Thanks. We're starting off slowly, but I plan to put decent resources into this as time goes on. Some new API servers, adding liquidity, and more coins as well.

https://hive.blog/blocktrades/@blocktrades/blocktrades-trade-matching-exchange-now-live-trade-btc-hive-steem-etc

I'll check here and on the Hive post to answer any questions about the new service.

They don't have a forum, but there's a telegram group: https://t.me/officialbeos

Quote from: ljk424 on December 22, 2019, 02:07:28 AM

Quote from: dannotestein on December 21, 2019, 10:25:28 PM
Its like you're just ignoring the reason why I made this proposal to begin with. At the time, the core team had left the project, and there was doubt about what would happen in an emergency situation with no core team available to fix the problem. It was also intended to fix smaller bugs as well, but this was my chief concern. In the case of such an emergency, there could easily be no way for stakeholders to vote funds to fix the problem (e.g. the chain could be down). This proposal provided an insurance against such problems.

But, realistically speaking, if the current voters really don't want such insurance any more, I'm ok to return the funds. If you feel strongly on this issue, create an "opinion proposal" on whether the funds should be returned to the reserve pool. If it gets funded, I'm fine to return the funds and end this insurance policy.

You should return the funds instead of keeping it for yourself

I'm just going to assume you're not a native English speaker, and therefore not able to understand the phrases you're quoting from me, since your response makes no sense to me otherwise. I've already expressed clearly that I am not "keeping it for myself". If I was, I would have sold it off long ago when I sold off my own holdings after I decided BTS price was likely to drop due to current scheme to freeze the pricefeed to protect those shorting bitusd/bitcny into existance from taking their normal losses.

Its like you're just ignoring the reason why I made this proposal to begin with. At the time, the core team had left the project, and there was doubt about what would happen in an emergency situation with no core team available to fix the problem. It was also intended to fix smaller bugs as well, but this was my chief concern. In the case of such an emergency, there could easily be no way for stakeholders to vote funds to fix the problem (e.g. the chain could be down). This proposal provided an insurance against such problems.

But, realistically speaking, if the current voters really don't want such insurance any more, I'm ok to return the funds. If you feel strongly on this issue, create an "opinion proposal" on whether the funds should be returned to the reserve pool. If it gets funded, I'm fine to return the funds and end this insurance policy.

Ah, you edited your reply, so now your point is clearer to me.

If the proposal for the work had been for some specific task, I would agree with you that the funds should be returned. The point is, the proposal was a simple catch-all insurance policy against blockchain failure, not a specific task.

Quote from: Thul3 on December 21, 2019, 08:18:26 PM

Quote from: dannotestein on December 21, 2019, 08:14:09 PM
Well, I hadn't interpreted his words this way, but you could be correct.

But if so, releasing funds only for "done work" is somewhat problematic, IMO. It will certainly be difficult to find workers who can afford to wait till after a job is done before they receive payment. In fact, I think that you won't find any such workers, unless they do it only for their own satisfaction, and only consider any reward for the work as an afterthought. In other words, I think you will get only "free" work contributions with such a payment model (with the possible exception for some, quick easy tasks).

Paying in parts for done work is no issue.

I'm not completely sure what you meant by the above statement. But my general impression is that you're brushing off as easy something that is actually very difficult: contracting with a software developer, getting good results for both parties, and not having payment problems. And the damages can result on both sides too, not just the contractee side: I've had cases where we didn't receive payment for work done, because the contractee could no longer afford to pay for the work. Costs build up quickly on both sides of such arrangements.

In traditional hiring for software work, conflicts often arise between the developers and the contractee because of misunderstandings and incorrect expectations on both sides and external forces such as economic problems for either  party. Blockchain-based payment is going to be no different and is going to suffer the same kinds of problems.

Well, I hadn't interpreted his words this way, but you could be correct.

But if so, releasing funds only for "done work" is somewhat problematic, IMO. It will certainly be difficult to find workers who can afford to wait till after a job is done before they receive payment. In fact, I think that you won't find any such workers, unless they do it only for their own satisfaction, and only consider any reward for the work as an afterthought. In other words, I think you will get only "free" work contributions with such a payment model (with the possible exception for some, quick easy tasks).

binggo, what exactly is your proposed change to the worker proposal system? You are clearly upset, but I still am trying to figure out what your actual proposal is for a blockchain change.

If it is to reclaim worker funds after they are vested, that won't achieve anything useful: if a worker has accumulated funds and wants to avoid such a reclaim action, they could simply move or spend the funds. So a blockchain ability to reclaim the funds would have no power against a bad worker.

Or maybe you are just proposing to shutdown the worker proposal system?

Quote from: Thul3 on December 21, 2019, 06:58:24 PM

Quote from: dannotestein on December 21, 2019, 06:35:04 PM

Quote from: finn-bts on December 21, 2019, 12:14:26 PM

Quote from: Thul3 on December 21, 2019, 11:41:59 AM
Didn't you posted before that you are going to send back to reserve pool when the amount gets to big ?

I guess 7 million bts could be considered as to big

As if he wasn't going to do that, he thought he had a right to the money.

To Thul3:
No, I didn't ever make such a statement.  You seem to be confused. The amount is not currently accumulating, it hit the total amount of 7 million BTS long ago (years ago). In the last discussion where it was talked abou a while ago, I made it clear: I'm only holding the accumulated funds for possible use to help the chain if necessary.

To finn-bts: If I thought I had a right to spend the BTS for my own use, I would have sold it when I sold my own funds. Please use some common sense.

QuoteIt was always my plan to refund unused pay from the worker

QuoteIf the amount builds up to an amount I consider excessive, I'll simply send some back to the reserve account.

At this moment, I've allocated $1000 USD equivalent of BTS (actual amount paid will depend on BTS price at time of payment) from the fund for BlockTrade's work on the memo key bug. I'm also planning to spend some from this account to partially pay for work being done on adding the ability to distribute dividends to UIA holders. Beyond that, we'll just be on the lookout for other problems that arise or a compelling feature that seems to have community support that can be added at relatively low cost.

So a few months back the 7 million bts were worth arround $500k
Before that it was even worth more than a million USD .

The price of BTS has been incredibly volatile, as I would guess you should know. If I had been certain the price would have stayed so high, it would have made sense to send it back to the reserve pool. But as time has shown, the current value is about $110K, which I don't consider a lot if serious problems arose, but enough.

Quote from: finn-bts on December 21, 2019, 12:14:26 PM

Quote from: Thul3 on December 21, 2019, 11:41:59 AM
Didn't you posted before that you are going to send back to reserve pool when the amount gets to big ?

I guess 7 million bts could be considered as to big

As if he wasn't going to do that, he thought he had a right to the money.

To Thul3:
No, I didn't ever make such a statement.  You seem to be confused. The amount is not currently accumulating, it hit the total amount of 7 million BTS long ago (years ago). In the last discussion where it was talked abou a while ago, I made it clear: I'm only holding the accumulated funds for possible use to help the chain if necessary.

To finn-bts: If I thought I had a right to spend the BTS for my own use, I would have sold it when I sold my own funds. Please use some common sense.

Quote from: binggo on December 21, 2019, 08:44:24 AM

QuoteThe BTS community has the power to take it back in the same way it can take back any funds: it can fork the chain. But it would be a stupid reason to fork the chain, IMO.

I think i have said very clearly, and you give this answer?

QuoteWe would make a report once per month on what has been done during that period.

So what is "that period"?

QuoteI have no idea what you mean by "the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". What do you want to be redesigned? Do you mean that you want to be able to take back vested funds from a worker without a fork? And if so, why? Because you are unhappy that I sold my company's BTS? This has nothing to do with the funds for the worker. I would never sell off these funds except for the purpose I originally committed them to. This can easily be seen when you consider that I've held these funds even when bts was worth 0.40 USD and also that I still haven't sold them, despite selling all my company's BTS.

I didn't understand how and why you got such conclusion? and become so angry and emotional? just as i show the data of blockchain？

Serious talk: i didn't care about you sold or not sold, i just show the data, i also show the data of others big sell.

"the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". is mean:
Someone did a worker and finished, then we will pay or pay it with the milestone, the whole funds will not controled by the worker, will controled by the committee/wittness with a multi-signature account, and will have the examiner to check the result of worker.

------------------
So let's focus the topic:

if this worker has been out of date(or not) and didn't have any actives for such a long time, the rest funds should burn to the reserve pool, the worker have the obligation to do that.
We had lost many funds like this way.

I'm actually not angry, I'm only trying to understand what problem you think exists and what you want to do to fix it. I'm still not sure, but I think you think that because we haven't done anything in a long time, or spent the money, that there is some problem.

So let me explain to you what the money was for: it was money that was to be spent conditionally, only if there was a problem that needed fixing. For a long time, I saw no such problem, so I simply kept the money unspent. Later, a core dev team emerged and began to work on new things and also make some fixes. So, with them around, I didn't see any need to spend the money. Instead I decided to hold it in case they lost their funding and them some problem arose. This is still my intent.

You also say "we had lost many funds this way". I have no idea what you meant by this, you need to be more specific about such instances. I understand that English is not your first language, but you need to say more when you make such statements. Without more information, I can only guess what you talk about.

Anyways, in the case of the funds I hold, nothing has been lost: if I don't spend it, it's very similar to if it's in the reserve pool. The big difference is that if I think it needs to be spent, I can make the decision without consent of current big voters (I got the consent from old big voters). You think I have the obligation to burn the funds, but I disagree. I think I have the obligation I took on when I made the proposal: to spend the funds if necessary to save the chain if some serious problem arises and otherwise to leave the funds alone. This is a safety net for the chain, and I think it's a good one.

Maybe you don't like this. But then, I don't like many decisions of the current big voters much either. But we both must abide by the rules of the blockchain. You can certainly argue for changing them, but I find your argument, to the extent I am able to understand it, very unpersuasive. If you want to make changes to the blockchain rules, there are much more serious issues to address than this, in my opinion. I guarantee you this money you're so worried about has had no impact on the price of BitShares, unlike the voting problems that BitShares is having which has damaged the price so much.

Quote from: binggo on December 21, 2019, 09:10:52 AM
You still didn't understand something, things is not what you think about so easily, we have lost bitbtc, bitgold, bitsilver, almost lost bitusd, and bitEUR/bitkrw/bitMXN/bitSEK/bitGBP/bitAUD almos lost in few days ago, what's the source of the problem?

What do you mean by lost, you mean global settlement? Or something else?

Sure, data is only data, and often people can come to the wrong conclusions about it. That's why I'm trying to explain very clearly how we operate, and what decisions I made, so that people won't come to the wrong conclusions.

Originally I was increasing my holdings in BTS because I was hopeful for the effect of BEOS and eventually I had acquired about 35m BTS. I forget what price I paid, probably mostly around 0.05.Then I saw the constant fighting in telegram (and to a lesser extent here) and decided to acquire no more, and sell any beyond this amount. And later, when I saw the pricefeed fix, I decided to sell all. If things had went differently for BTS, I would have been happy to acquire a lot more than 35m.

I even wrote some on Steem at the time about my concerns related to the pricefeed fixing: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@blocktrades/using-a-bitshares-decentralized-exchange-dex-market-for-bitusd-and-bitcny-pricefeeds

I also made some easier-to-read posts here about my concerns about the price fixing in this forum, IIRC, but I don't have links to those posts, but you can probably find them if you search. Also I talked some about it in one of the BTS telegram channels, but again, I don't remember which one.

Yes, but you have to understand that I'm not only answering for you, but also for others reading this thread. Many (most?) will not have the  time or interest to review the blockchain data. And we are discussing important points about how our business operates, so I don't want people to draw the wrong conclusions like the idea that if they sell to us, we will then just turn around and sell the coin to someone else. Generally, we don't do this.

I really didn't want to discuss my opinions about the current state of BTS, as I didn't want my thoughts to hurt the price more (we still are paid by customers with substantial BTS holdings, so it's not really in my interest for the coin to fall in price, even though I don't hold a lot myself). But when we were made the focus of this thread and the blame for the price was laid at our feet, I felt it was necessary to correct the record and discuss what, in my opinion, is the real reason for the price drop. Also, I know that many of the points I've made have been made by others in the past, so it's not like I'm revealing anything most people don't already know, I suppose.