BitShares Forum
Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: bitcrab on August 14, 2020, 11:01:49 am
-
I believe fork is not the best solution for the current opinion conflict, although the expectation to fork lead BTS price to go up in short period, in long term view the fork will make the community break up and hurt the BTS brand. so I created below poll worker proposals to collect opinions from the community. I hope it can be the new start point for the community to look for consensus. please vote for each of the 4 unplanned changes to the voting system according to your opinion. I do not defined any subsequent actions that follow the poll result, however I believe the result will be important reference for any players in this game.
please check https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32546.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32546.0) for detail of the 4 unplanned changed features:
1.14.274 Poll-Unplanned Change-Support Vote Decay
1.14.275 Poll-Unplanned Change-Do Not Support Vote Decay
1.14.276 Poll-Unplanned Change-Support DPoS1
1.14.277 Poll-Unplanned Change-Do Not Support DPoS1
1.14.278 Poll-Unplanned Change-Support Staking Voting Power
1.14.279 Poll-Unplanned Change-Do Not Support Staking Voting Power
1.14.280 Poll-Unplanned Change-Support the Additional Voting Rules
1.14.281 Poll-Unplanned Change-No Support the Additional Voting Rules
Here the "Additional Voting Rules" stand for this:
4.voting rules after the permanent locked up appears
when the first "permanent locked up" position appear on the chain, below rules will be alive:
4.1 the voting power of the account with no "permanent locked up" position will be 0
4.2 BTS in collateral or ordering status will have no voting power
Now we have Plan A and Plan B:
Plan A: fork smoothly.
Plan B: fork with exception handling, which is discussed here: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2239 (https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2239)
I'd like to suggest a Plan C: release a 4.* version with removed/kept/updated the features which abit had added, based on the voting result and additional discussion and voting. and surely follow the BSIP approval->development and release->code audit and test->protocol improvement process.
In my view, either the fork happen or not, the current chain always need such a Plan C.
I hope all stake holders can positively vote to tell your opinion.
-
Why not?
-
vote decay YES
collateral Not really
DPOS1 YES
Stacking Never in this form
Way of implementation Never
-
Abit provided a description of the innovations https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32566.0
Is it bad?
Many dpos blockchains work on this principle.
Where is the description of the updates of the new patch?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32560.0
-
he has put trojan in the code, he was paid to audit this code, and he abandoned his duties, easy as that
now you're asking is it ok that abit raped the community trust? it is not ok
why he is not kicked out, and we're discussing this fraud at all
-
he has put trojan in the code, he was paid to audit this code, and he abandoned his duties, easy as that
now you're asking is it ok that abit raped the community trust? it is not ok
why he is not kicked out, and we're discussing this fraud at all
things are not so simple as you think.
before BTS4.0, actually cn-vote was able to control the committee if they like.
so is it possible to implement a DPOS1 to eliminate this kind of risk through the BSIP draft -> voting ->core development process? I don't think so, one reference is BSIP22, although now almost everyone says he agree vote decay, BSIP22 has not yet been approved after about 2 years.
I don't think what abit did is acceptable, but he was definitely not doing evil.
and I don't think to just remove the unplanned features is a good enough solution to this problem.
maybe a better solution is to plan another protocol improvement with a new version.
1.include the vote decay and DPOS1 features(maybe DPOS1 can also be applied to witness voting)
2.remove, disable or update the Staking Voting Power and the Additional Voting Rules, dependent on some more deep discussion.
things will be done following the BSIP draft->voting and approvment->development and release->code audit and test->protocol improvement process.
-
he has put trojan in the code, he was paid to audit this code, and he abandoned his duties, easy as that
now you're asking is it ok that abit raped the community trust? it is not ok
why he is not kicked out, and we're discussing this fraud at all
things are not so simple as you think.
before BTS4.0, actually cn-vote was able to control the committee if they like.
so is it possible to implement a DPOS1 to eliminate this kind of risk through the BSIP draft -> voting ->core development process? I don't think so, one reference is BSIP22, although now almost everyone says he agree vote decay, BSIP22 has not yet been approved after about 2 years.
I don't think what abit did is acceptable, but he was definitely not doing evil.
and I don't think to just remove the unplanned features is a good enough solution to this problem.
maybe a better solution is to plan another protocol improvement with a new version.
1.include the vote decay and DPOS1 features(maybe DPOS1 can also be applied to witness voting)
2.remove, disable or update the Staking Voting Power and the Additional Voting Rules, dependent on some more deep discussion.
things will be done following the BSIP draft->voting and approvment->development and release->code audit and test->protocol improvement process.
They are simple.
Abit broke any possible rule in the past 12 months.
He has "currently" control over github so who is going to trust him he won't put another time another trojan horse far worse because it fits his personal view.
He clearly said multiple times he has no issues with cheats if it fits his view even way before putting the trojan horse.
You talk about CN-Vote controll committee.The funny thing is what i saw is that Abit controlled committee and everyone else complaining including cn-vote that he executes only his own and your personal views and doesn't consider the opinions of any other committee member.He only stopps when being forced when not getting enough votes to pass transfers for exmample.
but he was definitely not doing evil.
Is there something worse than core putting in a trojan horse ?
I don't blame only Abit but its also community fault to let every abuse pass he did by only verbal complaints.
Everyone complaining about Abit but noone showing a clear STOP signal with the excuse we can't do anything against it but at the same time yelling corruption,scams and supporting acts like this one in hope the abuse will stop.
Abit is with full intention destroying bitsharesdex telegram channel by banning admins adding his personal bot to have full control over that chat even noone grant him this power.
He clearly redirects traffic to bitsharesdac channel which is controlled by him/digital lucifer and beos where they are
recruiting people for BEOS and spreading tons of FUD like CN-Vote forking out of bitshares creating a new coin and leaving.
Openly demanding that CN Vote should fuck off forever from bitshares via fork and the tons of other lies.
Everyone else who says the truth gets banned there.
A channel for conditioning people.
Abit is being asked daily to remove his bot from every member on bitsharesdex and to unban all the people he banned.
Till today no reaction.
So don't tell me Abit is not evil.So much bad things he did he would be banned long time ago on any other serious project
Abit lost support from CN-Vote, from foreigners a longer time ago for his never ending abuse and being called there a scammer and only BEOS/DL left for him.
Today you got now also the tons of question from people which name the new coin will have thanks to the conditioning on bitsharesdac
We got now also an insane digital lucifer acting like the chief of bitshares and being commander to decide about everything and give the only offical statements in the name of bitshares to media which are totaly contaire with the opinion of the community.
-
You talk about CN-Vote controll committee.The funny thing is what i saw is that Abit controlled committee and everyone else complaining including cn-vote that he executes only his own and your personal views and doesn't consider the opinions of any other committee member.He only stopps when being forced when not getting enough votes to pass transfers for exmample.
what binggo said is right, you do not understand the things among cn-vote, abit and committee.
and clearly, if you dislike one, he will be the worst people in the world in your words.
enjoy.
-
he has put trojan in the code, he was paid to audit this code, and he abandoned his duties, easy as that
now you're asking is it ok that abit raped the community trust? it is not ok
why he is not kicked out, and we're discussing this fraud at all
things are not so simple as you think.
before BTS4.0, actually cn-vote was able to control the committee if they like.
so is it possible to implement a DPOS1 to eliminate this kind of risk through the BSIP draft -> voting ->core development process? I don't think so, one reference is BSIP22, although now almost everyone says he agree vote decay, BSIP22 has not yet been approved after about 2 years.
I don't think what abit did is acceptable, but he was definitely not doing evil.
and I don't think to just remove the unplanned features is a good enough solution to this problem.
maybe a better solution is to plan another protocol improvement with a new version.
1.include the vote decay and DPOS1 features(maybe DPOS1 can also be applied to witness voting)
2.remove, disable or update the Staking Voting Power and the Additional Voting Rules, dependent on some more deep discussion.
things will be done following the BSIP draft->voting and approvment->development and release->code audit and test->protocol improvement process.
trojan is trojan
you knew that these changes will not pass through the community not only cnvote against these changes and core put trojan in the code, and abit was paid quite good from reserve pool for audit. Trojan in release all I need to know, I don't give 1 fuck about intentions or excuses.
-
trojan is trojan
I don't think it is a trojan, the code is public, everyone can check it, and why nobody check it?
There have people said that a long time ago in HIVE, just nobody care about it and nobody care about the code, or the most of people have agreed with it.
Yes, these changes are hard passed by such a community which was controlled by the debtor, never have a chain like BTS was governed by by the debtor.
You think what abit did is a Trojan, but this is the fault of all the community not abit. CN-VOTE make a patch and you agreed with it, so that is not a trojan? this patch didn't change anything with abit code, just change some codes and let these changes can only benifit the CN-VOTE and the debtor.
I will leave some words in here, in the future, the cn-vote patch chain will be controlled totally by the CN-VOTE and the debtor. The vote system, the wittness system and the committees will be filled with vote buying and vote each other, let's wait the day coming, hope everyone will be satisfied with the result in the future.
-
trojan is trojan
the code is public, everyone can check it, and why nobody check it?
abit was paid to audit it, if you don't see the problem that he put inappropriate code that fully changes consensus, I can't help you. For me personally abit and a core manager are criminals and must be blacklisted from the core forever.
I'm tired that the same group over and over again opens different pandora boxes.
the cn-vote patch chain will be controlled totally by the CN-VOTE and the debtor. The vote system, the wittness system and the committees will be filled with vote buying and vote each other.
it will happen in both ways if it abit/beos control or cn vote control, just one way without trojan and another one with it.
Rule number one never trust a dev that put trojan in the release
I don't know how a community will split, I don't believe in this to be honest, I think we will see the same faces fighting for the power even cnvote wins, but I lost the last credibility that I have to abit, he just a fraudster in my eyes. And I will not support anything from him, one trojan already enough
-
I can't help you. For me personally abit and a core manager are criminals and must be blacklisted from the core forever.
I'm tired that the same group over and over again opens different pandora boxes.
Like predicted it won't stop at one trojan
DL to Abit
I get it. But then there is not much to be discussed. 2a and 2b are safest option but require significant work as to my understanding. @abitmore ? Can we do 2a for a quick fix and just remove any votes from witnesses (make voting irrelevant over fixed list) until 2b is implemented ?
Abit confirms to focus on that
Forcing at all cost his point of view not accepting a no.
I know for a fact that some people are now focusing on DL to hold him responsible for his actions and statements.
Witnesses can be also hold responsible.
Please remember DL is very well aware that witnesses are liable for their actions and told before that is the problem of witnesses.He doesn't care if you will get legal issues.
Please inform yourself first about your liability before adding KNOWINGLY a second malcious code.
-
abit was paid to audit it, if you don't see the problem that he put inappropriate code that fully changes consensus, I can't help you. For me personally abit and a core manager are criminals and must be blacklisted from the core forever.
When i hire a team to develop something, i still will hire a supervisor to check and oversee all the thing to make sure everything is right，not the PM to check and oversee all the thing, this is the basic engineering directive.
And i don't think these "changes consensus" is wrong, we didn't have the consensus long time ago, when we used the leveraged collateral to vote, When we locked feed prices for such a long time, when we can spent the money from the committee-account without the permission of vote, the consensus already gone, just many of us didn't realize it on that time, we all become the trojan already from that moment.
There already didn't have the core fro bts from 2019.
I follow the things which were helpful than harmful, which can benifit the community, i don't follow any person or group.
it will happen in both ways if it abit/beos control or cn vote control, just one way without trojan and another one with it.
Yes, it will happen, but i chose the "trojan" not chose the cn-vote, as long time ago i'm a trojan already, and i knew who is more worse.
There have chance and hope in this "trojan", and i can't see any chance and hope in the cn-vote chain, the problem of DPOS is more serious than what we see, not only the vote system but also the system of witness, anyone wants to make a reasonable changes, i will support it, even i'm insignificant. DPOS didn't exist the "consensus"，only “delegated”.
-
when we can spent the money from the committee-account without the permission of vote, the consensus already gone, just many of us didn't realize it on that time, we all become the trojan already from that moment.
Who started it ?Abit and Bitcrab ?So i follow their next protocol break ?
I disagree that BEOS is the better evil.
Sentiment in foreign community is to go with cn-vote instead of beos.
It's because people are aware of beos history and their voting habbits.
Also a lot of people get back active so its a good time to push for changes based on consensus as i doubt cn-vote will block any good
proposals.Also the voting power is just 240 million BTS of them.
So nobody can claim they are able to block everything when everyone else agrees on something.
-
vote decay YES
collateral Not really
DPOS1 YES
Stacking Never in this form
Way of implementation Never
possible to vote to tell the community your opinion?
-
In fact in most condition whether rule A or rule B is not a big deal to me.
What I really concern is the business based on core which make BTS more valuable like gdex\rudex\CNC\magicwallet...
I expected a stable core since years ago, but seems it's still not coming today.
What abit had done is totally not acceptable in my opinion.
But it's already happen. I can accept the changes even some details is not reasonable to me.
The important thing is how to ensure our developer don't do it again.
I don't support fork, it's a disaster to all business based on BTS, what will happen to bitCNY/GDEX.BTC/CNC.. ?
Anybody will have faith to build business on BTS in the future?
I wish you can resolve disputes, somebody can give a concession, price will rise, BTS can have a good future.
-
In fact in most condition whether rule A or rule B is not a big deal to me.
What I really concern is the business based on core which make BTS more valuable like gdex\rudex\CNC\magicwallet...
I expected a stable core since years ago, but seems it's still not coming today.
What abit had done is totally not acceptable in my opinion.
But it's already happen. I can accept the changes even some details is not reasonable to me.
The important thing is how to ensure our developer don't do it again.
I don't support fork, it's a disaster to all business based on BTS, what will happen to bitCNY/GDEX.BTC/CNC.. ?
Anybody will have faith to build business on BTS in the future?
I wish you can resolve disputes, somebody can give a concession, price will rise, BTS can have a good future.
what abit had done is not acceptable to me either, however I understand why he do this.
but, it seems in high possibility the fork will happen, not like you, many people in the community think fork is good to BTS, it will lead to free token and price rising.
I'd like to see the fork can be avoided, but if it really happen, we need to face it.
in my view, either the fork happen or not, we need a new version with removing/keeping/updating what abit added, that's why I suggest this Plan C.
I think this can help BTS to get the faith and reputation back, and also get the senseful voting system evaluation.
-
in my view, either the fork happen or not, we need a new version with removing/keeping/updating what abit added, that's why I suggest this Plan C.
Many proxies intended to open BSIP workers after 20th august for each feature on voting system so it could be voted in the regular way.
Staking in current form is something nearly everyone has a problem with (including foreign business owner). However there is big support for DPOS1 also for witness ,Vote decay and a bit less for collateral removing
The biggest fear of a lot of foreign businesses is the increase of power of beos/dl .They want increase of power for the whole community against big proxies and not another group (which is openly celebrating these changes for their favour) which they consider worse than cn-vote.
Also from my knowledge CN-Vote never intended to fork away from bitshares or create a new coin.
This FUD was spread on the bitsharesdac Channel by Digital Lucifer (including new coin) and Abit (own fork) making people belive there will be a free aidrop from a bitshares fork by cn-vote.
DL who acts now as he is a representative of bitshares openly said that CN-Vote should fork fuck out of bitshares putting a lot of lies about CN-Vote and giving them the responsibility for everything.
When foreigners who normaly critizise CN-Vote for their voting behavior and some blocking start defending cn-vote against the fud from the bitsharesdac channel i guess that says everything.
-
The biggest fear of a lot of foreign businesses is the increase of power of beos/dl .They want increase of power for the whole community against big proxies and not another group (which is openly celebrating these changes) which they consider worse than cn-vote.
I didn't get these information from foreign businesses, many businesses seems support these changes.
This is the vote power now, let the data talk:
beos: 70.0M
baozi: 53.3M
B-DEX: 47.5M
CN-VOTE: 237.0M
70+53.3+47.5=171-237=-66
So you can tell us which foreign businesses have this fear about beos?!
The vote power of BEOS is 270M in 2019, now only have 170M bts on beos account, why did they fear BEOS, noe fear CN-VOTE?!
The highest vote power of CN-VOTE is 271M, only have 30M BTS is not leveraged collateral.
Fair vote.
Also from my knowledge CN-Vote never intended to fork away from bitshares or create a new coin.
This FUD was spread on the bitsharesdac Channel by Digital Lucifer (including new coin) and Abit (own fork) making people belive there will be a free aidrop from a bitshares fork by cn-vote.
These came from the CN-VOTE, and who spread it on the community, you will never know who he is.
When the "Cn-vote's statement on version 4.0 Upgrade came out", that means a fork.
You are not one member of CN-VOTE, and not one member of CN-VOTE once，so don't try to guess the thought of CN-VOTE.
-
In fact in most condition whether rule A or rule B is not a big deal to me.
What I really concern is the business based on core which make BTS more valuable like gdex\rudex\CNC\magicwallet...
I expected a stable core since years ago, but seems it's still not coming today.
If you expect something to happen, you'd better work towards it.
Act like a man.
BitShares' future is in your hands.
What abit had done is totally not acceptable in my opinion.
But it's already happen. I can accept the changes even some details is not reasonable to me.
The important thing is how to ensure our developer don't do it again.
Sure thing. What's your solution then?
I don't support fork, it's a disaster to all business based on BTS, what will happen to bitCNY/GDEX.BTC/CNC.. ?
Anybody will have faith to build business on BTS in the future?
I wish you can resolve disputes, somebody can give a concession, price will rise, BTS can have a good future.
You don't support fork, it's totally fine.
Anyway, actions speak louder than words.
You wish we can resolve it? You wish the price will rise?
Sure.
What are you going to DO to make your wish come true?
-
The biggest fear of a lot of foreign businesses is the increase of power of beos/dl .They want increase of power for the whole community against big proxies and not another group (which is openly celebrating these changes) which they consider worse than cn-vote.
I didn't get these information from foreign businesses, many businesses seems support these changes.
This is the vote power now, let's the data talk:
beos: 70.0M
baozi: 53.3M
B-DEX: 47.5M
CN-VOTE: 237.0M
So you can tell us which foreign businesses have this fear about beos?!
The vote power of BEOS is 270M in 2019, now only have 170M bts on beos account, why did they fear BEOS, noe fear CN-VOTE?!
The highest vote power of CN-VOTE is 271M, only have 30M BTS is not leveraged collateral.
Fair vote.
I can tell you many businesses however i doubt they want to be named public as these conversations are always in private chats.
2 businesses who have knowingly big issues with dl and beos are for example Palmpay or Rudex.
The gateways who have been threatened by DL to be kicked out over a longer period of time people seem to not know.
Ask foreigners in bitsharesdex channel what they think about BEOS.
You will hear that S word.
Ask people there what they think about DL and his KYC and centralization plan ?
Majority say they can't be so dumb to really execute their plan as bitshares would be gone quickly.
Ask Palmpay how quickly he would fork away when BEOS/DL should be in control.
Or if Rudex will keep building ?
Or if old core members will stay at bitshars when BEOS gets control.
Everyone knows even from past private chats which have been leaked that BEOS is looking to get control over reserve pool to finance BEOS.
Here a snippet what goes arround old members
Michael Taggart (aka "Murderistic", "Michael X", "fromzer0t0her0") is getting away with blatantly defrauding thousands of consumers. The law will catch up with you and others. There comes a time where you can no longer hide behind calling everything “FUD.” - Aenigma Capital
1) adventure marketing llc
2) pr guerrilla
3) rock steady inc
4) bitcoin united, btc-u
5) dac marketing llc
6) steem cash
7) infinite markets llc
8) landmark technologies
9) accrusoft webinars (with matt trainer)
10) island paradise llc
11) all-in-one seo
12) fake referrer generator tlt (youtube)
13) fake poll bots, web summit etc.
14) lotto shares (customers refunded)
15) mogul - build your invisible empire (a game?)
16) banx mint, banx shares, banx platinum, banx mining, banx capital ponzi (with mark lyford)
17) entrepreneur action (as per ian demartino)
18) steem voting bot (unpaid. blames it on mark lyford)
19) bitcoin latina
20) sovereign hero ponzi
21) arise bank, arisen, agov, afood, awater, avote, abank, arisecoin, aco/rsn, eaco (with jared rice)
22) dweb, dbank, dchurch, dgov, etc (with jared rice. major copyright/license disputes)
23) bench, bench wallet, etc (with jared rice)
24) remittio
25) ruon
26) sovereignsky (cubesats crashing into satellites)
27) missionspaceone
28) quintric gold and silver (public audits are denied), quint, quints, quintx, iquint, iquints, quintcard
29) biquitous
30) cloudcoin?
31) stokens (with john gotts)
32) eosstealth
33) eristica
34) hypernomex
35) stealthgrid, stealthcrypto, stealthcloud, stealthiot
36) beos (a $13B valuation? crypto connie show- "20% of eos" (all videos deleted)), no multisig, wif key access issues, airdrops for votes..
37) btsmd (illegal profits, and "lost keys")
38) btsma
39) manna
40) payger (with chris4210)
41) qfund security token
42) ..?
"To me, if one is constantly accused of been a scammer, and his defense all the more defensive.. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work it out." - @D4vegee, Bitsharestalk
I could also add pictures of past private convos with their intentions.
You see now why foreigners don't want BEOS to get in control ?
You got of course some service providers who hope with the help of BEOS to get their workers approved.
Let me tell you something.BEOS has complelty no clue what they are talking or doing.They are good talkers and nothing more.
Mainly looking for their self benefit and BEOS is the complete opposite to bitshares fundamentals.
You give BEOS power you can be sure majority of foreigners will leave sooner or later.Old members will leave sooner.
Maybe ask how many people including businesses have been threatened by Beos to get sued when not stopping to provide information about BEOS.
The vote power of BEOS is 270M in 2019, now only have 170M bts on beos account, why did they fear BEOS, noe fear CN-VOTE?!
Why did it go back ?Because beos supporting scam workers,inside deals and refused to vote for getting pegg back for bitcny ?
Their members demanded their support for it which they denied.Instead they supported inside deals and workers from jademont like the scam exchange.
Thats the result of their voting habbits.
Ask these people who left BEOS why they did.I talk with them daily.
Also what happend to proxies like OL or Dima ?Nearly all voting power gone.
So a single guy decides who will keep his voting power and who not and who's will increase by stacking ?
Would everyone be stacking in cn-vote tell me who would be using DEX ?
Sorry i don't support malcious code added by a core member.If it fits me or not.I accept this one i indirectly support the next one giving hope that something like that can pass.
Another issue is its clearly favorising beos in the long run which majority of foreigners have a clear problem with.
Also the fud created from DL and Abit against CN-Vote is not acceptable.
Just read how both supported the wise actions of cn-vote a month ago to spread now such a fud.
It was Abit who defended cn-vote and their "wise" actions and banned anyone even admins who dared to question cn-votes voting.
I prefer to focus on real solutions which is getting after august 20th positive voting features voted in via BSIP by consensus.
And give fresh blood which have been blocked for ages by members who keep milking the reserve pool and block any ideas which don't fit in their own agenda and centralization of bitshares arround them.
You need to understand there are two group in bitshares.
One big group who belive in decentralization and old fundamentals of bitshares
and a few people who hold key positions who want to centralize bitshares arround them.
These two groups can't fit together as the first group will never accept centralization and people like DL will never stop trying to centralize bitshares arround them.
-
Blah blah blah
You need to understand there are two group in bitshares.
...
These two groups can't fit together ...
So it's best to fork.
-
I will just steal Thule's listing format:
vote decay YES
collateral YES
DPOS1 YES
Stacking No - needs some thought about weighting etc, let's figure that out first.
Way of implementation - we need to figure out how this vulnerability is closed in the future. I agree with Bitcrab that Abit wasn't doing evil and I'm actually glad someone has stepped up but really it shouldn't be possible for one person to make such big changes.
Ill vote on chain when I'm at my computer.
-
Alas, talking too much is meaningless...fear 170 not fear 270...
大海航行靠舵手，让韭菜们自己选船坐吧...
-
I will just steal Thule's listing format:
vote decay YES
collateral YES
DPOS1 YES
Stacking No - needs some thought about weighting etc, let's figure that out first.
Way of implementation - we need to figure out how this vulnerability is closed in the future. I agree with Bitcrab that Abit wasn't doing evil and I'm actually glad someone has stepped up but really it shouldn't be possible for one person to make such big changes.
Ill vote on chain when I'm at my computer.
The solution I suspect is probably that witnesses will have to do some due diligence on deployment in the future so the process of reviewing updates is more decentralised.
Part of this may be the calibre of witness - cn-vote brought in witnesses who agree to give them part of their pay and we lost witnesses like clockwork, does anyone think clockwork would have missed this change?
Maybe the corrupt voting of witnesses is part of what let this happen.
Alternatively we code in some additional payment to witnesses that they get at each release to pay for the time they spend on this review or something if we feel it is too much to ask of them otherwise.
-
Alas, talking too much is meaningless...fear 170 not fear 270...
大海航行靠舵手，让韭菜们自己选船坐吧...
how much is 170 x stacking ?
-
I will just steal Thule's listing format:
vote decay YES
collateral YES
DPOS1 YES
Stacking No - needs some thought about weighting etc, let's figure that out first.
Way of implementation - we need to figure out how this vulnerability is closed in the future. I agree with Bitcrab that Abit wasn't doing evil and I'm actually glad someone has stepped up but really it shouldn't be possible for one person to make such big changes.
Ill vote on chain when I'm at my computer.
The solution I suspect is probably that witnesses will have to do some due diligence on deployment in the future so the process of reviewing updates is more decentralised.
Part of this may be the calibre of witness - cn-vote brought in witnesses who agree to give them part of their pay and we lost witnesses like clockwork, does anyone think clockwork would have missed this change?
Maybe the corrupt voting of witnesses is part of what let this happen.
Alternatively we code in some additional payment to witnesses that they get at each release to pay for the time they spend on this review or something if we feel it is too much to ask of them otherwise.
or
liondani or terradac.
Providing simple VPS and even not participating in bithares.
Best witnesses we can get.But who is blaming BEOS or the chinese guy outside from cn-vote who made the inside deal ?
Simple question
Is BEOS currently voting reasonable or do they only vote for self benefit ?
Inside deals on witnesses
Inside deals on committee who are over 1 1/2 year inactive.
How do you perfom control function as committee if these people are inactive ?
Supporting scam workers.Denying to vote what even own community wants.
Wanting funding from reserve pool for BEOS
Very bad reputation
So why exectly would one give them more voting power ?
Who dumped again 60-80 millions of BTS ?
Lets compare Dima vs BEOS
Dima builds on bitshares and brings community of active traders.Developing for free gateway and mobile app.Even a trading bot
He is going to lose majority of his support.
And we have BEOS doing nothing only putting themself into good positions without providing anything or participating in anything.
Their VP in total increases against before and they get the ability to stake since they don't do anything with their BTS.
Is this a fair system ?
How much time did we gave one of our biggest proxy OL to ask his voters to update their vote to not lose completly voting power to have a say in stacking feature?
Also from the logic of the new voting system?
Who is the winner in general of these changes ?Clearly not the average community member but the big stake holders increasing their influence even bigger.
So it's best to fork.
Didn't community already showed that they have no more trust in you guys ?
Rudex having more liquidity and volume without MM contest than you when paying to trade on gdex from committee funds.
How much more proof do you need ?
Who is going to follow you ?Foreigners who call you scammer or cn-vote members ?
-
If staking is removed for now then the only winner is proper governance / consensus.
I'm open to discussions on staking and how it can protect from exchanges etc but I think really that part needs a lot of thought.
-
If staking is removed for now then the only winner is proper governance / consensus.
I'm open to discussions on staking and how it can protect from exchanges etc but I think really that part needs a lot of thought.
It's really sad to see that Abit has still support.
No remorse at all.
On the contrary attacking Rudex and other people who condone his actions being confident in his final success and no consequences.
People should really read what he says.
Abit More, [16.08.20 12:36]
Alt clearly stated he doesn't support forking. You know what does it mean?
Abit More, [16.08.20 12:37]
Your friend Thule will be abandoned
I don't care if i have 100 million votes,1 million votes or 1 vote.
I condem your actions and your low ethics.I posted already months ago that your ethics are fucked up which you just proof each day from new .
You are burned for the most people in western community because of your bad actions.
Abit suggesting to someone else that cn-votes patch is malcious or broke (which i personly don't belive)
Abit More, [16.08.20 12:30]
You surely know what's in the cnvote patch
Abit More, [16.08.20 12:30]
I said run it at your own risk
But even it should be true ,he is not willing to say what exectly.
So what does he really care about?
The good for bitshares and its community or his own personal success?
People should open their eyes and look who Abit surrounded himself with and support.The most corrupted people on bitshares who destroyes everything in western chats by supporting his abuse claiming what he did was rightfull and that the patch is an act of trojan horse.
How much more do we need to listen to these scammers?
-
If staking is removed for now then the only winner is proper governance / consensus.
I'm open to discussions on staking and how it can protect from exchanges etc but I think really that part needs a lot of thought.
In my view, any methods can't stop the exchanges...this is a very cruel truth...just they want to vote or not... if really didn't want the exchange to control or interference the witness, i think we need to redesign the system of witnees.
With a staking, it can slow down the action of exchanges like what happened in Steemit... but also can't solve it.
-
In fact in most condition whether rule A or rule B is not a big deal to me.
What I really concern is the business based on core which make BTS more valuable like gdex\rudex\CNC\magicwallet...
I expected a stable core since years ago, but seems it's still not coming today.
What abit had done is totally not acceptable in my opinion.
But it's already happen. I can accept the changes even some details is not reasonable to me.
The important thing is how to ensure our developer don't do it again.
I don't support fork, it's a disaster to all business based on BTS, what will happen to bitCNY/GDEX.BTC/CNC.. ?
Anybody will have faith to build business on BTS in the future?
I wish you can resolve disputes, somebody can give a concession, price will rise, BTS can have a good future.
Please use your votes to stop this chaos in community, the future of BTS is really in your hands.
1\Vote back those witness that didn't update cnvote patch to avoid fork.
2\ Discuss about the new rules among the whole community, and vote for the new rules one by one
3\ Update a new version after the whole community reach consensus(careful code check to avoid abit things again).
-
If you expect something to happen, you'd better work towards it.
Act like a man.
It does not act like a man abit, it's act like a criminal that put trojan in the release, the devs like you must be forever banned from the reserve pool or any work for the community
-
In fact in most condition whether rule A or rule B is not a big deal to me.
What I really concern is the business based on core which make BTS more valuable like gdex\rudex\CNC\magicwallet...
I expected a stable core since years ago, but seems it's still not coming today.
What abit had done is totally not acceptable in my opinion.
But it's already happen. I can accept the changes even some details is not reasonable to me.
The important thing is how to ensure our developer don't do it again.
I don't support fork, it's a disaster to all business based on BTS, what will happen to bitCNY/GDEX.BTC/CNC.. ?
Anybody will have faith to build business on BTS in the future?
I wish you can resolve disputes, somebody can give a concession, price will rise, BTS can have a good future.
Please use your votes to stop this chaos in community, the future of BTS is really in your hands.
1\Vote back those witness that didn't update cnvote patch to avoid fork.
2\ Discuss about the new rules among the whole community, and vote for the new rules one by one
3\ Update a new version after the whole community reach consensus(careful code check to avoid abit things again).
it will be no fork because if abit have money to sustain a fork, he didn't put trojan in the first place, we will see the same faces fighting around the reserve pool after 20th
-
In fact in most condition whether rule A or rule B is not a big deal to me.
What I really concern is the business based on core which make BTS more valuable like gdex\rudex\CNC\magicwallet...
I expected a stable core since years ago, but seems it's still not coming today.
What abit had done is totally not acceptable in my opinion.
But it's already happen. I can accept the changes even some details is not reasonable to me.
The important thing is how to ensure our developer don't do it again.
I don't support fork, it's a disaster to all business based on BTS, what will happen to bitCNY/GDEX.BTC/CNC.. ?
Anybody will have faith to build business on BTS in the future?
I wish you can resolve disputes, somebody can give a concession, price will rise, BTS can have a good future.
Hello! And nice to meet you!
Here we have described what we are doing for the Bitshares infrastructure https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32472.0
and here you can find all the news about our exchange https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26813.105
You are right, these events are unacceptable for business.
Who will come to Bitshares when the nodes have to install the patch from the unofficial github. For example, we don't know what will happen on August 20, Will the nodes stop or not. How many days to close the exchange for technical work, etc.
..The main developer is making changes that no one supposedly knew about. !!! Although the code was posted before and everyone could see and read it.
Why didn't you read the code?
Changes in the official release - Good for the blockchain. 1 vote-1 choice. Solving the issue with dead accounts and much more. Lots of tests before starting the update, etc.
Has the New Patch been multilevel tested?
We ask questions and do not receive answers.
That there was no wide coverage of the news with the 4.0 update. is a communication problem with the marketing news department. Bitshares needs such a department!
The fact that the patch needs to be installed from an unofficial repository is a big problem. It looks like a takeover of the network.
How can a business make the most of the tool without knowing what will happen to the future?
I do not know how long Abit has been on Bitshares. Our exchange for Bitshares has been operating for over 2 years. And we have no reason to doubt the actions or technical knowledge of the Abit. He is always attentive to new users and always welcoming. Always answers questions and is open to discussion. He put things in order in the telegrams, for which many thanks to him. Because many people, entering the telegram Bitshares chat, left. Because they faced constant insults, etc. including from Dima. You probably know this yourself.
-
.
it will be no fork because if abit have money to sustain a fork, he didn't put trojan in the first place, we will see the same faces fighting around the reserve pool after 20th
After 20th, there will be no one go to fight around the reserve pool in cn-vote chain, as the reserve pool will be burned.
And they will care about more in CNVOTE than BTS, i don't want to criticize cn-vote, but you didn't know about them.
-
(http://i2.tiimg.com/523014/4a62d954c5fdc925.png)
now only few voters have voted, and all the 4 features get more support than against voting powers.
hope every voters, especially big proxies to vote to show your opinion.
do not wait after 20th, no one is sure what will happen in 20th.
and either fork or not, I believe the current chain need a Plan C.
-
(http://i2.tiimg.com/523014/4a62d954c5fdc925.png)
now only few voters have voted, and all the 4 features get more support than against voting powers.
hope every voters, especially big proxies to vote to show your opinion.
do not wait after 20th, no one is sure what will happen in 20th.
and either fork or not, I believe the current chain need a Plan C.
These vote can't say anything:
This is the vote power now, let the data talk:
beos: 70.0M
baozi: 53.3M
B-DEX: 47.5M
CN-VOTE: 237.0M
70+53.3+47.5=171-237=-66
171+237=408
The vote power of CN-VOTE is 237.0M, only have 30M BTS is not leveraged collateral.
Fair vote?
大螃蟹上午回了又删了，我本想接着那个思路回一下，既然删了就算了，但是我们可以再举一个简单的例子来解释或者什么一下: 为什么抵押票权与挂单票权必须要割掉。
比如我是威且科技的一个小股东，可以在公司抵押我的股权从公司借出资金，且还享有表决权，然后再从股市或者其它小股东手里收购公司股票，再抵押给公司借出资金，大螃蟹你做为这个公司老板是不是要疯？等到我的杠杆表决权可以独断的时候，直接让公司不可以爆我的仓位，那么大老板心里是不是要MMP? 如果所有股东都这样搞表决权的话，那公司还需要发展吗？其它不愿意这样参与的股东是不是打心底里有分家的想法？
再退一步讲，我不在本公司抵押而是在外部做抵押，然后回购公司股票做杠杆，只要表决权不灭失，我想大螃蟹你作为这个公司的老板心里也要无限MMP吧？！
至于为什么挂单票权也要割掉，都挂着单子要卖了，很明显是前脚投票后脚跑路的节奏，这对于一个DAO治理有何意义？！
至于猴子，将来你是想跟着cn-vote这些人不断把杠杆加上去去抗衡抵押票权呢，还是等着他们抵押票权高到可以独断的时候，一个激动直接锁到10块，抵押筹码不丢还能干你？
至于其它，我实在是搞不清楚，一个1.7亿实打实持有bts的票仓有何怕的？...所有的东西都站不住脚...这么多独立见证人难道还不如一个组织控制的贿选见证人体系, 现在就可以这样横着把独立见证人体系干掉，将来岂不是要渡劫上天?!
再者，真的是多说无益，既然关键矛盾不可调和，赶紧×了算完，这种票权结构之下，谈个毛的共识。
-
(http://i2.tiimg.com/523014/4a62d954c5fdc925.png)
now only few voters have voted, and all the 4 features get more support than against voting powers.
hope every voters, especially big proxies to vote to show your opinion.
do not wait after 20th, no one is sure what will happen in 20th.
and either fork or not, I believe the current chain need a Plan C.
These vote can't say anything:
This is the vote power now, let the data talk:
beos: 70.0M
baozi: 53.3M
B-DEX: 47.5M
CN-VOTE: 237.0M
70+53.3+47.5=171-237=-66
171+237=408
The vote power of CN-VOTE is 237.0M, only have 30M BTS is not leveraged collateral.
Fair vote?
大螃蟹上午回了又删了，我本想接着那个思路回一下，既然删了就算了，但是我们可以再举一个简单的例子来解释或者什么一下: 为什么抵押票权与挂单票权必须要割掉。
比如我是威且科技的一个小股东，可以在公司抵押我的股权从公司借出资金，且还享有表决权，然后再从股市或者其它小股东手里收购公司股票，再抵押给公司借出资金，大螃蟹你做为这个公司老板是不是要疯？等到我的杠杆表决权可以独断的时候，直接让公司不可以爆我的仓位，那么大老板心里是不是要MMP? 如果所有股东都这样搞表决权的话，那公司还需要发展吗？其它不愿意这样参与的股东是不是打心底里有分家的想法？
再退一步讲，我不在本公司抵押而是在外部做抵押，然后回购公司股票做杠杆，只要表决权不灭失，我想大螃蟹你作为这个公司的老板心里也要无限MMP吧？！
至于为什么挂单票权也要割掉，都挂着单子要卖了，很明显是前脚投票后脚跑路的节奏，这对于一个DAO治理有何意义？！
至于猴子，将来你是想跟着cn-vote这些人不断把杠杆加上去去抗衡抵押票权呢，还是等着他们抵押票权高到可以独断的时候，一个激动直接锁到10块，抵押筹码不丢还能干你？
至于其它，我实在是搞不清楚，一个1.7亿实打实持有bts的票仓有何怕的？...所有的东西都站不住脚...这么多独立见证人难道还不如一个组织控制的贿选见证人体系, 现在就可以这样横着把独立见证人体系干掉，将来岂不是要渡劫上天?!
再者，真的是多说无益，既然关键矛盾不可调和，赶紧×了算完，这种票权结构之下，谈个毛的共识。
作为我个人来说，现在的投票规则并非不可接受，但我并不认为是非常合理的。
如果一个公司上市了，有投资者借钱买股票获得投票权，我想谁都得认，如果想让公司少受投资人影响，不上市就行了呗，学学任老板。
事实上，我觉得锁仓票权+抵押票权也许可以刚好互相平衡，如果说过去曾经有抵押票权罔顾整体利益，那么如果完全取消了抵押票权，谁来代表抵押者的权益？以后抵押者是不是可以被尽情欺负了？
对了，你给出的那几个大户票权应该不准确，先搞准确了。
-
作为我个人来说，现在的投票规则并非不可接受，但我并不认为是非常合理的。
如果一个公司上市了，有投资者借钱买股票获得投票权，我想谁都得认，如果想让公司少受投资人影响，不上市就行了呗，学学任老板。
事实上，我觉得锁仓票权+抵押票权也许可以刚好互相平衡，如果说过去曾经有抵押票权罔顾整体利益，那么如果完全取消了抵押票权，谁来代表抵押者的权益？以后抵押者是不是可以被尽情欺负了？
对了，你给出的那几个大户票权应该不准确，先搞准确了。
1. 票权规则不会有非常合理的，锁仓倍数以后可以慢慢谈，但是抵押票权必须割掉;
abit留这么长的一个缓冲期，让渡给了cn-vote这么大的一个票权占比，无论是解锁喂价还是提高强清补偿还是BSIP74与BSIP77还是调整喂价到一个正常的灵敏度，都可以比较容易的通过投票实现，这些东西与措施对挽救一下cn-vote声誉并弥补国内外社区的裂痕不好吗？！cn-vote在干什么？个个屁股决定脑袋的在准备夺权控制见证人体系，这是脑子要多缺才会这么干？！见证人体系是什么意味着什么，他们自己感情到现在还不清楚。
要换成我，立马就把抵押票权割了，让他们跳的机会都没有，你给了他们机会，他们就跳大神给你看。
2. 质押股权的资金用途是被严格限制的，不是认不认的问题，必抓的问题，而且股权的财产价值与表决权价值是不可能一分为二的，贾跃亭怎么把乐视掏空的，大家应该都门清;
3. 锁仓与抵押之间不存在平等与平衡，锁仓者把自己的流动性与时间成本锁住了，而抵押原地就可以杠出2.3倍的杠杆票权，出了事情还能跑的飞快，价格上涨的时候还能将票权指数型放大迅速超过锁仓票权，锁了喂价还能保证筹码不丢，票权不降，锁仓的还能给抵押的减少流动性，这么多的好处都让抵押占了，那还有哪个二货去锁仓？两年下来，高杠杆的赚了个盘满砵满，还能捞底，锁仓的等解锁的时候，价格不仅没涨还跌了？！谁还锁？
4. BTS持有人的利益其实就是抵押者的利益，一个无限滚仓拖累价格抵押市场符合bts持有人的利益吗？一个流动性归零的抵押市场符合bts持有人的利益吗？这么一个大业务蛋糕别人做的蒸蒸日上，而bts放着不争取做好那还要去做什么业务？
而且即使抵押票权被割掉，抵押者也是占了很大便宜，只要在合理的抵押率，不是上满杠杆，瞬间就可以调仓出大量的自由票权。
抵押者的利益保障更多的在于设计者的设计能力。
像makerdao双币制其实可能更好一些，对于bts而言早就木已成舟，没有太大意义。
价格的下跌其实很大程度上不是抵押市场造成的，只是畸形的机制放大了下跌的效果。
cn-vote屁股决定脑袋，我不认为他们能搞好抵押市场，至于这些真正的bts持有者，我也持怀疑态度，但是两者权其轻，我感觉还是交给bts持有者至少不会屁股决定脑袋的好。
5. 票权数据应该大差不差，你感觉beos是1.7亿，其实就7千万，代理票仓应该很多一次也没投过票，至少btsai上的数据是这样，除非bts投票数据统计方式有问题……
易，穷则变，变则通，通则久。
BTS升级4.0之前大家其实基本希望与热情磨灭的差不多了，如果4.0没有大的改变(其实本来就没有什么实质性的变化，很多还需要决策者合理的实施与前提条件），大家基本也就撤了，票权的结构性改变让大家又燃起了那么一丝丝热情与希望，可能整体的抵押市场会恢复正常，可能核心开发群体会充实起来，可能会有一些更贴合市场的开发动作。
----
另外，还想要用投票来决定: 抵押票权该不该保留，就跟投票决定吃人合法不合法一样可笑！！！
真是服了你们了，到现在还要如此幼稚？！
-
都别扯了，回到现实中来。合不合理后面再改，就按照现在的来， 现目前先把争议平息了， 工会目前的2.4亿票 也不一定干不过，呼吁扯工会票或联系交易所啊！ 工会主要目的是进行监督 而不是几个B在哪瞎搞。
abit不管出于何目的，或多或少都应该给予处罚。
再接着吵 牛市就过了！ BTS该归零了
见证人也应该一票一投，不然避免不了被人控制. 特别是被作恶或瞎搞的控制！！！！
-
都别扯了，回到现实中来。合不合理后面再改，就按照现在的来， 现目前先把争议平息了， 工会目前的2.4亿票 也不一定干不过，呼吁扯工会票或联系交易所啊！ 工会主要目的是进行监督 而不是几个B在哪瞎搞。
abit不管出于何目的，或多或少都应该给予处罚。
上一次交易所在steemit不也出力了嘛，进一步加速❌的节奏，而且人都是贪小利的，有几个会顾大局，你去拆利益集团的桥，割他们的肉，怎么可能！现在顾大局的基本被定性为黑粉。
至于见证人被大票仓控制，习惯就好了，DPOS特色...
-
建议公会支持解锁喂价。
-
8月20日过了，躲过一劫！补丁没有经过代码开源就强行上去，简直就是胡闹！“DPOS"所谓的投票治理模式，明显的票权重复有问题。4.0革命的没有错误，去毒瘤就得用大刀。
票权重复使用，意味着权力集中，一票一投才更加合理。如果说4.0不完善的地方，那就是没有立即执行新的规则，而是给了旧势力折腾的时间。ABIT还不够狠，应该见证人也一票一投，锁仓票权24小时生效，不给旧势力一丝的喘气机会。