BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: abit on December 31, 2015, 01:51:03 am
-
Why do you still have bytemaster or angle as proxy?
Why are you still voting for STEALTH and/or voting against refund400k?
Why are you not voting?
You're helping BM with his dictatorship.
If you don't like what BM did in these days, please vote against STEALTH and vote for refund400k TODAY.
Now we only have the choice of STEALTH or NOTHING.
After STEALTH is approved, we'll have next choice of WHATEVER WE DON'T LIKE or NOTHING.
If you don't vote with your stake now, you'll have to vote with your feet some day.
@jakub BM/CNX has already showed that they wouldn't bring anything else for you to vote, why not present your opinion by voting against current choice?
@theredpill please don't only vote against STEALTH, please vote for refund400k as well.
@bitcrab @Harvey @ebit where are you?
@clayop I know you're busy these days, but please take a look here.
-
I thought the idea of replacing the refund400k for 4x refund100k made sense to make it more flexible, that's what I read somewhere if I'm not mistaken
-
I thought the idea of replacing the refund400k for 4x refund100k made sense to make it more flexible, that's what I read somewhere if I'm not mistaken
That is waiting for the committee to approve. Thanks to @xeroc but now only dele-puppy approved. Without BM or more committee members it's impossible to go through. http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.45
Anyway it's too late to wait for it. Just do with the refund400k worker now.
-
Why are you still voting for STEALTH
because i want STEALTH so i can import the rest of my monies without tonyk and those like him spying on muh financials and i want all of the features that are waiting for STEALTH to be implemented.
-
Because what he says makes sense, thats why.
-
STEALTH is really important feature and it needs to be implemented ASAP.
-
Stealth has been approved by now .. removing your votes will not change anything wrt hard fork approval
-
@jakub BM/CNX has already showed that they wouldn't bring anything else for you to vote, why not present your opinion by voting against current choice?
(1) I vote for STEALTH instead of NOTHING because I prefer STEALTH to NOTHING.
Thus my vote is not meant to be a political manifestation but the actual choice for the best option out of the two available.
(2) I am being realistic here: at this stage we need CNX to be strong and CNX needs cash to pay their developers and grow. CNX is our strategic partner. One might argue that CNX being weak or non-existent would attract another company to fill the space, but even if this is true (which I doubt) we would end up replacing one CNX with another CNX.
(3) And last but not least: STEALTH does not matter to me personally but more people than I expected have declared that STEALTH is important to them.
So there seems to be actual market demand for this. Additionally, this is enforced by the feedback I get from people outside the crypto-world: whenever I demo the GUI to them, they are really surprised that their account and all transfers are publicly visible. They are not used to that as the legacy systems don't allow it.
-
Same as jakub, I vote for STEALTH because I think many stakeholders need it. But I basically agree with you. MAS or nothing option is really disappointing.
-
Thanks for you reply. I'll shut up. Mods please lock this thread.
-
Thanks for you reply. I'll shut up. Mods please lock this thread.
It's good that you've asked this question.
I don't feel too comfortable with this situation so having a chance to explain my motives is very appreciated.
-
To turn my broken record player back on: This isn't a short game. It's not Stealth or nothing or MAS or nothing. It's a linear implementation of features. Until another software house gets up to speed on Graphene we'll just have to live with a serialized development path. This isn't ideal but it's not devastating. People have been saying since the start that we need feature x, y, or z next week or we'll lose first mover advantage. In my humble opinion as long as development keeps moving forward we'll eventually get everything we want. I don't see any "or" options here just "which order".
No one wants another software house to step up more than CNX. There is a lot of work they could be doing for a lot more money but, and again this is my uninformed opinion, they are held back by their desire to see BTS succeed and the lack of anyone else willing and/or able to work on the protocol.
-
To turn my broken record player back on: This isn't a short game. It's not Stealth or nothing or MAS or nothing. It's a linear implementation of features. Until another software house gets up to speed on Graphene we'll just have to live with a serialized development path. This isn't ideal but it's not devastating. People have been saying since the start that we need feature x, y, or z next week or we'll lose first mover advantage. In my humble opinion as long as development keeps moving forward we'll eventually get everything we want. I don't see any "or" options here just "which order".
No one wants another software house to step up more than CNX. There is a lot of work they could be doing for a lot more money but, and again this is my uninformed opinion, they are held back by their desire to see BTS succeed and the lack of anyone else willing and/or able to work on the protocol.
+5%
-
To turn my broken record player back on: This isn't a short game. It's not Stealth or nothing or MAS or nothing. It's a linear implementation of features. Until another software house gets up to speed on Graphene we'll just have to live with a serialized development path. This isn't ideal but it's not devastating. People have been saying since the start that we need feature x, y, or z next week or we'll lose first mover advantage. In my humble opinion as long as development keeps moving forward we'll eventually get everything we want. I don't see any "or" options here just "which order".
No one wants another software house to step up more than CNX. There is a lot of work they could be doing for a lot more money but, and again this is my uninformed opinion, they are held back by their desire to see BTS succeed and the lack of anyone else willing and/or able to work on the protocol.
+5%
-
To turn my broken record player back on: This isn't a short game. It's not Stealth or nothing or MAS or nothing. It's a linear implementation of features. Until another software house gets up to speed on Graphene we'll just have to live with a serialized development path. This isn't ideal but it's not devastating. People have been saying since the start that we need feature x, y, or z next week or we'll lose first mover advantage. In my humble opinion as long as development keeps moving forward we'll eventually get everything we want. I don't see any "or" options here just "which order".
No one wants another software house to step up more than CNX. There is a lot of work they could be doing for a lot more money but, and again this is my uninformed opinion, they are held back by their desire to see BTS succeed and the lack of anyone else willing and/or able to work on the protocol.
+5%
-
@jakub BM/CNX has already showed that they wouldn't bring anything else for you to vote, why not present your opinion by voting against current choice?
(1) I vote for STEALTH instead of NOTHING because I prefer STEALTH to NOTHING.
Thus my vote is not meant to be a political manifestation but the actual choice for the best option out of the two available.
(2) I am being realistic here: at this stage we need CNX to be strong and CNX needs cash to pay their developers and grow. CNX is our strategic partner. One might argue that CNX being weak or non-existent would attract another company to fill the space, but even if this is true (which I doubt) we would end up replacing one CNX with another CNX.
(3) And last but not least: STEALTH does not matter to me personally but more people than I expected have declared that STEALTH is important to them.
So there seems to be actual market demand for this. Additionally, this is enforced by the feedback I get from people outside the crypto-world: whenever I demo the GUI to them, they are really surprised that their account and all transfers are publicly visible. They are not used to that as the legacy systems don't allow it.
For all .... happy year 2016.
I wish bm will be a shining star in the new year and bts price to the moon[emoji12]
Stealth has been approved by now .. removing your votes will not change anything wrt hard fork approval
-
To turn my broken record player back on: This isn't a short game. It's not Stealth or nothing or MAS or nothing. It's a linear implementation of features. Until another software house gets up to speed on Graphene we'll just have to live with a serialized development path. This isn't ideal but it's not devastating. People have been saying since the start that we need feature x, y, or z next week or we'll lose first mover advantage. In my humble opinion as long as development keeps moving forward we'll eventually get everything we want. I don't see any "or" options here just "which order".
No one wants another software house to step up more than CNX. There is a lot of work they could be doing for a lot more money but, and again this is my uninformed opinion, they are held back by their desire to see BTS succeed and the lack of anyone else willing and/or able to work on the protocol.
+5%
-
Why are you still voting for STEALTH
because i want STEALTH so i can import the rest of my monies without tonyk and those like him spying on muh financials and i want all of the features that are waiting for STEALTH to be implemented.
Yes sure me too, but not like this, please take a look at this
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20751.msg268539.html#msg268539