Personal suggestion: if you support development , please withdraw your funds from yunbi.
thanks for the heads up!
(http://i.imgur.com/jiPLHml.png)
I knew something like this would happen when @bitcrab got Yunbi to vote.@Samupaha I'm curious why this tweet doesn't show on your main page https://twitter.com/samupaha?
I suggest that everybody will tweet (https://twitter.com/yunbicom) and send email (https://yunbi.com/documents/contact) to Yunbi. I already did.
https://twitter.com/samupaha/status/714174291730935808
Maybe we can make them stop voting, that is so horrible use of customer funds that I'd guess they will understand it themselves too. By attacking workers they are trying to stop development of Bitshares, which will cause BTS price to go down, which will cause direct harm to their customers who own BTS.
I knew something like this would happen when @bitcrab got Yunbi to vote.@Samupaha I'm curious why this tweet doesn't show on your main page https://twitter.com/samupaha?
I suggest that everybody will tweet (https://twitter.com/yunbicom) and send email (https://yunbi.com/documents/contact) to Yunbi. I already did.
https://twitter.com/samupaha/status/714174291730935808
Maybe we can make them stop voting, that is so horrible use of customer funds that I'd guess they will understand it themselves too. By attacking workers they are trying to stop development of Bitshares, which will cause BTS price to go down, which will cause direct harm to their customers who own BTS.
Got it. Thanks :)I knew something like this would happen when @bitcrab got Yunbi to vote.@Samupaha I'm curious why this tweet doesn't show on your main page https://twitter.com/samupaha?
I suggest that everybody will tweet (https://twitter.com/yunbicom) and send email (https://yunbi.com/documents/contact) to Yunbi. I already did.
https://twitter.com/samupaha/status/714174291730935808
Maybe we can make them stop voting, that is so horrible use of customer funds that I'd guess they will understand it themselves too. By attacking workers they are trying to stop development of Bitshares, which will cause BTS price to go down, which will cause direct harm to their customers who own BTS.
It's just how twitter works.. you have to go into the tweets & replies area
https://twitter.com/samupaha/with_replies
Yunbi's cold/warm wallet's voting proxy is set to laobao (https://cryptofresh.com/u/laomao).
Personal suggestion: if you support development , please withdraw your funds from yunbi.
bm change the total supply of BTS without consent too
you have a thief as your comminitee
your man always want get more and more money,
never want to clear the thief,
and said sorry to BTER
Meanwhile....(http://i67.tinypic.com/j6r19z.png)
bm change the total supply of BTS without consent too
What the hell this is supposed to mean?
First, we have now changed to Bitshares 2.0 where Bytemaster has no power to change the supply anymore. Didn't you know that? We made the change last year!
Second, if you didn't like the supply change, why didn't you sell everything and leave the project? If you don't believe in Bitshares anymore, why you are in the forum still? Remember, Bitshares is a DAC so it's like a company. If you think that company is doing badly, you either try to get it to work better or sell your shares. So far anti-Bytemaster gang hasn't offered any improvement proposals so I guess that you don't have any idea how to make Bitshares better.
Attacking against Bitshares with exchange votes to stop the development is probably the most retarded way of action in this situation. It will make the BTS price go down when markets realize that Bitshares development is in danger. Why do you want BTS price to go down? Please, explain.
you means the BTS price is decide by Bitshares development,and the price go down not by Devs always change rules ?
you means the BTS price is decide by Bitshares development,and the price go down not by Devs always change rules ?
You wanted this, didn't you？ @abitThat‘s no doubt about that poloniex、btc38 had make a contribution to the BTS，I think they can creat a worker and vote himself ,If this will come sooner or later, better sooner than later. Let them do it, drive the price down, so real believers can buy in cheaper.
Maybe you will say they are crazy ,but The capital market is always crazy.
assuming that some has many BTS, or he can get many votes like this ,creat a worker and vote hinself , but he doesn't work ,so what?
Rely on the moral ? or rely on the rule ?
I think the developers have gained enough profit.LINUX strong is not to rely on others to pay wages. I agree with Yunbi.
I think the developers have gained enough profit.LINUX strong is not to rely on others to pay wages. I agree with Yunbi.
Then explain what incentives the developers have? Linux is totally different kind of project, explain how we can make the development happen like it does? Bitshares is more like a company than a open source project. Our goal is to make money. Don't you agree with that?
This kind of short oneliners don't help to convince anybody. You have to EXPLAIN how you think Bitshares can go on when funding for development is stopped.
bm change the total supply of BTS without consent too
What the hell this is supposed to mean?
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 not invest in a company directed by its shareholders.
All is swell. If not, sell. :)
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.
Thanks. Updated. The link is correct anyway.Yunbi's cold/warm wallet's voting proxy is set to laobao (https://cryptofresh.com/u/laomao).
Personal suggestion: if you support development , please withdraw your funds from yunbi.
its laomao (not ***bao)
bm change the total supply of BTS without consent too
What the hell this is supposed to mean?
He means many unpopular dilutionary changes were pushed through by a minority of BTS stake that was actually voting, on the basis of 'Silence means consent'. So too with this, if BTS users don't remove their stake from Yunbi or enough BTS votes can't be raised to counteract them then 'Silence means consent.'
You want me to support you or not?You wanted this, didn't you？ @abitThat‘s no doubt about that poloniex、btc38 had make a contribution to the BTS，I think they can creat a worker and vote himself ,If this will come sooner or later, better sooner than later. Let them do it, drive the price down, so real believers can buy in cheaper.
Maybe you will say they are crazy ,but The capital market is always crazy.
assuming that some has many BTS, or he can get many votes like this ,creat a worker and vote hinself , but he doesn't work ,so what?
Rely on the moral ? or rely on the rule ?
Yunbi voting against the workers could be looked at as them protecting their customers. By voting against the workers, they are preventing the dilution of their customers bts. Dilution has direct negative price pressure and adds an additional variable to trading. Workers and development doesn't necessarily mean higher price.
Also there is no "social contact" that the exchanges need to follow, and constant vilifying of exchanges is going to hurt the bts price much more than an exchange actually using the system the way it was designed.
Yunbi voting against the workers could be looked at as them protecting their customers. By voting against the workers, they are preventing the dilution of their customers bts. Dilution has direct negative price pressure and adds an additional variable to trading. Workers and development doesn't necessarily mean higher price.
Also there is no "social contact" that the exchanges need to follow, and constant vilifying of exchanges is going to hurt the bts price much more than an exchange actually using the system the way it was designed.
You're a complete idiot. You've proven that over and over again.
bm change the total supply of BTS without consent too
What the hell this is supposed to mean?
He means many unpopular dilutionary changes were pushed through by a minority of BTS stake that was actually voting, on the basis of 'Silence means consent'. So too with this, if BTS users don't remove their stake from Yunbi or enough BTS votes can't be raised to counteract them then 'Silence means consent.'
So that happened like 2014? And these people haven't got over it and want to revenge for Bytemaster and other developers because of that? And they don't care if Bitshares is destroyed at the same time? Really, what the fuck is wrong with these people? They don't make any sense.
Yunbi voting against the workers could be looked at as them protecting their customers. By voting against the workers, they are preventing the dilution of their customers bts. Dilution has direct negative price pressure and adds an additional variable to trading. Workers and development doesn't necessarily mean higher price.
Also there is no "social contact" that the exchanges need to follow, and constant vilifying of exchanges is going to hurt the bts price much more than an exchange actually using the system the way it was designed.
I think the developers have gained enough profit.LINUX strong is not to rely on others to pay wages. I agree with Yunbi.
bm change the total supply of BTS without consent too
What the hell this is supposed to mean?
He means many unpopular dilutionary changes were pushed through by a minority of BTS stake that was actually voting, on the basis of 'Silence means consent'. So too with this, if BTS users don't remove their stake from Yunbi or enough BTS votes can't be raised to counteract them then 'Silence means consent.'
So that happened like 2014? And these people haven't got over it and want to revenge for Bytemaster and other developers because of that? And they don't care if Bitshares is destroyed at the same time? Really, what the fuck is wrong with these people? They don't make any sense.
Their argument with the consent issue is that they've always been told if you don't like it, don't just complain that it's not fair/bad for BitShares, get the shareholder votes to support your POV otherwise silence means consent (Also reference in Dec 2015, not just 2014) So now they have the votes to do what they believe is in the best interest of BTS and we shouldn't change the rules/ban them from the forum but rather argue for the other side and get the necessary votes for our POV.
My impression is that they believe dilution for development is draining the price in the short term. (I agree to an extent that $50 000 spent on development can drop BTS by much more than $50k because of the selling pressure it creates and the value of that development is only realised in the future.) So they think BTS is pretty good where it is atm and deserves a higher valuation and that now we should attract more supporters attracted by a stable/rising share price. At a higher valuation a $50k dev job is relatively much more affordable.
Personally I don't think their strategy will have the desired effect, because vesting merger shares are probably having a much bigger impact than development dilution is at this stage. We've also seen with Fox's effort to add us to Azure, which ironically was low/no paid gave us a $6 million volume day and took us from $10-20 million in less than a week and still 50% higher. So there are clearly some development type efforts that can add massive value to BTS and worth the cost.
While we may not think it's a good idea to have exchanges vote, you could also argue that as long as the exchange accounts are public and we know who they're voting for, anyone keeping their funds in that exchange implicitly agrees to their votes. If they do not agree they should move their funds elsewhere.
While we may not think it's a good idea to have exchanges vote, you could also argue that as long as the exchange accounts are public and we know who they're voting for, anyone keeping their funds in that exchange implicitly agrees to their votes. If they do not agree they should move their funds elsewhere.
You can't really expect Yunbi's users who hold BTS to know exactly what is going on. For all they know, they are just trading a cryptocurrency. So unless Yunbi is informing their users about this very controversial action, then they are acting in an extremely unethical manner and should pay a serious price.
So, what is a problem? They can vote, and they vote. We agreed to vote with shares, and here it is, money democracy in practice. Accept it.
While we may not think it's a good idea to have exchanges vote, you could also argue that as long as the exchange accounts are public and we know who they're voting for, anyone keeping their funds in that exchange implicitly agrees to their votes. If they do not agree they should move their funds elsewhere.
I also fail to see how you can use Fox and Azure as an argument for worker dilution, on the contrary it's a great example of how people who are not workers can make important contributions and add value to the network. As far as I know the only direct compensation he received was from people (like myself) who made donations following the Azure announcement.
setup proxy to baozi if you are anti-dilution
this account will against all dilution workers without reason,
so please remove this proxy if you feel it's time to dilution to support those workers.
and don't try to persuade this account change the votes,
you should persuade those persons who set this account as proxy.
While we may not think it's a good idea to have exchanges vote, you could also argue that as long as the exchange accounts are public and we know who they're voting for, anyone keeping their funds in that exchange implicitly agrees to their votes. If they do not agree they should move their funds elsewhere.
You can't really expect Yunbi's users who hold BTS to know exactly what is going on. For all they know, they are just trading a cryptocurrency. So unless Yunbi is informing their users about this very controversial action, then they are acting in an extremely unethical manner and should pay a serious price.
While we may not think it's a good idea to have exchanges vote, you could also argue that as long as the exchange accounts are public and we know who they're voting for, anyone keeping their funds in that exchange implicitly agrees to their votes. If they do not agree they should move their funds elsewhere.
You can't really expect Yunbi's users who hold BTS to know exactly what is going on. For all they know, they are just trading a cryptocurrency. So unless Yunbi is informing their users about this very controversial action, then they are acting in an extremely unethical manner and should pay a serious price.
Users should know very well that as soon as they move their BTS to an external exchange, they do not really own their BTS anymore and do not have any voting power or control on what their stake is used for.
Quotesetup proxy to baozi if you are anti-dilution
this account will against all dilution workers without reason,
so please remove this proxy if you feel it's time to dilution to support those workers.
and don't try to persuade this account change the votes,
you should persuade those persons who set this account as proxy.
Bolded WITHOUT REASON.
You are welcome to look through all his forum posts prior to this all the way to the beginning of the year... not once was the idea of the market cap brought up by alt as his reasoning.
Alt has said fuck bitshares worker.. vote against without reason... don't try to whitewash the reality of his actions or postioning with what we would hope to be nice or reasonable intentions.. it's not.. it's without reason as he himself as stated.. to 'fuck bitshares worker'.
The anti-dilution movement is fueled by this 'without reason' thinking.... we can try and apply all the weak reasoning ideas we can come up with.. but at the end of the day it all amounts to nothing but wishful thinking in the hopes that those perpetrating it are doing it out of some semblance of rational/reasonable/good intentions which is directly contradictory to their own words and actions.
While we may not think it's a good idea to have exchanges vote, you could also argue that as long as the exchange accounts are public and we know who they're voting for, anyone keeping their funds in that exchange implicitly agrees to their votes. If they do not agree they should move their funds elsewhere.
I also fail to see how you can use Fox and Azure as an argument for worker dilution, on the contrary it's a great example of how people who are not workers can make important contributions and add value to the network. As far as I know the only direct compensation he received was from people (like myself) who made donations following the Azure announcement.
Imagine if every country where those that didn't go to vote were implicitly agreeing to their voting going towards something else was the norm. Is this the standard we should bring to Bitshares?
It's an exchange.. it's a business. Where is their terms and conditions that states they are going to sieze control of BTS holders voting power for their own use when they trade on their platform? Isn't there a statement somewhere in the trading platform that informs the end user that this is what will happen to their BTS voting power beyond the exchange? If not, I would call this surreptitious, unethical, and without any transparency on their part in the very system they have control over, their exchange. The fact that they hide behind some random named proxy name and not with something that says 'yunbi-exchange' suggests and attempt to hide their actions in my estimation, rather than encouraging transparency.
Fox is an example of development leading to greater market cap in the face of the arguement being we need to wait for magical pixie dust to somehow raise the market cap before we should spend any money.
If the argument is that we shouldn't have more development until market cap goes up, the reality seems to be that the development IS what is causing the market cap to increase. Therefore if we support solid development steps using what we have available to us, ie. worker proposals, then we will get to that higher market cap that supposedly is what is being waited for before support goes to them.
Your understanding of @alt reasoning for stopping all workers because of the market cap doesn't support what alt himself has said. Look at his 2nd last post before he stopped coming to the forum back in February 4th:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21317.msg277003.html#msg277003Quotesetup proxy to baozi if you are anti-dilution
this account will against all dilution workers without reason,
so please remove this proxy if you feel it's time to dilution to support those workers.
and don't try to persuade this account change the votes,
you should persuade those persons who set this account as proxy.
Bolded WITHOUT REASON.
You are welcome to look through all his forum posts prior to this all the way to the beginning of the year... not once was the idea of the market cap brought up by alt as his reasoning.
Alt has said fuck bitshares worker.. vote against without reason... don't try to whitewash the reality of his actions or postioning with what we would hope to be nice or reasonable intentions.. it's not.. it's without reason as he himself as stated.. to 'fuck bitshares worker'.
The anti-dilution movement is fueled by this 'without reason' thinking.... we can try and apply all the weak reasoning ideas we can come up with.. but at the end of the day it all amounts to nothing but wishful thinking in the hopes that those perpetrating it are doing it out of some semblance of rational/reasonable/good intentions which is directly contradictory to their own words and actions.
To put the FINAL nail in the coffin on this whole argument.
Bottom line... Yunbi is backed by Ethereum now by a VAST majority:
http://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/yunbi/
Nearly 60% of their entire exchange volume is Ethereum in the last 24hrs.. its been that way for a while
So if you are wondering why they are voting the way they are, follow the money.
Quotesetup proxy to baozi if you are anti-dilution
this account will against all dilution workers without reason,
so please remove this proxy if you feel it's time to dilution to support those workers.
and don't try to persuade this account change the votes,
you should persuade those persons who set this account as proxy.
Bolded WITHOUT REASON.
You are welcome to look through all his forum posts prior to this all the way to the beginning of the year... not once was the idea of the market cap brought up by alt as his reasoning.
Alt has said fuck bitshares worker.. vote against without reason... don't try to whitewash the reality of his actions or postioning with what we would hope to be nice or reasonable intentions.. it's not.. it's without reason as he himself as stated.. to 'fuck bitshares worker'.
The anti-dilution movement is fueled by this 'without reason' thinking.... we can try and apply all the weak reasoning ideas we can come up with.. but at the end of the day it all amounts to nothing but wishful thinking in the hopes that those perpetrating it are doing it out of some semblance of rational/reasonable/good intentions which is directly contradictory to their own words and actions.
IMO, that "without reason" is clearly intended versus the workers, not for his motivation!
IMO, he is not saying that he votes without reason against all workers, BUT that he votes against those workers that (according to his motivations) have no "reason to be there"/"are not needed"
Plus, directly or indirectly, Alt has stated his motivation more than once. If you and other do not understand his points, is only your fault since you don't really want to carefull read and try to understand others people's positions.
Where is the public statement put out by Yunbi that they are going to be handling BTS funds this way from now on?Where is the public statement put out by Yunbi that they are NOT going to do whatever they want with the stake they actually own as a centralized exchange?
Given their current position and volume with Ethereum though, they could care less what we or their holders think. If it serves their Ethereum trade business, then the consequences are minimal in the short sighted outlook of things. Perhaps it is in preparation of a chinese fork of bitshares if you really want to get conspiracy theory on it all.I don't understand this point about eth.
So, what is a problem? They can vote, and they vote. We agreed to vote with shares, and here it is, money democracy in practice. Accept it.
No thanks. You accept it. I'll continue to look for solutions, hopefully with other like-minded people.
If I park my car in a parking garage that takes my keys and parks it, I understand I no longer have control of my car... but I also understand my car is not going to be used so the garage could operate another business of delivering packages around town for example.
I read through his last 100 posts in the forum.. did you? Didn't think so.
This is the white washing I am talking about.. his own actions and words are clear as day.
Alt has shown no discernment whatsoever in his voting against workers... as he stated in his post. Both his actions and his words have integrity with the latest statement of 'fuck bitshares workers' he made on the blockchain.
Your analysis is more like lipstick on a pig.
It is what it is.
Wow, did you just suggest they're voting like this because of some far-fetched conspiracy involving Ethereum? A far more plausible answer would be that they're sick of Bitshares hard-forks and emergency hotfixes every couple of weeks and would like things to stabilize a little.
I don't think you're interpreting alt's post the right way, but as his English isn't the best it's certainly up for interpretation. In my opinion he's just saying he'll not vote for dilution workers no matter what at this point in time. Claiming that everyone anti-dilution are fueled by mindless stupidity is just ignorant, but you don't seem to want to listen to any arguments to the contrary. Everyone seems to want to frame this in terms of war terminology, "it's an attack on Bitshares" etc, perhaps that's just a product of our times, but doing so gets us nowhere.
You're putting words in alt's mouth saying he doesn't want more development for years to come and that he wants Bitshares to die, but nothing supports that theory. He simply has a different perspective on what is good for Bitshares in its current state, and since there's no direct correlation between development and market cap who knows, he might just be right. Like I said Fox's efforts had nothing to do with BTS development or worker proposals so it in no way supports your argument, in fact it supports alt's position.
So, what is a problem? They can vote, and they vote. We agreed to vote with shares, and here it is, money democracy in practice. Accept it.
No thanks. You accept it. I'll continue to look for solutions, hopefully with other like-minded people.
I don't keep my funds at yunbi, this is my solution. If somebody does, this is their choice, which you can't change.
It's unfair of Yunbi to start voting without the consent the people who use their exchange. Did they poll them, how did they determine who to vote for? This smells like determined action from a few select individuals in cooperation with the exchange management. Unless it represents the users on the exchange, it should not have been done, at the minimum they should have given advance warning to the users who held their funds there.
Even so it's not some big conspiracy. Most likely these determined individuals are doing what they think is best for their shares. But who has the best thinking? Best thinking depends on what the goal is, and what background assumptions people have. Should we increase value short term or long term? What makes the marketcap rise? Is there sufficient development without any dilution to sustain confidence in the project?
What worries me about the anti-dilution group is that I see no development or projects coming from that side of the argument. Almost everything that makes BitShares what it is now is coming from CNX and a handful of workers and partners that build on BitShares - from what I have seen their voices are nearly unanimous for at least modest dilution to fund development.
The anti-dilution campaign seem to come from a minority of large stake-holders who place all their faith in a theory that limiting a tiny percent of dilution will somehow magically raise the marketcap, even while vesting is still in action and small actions in new features or marketing can have orders of magnitude larger consequences on marketcap even short term.
Fox's efforts had nothing to do with BTS development or worker proposals so it in no way supports your argument, in fact it supports alt's position.
So, what is a problem? They can vote, and they vote. We agreed to vote with shares, and here it is, money democracy in practice. Accept it.
No thanks. You accept it. I'll continue to look for solutions, hopefully with other like-minded people.
I don't keep my funds at yunbi, this is my solution. If somebody does, this is their choice, which you can't change.
At best, Yunbi has made an assumption that people who hold BitShares on their exchange consent to their use of those funds. That is demonstrably untrue and is an action that reveals a weakness in BitShares which needs to be countered, not accepted. I appreciate wholeheartedly that you do not hold your BitShares with them and as such you are only a victim of this hijacking and misuse of power by default.
If people become aware, perhaps they will move their funds, great. If not, we should attempt to address this weakness in our platform.....and there are hopefully several ways we can do that which will be beneficial to BitShares holders in the medium to long term.
Liquidity is one issue that we face. Access to, awareness, understanding and desire for our products are others. Development, distribution and the changing dynamics of the global economy will only add potential increases in the future price of BitShares. We all want that but for different reasons and on different time-scales (well most of us ;D). Either way, we must innovate to build resilience wherever we find weakness. I've seen enough posts on this forum from enough people to believe that an ever growing core of this community still believe in the vision of building a corruption resistant economic platform with economic parameters to match. Unfortunately there are inevitably some hope aren't interested in that vision or have a very different idea about how to achieve it. I've seen absolutely nothing that indicates a cessation of support for the most hardworking or core development teams that would indicate future prosperity from a BitShares price point of view.
We find a problem, we innovate and grow stronger or we wither and die over time. Are we here to make some bucks for a few traders and centralised exchanges or are we here to offer a new path for humanity?
Fox's efforts had nothing to do with BTS development or worker proposals so it in no way supports your argument, in fact it supports alt's position.
Bit off topic, but imo, Fox's efforts should have been rewarded via a worker proposal. I would even vote for a retrospective worker to pay him for the obvious value he has added to BTS. (I would love to see a situation where if people take the initiative and add value to BTS they will be retroactively rewarded and even if it only cost them $1000 we will potentially reward them much more based on the value we believe their actions helped BTS.)
Investors/Speculators loved the brand association of 'Microsoft' so if we can perhaps get him to do the same on Amazon and Google, relatively easily, that would be great. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21842.msg284947.html#msg284947
I think it also give us a possible direction in which to focus some of the current development in terms of adding value to BTS.
Which is rather than just making the isolated BTS platform more feature rich, we should perhaps focus on developing connections and utility with well known third parties/brands be they payment processors/retailers/etc.
Fox's efforts had nothing to do with BTS development or worker proposals so it in no way supports your argument, in fact it supports alt's position.
Bit off topic, but imo, Fox's efforts should have been rewarded via a worker proposal. I would even vote for a retrospective worker to pay him for the obvious value he has added to BTS. (I would love to see a situation where if people take the initiative and add value to BTS they will be retroactively rewarded and even if it only cost them $1000 we will potentially reward them much more based on the value we believe their actions helped BTS.)
Investors/Speculators loved the brand association of 'Microsoft' so if we can perhaps get him to do the same on Amazon and Google, relatively easily, that would be great. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21842.msg284947.html#msg284947
I think it also give us a possible direction in which to focus some of the current development in terms of adding value to BTS.
Which is rather than just making the isolated BTS platform more feature rich, we should perhaps focus on developing connections and utility with well known third parties/brands be they payment processors/retailers/etc.
Just send him a tip. I did, because he really deserves it.
So, what is a problem? They can vote, and they vote. We agreed to vote with shares, and here it is, money democracy in practice. Accept it.
No thanks. You accept it. I'll continue to look for solutions, hopefully with other like-minded people.
I don't keep my funds at yunbi, this is my solution. If somebody does, this is their choice, which you can't change.
At best, Yunbi has made an assumption that people who hold BitShares on their exchange consent to their use of those funds. That is demonstrably untrue and is an action that reveals a weakness in BitShares which needs to be countered, not accepted. I appreciate wholeheartedly that you do not hold your BitShares with them and as such you are only a victim of this hijacking and misuse of power by default.
If people become aware, perhaps they will move their funds, great. If not, we should attempt to address this weakness in our platform.....and there are hopefully several ways we can do that which will be beneficial to BitShares holders in the medium to long term.
Liquidity is one issue that we face. Access to, awareness, understanding and desire for our products are others. Development, distribution and the changing dynamics of the global economy will only add potential increases in the future price of BitShares. We all want that but for different reasons and on different time-scales (well most of us ;D). Either way, we must innovate to build resilience wherever we find weakness. I've seen enough posts on this forum from enough people to believe that an ever growing core of this community still believe in the vision of building a corruption resistant economic platform with economic parameters to match. Unfortunately there are inevitably some hope aren't interested in that vision or have a very different idea about how to achieve it. I've seen absolutely nothing that indicates a cessation of support for the most hardworking or core development teams that would indicate future prosperity from a BitShares price point of view.
We find a problem, we innovate and grow stronger or we wither and die over time. Are we here to make some bucks for a few traders and centralised exchanges or are we here to offer a new path for humanity?
This problem is many centuries old. You measure voting power with money, you give advantage to rich guy. This guy does not necessary need to own funds, he may borrow funds like yunbi. What are you going to do about that?
Agreed. In short there would need to be a consequence that prevents Yunbi from continuing their unilateral use of customer funds (without verifiable consent) or we need to innovate and adapt the platform so that similar exploits aren't possible or we need an alternative platform that has learned from these experiences and is more resilient. I'm not saying for a minute that any of this is easy or without cost......trouble was inevitable from the outset.
From a slightly philosophical point of view, no human being on this planet has ever lived within a corruption resistant economy for any great period of time. Even those currently fighting for an edge or tending towards greed for whatever reason may in fact prefer to live in a world that might be possible should a platform like BitShares succeed. The confluence of old and new partly contributes to the problems all of crypto is currently facing. How do you convince someone who can exploit an edge today, in order to make a million, to sacrifice that edge in favour of something with integrity that helps many more than just himself?
Apathy is one of the biggest challenges so the platform needs to provide all the support it can.....but then the platform must also be compelling enough to grow and gather network effect. It's this combination of issues that make continued innovation/development and integrity absolutely critical.
Agreed. In short there would need to be a consequence that prevents Yunbi from continuing their unilateral use of customer funds (without verifiable consent) or we need to innovate and adapt the platform so that similar exploits aren't possible or we need an alternative platform that has learned from these experiences and is more resilient. I'm not saying for a minute that any of this is easy or without cost......trouble was inevitable from the outset.
From a slightly philosophical point of view, no human being on this planet has ever lived within a corruption resistant economy for any great period of time. Even those currently fighting for an edge or tending towards greed for whatever reason may in fact prefer to live in a world that might be possible should a platform like BitShares succeed. The confluence of old and new partly contributes to the problems all of crypto is currently facing. How do you convince someone who can exploit an edge today, in order to make a million, to sacrifice that edge in favour of something with integrity that helps many more than just himself?
Apathy is one of the biggest challenges so the platform needs to provide all the support it can.....but then the platform must also be compelling enough to grow and gather network effect. It's this combination of issues that make continued innovation/development and integrity absolutely critical.
Such thing would not be possible with regular stocks, because there is a name attached to stocks certificate. There is no proof of ownership in bitshares. Possession means ownership. If you give your funds away, even temporarily, you give your voting power away. Everybody just needs to realise this.
Agreed. In short there would need to be a consequence that prevents Yunbi from continuing their unilateral use of customer funds (without verifiable consent) or we need to innovate and adapt the platform so that similar exploits aren't possible or we need an alternative platform that has learned from these experiences and is more resilient. I'm not saying for a minute that any of this is easy or without cost......trouble was inevitable from the outset.
From a slightly philosophical point of view, no human being on this planet has ever lived within a corruption resistant economy for any great period of time. Even those currently fighting for an edge or tending towards greed for whatever reason may in fact prefer to live in a world that might be possible should a platform like BitShares succeed. The confluence of old and new partly contributes to the problems all of crypto is currently facing. How do you convince someone who can exploit an edge today, in order to make a million, to sacrifice that edge in favour of something with integrity that helps many more than just himself?
Apathy is one of the biggest challenges so the platform needs to provide all the support it can.....but then the platform must also be compelling enough to grow and gather network effect. It's this combination of issues that make continued innovation/development and integrity absolutely critical.
Such thing would not be possible with regular stocks, because there is a name attached to stocks certificate. There is no proof of ownership in bitshares. Possession means ownership. If you give your funds away, even temporarily, you give your voting power away. Everybody just needs to realise this.
Sure. Perhaps awareness of the issue is all that is necessary to at least ensure that exchanges are forced to gather consent for their actions transparently. Or maybe heighten awarness of the fact that the owner of the key owns the funds. Certainly any other course of action requires a lot more work and uncertainty.....though may be more robust!
Have any of you guys checked the yunbi "Terms Of Service" or "User Agreement" to see if there is a provision for the exchange voting on behalf of users? If there is you are pissing in the wind to blame yunbi; the fault and target of your actions should be with the people who use yunbi.
The anti-dilution movement is fueled by this 'without reason' thinking.... we can try and apply all the weak reasoning ideas we can come up with.. but at the end of the day it all amounts to nothing but wishful thinking in the hopes that those perpetrating it are doing it out of some semblance of rational/reasonable/good intentions which is directly contradictory to their own words and actions.
Wow, did you just suggest they're voting like this because of some far-fetched conspiracy involving Ethereum? A far more plausible answer would be that they're sick of Bitshares hard-forks and emergency hotfixes every couple of weeks and would like things to stabilize a little.
I don't think you're interpreting alt's post the right way, but as his English isn't the best it's certainly up for interpretation. In my opinion he's just saying he'll not vote for dilution workers no matter what at this point in time. Claiming that everyone anti-dilution are fueled by mindless stupidity is just ignorant, but you don't seem to want to listen to any arguments to the contrary. Everyone seems to want to frame this in terms of war terminology, "it's an attack on Bitshares" etc, perhaps that's just a product of our times, but doing so gets us nowhere.
You're putting words in alt's mouth saying he doesn't want more development for years to come and that he wants Bitshares to die, but nothing supports that theory. He simply has a different perspective on what is good for Bitshares in its current state, and since there's no direct correlation between development and market cap who knows, he might just be right. Like I said Fox's efforts had nothing to do with BTS development or worker proposals so it in no way supports your argument, in fact it supports alt's position.
Agreed. In short there would need to be a consequence that prevents Yunbi from continuing their unilateral use of customer funds (without verifiable consent) or we need to innovate and adapt the platform so that similar exploits aren't possible or we need an alternative platform that has learned from these experiences and is more resilient. I'm not saying for a minute that any of this is easy or without cost......trouble was inevitable from the outset.
From a slightly philosophical point of view, no human being on this planet has ever lived within a corruption resistant economy for any great period of time. Even those currently fighting for an edge or tending towards greed for whatever reason may in fact prefer to live in a world that might be possible should a platform like BitShares succeed. The confluence of old and new partly contributes to the problems all of crypto is currently facing. How do you convince someone who can exploit an edge today, in order to make a million, to sacrifice that edge in favour of something with integrity that helps many more than just himself?
Apathy is one of the biggest challenges so the platform needs to provide all the support it can.....but then the platform must also be compelling enough to grow and gather network effect. It's this combination of issues that make continued innovation/development and integrity absolutely critical.
Such thing would not be possible with regular stocks, because there is a name attached to stocks certificate. There is no proof of ownership in bitshares. Possession means ownership. If you give your funds away, even temporarily, you give your voting power away. Everybody just needs to realise this.
Sure. Perhaps awareness of the issue is all that is necessary to at least ensure that exchanges are forced to gather consent for their actions transparently. Or maybe heighten awarness of the fact that the owner of the key owns the funds. Certainly any other course of action requires a lot more work and uncertainty.....though may be more robust!
Perhaps we should start by trying to create awareness so people (not just BTS holders) can altogether avoid this unethical and despicable exchange. Let's also consider specifically incentivizing BTS holders to get their BTS out of there and onto the DEX.
And by the way, it's one thing to vote against all workers no matter what. Such action can perhaps be chalked up to pure, unadulterated ignorance on the part of the "anti-dilution" crowd. But it's another thing entirely to mount an attack by attempting to steal funds from the reserve pool. For now, I'm not going to say what I think we should do about this if it continues. But we should all should start thinking about it. And we should think outside of the box.
I agree with svk...
From what I see the ANTI anti-dilution movement declares all arguments for responsible spending 'stupid' or completely ignore them and continue claiming no such were made
The other tactic is claiming 'anti-dilutioner' somehow try to destroy BTS while the reality is ALL workers are well and voted in.
I know it will be too much to ask, having in mind the above behavior, but how about accepting for a second "dilution is generally not good right now, we have to try to prove or at least argue why this particular spending will be beneficial!" Every worker explaining in detail how his work will increase the market cap despite the dilution it will cost.
What I mean is addressing concerns upfront, instead of putting labels on groups and claiming they mean bad before their actions have prevented a single worker getting paid.
There could be a warning on bitshares.org and any landing page where people download a wallet:
"WARNING. Some centralized exchanges may use any BTS you keep on them by voting with YOUR stake in ways that may not be in your best interest."
There could be a warning on bitshares.org and any landing page where people download a wallet:
"WARNING. Some centralized exchanges may use any BTS you keep on them by voting with YOUR stake in ways that may not be in your best interest."
+5%
If I park my car in a parking garage that takes my keys and parks it, I understand I no longer have control of my car... but I also understand my car is not going to be used so the garage could operate another business of delivering packages around town for example.
There could be a warning on bitshares.org and any landing page where people download a wallet:
"WARNING. Some centralized exchanges may use any BTS you keep on them by voting with YOUR stake in ways that may not be in your best interest."
+5%
There could be a warning on bitshares.org and any landing page where people download a wallet:
"WARNING. Some centralized exchanges may use any BTS you keep on them by voting with YOUR stake in ways that may not be in your best interest."
+5%
Yes, a red, bold warning about BTS when first timers visit Bitshares.org or download a BitShares Wallet. Marketing genius...
There could be a warning on bitshares.org and any landing page where people download a wallet:
"WARNING. Some centralized exchanges may use any BTS you keep on them by voting with YOUR stake in ways that may not be in your best interest."
+5%
Yes, a red, bold warning about BTS when first timers visit Bitshares.org or download a BitShares Wallet. Marketing genius...
It definitely needs to be worded better (more positively) (in a way that promotes and encourages keeping funds in and using the DEX)
Good job! +5%
Bitcoin grows well without any paid "workers", think about Linux. Why can't bitshares?
Does the Bitshares 2.0, the Worker attract more developers? No, still these people, but Toast left, Vikram left, alt leaving.
Yep, we against increase the supply. Can you see any public company raise what he wants?
Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
Yea, Bitcoin developers work for free
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative/announcing-a-900-000-bitcoin-developer-fund-6e8b7e8b0861&ved=0ahUKEwjEz9SS1-TLAhVB9GMKHe_jBeIQqG8IGjAA&usg=AFQjCNGX8JwqgVM6Q5hrb4plP8Ktno7omg&sig2=bduSMtX6LAOInbqLl7pPMw
Yea, Bitcoin developers work for freeSo they increase the bitcoin supply to 21,000,000 + 2000 Ƀ, and have the 2000 Ƀ for his own, wow!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative/announcing-a-900-000-bitcoin-developer-fund-6e8b7e8b0861&ved=0ahUKEwjEz9SS1-TLAhVB9GMKHe_jBeIQqG8IGjAA&usg=AFQjCNGX8JwqgVM6Q5hrb4plP8Ktno7omg&sig2=bduSMtX6LAOInbqLl7pPMw
Good job! +5%
Bitcoin grows well without any paid "workers", think about Linux. Why can't bitshares?
Does the Bitshares 2.0, the Worker attract more developers? No, still these people, but Toast left, Vikram left, alt leaving.
Yep, we against increase the supply. Can you see any public company raise what he wants?
Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
Good job! +5%
Bitcoin grows well without any paid "workers", think about Linux. Why can't bitshares?
Does the Bitshares 2.0, the Worker attract more developers? No, still these people, but Toast left, Vikram left, alt leaving.
Yep, we against increase the supply. Can you see any public company raise what he wants?
Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
So in the meantime what do you purpose we do? Will you do maintenance and bug fixing as well as improving the UI for a better user experience?
Good job! +5%
Bitcoin grows well without any paid "workers", think about Linux. Why can't bitshares?
Does the Bitshares 2.0, the Worker attract more developers? No, still these people, but Toast left, Vikram left, alt leaving.
Yep, we against increase the supply. Can you see any public company raise what he wants?
Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
So in the meantime what do you purpose we do? Will you do maintenance and bug fixing as well as improving the UI for a better user experience?
@laow you still didn't answer my question
If I say yes, can you stop all the dilution, witness ,worker?Good job! +5%
Bitcoin grows well without any paid "workers", think about Linux. Why can't bitshares?
Does the Bitshares 2.0, the Worker attract more developers? No, still these people, but Toast left, Vikram left, alt leaving.
Yep, we against increase the supply. Can you see any public company raise what he wants?
Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
So in the meantime what do you purpose we do? Will you do maintenance and bug fixing as well as improving the UI for a better user experience?
@laow you still didn't answer my question
If I say yes, can you stop all the dilution, witness ,worker?Good job! +5%
Bitcoin grows well without any paid "workers", think about Linux. Why can't bitshares?
Does the Bitshares 2.0, the Worker attract more developers? No, still these people, but Toast left, Vikram left, alt leaving.
Yep, we against increase the supply. Can you see any public company raise what he wants?
Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
So in the meantime what do you purpose we do? Will you do maintenance and bug fixing as well as improving the UI for a better user experience?
@laow you still didn't answer my question
And I have a question too, when the dilution stop, will you shutdown the server, sell out the bts and leave the community?
If you say yes why were not already doing the maintenance?
Since you seem to want to work for free so much.
Culture is Everything
"Some business cultures place a high value on treating the counterparty in a transaction with respect and dignity. In those cultures, it's important that every business transaction is a win-win, where both sides are better off for doing business together, regardless of the contractual details.
In other business cultures, business transactions are highly competitive. In those cultures, it's important to win every business transaction and contractual details are used as a weapon to bludgeon the counterparty into submission.
See the difference in approach due to culture?
What should also be obvious from this example is that cultures differ. They can be wildly different.
They aren't equally effective, they usually don't mix well, and some can be toxic".
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2016/01/culture-is-everything.html
If you say yes why were not already doing the maintenance?Yea, but I want more to see the dilution stop, don't I say that is the precondition.
Since you seem to want to work for free so much.
Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
During the last two year, how many newbie comes, and how many of them stay?Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
You are destroying the repuation of Bitshares. You are acting directly against one of the biggest advantage that we have: an ability to fund blockchain development directly from the blockchain. This is a huge thing which other people are starting finally to realize: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckRPUqnFlIs
No developers want to work for a project that is hostile against development. If there are no developers, there is no development. If there is no development, there are no features that customers want. If there are no features, there are no customers.
Current situation his horrible. I have stopped all my marketing efforts for now because I'm ashamed to present Bitshares to anybody. If newbie comes and sees what's happening, he will run away very quickly.
So tell me, how we should go on with marketing? What's working marketing strategy in a situation like this? I don't see any.
Most Online Today: 103. Most Online Ever: 373 (December 05, 2013, 11:28:00 PM) If I say yes, can you stop all the dilution, witness ,worker?Good job! +5%
Bitcoin grows well without any paid "workers", think about Linux. Why can't bitshares?
Does the Bitshares 2.0, the Worker attract more developers? No, still these people, but Toast left, Vikram left, alt leaving.
Yep, we against increase the supply. Can you see any public company raise what he wants?
Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
So in the meantime what do you purpose we do? Will you do maintenance and bug fixing as well as improving the UI for a better user experience?
@laow you still didn't answer my question
And I have a question too, when the dilution stop, will you shutdown the server, sell out the bts and leave the community?
Laow, there is a limit to the amount of dilution....there is a maximum supply. Without active development, this project is dead. Only fools and traders will continue to hold for a time.....
Just please provide one explanation for how maintenance or continued development of core/existing features will be achieved without workers?
Can you tell me first, did other crypto-currency project without Worker dead?If I say yes, can you stop all the dilution, witness ,worker?Good job! +5%
Bitcoin grows well without any paid "workers", think about Linux. Why can't bitshares?
Does the Bitshares 2.0, the Worker attract more developers? No, still these people, but Toast left, Vikram left, alt leaving.
Yep, we against increase the supply. Can you see any public company raise what he wants?
Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
So in the meantime what do you purpose we do? Will you do maintenance and bug fixing as well as improving the UI for a better user experience?
@laow you still didn't answer my question
And I have a question too, when the dilution stop, will you shutdown the server, sell out the bts and leave the community?
Laow, there is a limit to the amount of dilution....there is a maximum supply. Without active development, this project is dead. Only fools and traders will continue to hold for a time.....
Just please provide one explanation for how maintenance or continued development of core/existing features will be achieved without workers?
Please could you answer this question?
Just please provide one explanation for how maintenance or continued development of core/existing features will be achieved without workers?
During the last two year, how many newbie comes, and how many of them stay?Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
You are destroying the repuation of Bitshares. You are acting directly against one of the biggest advantage that we have: an ability to fund blockchain development directly from the blockchain. This is a huge thing which other people are starting finally to realize: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckRPUqnFlIs
No developers want to work for a project that is hostile against development. If there are no developers, there is no development. If there is no development, there are no features that customers want. If there are no features, there are no customers.
Current situation his horrible. I have stopped all my marketing efforts for now because I'm ashamed to present Bitshares to anybody. If newbie comes and sees what's happening, he will run away very quickly.
So tell me, how we should go on with marketing? What's working marketing strategy in a situation like this? I don't see any.Code: [Select]Most Online Today: 103. Most Online Ever: 373 (December 05, 2013, 11:28:00 PM)
See the forum statistics, that is the truth, almost no newbie here. Did the last two year Bitshares stop develope? then why they left?
It is not shame to present Bitshares to anybody , it is a shame that we can't have them stay.
Old guy left, newbie left, that is the situation.
Do any of you remember BM predicted the exact scenario that worker dilution on blokchain would fail eventually due to the inevitable politics ?
Well , I guess the smart guy himself didn't remember it either .
It was a comment he directed to Memory coin's "direct pay to workers" operation .
So I guess the smart ass sentence should be : BM told you so ......
Ok, on the face of it, some crypto projects that have no active development appear to be alive. However, they are not and will be in terminal decline when viewed over time. Like the carcass of a whale in the sea continuing to give life for months or even years but then nothing. We all need to realise how young blockchain technology is and how little money is in it when compared with the trillions in the global economy. The development enables our technology to adapt and remain fit and healthy. There is still a lot to do before we are ready for mass adoption but we are closer to that today than we were before the improvements funded by worker dilution. If we can reach the point where our product is fit and our community unified......bitshares true value will reveal itself and Bitcoin, ethereum, etc (though I wish those projects well) will be far far behind.Can you tell me first, did other crypto-currency project without Worker dead?If I say yes, can you stop all the dilution, witness ,worker?Good job! +5%
Bitcoin grows well without any paid "workers", think about Linux. Why can't bitshares?
Does the Bitshares 2.0, the Worker attract more developers? No, still these people, but Toast left, Vikram left, alt leaving.
Yep, we against increase the supply. Can you see any public company raise what he wants?
Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
So in the meantime what do you purpose we do? Will you do maintenance and bug fixing as well as improving the UI for a better user experience?
@laow you still didn't answer my question
And I have a question too, when the dilution stop, will you shutdown the server, sell out the bts and leave the community?
Laow, there is a limit to the amount of dilution....there is a maximum supply. Without active development, this project is dead. Only fools and traders will continue to hold for a time.....
Just please provide one explanation for how maintenance or continued development of core/existing features will be achieved without workers?
Please could you answer this question?
Just please provide one explanation for how maintenance or continued development of core/existing features will be achieved without workers?
During the last two year, how many newbie comes, and how many of them stay?Bitshares need a good reputation more than its technology, then people come, developers come.
You are destroying the repuation of Bitshares. You are acting directly against one of the biggest advantage that we have: an ability to fund blockchain development directly from the blockchain. This is a huge thing which other people are starting finally to realize: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckRPUqnFlIs
No developers want to work for a project that is hostile against development. If there are no developers, there is no development. If there is no development, there are no features that customers want. If there are no features, there are no customers.
Current situation his horrible. I have stopped all my marketing efforts for now because I'm ashamed to present Bitshares to anybody. If newbie comes and sees what's happening, he will run away very quickly.
So tell me, how we should go on with marketing? What's working marketing strategy in a situation like this? I don't see any.Code: [Select]Most Online Today: 103. Most Online Ever: 373 (December 05, 2013, 11:28:00 PM)
See the forum statistics, that is the truth, almost no newbie here. Did the last two year Bitshares stop develope? then why they left?
It is not shame to present Bitshares to anybody , it is a shame that we can't have them stay.
Old guy left, newbie left, that is the situation.
Yes, I'm very well aware of the fact it's difficult to get people stay. And you are making it even more difficult!
Funding from blockchain is one of our core features, it's adverized on our website, look: https://bitshares.org/technology/stakeholder-approved-project-funding/
If you don't like that, then tell me how you are going to replace it? How the new system will function and how we should market it to potential customers and other developers?
@Ben Mason , we all love bts. I am not again the development, but I don't like the Worker Way just as Yunbi.
like you said, hope one day bitshares true value will reveal itself
@Ben Mason , we all love bts. I am not again the development, but I don't like the Worker Way just as Yunbi.
like you said, hope one day bitshares true value will reveal itself
+5% +5% +5% +5%@Ben Mason , we all love bts. I am not again the development, but I don't like the Worker Way just as Yunbi.
like you said, hope one day bitshares true value will reveal itself
you said what I want to say.
Do any of you remember BM predicted the exact scenario that worker dilution on blokchain would fail eventually due to the inevitable politics ?
Well , I guess the smart guy himself didn't remember it either .
@Ben Mason , we all love bts. I am not again the development, but I don't like the Worker Way just as Yunbi.
like you said, hope one day bitshares true value will reveal itself
Ok, I wish you could already see the value that has been bought with the workers. There is every reason for improving accountability and checking progress. There is so much to be proud of and full of hope for here. I hope we can find a compromise. I don't agree with yunbi's actions because they assumed consent. But I value everyone's efforts who have made BitShares what it is.
All the best Laow.
On the other thread xeroc said that inflation primarily goes not through workers but through merger. If so, it is pointless to remove workers, we just need to wait until merger is finished.
that's the merger date .. yesOn the other thread xeroc said that inflation primarily goes not through workers but through merger. If so, it is pointless to remove workers, we just need to wait until merger is finished.
That's just about 8 months out isn't it? Nov 5th?
@Ben Mason , we all love bts. I am not again the development, but I don't like the Worker Way just as Yunbi.
like you said, hope one day bitshares true value will reveal itself
Ok, I wish you could already see the value that has been bought with the workers. There is every reason for improving accountability and checking progress. There is so much to be proud of and full of hope for here. I hope we can find a compromise. I don't agree with yunbi's actions because they assumed consent. But I value everyone's efforts who have made BitShares what it is.
All the best Laow.
This is how every round with anti-dilution/workers ends.
One side says we need to develop and this is how it is getting done.
Other side says we need to develop and we don't want Workers doing it.. but we have no idea how to get it done.
As I stated earlier in a tongue and cheek way.. if there really is all this free labour in the wings.. if they step up and get things done, there is absolutely no reason for votes to use the Worker proposal system to fund fixes and updates etc. I highly suspect though that this army of free developers might be part of the anti-reality rally. Thus why we have not seen it.
If there truly was a desire to see bitshares developed without workers.. it could EASILY be done with those that claim they can contribute for free to step up and JUST DO IT! +5% +5% +5%
It's so obvious.. if it's true.
ok, let me clear my point.
If price and popularity is the standard to judge Bitshares success or not, the answer is obvious.
Does someone think about the severe problem? Why people left? BM keep diluting our shares, that is I heard from most people.
below is my opinion to attract people into our community.
1. lower the worker salary
[BSIP10] Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER
see this, 3 million for a function, that is too much for me ,for most ChinaShares. I don't know how you think?
2. set a reward fund
like the wroker mechanism, but money come from shareholder who voluntary to give.
3. remove any worker
free developer maybe come. because if they don't contribute for Bitshares, they holded bts will become nothing.
If they work for it for Free. Maybe one day, they will get paid more than they ever paid Worker salary.
that is the motive.
ok, let me clear my point.+5% +5% +5%
If price and popularity is the standard to judge Bitshares success or not, the answer is obvious.
Does someone think about the severe problem? Why people left? BM keep diluting our shares, that is I heard from most people.
below is my opinion to attract people into our community.
1. lower the worker salary
[BSIP10] Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER
see this, 3 million bts for a function, that is too much for me ,for most ChinaShares. I don't know how you think?
2. set a reward fund
like the wroker mechanism, but bts come from shareholder who voluntary to give.
3. remove any worker
free developer maybe come. because if they don't contribute for Bitshares, they holded bts will become nothing.
If they work for it for Free. Maybe one day, they will get paid more than they ever paid Worker salary.
that is the motive.
ok, let me clear my point.
If price and popularity is the standard to judge Bitshares success or not, the answer is obvious.
Does someone think about the severe problem? Why people left? BM keep diluting our shares, that is I heard from most people.
below is my opinion to attract people into our community.
1. lower the worker salary
[BSIP10] Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER
see this, 3 million for a function, that is too much for me ,for most ChinaShares. I don't know how you think?
2. set a reward fund
like the wroker mechanism, but money come from shareholder who voluntary to give.
3. remove any worker
free developer maybe come. because if they don't contribute for Bitshares, they holded bts will become nothing.
If they work for it for Free. Maybe one day, they will get paid more than they ever paid Worker salary.
that is the motive.
That definitely makes sense, but traditionally such workers are awarded shares in lieu of salary for their work. It is very common for startups to pay workers shares instead of salary since funds are limited, and those that succeed do become rich. Those startups that fail, the workers end up having worked for nothing. They are taking the same risk as early investors and should be compensated for it. But, indeed, there is commonlly a vesting period before they can claim shares and sell them. That would end downward pressure on the market cap.
The cryptocurrencies world is evolving very fast.
BM don't dilute anything, we vote for CNX to develop furthermore BTS.
Without that, we will be obsolete in 6 month or a year.
Thanks to that we are leading the crypto technology scene with a great tech.
The market is finally responding and we are finally having an uptrend chart this year.
Dilution is in big part coming from the merger and nothing can be done about it, just wait until november.
It seems that we are finally starting to go well !
The china move is "let's stop all development so we will go even better !" Come on guys, this is not realistic !
Why not coming with a proper solution, a realistic one. Because stopping every thing and cross the fingers is not a smart move.
That's probably why there is so much heavy reactions about it. Guys, provide a better solution or follow the one in place because destroying a working system without any idea of how to replace it is not smart at all.
PD :
*****
I have this unpleasant theory ... everytime bts goes up, chinese whales dumb heavy even if bts prices are ridiculous compare to what we can expect (just look at what ETH did in six weeks). That looks like they loose hope in BTS. So, would it be impossible that they intentionally want to stop dilution to have bts goes up quickly (short terme) so they can dumb everything at higer price and be out for good ???
Maybe it's just the product of a paranoid mind always trying to find the worst case scenario ...
I'm not sure to get it ... the devs ?The cryptocurrencies world is evolving very fast.
BM don't dilute anything, we vote for CNX to develop furthermore BTS.
Without that, we will be obsolete in 6 month or a year.
Thanks to that we are leading the crypto technology scene with a great tech.
The market is finally responding and we are finally having an uptrend chart this year.
Dilution is in big part coming from the merger and nothing can be done about it, just wait until november.
It seems that we are finally starting to go well !
The china move is "let's stop all development so we will go even better !" Come on guys, this is not realistic !
Why not coming with a proper solution, a realistic one. Because stopping every thing and cross the fingers is not a smart move.
That's probably why there is so much heavy reactions about it. Guys, provide a better solution or follow the one in place because destroying a working system without any idea of how to replace it is not smart at all.
PD :
*****
I have this unpleasant theory ... everytime bts goes up, chinese whales dumb heavy even if bts prices are ridiculous compare to what we can expect (just look at what ETH did in six weeks). That looks like they loose hope in BTS. So, would it be impossible that they intentionally want to stop dilution to have bts goes up quickly (short terme) so they can dumb everything at higer price and be out for good ???
Maybe it's just the product of a paranoid mind always trying to find the worst case scenario ...
Look at who is dumping at whatever price and keep diluting at whatever price to make more dump .
:-[
I'm not sure to get it ... the devs ?The cryptocurrencies world is evolving very fast.
BM don't dilute anything, we vote for CNX to develop furthermore BTS.
Without that, we will be obsolete in 6 month or a year.
Thanks to that we are leading the crypto technology scene with a great tech.
The market is finally responding and we are finally having an uptrend chart this year.
Dilution is in big part coming from the merger and nothing can be done about it, just wait until november.
It seems that we are finally starting to go well !
The china move is "let's stop all development so we will go even better !" Come on guys, this is not realistic !
Why not coming with a proper solution, a realistic one. Because stopping every thing and cross the fingers is not a smart move.
That's probably why there is so much heavy reactions about it. Guys, provide a better solution or follow the one in place because destroying a working system without any idea of how to replace it is not smart at all.
PD :
*****
I have this unpleasant theory ... everytime bts goes up, chinese whales dumb heavy even if bts prices are ridiculous compare to what we can expect (just look at what ETH did in six weeks). That looks like they loose hope in BTS. So, would it be impossible that they intentionally want to stop dilution to have bts goes up quickly (short terme) so they can dumb everything at higer price and be out for good ???
Maybe it's just the product of a paranoid mind always trying to find the worst case scenario ...
Look at who is dumping at whatever price and keep diluting at whatever price to make more dump .
:-[
I was speaking about chinese whale dumping at low prices after loosing hope for BTS. The devs have to sell the BTS they earn, at least part of it, to pay for the basic life costs.
I've already know one guy who brought BTS sold a lot and getting it back by worker dilution .
Dilution is in big part coming from the merger and nothing can be done about it, just wait until november.
I've already know one guy who brought BTS sold a lot and getting it back by worker dilution .
And who is the guy?
I've already know one guy who brought BTS sold a lot and getting it back by worker dilution .
And who is the guy?
why do you want to know , it's not like he done something wrong . It's just the system that encourage him to do so .
I've already know one guy who brought BTS sold a lot and getting it back by worker dilution .
And who is the guy?
why do you want to know , it's not like he done something wrong . It's just the system that encourage him to do so .
I've already know one guy who brought BTS sold a lot and getting it back by worker dilution .
And who is the guy?
why do you want to know , it's not like he done something wrong . It's just the system that encourage him to do so .
I think he wants to know to verify you are not just making up stuff.
I've already know one guy who brought BTS sold a lot and getting it back by worker dilution .
And who is the guy?
why do you want to know , it's not like he done something wrong . It's just the system that encourage him to do so .
I think he wants to know to verify you are not just making up stuff.
Dilution is in big part coming from the merger and nothing can be done about it, just wait until november.
I think we don't need to wait until November.... and nothing should be done either.... Why?....because dilution is already priced in on BTS !!!
so I really think BTS will increase very soon.... and SHARPLY !!!
PS don't forget that very often the market behaves in the opposite direction of what the most believe... that was about the "rule" for BTS after all... ::)
I don't understand this philosofy. Why try to stop development and AFTER try to find cheap or free solution for dev ?I'm not sure to get it ... the devs ?The cryptocurrencies world is evolving very fast.
BM don't dilute anything, we vote for CNX to develop furthermore BTS.
Without that, we will be obsolete in 6 month or a year.
Thanks to that we are leading the crypto technology scene with a great tech.
The market is finally responding and we are finally having an uptrend chart this year.
Dilution is in big part coming from the merger and nothing can be done about it, just wait until november.
It seems that we are finally starting to go well !
The china move is "let's stop all development so we will go even better !" Come on guys, this is not realistic !
Why not coming with a proper solution, a realistic one. Because stopping every thing and cross the fingers is not a smart move.
That's probably why there is so much heavy reactions about it. Guys, provide a better solution or follow the one in place because destroying a working system without any idea of how to replace it is not smart at all.
PD :
*****
I have this unpleasant theory ... everytime bts goes up, chinese whales dumb heavy even if bts prices are ridiculous compare to what we can expect (just look at what ETH did in six weeks). That looks like they loose hope in BTS. So, would it be impossible that they intentionally want to stop dilution to have bts goes up quickly (short terme) so they can dumb everything at higer price and be out for good ???
Maybe it's just the product of a paranoid mind always trying to find the worst case scenario ...
Look at who is dumping at whatever price and keep diluting at whatever price to make more dump .
:-[
I was speaking about chinese whale dumping at low prices after loosing hope for BTS. The devs have to sell the BTS they earn, at least part of it, to pay for the basic life costs.
Maybe the Chinese whales just want to sell all the BTS they have to unload the financial risk and then find some way(Cheap Chinese developers) to develop features for BTS for worker proposal and get the BTS they've sold back without committing much financial risk like the ordinary investors while still enjoy the chance if BTS goes up in the future .
If I'm a whale , under the current system , this is the most reasonable way for me to do . '
I've already know one guy who brought BTS sold a lot and getting it back by worker dilution . Hmm , funny how the system works out in the end .
By enabling programmer oriented dilution , it turns whales into developers .
I don't understand this philosofy. Why try to stop development and AFTER try to find cheap or free solution for dev ?I'm not sure to get it ... the devs ?The cryptocurrencies world is evolving very fast.
BM don't dilute anything, we vote for CNX to develop furthermore BTS.
Without that, we will be obsolete in 6 month or a year.
Thanks to that we are leading the crypto technology scene with a great tech.
The market is finally responding and we are finally having an uptrend chart this year.
Dilution is in big part coming from the merger and nothing can be done about it, just wait until november.
It seems that we are finally starting to go well !
The china move is "let's stop all development so we will go even better !" Come on guys, this is not realistic !
Why not coming with a proper solution, a realistic one. Because stopping every thing and cross the fingers is not a smart move.
That's probably why there is so much heavy reactions about it. Guys, provide a better solution or follow the one in place because destroying a working system without any idea of how to replace it is not smart at all.
PD :
*****
I have this unpleasant theory ... everytime bts goes up, chinese whales dumb heavy even if bts prices are ridiculous compare to what we can expect (just look at what ETH did in six weeks). That looks like they loose hope in BTS. So, would it be impossible that they intentionally want to stop dilution to have bts goes up quickly (short terme) so they can dumb everything at higer price and be out for good ???
Maybe it's just the product of a paranoid mind always trying to find the worst case scenario ...
Look at who is dumping at whatever price and keep diluting at whatever price to make more dump .
:-[
I was speaking about chinese whale dumping at low prices after loosing hope for BTS. The devs have to sell the BTS they earn, at least part of it, to pay for the basic life costs.
Maybe the Chinese whales just want to sell all the BTS they have to unload the financial risk and then find some way(Cheap Chinese developers) to develop features for BTS for worker proposal and get the BTS they've sold back without committing much financial risk like the ordinary investors while still enjoy the chance if BTS goes up in the future .
If I'm a whale , under the current system , this is the most reasonable way for me to do . '
I've already know one guy who brought BTS sold a lot and getting it back by worker dilution . Hmm , funny how the system works out in the end .
By enabling programmer oriented dilution , it turns whales into developers .
Why not keep CNX and other workers improving BTS and NOW ... RIGHT NOW try to find other cheaper or free solutions to grow even faster or replace the actual too expensive dev ?
What will be different after stopping the workers ? What is it the chinese community is waiting to actually do something instead of criticising everything.
I see project blooming across USA and Europe and not much in this part of the world.
This project is also a community effort and I don't feel too much help from there.
Well, it could be nice if this Sr. 极乐净土币 would introduce himself and the forking project he is working on ;)
Well, it could be nice if this Sr. 极乐净土币 would introduce himself and the forking project he is working on ;)This guy: https://cryptofresh.com/u/k1
Great, another pump and dump shitcoin!
All your actions now start to make sense!
BitShares is doing it wrong but ourshitcoinalt-coin(<==no pun intended) will solve all the worlds problems!
FUD first, create the "solution" later, Pump dump and profit!
I have no doubt that you will make a killing, there is no shortage of idiots in cryptospace to profit from.
Great, another pump and dump shitcoin!
All your actions now start to make sense!
BitShares is doing it wrong but ourshitcoinalt-coin(<==no pun intended) will solve all the worlds problems!
FUD first, create the "solution" later, Pump dump and profit!
I have no doubt that you will make a killing, there is no shortage of idiots in cryptospace to profit from.
Can't you read English ?
I mean , you're really bad at it for a English speaking person .
How on earth would you come to the conclusion that this is my coin ?
I'm merely answering the question about "What is happening in the Chinese community " .
Now I see what kind of people are supporting dilution now . There is at leat one person who can't even read . ( Note: This is a direct comment to you , not everyone who supports dilution . )
Great, another pump and dump shitcoin!
All your actions now start to make sense!
BitShares is doing it wrong but ourshitcoinalt-coin(<==no pun intended) will solve all the worlds problems!
FUD first, create the "solution" later, Pump dump and profit!
I have no doubt that you will make a killing, there is no shortage of idiots in cryptospace to profit from.
Can't you read English ?
I mean , you're really bad at it for a English speaking person .
How on earth would you come to the conclusion that this is my coin ?
I'm merely answering the question about "What is happening in the Chinese community " .
Now I see what kind of people are supporting dilution now . There is at leat one person who can't even read . ( Note: This is a direct comment to you , not everyone who supports dilution . )
Did I hit a nerve there?
In any case it seems that your english is much worse than mine, or is it your reasoning skills?
Anyway, keep us informed about your new shitcoin, everyone loves a new p&d shitcoin!
I'll let others to judge your stupidity .
Read again dumb ass .
I was translating stuff from the Chinese site which also on the Chinese sub-forum .
Go see for yourself . Ass hole .
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21989.0.html (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21989.0.html)
I'm done with you .
I'll let others to judge your stupidity .
Well, let's not get carry away with this anti dilution thing.
Better to look to solve this situation in a smart a peaceful way ;)
Yunbi is an exchange. This is unethical and backhanded. If someone has a dissenting view, then they should fork it.
Instead of flaming the antidilultion fraction you should look for none voting accounts and persuade to vote. If you just click randomly
on account names on cryptofresh you will see, that many account are not voting at all. This makes the community weak, because we have
members who has not said what they want.
If price goes down because lack of development, they are going to get hurt also.
Instead of flaming the antidilultion fraction you should look for none voting accounts and persuade to vote. If you just click randomly
on account names on cryptofresh you will see, that many account are not voting at all. This makes the community weak, because we have
members who has not said what they want.
This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22087.0.html).
3. remove any worker
free developer maybe come. because if they don't contribute for Bitshares, they holded bts will become nothing.
If they work for it for Free. Maybe one day, they will get paid more than they ever paid Worker salary.
that is the motive.
This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22087.0.html).
what does "nontransferable" BTS solve?
i assume we can trade them? as poloniex i just need then to trade BTS against POLO.BTS and they have them again on their accounts. For me this
is not the right direction. we are here to get more "financial freedom" but want to restrict it in parts who are not welcomed. We need other solutions.
This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22087.0.html).
what does "nontransferable" BTS solve?
It forces exchanges and their customers to use BitBTS instead of BTS. It will also help with voter apathy, because more voting power will go to hands of those who are interested in voting. Those who just want to speculate on BTS price are able to do it with BitBTS.i assume we can trade them? as poloniex i just need then to trade BTS against POLO.BTS and they have them again on their accounts. For me this
is not the right direction. we are here to get more "financial freedom" but want to restrict it in parts who are not welcomed. We need other solutions.
But why would Poloniex do that? It just makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. From their point of view, it's just much easier to convert everything to BitBTS and use that. Customers can move BitBTS into and out from Poloniex, so they will prefer it to BTS that can't be moved.
When this was discussed a while back, biggest reason for rejection of idea was that it was too difficult to implement. With my proposal it should be possible, because it's broken into several steps that are feasible and practical.
That's great idea !!!Yunbi is an exchange. This is unethical and backhanded. If someone has a dissenting view, then they should fork it.
i don't like it neither, but this is the weakness of voting, when you give away your vote. Yunbi made a clear statement ( i am not so sure
if this is clear for the average user on their exchange). It make sense to attract this faction to their exchange, because, now
they can trade BTS and not have the funds in their own wallet. So it is a clear marketing move, to make them different to polo etc.
i see nothing unethical in this behavior. we where aware of this major problem from the beginning. So to make it clear, the exchanges have
enough votingpower to make everything what they want, but this move will destroy their business basis.
Instead of flaming the antidilultion fraction you should look for none voting accounts and persuade to vote. If you just click randomly
on account names on cryptofresh you will see, that many account are not voting at all. This makes the community weak, because we have
members who has not said what they want.
3. remove any worker
free developer maybe come. because if they don't contribute for Bitshares, they holded bts will become nothing.
If they work for it for Free. Maybe one day, they will get paid more than they ever paid Worker salary.
that is the motive.
Wow this is stupid. The obvious play is just to sell your Bitshares.
Maybe irrational Chinese gambling fever will take hold though once dilution goes to 0 and BTS will land on the moon. Maybe.
it is me ,Well, it could be nice if this Sr. 极乐净土币 would introduce himself and the forking project he is working on ;)This guy: https://cryptofresh.com/u/k1
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=5815
This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22087.0.html).
what does "nontransferable" BTS solve?
It forces exchanges and their customers to use BitBTS instead of BTS. It will also help with voter apathy, because more voting power will go to hands of those who are interested in voting. Those who just want to speculate on BTS price are able to do it with BitBTS.i assume we can trade them? as poloniex i just need then to trade BTS against POLO.BTS and they have them again on their accounts. For me this
is not the right direction. we are here to get more "financial freedom" but want to restrict it in parts who are not welcomed. We need other solutions.
But why would Poloniex do that? It just makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. From their point of view, it's just much easier to convert everything to BitBTS and use that. Customers can move BitBTS into and out from Poloniex, so they will prefer it to BTS that can't be moved.
When this was discussed a while back, biggest reason for rejection of idea was that it was too difficult to implement. With my proposal it should be possible, because it's broken into several steps that are feasible and practical.
It's a great idea for starting a new network.. but for the existing one.. attempting to make the migration will be just as painful as attempting to get everyone to vote.. so in the end.. we will benefit more if people started voting vs. changing/confusing our core asset model.
we could make a list of the biggest account not voting and send to them a lot of 1 UIA transaction with a memo to recall them to vote so we get their attention.
The UIA could be named "voting", I create it, distribute it and every time someone sees a not-voting-account we send to him/her some "voting" UIA.
The memo could be a reminder of the importance of voting and a link to a youtube video explaining how important is to keep bts in the wallet and how to easily vote for proxies.
Good, bad, stupid, interesting idea ?
I've just create a thread an explain the idea better :This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22087.0.html).
what does "nontransferable" BTS solve?
It forces exchanges and their customers to use BitBTS instead of BTS. It will also help with voter apathy, because more voting power will go to hands of those who are interested in voting. Those who just want to speculate on BTS price are able to do it with BitBTS.i assume we can trade them? as poloniex i just need then to trade BTS against POLO.BTS and they have them again on their accounts. For me this
is not the right direction. we are here to get more "financial freedom" but want to restrict it in parts who are not welcomed. We need other solutions.
But why would Poloniex do that? It just makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. From their point of view, it's just much easier to convert everything to BitBTS and use that. Customers can move BitBTS into and out from Poloniex, so they will prefer it to BTS that can't be moved.
When this was discussed a while back, biggest reason for rejection of idea was that it was too difficult to implement. With my proposal it should be possible, because it's broken into several steps that are feasible and practical.
It's a great idea for starting a new network.. but for the existing one.. attempting to make the migration will be just as painful as attempting to get everyone to vote.. so in the end.. we will benefit more if people started voting vs. changing/confusing our core asset model.
If it is good for a new chain, it is also good for an old chain. We should be thinking how to be the best chain in the market, not just apathetically accept that we are in a situation where we can't change anything anymore.
I agree that we shouldn't be planning new features anymore, but this is not a feature for our customers. It's a security feature. It's essential. We have to show to the world that we are capable to fight against threats like badly voting exchanges. The threat isn't only that good workers are downvoted, but this kind of attack can be also committee attack, where somebody changes blockchain parameters in a harmful way. By making BTS nontransferable we effectively disable all possibilities to these kind of attacks.we could make a list of the biggest account not voting and send to them a lot of 1 UIA transaction with a memo to recall them to vote so we get their attention.
The UIA could be named "voting", I create it, distribute it and every time someone sees a not-voting-account we send to him/her some "voting" UIA.
The memo could be a reminder of the importance of voting and a link to a youtube video explaining how important is to keep bts in the wallet and how to easily vote for proxies.
Good, bad, stupid, interesting idea ?
Not bad, but not necessarily very effective. Our system has a weakness: it doesn't incentivize good voting behavior. We should be thinking how we can change the system to work better, not only think how to act in a bad system so that it wouldn't be so bad. In the long run bad system will always give bad results, even when it's run by good people.
This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22087.0.html).
what does "nontransferable" BTS solve?
It forces exchanges and their customers to use BitBTS instead of BTS. It will also help with voter apathy, because more voting power will go to hands of those who are interested in voting. Those who just want to speculate on BTS price are able to do it with BitBTS.i assume we can trade them? as poloniex i just need then to trade BTS against POLO.BTS and they have them again on their accounts. For me this
is not the right direction. we are here to get more "financial freedom" but want to restrict it in parts who are not welcomed. We need other solutions.
But why would Poloniex do that? It just makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. From their point of view, it's just much easier to convert everything to BitBTS and use that. Customers can move BitBTS into and out from Poloniex, so they will prefer it to BTS that can't be moved.
When this was discussed a while back, biggest reason for rejection of idea was that it was too difficult to implement. With my proposal it should be possible, because it's broken into several steps that are feasible and practical.
It's a great idea for starting a new network.. but for the existing one.. attempting to make the migration will be just as painful as attempting to get everyone to vote.. so in the end.. we will benefit more if people started voting vs. changing/confusing our core asset model.
If it is good for a new chain, it is also good for an old chain. We should be thinking how to be the best chain in the market, not just apathetically accept that we are in a situation where we can't change anything anymore.
I agree that we shouldn't be planning new features anymore, but this is not a feature for our customers. It's a security feature. It's essential. We have to show to the world that we are capable to fight against threats like badly voting exchanges. The threat isn't only that good workers are downvoted, but this kind of attack can be also committee attack, where somebody changes blockchain parameters in a harmful way. By making BTS nontransferable we effectively disable all possibilities to these kind of attacks.we could make a list of the biggest account not voting and send to them a lot of 1 UIA transaction with a memo to recall them to vote so we get their attention.
The UIA could be named "voting", I create it, distribute it and every time someone sees a not-voting-account we send to him/her some "voting" UIA.
The memo could be a reminder of the importance of voting and a link to a youtube video explaining how important is to keep bts in the wallet and how to easily vote for proxies.
Good, bad, stupid, interesting idea ?
Not bad, but not necessarily very effective. Our system has a weakness: it doesn't incentivize good voting behavior. We should be thinking how we can change the system to work better, not only think how to act in a bad system so that it wouldn't be so bad. In the long run bad system will always give bad results, even when it's run by good people.
Let's not resort to changing the rules because we don't like that an exchange is voting, or we don't like how an exchange is voting.
3. remove any worker
free developer maybe come. because if they don't contribute for Bitshares, they holded bts will become nothing.
If they work for it for Free. Maybe one day, they will get paid more than they ever paid Worker salary.
that is the motive.
Wow this is stupid. The obvious play is just to sell your Bitshares.
Maybe irrational Chinese gambling fever will take hold though once dilution goes to 0 and BTS will land on the moon. Maybe.
i agree he is stupid . One should not work to raise the value of other people's stake .
The correct motive for working for free should be :
If you believe there is a future with this technology , by contributing in this technology and learning all its components and helping it build a solid base , you're essentially making your own money cow/business model in the future.
That's why with no development budget , companies still build business model around Bitcoin , donate funding to Bitcoin developers .
Of course , some still want to paid by the hour . It's ok . It's one's right to earn hourly pay . However it's not feasible that even the founder of this project rely on a unstainable way of funding instead of building a open community which brings more capital in and then achieves more development by actual incoming capital .
What you can dilute on the blockchain is petty cash . It will fail eventually because it was constructed to support a small team (namely the I3) working full time without a business model nor future growth plan .
Bitcoin was started on a more crappy base than what BTS is now . What you need is not development , but a eco-system and a culture that will support development naturally in a sustainable way . If you can not find those support outside with supposely by far the most advanced technology , then I'm afraid you can not grow even with more coding , function and documentation , and its work product will just be taken by those who could do it and all the dilution would be spent for nothing . Lisk is already starting the trend if you've been watch their forum .
By the way , I3 threaten to leave BTS for dead even when AGS fund was left with 1 million USD worth of BTS , and that was more value than they've diluted since the merger , and yet they still claimed that they don't have incentive . The issue with BTS is not really with funding . It hasn't been from the start . No amount of dilution budget could fix that issue .
Any way . Whatever ..... maybe I should spend more time on the things that actually pays me either instead .
3. remove any worker
free developer maybe come. because if they don't contribute for Bitshares, they holded bts will become nothing.
If they work for it for Free. Maybe one day, they will get paid more than they ever paid Worker salary.
that is the motive.
Wow this is stupid. The obvious play is just to sell your Bitshares.
Maybe irrational Chinese gambling fever will take hold though once dilution goes to 0 and BTS will land on the moon. Maybe.
i agree he is stupid . One should not work to raise the value of other people's stake .
The correct motive for working for free should be :
If you believe there is a future with this technology , by contributing in this technology and learning all its components and helping it build a solid base , you're essentially making your own money cow/business model in the future.
That's why with no development budget , companies still build business model around Bitcoin , donate funding to Bitcoin developers .
Of course , some still want to paid by the hour . It's ok . It's one's right to earn hourly pay . However it's not feasible that even the founder of this project rely on a unstainable way of funding instead of building a open community which brings more capital in and then achieves more development by actual incoming capital .
What you can dilute on the blockchain is petty cash . It will fail eventually because it was constructed to support a small team (namely the I3) working full time without a business model nor future growth plan .
Bitcoin was started on a more crappy base than what BTS is now . What you need is not development , but a eco-system and a culture that will support development naturally in a sustainable way . If you can not find those support outside with supposely by far the most advanced technology , then I'm afraid you can not grow even with more coding , function and documentation , and its work product will just be taken by those who could do it and all the dilution would be spent for nothing . Lisk is already starting the trend if you've been watch their forum .
By the way , I3 threaten to leave BTS for dead even when AGS fund was left with 1 million USD worth of BTS , and that was more value than they've diluted since the merger , and yet they still claimed that they don't have incentive . The issue with BTS is not really with funding . It hasn't been from the start . No amount of dilution budget could fix that issue .
Any way . Whatever ..... maybe I should spend more time on the things that actually pays me either instead .
One thing I have learned is to not pay attention to those who reference 1 time phenomena whose biggest advantage was being in the right place at the right time in history.
Linux.
Apple.
Bitcoin.
You know what these have in common? There is only one of each. Yet you'll hear people making analogies over and over. Bitcoin has barely changed from the beginning. If you think thats what BTS needs, then you are entitled to that opinion, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Companies and products in heavily competitive areas do not get ahead by stopping all innovation and waiting for people to do work for free.
I see the rest of the blockchain world moving forward at a fast rate.
I could go on and on, but this is all so much insanity. BM screwed up in a lot of ways (did some things well). So now a certain group of people want to make more mistakes because of it! Insanity !
BTW, what is the ratio of Chinese dilution complainers to Chinese free development providers? Anyone know?
BTW - I agree that we should not blindly trust I3. I don't keep up with it but my understanding that "transparency" was abandoned. However, the dilution issue goes far beyond I3 and you can't hold them up as a reason to cut out *ALL* payment.
BTW2 - WIldpig, you didn't seem to get my original point. It doesn't really make economic sense for a person to put all their future payment into BTS,then go develop on it for free in hopes that they'll be paid out. I could write up a page why this is a *stupid* belief, but I'll spare everyone. Needless to say, you'd be better off just writing your own fork and giving yourself equity instead of paying for equity, then developing, then hoping things work out with all the various actors that are outside your power. A lot of these actors acting in a seemingly irrational manner at that.
yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.
yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.
yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.
+5% +5% +5%
yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.
+5% +5% +5%
Talented developers won't be trying too hard to convince anyone, they'll just go get a job being paid more. lol.
yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.
+5% +5% +5%
Talented developers won't be trying too hard to convince anyone, they'll just go get a job being paid more. lol.
So you're saying this is a dilution system designed for developers to propose their ideas and easily get paid by voting of a bunch of developers who hasn't been showing how to build product that can earn effective profit ?
If that's the case , bitshares is easy to an attack .
One can just need to ask some programmers who have a lot of free time to come here and propose some fancy function (with the clear idea it won't generate revenue for the system , but sounded cool .) , and they can effectively drain every last bit of money from BitShares eco-system and left BTS with some code that can be easily moved and copied to their own project or community .
IF the idea of a low threshold is to attract developer to work ( not hiring developers with clear business plan or vetting if their project is needed/benefit/profitable for the system , but just let them to do coding that could impressed the heck out of existing developers or community members who happens to be easily impressed by almost everything and gives a +5%) .......
And you know what the worse part could be ?
Every project could see BTS as a experimental grant and get funding for their projects easily to code without taking risk themselves , and then move the work product to their own project ...
So BTS and their product both have a new feature , but BTS eco-system was drained out of more value .....
Attracting developers should not be the goal . Attracting developers to finish things that matters is the gold . It shouldn't be decided by developers . Even if you go out to work for companies , you don't get to decide what you do or how much you ask for it , in the end the employers decides everything with regard to their own reality or business aspects .
Developers code for a living , their enjoy working and getting paid , the more work they do the more paid they can get , they don't have regard if their work is profitable or not . Their interest and the business is not aligned in this instance even though they claim getting pay more will align their interest with the business.
Imaging this happens to a company , developers could propose some tasks that involves some serious budget that the company could not afford and the company account will be forced to paid them because they controls the bank accounts now.... And what you should be worry about more ? No one works for you ??? Or fix this potential issue considering the financial situation that the firm is facing ?
You don't give the control of the bank accounts to the workers , no matter how badly you want them to work . Hell ... If I have that kind of juicy power in my company , I can not promise I can control myself not to do all kinds of stuff that I'm not sure would worth it just to get some overtime payment .
If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.
I think the Chinese have a point. Looks at the scape's video. How many BTS did they get for that? 1600 views? I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.
In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain. At one point I thought it was a cool idea. Very sci-fi. Neat stuff. Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed. This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.
The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off. What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released? How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid. It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely.
I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits. I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features. I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this. To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this. It is just a recipe to not be competitive.
If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.
I think the Chinese have a point. Looks at the scape's video. How many BTS did they get for that? 1600 views? I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.
In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain. At one point I thought it was a cool idea. Very sci-fi. Neat stuff. Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed. This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.
The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off. What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released? How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid. It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely.
I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits. I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features. I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this. To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this. It is just a recipe to not be competitive.
Spot on... +5% +5% +5% +5%
Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.
From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.
Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.
DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms, 20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.
From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.
When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.
Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.
Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .
Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . :-X :-X
Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?
Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .
Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . :-X :-X
Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?
Oh come on, Doge is obviously an anomaly in the crypto-world -- it's purely for "fun" and speculation on how much others will find it "fun". That's not BTS. BTS won't magically become fun and community-driven if everyone just stops developing for it.
The name's not even funny -- BitShares.
(https://i.warosu.org/data/ck/img/0045/60/1371183509616.jpg)
+5% +10000*5%If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.
I think the Chinese have a point. Looks at the scape's video. How many BTS did they get for that? 1600 views? I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.
In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain. At one point I thought it was a cool idea. Very sci-fi. Neat stuff. Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed. This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.
The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off. What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released? How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid. It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely.
I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits. I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features. I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this. To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this. It is just a recipe to not be competitive.
Spot on... +5% +5% +5% +5%
Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.
From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.
Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.
DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms, 20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.
From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.
When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.
Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.
Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .
Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . :-X :-X
Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?
If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.
I think the Chinese have a point. Looks at the scape's video. How many BTS did they get for that? 1600 views? I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.
In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain. At one point I thought it was a cool idea. Very sci-fi. Neat stuff. Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed. This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.
The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off. What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released? How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid. It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely.
I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits. I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features. I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this. To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this. It is just a recipe to not be competitive.
Spot on... +5% +5% +5% +5%
Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.
From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.
Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.
DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms, 20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.
From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.
When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.
Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.
Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .
Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . :-X :-X
Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?
If we're fine with price rising while usage data did not increase , then we're kidding ourselves about not being speculative .
If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.
I think the Chinese have a point. Looks at the scape's video. How many BTS did they get for that? 1600 views? I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.
In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain. At one point I thought it was a cool idea. Very sci-fi. Neat stuff. Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed. This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.
The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off. What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released? How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid. It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely.
I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits. I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features. I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this. To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this. It is just a recipe to not be competitive.
Spot on... +5% +5% +5% +5%
Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.
From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.
Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.
DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms, 20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.
From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.
When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.
Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.
Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .
Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . :-X :-X
Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?
There was a time when we were beating it.... so your arguement is moot.
Why you insist on making comparisons to snapshot moments as the reasoning behind and overall future strategy to running a company is beyond me.
This thought occurred to me while making my last post but it didn't match the rest of my reasoning.
Another reasonable explanation for the situation we are facing is that this is what you get when you lets traders pretend to be visionaries/CEOs/entrepreneurs. You get silly notions like the above as though it is a reasonable explanation for their position, when in fact they can't think beyond the speculative trader headset.
This is what you get when the control of how funds are spent are given to the majority of speculators. There is no other crypto-project that has this type of control given to its stake holders.
Ultimately you need leadership, you need people who know what they are doing. Instead you have traders and speculators that have taken hold of the enterprise and are making decisions that are driving it into the ground.
BUUUUUUUUT... since you brought up dogecoin... lets take a look at what was posted just 3 months ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/3x9ei0/brain_dump_dogecoin_on_ethereum/
What was the first comment?
(http://i67.tinypic.com/ors84i.png)
Wow.. that sounds exciting.. what else?
(http://i65.tinypic.com/54c9a9.png)
Wait what? Doge innovating... perhaps why they got such a market cap... noooo it couldn't be?
What kind of commentary does Bitshares innovation and dedicated development team look like?
"Oh yeah.. Bitshares looks like it has potential, but the China regime has stopped all development and they have lost all developers and development because of it. They wanted everyone to work as slave laborers and contributed nothing themselves. Shame really, it had some really cool stuff."
So now @btswildpig now that we have established that Dogecoin is all about innovation.. lets turn on those spigots and start supporting MORE innovation! How about it?
Please refer to my original Innovate or Die image above.
If we're fine with price rising while usage data did not increase , then we're kidding ourselves about not being speculative .
Usage data will increase when the right feature-set/market fit is in place...features which need to be developed...development which requires funding.
How you guys can't see the underlying economics fundamental to all this is frankly bewildering to me.
If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.
I think the Chinese have a point. Looks at the scape's video. How many BTS did they get for that? 1600 views? I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.
In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain. At one point I thought it was a cool idea. Very sci-fi. Neat stuff. Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed. This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.
The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off. What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released? How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid. It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely.
I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits. I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features. I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this. To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this. It is just a recipe to not be competitive.
Spot on... +5% +5% +5% +5%
Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.
From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.
Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.
DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms, 20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.
From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.
When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.
Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.
Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .
Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . :-X :-X
Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?
There was a time when we were beating it.... so your arguement is moot.
Why you insist on making comparisons to snapshot moments as the reasoning behind and overall future strategy to running a company is beyond me.
This thought occurred to me while making my last post but it didn't match the rest of my reasoning.
Another reasonable explanation for the situation we are facing is that this is what you get when you lets traders pretend to be visionaries/CEOs/entrepreneurs. You get silly notions like the above as though it is a reasonable explanation for their position, when in fact they can't think beyond the speculative trader headset.
This is what you get when the control of how funds are spent are given to the majority of speculators. There is no other crypto-project that has this type of control given to its stake holders.
Ultimately you need leadership, you need people who know what they are doing. Instead you have traders and speculators that have taken hold of the enterprise and are making decisions that are driving it into the ground.
BUUUUUUUUT... since you brought up dogecoin... lets take a look at what was posted just 3 months ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/3x9ei0/brain_dump_dogecoin_on_ethereum/
What was the first comment?
(http://i67.tinypic.com/ors84i.png)
Wow.. that sounds exciting.. what else?
(http://i65.tinypic.com/54c9a9.png)
Wait what? Doge innovating... perhaps why they got such a market cap... noooo it couldn't be?
What kind of commentary does Bitshares innovation and dedicated development team look like?
"Oh yeah.. Bitshares looks like it has potential, but the China regime has stopped all development and they have lost all developers and development because of it. They wanted everyone to work as slave laborers and contributed nothing themselves. Shame really, it had some really cool stuff."
So now @btswildpig now that we have established that Dogecoin is all about innovation.. lets turn on those spigots and start supporting MORE innovation! How about it?
Please refer to my original Innovate or Die image above.
then you should start to buy some Dogecoin .After , you believe innovation should drive competitiveness , and Dogecoin is innovating ....It makes no sense not to buy some right ? Even just to expand your crypto
portfolio ..... :P
All I'm hearing is the same people reinforcing their opinion. While it's certainly popcorn worthy reading watch each side holding strong on their position, is there a compromise? I liked what BM talked about in the mumble, moving toward cleaning up core features and challenging individuals to come up with funding models on the side chains. At the same time, doesn't it make sense to keep our maintenance workers healthy?
Before this turns into 50 pages of more chest thumping, what's the compromise look like?
Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .
Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . :-X :-X
Of course, you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump, market cap doesn't count”. But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?
Oh come on, Doge is obviously an anomaly in the crypto-world -- it's purely for "fun" and speculation on how much others will find it "fun". That's not BTS. BTS won't magically become fun and community-driven if everyone just stops developing for it.
The name's not even funny -- BitShares.
(https://i.warosu.org/data/ck/img/0045/60/1371183509616.jpg)
So .... you mean to set a bar for beating Dogecoin is unfair for a light speed blockchain ? :P
Since we're on the subject of an Exchange abusing its voting powers... why can we not create specialized "Exchange Wallets". I've always thought Bitshares should have a "modular" approach when it comes to users.
Not ALL users are the same. Not ALL users have the same goals for using BitShares.
With the complexity that BitShares offers (the points mentioned above) along with the current Yunbi debacle, we really, really, really should look at providing specialized wallets that are tailored to fit the needs of each unique user.
For example,
A registered wallet for “Exchanges” --- would allow them to vote but, at a reduced weight ( 1:20 ratio?). This way the voting system isn’t being abused as we’re seeing now, while still allowing them to voice their position, like the rest of us. The wallet could also allow them to create sub accounts to fit any needs for interfacing with their front/back end functions (maybe allow up to 50 sub accounts (to keep blockchain RAM/bloat in check)). In some manor, we should also incentivize the exchange wallet so there’s no incentive/reason to game the system by creating “fictitious” non-exchange wallets to circumvent the voting restriction. Maybe no DeX Tx fees and charge a little higher wallet-to-wallet Tx fee? Maybe we could incentivize their registered wallet with some “dividends” from the fee pool also??
A registered wallet for “Point-of-Sale” --- would allow them to vote at full 1:1 ratio since these wallets will more than likely not have a “large” quantity of user’s funds in them as activity of this wallet would really only take advantage of our quick 3sec user-to-user transfer time and not necessarily holding customer funds for long periods of time. This wallet could also include sub account creation (up to 50?) to fit their business needs for BitShares integration, like the exchange wallet. The incentive of this registered wallet would be to have NO wallet-to-wallet Tx fees and below normal DeX Tx fees. There really should be no need to incentivize this style wallet other than no Tx transfer fees.
A registered wallet for “Standard Users”--- this wallet would stay the same as what we have available today in our current wallet (obviously 1:1 voting). I personally would like to see a “Lite” and “Advanced” option within the BitShares default wallet and have it default to open in “Lite” view (or an option to choose default). Obviously this is GUI related but, would like to see this ability in our main wallet none the less.
I feel having this discussion regarding different wallet structures is very important and needed. We, as a community cannot keep going through these major conundrums. It not only hurts community moral but also businesses looking to adopt Bitshares technology.
BitShares is not structured as a One-Size-Fits all, so please let’s make some sensible changes that won’t financially hurt each other and beneficial to all.
My 2BTS :D
All I'm hearing is the same people reinforcing their opinion. While it's certainly popcorn worthy reading watch each side holding strong on their position, is there a compromise? I liked what BM talked about in the mumble, moving toward cleaning up core features and challenging individuals to come up with funding models on the side chains. At the same time, doesn't it make sense to keep our maintenance workers healthy?
Before this turns into 50 pages of more chest thumping, what's the compromise look like?
All I'm hearing is the same people reinforcing their opinion. While it's certainly popcorn worthy reading watch each side holding strong on their position, is there a compromise? I liked what BM talked about in the mumble, moving toward cleaning up core features and challenging individuals to come up with funding models on the side chains. At the same time, doesn't it make sense to keep our maintenance workers healthy?
Before this turns into 50 pages of more chest thumping, what's the compromise look like?
THe compromise is to monitor proposals in a way that makes sense and not just blindly support no dilution. You're wrong thinking that this is a black/white issue. Some of us are as middle as one can be on the issue. *NO ONE* is saying blindly support all proposals or anything close.
All I'm hearing is the same people reinforcing their opinion. While it's certainly popcorn worthy reading watch each side holding strong on their position, is there a compromise? I liked what BM talked about in the mumble, moving toward cleaning up core features and challenging individuals to come up with funding models on the side chains. At the same time, doesn't it make sense to keep our maintenance workers healthy?
Before this turns into 50 pages of more chest thumping, what's the compromise look like?
THe compromise is to monitor proposals in a way that makes sense and not just blindly support no dilution. You're wrong thinking that this is a black/white issue. Some of us are as middle as one can be on the issue. *NO ONE* is saying blindly support all proposals or anything close.
wtf are you talking about? I never said this is a black/white issue. I was simply asking if there's some middle ground for both camps. Geez. With all the asshole, idiot comments flying back and forth, I didn't feel like that was the way to go.
hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS
hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS
hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS
If somebody thinks that situation where we are now is bad, then wouldn't it be better to sell everything and wait. After a while BTS price will crash because customers are abandoning Bitshares. Then BTS can be bought back with better price – if the project has any credibility left.
hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS+5%+10000* +5%
hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS
If somebody thinks that situation where we are now is bad, then wouldn't it be better to sell everything and wait. After a while BTS price will crash because customers are abandoning Bitshares. Then BTS can be bought back with better price – if the project has any credibility left.
I can't see from blockchain that there are customers using BTS that is responsible for holding the current marketcap(tansaction record,fee income) . Can you ?
If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.
I think the Chinese have a point. Looks at the scape's video. How many BTS did they get for that? 1600 views? I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.
In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain. At one point I thought it was a cool idea. Very sci-fi. Neat stuff. Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed. This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.
The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off. What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released? How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid. It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely.
I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits. I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features. I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this. To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this. It is just a recipe to not be competitive.
yes, as you had said, talented developers do not like to explain, anyway, maybe other people can explain instead of them? under the worker proposal system voters definitely need to understand they are paying for useful and effective job.
I'm not sure that is what I meant to say. It is more like talented developers will realize they can simply be paid more with less headache elsewhere. Otherwise I don't disagree. All paid work should be explained to some degree.
for example, AFAIK, most of China stakeholders do not think they need the BSIP10 feature, how they feel when they are aware they need to pay 50k/day for this?
No idea, but no one is paying 50k a day. I am not sure about the proposal / timeframe. Discussions like this are useful though. Supporting selective judgement is all I am asking for.
I was also told by one Chinese programmer, "in my view ***'s work make sense, however the quality need to be improved."
What is your point? Most code can always be improved, but there are trade-offs. Too many back seat drivers. Too many bosses.
please do not be scared by what yunbi did, 4 worker are still there and I think it's not easy to vote them out. and new workers still have chance to be voted in if enough voters are convinced.
I just think you guys are doing more damage than good when you blindly vote against developers without any consideration. It isn't productive from what I see. It doesn't help the process.
I just think you guys are doing more damage than good when you blindly vote against developers without any consideration. It isn't productive from what I see. It doesn't help the process.
I just think you guys are doing more damage than good when you blindly vote against developers without any consideration. It isn't productive from what I see. It doesn't help the process.
if really without any consideration, all the workers have been voted out.
I appreciate dannotestein's opinion: "I do want to say that I don't feel any animosity towards those voting against the workers: I understand their position and have even agreed with some of their arguments", both sides need to try to understand their counter party in a game.
I just think you guys are doing more damage than good when you blindly vote against developers without any consideration. It isn't productive from what I see. It doesn't help the process.
if really without any consideration, all the workers have been voted out.
I appreciate dannotestein's opinion: "I do want to say that I don't feel any animosity towards those voting against the workers: I understand their position and have even agreed with some of their arguments", both sides need to try to understand their counter party in a game.
If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.
I think the Chinese have a point. Looks at the scape's video. How many BTS did they get for that? 1600 views? I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.
In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain. At one point I thought it was a cool idea. Very sci-fi. Neat stuff. Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed. This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.
The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off. What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released? How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid. It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely.
I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits. I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features. I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this. To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this. It is just a recipe to not be competitive.
there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community, however, it is not right to say that China stakeholders want to stop development.
anyway, we built the worker proposal mechanism means stakeholders are not supposed to support any development, they will vote based on their judgment. so developers need to explain the necessity and fair price of their work.
yes, as you had said, talented developers do not like to explain, anyway, maybe other people can explain instead of them? under the worker proposal system voters definitely need to understand they are paying for useful and effective job.
for example, AFAIK, most of China stakeholders do not think they need the BSIP10 feature, how they feel when they are aware they need to pay 50k/day for this?
I was also told by one Chinese programmer, "in my view ***'s work make sense, however the quality need to be improved."
please do not be scared by what yunbi did, 4 worker are still there and I think it's not easy to vote them out. and new workers still have chance to be voted in if enough voters are convinced.
The SBD (which seems to be a USD pegged asset with a possible interest rate bonus on top) is interesting. There is a DEX on the network with just a single market STEEM/SBD (plus there are subsidies to liquidity providers which is great addition)
If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.
I think the Chinese have a point. Looks at the scape's video. How many BTS did they get for that? 1600 views? I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.
In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain. At one point I thought it was a cool idea. Very sci-fi. Neat stuff. Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed. This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.
The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off. What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released? How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid. It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely.
I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits. I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features. I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this. To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this. It is just a recipe to not be competitive.
there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community, however, it is not right to say that China stakeholders want to stop development.
anyway, we built the worker proposal mechanism means stakeholders are not supposed to support any development, they will vote based on their judgment. so developers need to explain the necessity and fair price of their work.
yes, as you had said, talented developers do not like to explain, anyway, maybe other people can explain instead of them? under the worker proposal system voters definitely need to understand they are paying for useful and effective job.
for example, AFAIK, most of China stakeholders do not think they need the BSIP10 feature, how they feel when they are aware they need to pay 50k/day for this?
I was also told by one Chinese programmer, "in my view ***'s work make sense, however the quality need to be improved."
please do not be scared by what yunbi did, 4 worker are still there and I think it's not easy to vote them out. and new workers still have chance to be voted in if enough voters are convinced.
there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community
there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community
It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.
If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.
there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community
It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.
If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.
Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network? If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.
there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community
It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.
If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.
Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network? If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.
Some actions may be "legal" and yet still be "unethical". It is unethical for the same reason that fractional reserve banking and naked shorting are unethical.
The "ethical plank" does not need to be adjusted; it is the rules that need to be adjusted to conform with honesty and fairness.
there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community
It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.
If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.
Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network? If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.
Some actions may be "legal" and yet still be "unethical". It is unethical for the same reason that fractional reserve banking and naked shorting are unethical.
The "ethical plank" does not need to be adjusted; it is the rules that need to be adjusted to conform with honesty and fairness.
Do your realize that your understanding of honesty and fairness is very different from what several billion of people on this Earth think?
You have to determine what you think is honest and fair when you do busyness with me, otherwise I will use my definitions.
there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community
It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.
If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.
Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network? If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.
Some actions may be "legal" and yet still be "unethical". It is unethical for the same reason that fractional reserve banking and naked shorting are unethical.
The "ethical plank" does not need to be adjusted; it is the rules that need to be adjusted to conform with honesty and fairness.
Do your realize that your understanding of honesty and fairness is very different from what several billion of people on this Earth think?
You have to determine what you think is honest and fair when you do busyness with me, otherwise I will use my definitions.
I fully realize that my understanding of honesty and fairness does not match that of billions of people in this world. That is why I went "all in" first in Bitcoin and now in BitShares. I assumed that Satoshi and Bytemaster were building ethical platforms. But there is no getting around the machinations of inferior humans. Superior humans will hopefully continue to build the platforms in ways that they become as trustless as possible - because you just can't trust most people to do what is ethical (ie. not to use deceptive practices and to follow the non-aggression principle). And to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or, perhaps better, do not do unto others what you do not want done onto you.
At a minimum, Yunbi should state very clearly on their deposit page, before taking a deposit, that they intend to vote the stake of the depositor as they see fit which may or may not conform with the depositor's wishes.
I fully realize that my understanding of honesty and fairness does not match that of billions of people in this world. That is why I went "all in" first in Bitcoin and now in BitShares. I assumed that Satoshi and Bytemaster were building ethical platforms. But there is no getting around the machinations of inferior humans. Superior humans will hopefully continue to build the platforms in ways that they become as trustless as possible - because you just can't trust most people to do what is ethical (ie. not to use deceptive practices and to follow the non-aggression principle). And to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or, perhaps better, do not do unto others what you do not want done onto you.
At a minimum, Yunbi should state very clearly on their deposit page, before taking a deposit, that they intend to vote the stake of the depositor as they see fit which may or may not conform with the depositor's wishes.
If I were to create a centralized exchange, call it Alphabet Soup Exchange, and I wanted to ethically offer trading pairs for BTS, would this forum approve if I added a checkbox with an "I Agree" option and a text box with the following statement, before displaying the account/memo needed for deposits?
"I agree to deposit BitShares with the full knowledge that Alphabet Soup Exchange is delegated a temporary stake until these funds are withdrawn."
In other words, it just draws attention to the facts and nothing about the intent.
If I were to create a centralized exchange, call it Alphabet Soup Exchange, and I wanted to ethically offer trading pairs for BTS, would this forum approve if I added a checkbox with an "I Agree" option and a text box with the following statement, before displaying the account/memo needed for deposits?
"I agree to deposit BitShares with the full knowledge that Alphabet Soup Exchange is delegated a temporary stake until these funds are withdrawn."
In other words, it just draws attention to the facts and nothing about the intent.
The above is better than nothing, but Once's disclaimer is better. It leaves out any mention of a specific intent, but is explicit on stating the exchange is given power through the deposit to vote as they please, which may or may not coincide with the depositor's best interests.
Leaving that out is manipulative IMO.
If I were to create a centralized exchange, call it Alphabet Soup Exchange, and I wanted to ethically offer trading pairs for BTS, would this forum approve if I added a checkbox with an "I Agree" option and a text box with the following statement, before displaying the account/memo needed for deposits?
"I agree to deposit BitShares with the full knowledge that Alphabet Soup Exchange is delegated a temporary stake until these funds are withdrawn."
In other words, it just draws attention to the facts and nothing about the intent.
The above is better than nothing, but Once's disclaimer is better. It leaves out any mention of a specific intent, but is explicit on stating the exchange is given power through the deposit to vote as they please, which may or may not coincide with the depositor's best interests.
Leaving that out is manipulative IMO.
Got it, and will we expect Bitshares to also display non-manipulative disclaimers when it offers trade pairs for future DPOS sidechains?
I personally would be outraged if my called my stockbroker and ordered 1000 shares of Company A, and found out six weeks later that my stock broker had voted my 1000 shares at Company A's annual meeting to elect a Board which starved Company A of development funds. Although my 1000 shares are stored by the stockbroker, rather than sent to my custody, in order to facilitate trading, they have no right to vote those shares as if they were owned by the broker.
Possibly. Please expand upon your analogy so that we can discuss.
I personally would be outraged if my called my stockbroker and ordered 1000 shares of Company A, and found out six weeks later that my stock broker had voted my 1000 shares at Company A's annual meeting to elect a Board which starved Company A of development funds. Although my 1000 shares are stored by the stockbroker, rather than sent to my custody, in order to facilitate trading, they have no right to vote those shares as if they were owned by the broker.
I personally would be outraged if I called my stockbroker and ordered 1000 shares of Company A, and found out six weeks later that my stock broker had voted my 1000 shares at Company A's annual meeting to elect a Board which starved Company A of development funds. Although my 1000 shares are stored by the stockbroker, rather than sent to my custody, in order to facilitate trading, they have no right to vote those shares as if they were owned by the broker.
I personally would be outraged if I called my stockbroker and ordered 1000 shares of Company A, and found out six weeks later that my stock broker had voted my 1000 shares at Company A's annual meeting to elect a Board which starved Company A of development funds. Although my 1000 shares are stored by the stockbroker, rather than sent to my custody, in order to facilitate trading, they have no right to vote those shares as if they were owned by the broker.
A company stock has your name attached to it. This is not the case with BTS. One who controls a wallet has a vote.
I personally would be outraged if I called my stockbroker and ordered 1000 shares of Company A, and found out six weeks later that my stock broker had voted my 1000 shares at Company A's annual meeting to elect a Board which starved Company A of development funds. Although my 1000 shares are stored by the stockbroker, rather than sent to my custody, in order to facilitate trading, they have no right to vote those shares as if they were owned by the broker.
A company stock has your name attached to it. This is not the case with BTS. One who controls a wallet has a vote.
For some weird reason, you continue to miss the point.
What criteria determines if a worker is voted in or not? Looking at the voting report on cryptofresh I see that only one worker has > 50% approval, which is svk. However several others are green.I "think" it works like this, but someone may need to correct me: There's a fixed amount of funds available to be distributed each day. The top voted worker gets its funds first, then so on down the list, until there's no more to give out (so the last worker funded may only be partially funded). The way you vote against any real person being funded (or at least to set a threshold for how many votes they need in order to be funded) is to vote for the "refund" or "burn" workers. Funds accumulated by the refund worker go back into the "reserve pool" from which the worker funds are paid. Funds collected by the "burn" workers are destroyed (the overall supply of BTS decreases). There's sufficient refund workers to eat up all the available funds to be paid out per day, in which case no real workers get funded.
That's correct, it's basically a first come first serve until there are no funds left of the budget, which is around 315k BTS per day right now. If the 400k worker were in 1st place, it would take the whole budget and no one else would get paid.What criteria determines if a worker is voted in or not? Looking at the voting report on cryptofresh I see that only one worker has > 50% approval, which is svk. However several others are green.I "think" it works like this, but someone may need to correct me: There's a fixed amount of funds available to be distributed each day. The top voted worker gets its funds first, then so on down the list, until there's no more to give out (so the last worker funded may only be partially funded). The way you vote against any real person being funded (or at least to set a threshold for how many votes they need in order to be funded) is to vote for the "refund" or "burn" workers. Funds accumulated by the refund worker go back into the "reserve pool" from which the worker funds are paid. Funds collected by the "burn" workers are destroyed (the overall supply of BTS decreases). There's sufficient refund workers to eat up all the available funds to be paid out per day, in which case no real workers get funded.
So voting for a refund worker is making a statement like "I don't want to pay for the current workers at current prices, but it may make sense to pay workers in the future". Voting for a burn worker is more like saying "I think there's too many funds allocated for workers to be paid in the future, let's reduce the supply".
According to http://www.cryptofresh.com/workers, the current daily budget that can be paid to workers is ~315K BTS. Of this, about 87K is being paid to workers, and the rest is being transferred back to the reserve pool by the refund400k worker.
I thought of things a lot before coming home and I have to clarify a few things. I was quite upset and now that I got back I am even more upset with what I've read. I thought of telling @abit to stop any developement right now. This is getting ridiculous. There is no point for him to develop anything, as I don't think that will ever get paid for any current or future work. The same goes for the developer of cryptofresh (sorry I don't know the username). People really rely on people like abit to see their investments grow, without paying a penny for the development. As Max Keiser says, I'll call you Jihadists. You are J I H A D I S T S. You want to see the project die just to make sure you don't lose money short term. You don't even lose money by the way. You are just useless speculators. If you can't stomach it, do what @Empirical1.2 is doing. Hold no shares. Please give us all your shares so that we can see this project grow.
By the way, there is a new project called Lisk that will use DPOS and Ethereums blockchain. Let's see what we'll do without development against them. I already joined their ICO and in the first day they raised more than 700BTC and they started a day ago. They can take everything that has been built on Bitshares and make it even better - in the way they want and with more funds.
Please understand what the network effect is. Everyone is talking about it. I bet BM is sick of mentioning it all the time just because some people don't get it. We need people to come in. The buy pressure from people coming in because of the liquidity or the interest will be way higher than what we'll pay.
@tonyk Look at NXT! Look at it man. They have no inflation. 0!!! FUCKING 0. Look at their asset exchange. Illiquid. They are losing people, even if they have a fairly good currency and their assets are worth a lot more than the ones on Bitshares. Look at Bitcoin! The miners control everything and the coin is losing its value. But they profit more by the fact that its value falls! Less miners joining and they keep their costs low, sacrifising Bitcoin's health. Do you even get what abit is developing? 0 fees. ZERO. Micropayments will be available for people. Isn't that something worth paying for? I guess not. Useless. @abit please stop developing. You are an idiot abit. Or please do it for free. Free. I like getting but not giving. I <3 capitalism.
Whoever said that we are a lot better than are competitors just made me laugh a lot. No we are not. Dash is currently available to fund straight away ~32K$ a month, to anyone that gets voted. Not by a few delegates, but by 3500. I used to think that we are better, but after I realised how the big holders of Bitshares don't understand the concept of sacrifise. My advice is to play some online videogame in a team or even better some chess. It will open your eyes.
PS that thing with the selling volume was a bit off. Even when the price went down to ~400satoshi's which was 50% drop, it came back to ~700 which was less than a 10% loss. Also when you refer to people selling all the shares, think just of two things. Do bitcoin miners sell all their coins? No. At least not all of them. If you get 100shares, can you sell more than 100? If you have some money aside though or if you have low costs, you can save 10shares. There is no way to sell more shares than you earn, but you can keep some. Simple.
Edit
I forgot to mention that I've lost a lot of value as I purchased when we were around the 2000 sats and sold half of them for 25% less. One of the reasons that I stayed, was the promise of the 77k$ development funds. I thought that could easily destroy any competitor long term. I was wrong, as I was very wrong not to read the forum about many of the false promises on the main website.
As about dash, 13% inflation and they have 3 times bigger market cap. But we are doing everything perfectly, they are shit.
That's correct, it's basically a first come first serve until there are no funds left of the budget, which is around 315k BTS per day right now. If the 400k worker were in 1st place, it would take the whole budget and no one else would get paid.What criteria determines if a worker is voted in or not? Looking at the voting report on cryptofresh I see that only one worker has > 50% approval, which is svk. However several others are green.I "think" it works like this, but someone may need to correct me: There's a fixed amount of funds available to be distributed each day. The top voted worker gets its funds first, then so on down the list, until there's no more to give out (so the last worker funded may only be partially funded). The way you vote against any real person being funded (or at least to set a threshold for how many votes they need in order to be funded) is to vote for the "refund" or "burn" workers. Funds accumulated by the refund worker go back into the "reserve pool" from which the worker funds are paid. Funds collected by the "burn" workers are destroyed (the overall supply of BTS decreases). There's sufficient refund workers to eat up all the available funds to be paid out per day, in which case no real workers get funded.
So voting for a refund worker is making a statement like "I don't want to pay for the current workers at current prices, but it may make sense to pay workers in the future". Voting for a burn worker is more like saying "I think there's too many funds allocated for workers to be paid in the future, let's reduce the supply".
According to http://www.cryptofresh.com/workers, the current daily budget that can be paid to workers is ~315K BTS. Of this, about 87K is being paid to workers, and the rest is being transferred back to the reserve pool by the refund400k worker.
Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network? If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.
Its very simple, "He who holds the private key holds the vote". They gave their right to vote away when they gave their shares to POLO. Therefore it's more valuable to them to use the POLO exchange than it is to hold BTS. The only way to change this is to make our DEX a more valuable place to trade on than any other exchange when it comes to BTS. Anything outside of that is a waste of time an energy.
Its very simple, "He who holds the private key holds the vote". They gave their right to vote away when they gave their shares to POLO. Therefore it's more valuable to them to use the POLO exchange than it is to hold BTS. The only way to change this is to make our DEX a more valuable place to trade on than any other exchange when it comes to BTS. Anything outside of that is a waste of time an energy.
Just think if Polo pulled a Yunbi but with their own workers. It isn't going to happen, but I wonder whose opinions would change.
Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network? If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.
It's perfectly ethical for this group of dissenting BitShares users to take it over and do what they want with it -- go for it (if only they had the numbers). But it is very much UNethical for an exchange, which essentially is holding funds in trust, to participate in such a vote. It's like a stock exchange voting as a shareholder in a corporation's election -- that would be such a chickenshit thing to do that no one in their right mind would patronize such a business.
Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network? If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.
It's perfectly ethical for this group of dissenting BitShares users to take it over and do what they want with it -- go for it (if only they had the numbers). But it is very much UNethical for an exchange, which essentially is holding funds in trust, to participate in such a vote. It's like a stock exchange voting as a shareholder in a corporation's election -- that would be such a chickenshit thing to do that no one in their right mind would patronize such a business.
With stock exchanges it is not a matter of ethics. They are heavily regulated. When you hold funds in trust, it is all written on paper, what they can do with these funds, and what they can't. No such contract exists between yunbi and their users. Which means that they can do whatever they want with funds kept on their exchange. I don't like what they do, that's why I don't keep my funds there. But complaining about what they do is wrong and pointless.
Just think if Polo pulled a Yunbi but with their own workers. It isn't going to happen, but I wonder whose opinions would change.
With stock exchanges it is not a matter of ethics. They are heavily regulated. When you hold funds in trust, it is all written on paper, what they can do with these funds, and what they can't. No such contract exists between yunbi and their users. Which means that they can do whatever they want with funds kept on their exchange. I don't like what they do, that's why I don't keep my funds there. But complaining about what they do is wrong and pointless.
The whole point of this technology is to replace centralized regulation with consensus driven code. If yunbi truly is a major problem (and I'm not convinced that it is), then the rules of the system need to change.