reasons.
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.
:)
Relax and enjoy the chance to spend one more paycheck at these prices. ;)
For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.
The only people supposing it is BM and his employees (xeroc).
Those 2 weeks to vote on deliberately hidden facts, conveniently fall in the 2 weeks most people will be on vacation/on holiday.
After all why don't you (if not BM) himself come and answer straight this question - Am I going to have to pay the stealth fee if I use the CLI for my stealth transfers or not?-
If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.
One might argue that the holidays are the best time - because things slow down at work and you have time to do a little reading.
If it was a pure GUI feature, there would be no hard fork needed and we wouldn't have to take a vote. BM explained all this for over 30 minutes in yesterday's Mumble to make sure it was clear.
The entire concept was discussed in several threads for the past several weeks.
Further, this led to the concept of FBAs which are the Flux Capacitor of BitShares. It is a major new way to enable the funding of new features needed to make moon travel possible.
We will continue to look for ways to add new features to BitShares - That way leads to the Bright Side.
As for the CLI, I don't know. Good question.
:)
it did lead to FBA, didn't it? Really? Interesting...
I am increasingly sure it will not lead the next time...
btw I will be fully supporting stealth real soon... I mean, I see money on the table and a whole community of idiots, so "why not" I asked myself???
It's amusing I'm personally not too concerned with STEALTH but then again I'm not overly invested in BTS atm either...
You are receiving the same response I got to my dictatorship concerns when dilution was being forced through...QuoteLet us have intelligent debate where every voice is equally heard
I think BTS is still a benevolent dictatorship at this stage.
Does anyone have a different POV?What we've got is an ideal case of "silence means consent". If there is ever a case when apathy turns to anger, then the majority has the ability to remove the benevolent dictator by raising as little as 5% or 10% worth of opposition. That is less power than the captain of a ship has. And captains are given such authority for good reasons.
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.
:)
Apparently Shareholders selling BTSX & halving it's value from the time dilution was proposed, was a perfect example of silence means consent :) But that worked out alright didn't it?
Just relax...Relax and enjoy the chance to spend one more paycheck at these prices. ;)
As I said I'm not too against Stealth given the money is on the table and I'm not overly exposed to BTS currently, but without incentives for voting or keeping BTS off the exchanges it's likely voting turnout may always be fairly low, allowing bad decisions to be pushed through with fairly little stake even if the majority don't agree.
But maybe it is OK and all around here are just sheep that does not deserve better than pure dictatorship...
bitcrab is not voting on it because it is not directly related to his business interests, fav managed to came up with technical excuse why not to vote at least for the refund worker [so to effectively rise the barrier to entry above bm single vote deciding the fate of any worker proposal]
Maybe it is exactly what bts deserves, just maybe.
As I said I'm not too against Stealth given the money is on the table and I'm not overly exposed to BTS currently, but without incentives for voting or keeping BTS off the exchanges it's likely voting turnout may always be fairly low, allowing bad decisions to be pushed through with fairly little stake even if the majority don't agree.
Non sequitur.
Lack of easy Stealth is probably one of the biggest reasons people aren't willing to vote.
Adding new FBAs is adding reasons to keep BTS off the exchanges as is OpenLedger.
Total participation being low means serious resistance is easy to mount.
And if you don't have enough BTS off outside exchanges right now to vote 'no' with, why should your opinion count?
:)
I just think some people are blind... Someone ready to invest a sum of money to integrate a new feature to BitShares, is a bad thing?onceuponatime's intentions, although a mystery, aren't really the question in my mind. Of course he's well intentioned enough he's been a bitshares supporter for ages.
How could it be wrong? Do someone actually think that onceup will throw this money out of its window without working his *** out to promote and do something of it which will benefit all the community?
Really??? We are talking about it? I am lost here... "New feature"+ "someone who will work hard for bts" is a great combo IMO...
There are features that Cryptonomex wants to implement where privacy is extremely important and there are lots of people that have avoided importing their balances from BitShares 1.0 because of the lack of privacy. Anyone who's got millions of BitShares cares about privacy. So the privacy feature is something that I think is very important and it's actually a barrier to adoption by a lot of people, particularly people with money. It's something we need and it's something that Cryptonomex has already invested the time in to implement at the blockchain level. This proposal helps fund Cryptonomex and it keeps all the guys employed with the revenue they need to do things. So it's a critical proposal in several different ways.
=)
Believe me, the $45000 work (only for GUI) won't bring new "big" users right away, you'll ask for more money. Because ..
As I said I'm not too against Stealth given the money is on the table and I'm not overly exposed to BTS currently, but without incentives for voting or keeping BTS off the exchanges it's likely voting turnout may always be fairly low, allowing bad decisions to be pushed through with fairly little stake even if the majority don't agree.
Non sequitur.
Lack of easy Stealth is probably one of the biggest reasons people aren't willing to vote.
Adding new FBAs is adding reasons to keep BTS off the exchanges as is OpenLedger.
Total participation being low means serious resistance is easy to mount.
And if you don't have enough BTS off outside exchanges right now to vote 'no' with, why should your opinion count?
:)
IF (just assume) the worker is voted out before Jan 1, will you(or CNX) pay xeroc 300$ for created that work proposal, or BTS holders pay him fully via dilution, or xeroc burn the fund which is already paid to him? If it's voted in, will you charge BTS holders $1000 more or $700 more for implement the hard fork? You put xeroc at a strange position.At that time they will face a choice:Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?
1. Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2. Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).
Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.
Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.
That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.
This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.
Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.
Where did you get the one day poll? Voting continues until Jan 1 as I understand the plan. No?QuoteRoadmap
Feedback and discussion of this thread: December 8 to December 10, 2015
Presentation of an amended Cryptonomex Worker Proposal: Dec 11, 2015 This worker proposal should include Milestones of what is intended to be accomplished by the end of week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4 and week 5 so that the Community can follow progress in the github.
Voting for Worker Proposal: Dec 11 to January 1, 2016
onceuponatime forwards $45,000 to Cryptonomex: Jan.2, 2016
Cryptonomex does the development and testing of the feature: (4 to 6 weeks)
Hard fork for implementation of the feature: Monday Feb, 15th
IF (just assume) the worker is voted out before Jan 1, will you(or CNX) pay xeroc 300$ for created that work proposal, or BTS holders pay him fully via dilution, or xeroc burn the fund which is already paid to him? If it's voted in, will you charge BTS holders $1000 more or $700 more for implement the hard fork? You put xeroc at a strange position.
You will never be able to vote with a stealth system. That is kind of the whole point of confidential transactions you don't know how much money everyone has. Voting was the primary way BTS one was compromised. This does not affect the referral program because stealth transfers do not participate in the referral program because we don't know who is transferring to whom.It might not matter much, but if you referred a user and they made stealth transaction, you do not earn referral fees on that transaction. So effectively it does affect the referral program.
You will never be able to vote with a stealth system. That is kind of the whole point of confidential transactions you don't know how much money everyone has. Voting was the primary way BTS one was compromised. This does not affect the referral program because stealth transfers do not participate in the referral program because we don't know who is transferring to whom.It might not matter much, but if you referred a user and they made stealth transaction, you do not earn referral fees on that transaction. So effectively it does affect the referral program.
Where Stealth could effect the referral programme is the price point, STEALTH will charge $0.5 where DASH charges less than $0.01 and is also already tied into numerous payment processors https://www.dash.org/payment-processors/But DASH doesn't offer price-stable coins, does it?
So if customers don't like paying 50X more than competitors for privacy and STEALTH doesn't lower the fee, BTS may lose business on other products and services and thus cost referrers & BTS shareholders money.
He gets to keep whatever tiny earnings there may be as a bonus for writing a successful proposal.
Where Stealth could effect the referral programme is the price point, STEALTH will charge $0.5 where DASH charges less than $0.01 and is also already tied into numerous payment processors https://www.dash.org/payment-processors/But DASH doesn't offer price-stable coins, does it?
So if customers don't like paying 50X more than competitors for privacy and STEALTH doesn't lower the fee, BTS may lose business on other products and services and thus cost referrers & BTS shareholders money.
Shareholders are not paying for anything else first. Bid up the MAKER asset and create a maker worker to see where that goes. Both can be done at the same time because they require different skills.
Where Stealth could effect the referral programme is the price point, STEALTH will charge $0.5 where DASH charges less than $0.01 and is also already tied into numerous payment processors https://www.dash.org/payment-processors/But DASH doesn't offer price-stable coins, does it?
So if customers don't like paying 50X more than competitors for privacy and STEALTH doesn't lower the fee, BTS may lose business on other products and services and thus cost referrers & BTS shareholders money.
Total Masternodes: 3442 = 3439 actives + 3 inactives [3434 unique IPs] (Last refresh: Sun Dec 20 2015 23:48:04)
Good point .. but then on the other hand, I provide the witnesses with useful tools and advice and never charged anyone for it ..He gets to keep whatever tiny earnings there may be as a bonus for writing a successful proposal.
OT: The funny thing is that, that "tiny" earning is like 60% more of what a witness get in an entire month xD
It's included in another worker proposal, isn't it?Good point .. but then on the other hand, I provide the witnesses with useful tools and advice and never charged anyone for it ..He gets to keep whatever tiny earnings there may be as a bonus for writing a successful proposal.
OT: The funny thing is that, that "tiny" earning is like 60% more of what a witness get in an entire month xD
Good point .. but then on the other hand, I provide the witnesses with useful tools and advice and never charged anyone for it ..He gets to keep whatever tiny earnings there may be as a bonus for writing a successful proposal.
OT: The funny thing is that, that "tiny" earning is like 60% more of what a witness get in an entire month xD