Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Taconator

Pages: [1] 2
1
About unclear part - I'm non-native English, so longer sentences can be an issue to properly construct them, but here it goes... We are saying that we will follow steps of the Foundation, mission objectives and obey/apply with existing rules around the blockchain. We are asking Foundation for recognition of us as another Foundation, since they were the beginning of all. All tools for accounting and current work they are doing, if we gonna continue, we will do their way. - In simple words, Unity of Voice and Actions are something we are looking here for. 2 Foundations doing what they want without agreement and simple basic rules would be just more Chaos to "decentralization".

And re - independent of the BBF and Stakeholders - We can pursue, and as you can see, we are doing it for months in different ways and specific needs community/blockchain has at the moment, but in the end we can only REALISE it if the Stake-Holders make approval once Worker is up.

DL,

Thanks for the reply, and I very much appreciate the effort and difficulty of producing an English language version of this post.

I clearly understand the part about getting approval from stakeholders to do something. But I am still uncertain about what it means for the BBF to recognize another Foundation.

The trivial interpretation is that BBF recognizes that the Move Institute exists. I am not sure what value this brings so this interpretation is probably incorrect.

A more substantive interpretation might be (and perhaps this is not what you are seeking) is a declaration by the BBF that the Move Institute is another foundation that follows its practices, protocols, and accounting. If that is the objective I think that it is awkward for the following reasons: (a) such a description by the BBF might be lengthy and detailed and might include descriptions that are specific to the EU, (b) such a description might be expensive and time-consuming to produce, and (c) BBF might not have the ability nor interest to certify (once never mind periodically) that the Move Institute is following such practices, protocols, and accounting because there are legal risks and implications of doing this.

Perhaps a middle ground interpretation is that the Move Institute is asking for guidance from the BBF about suggested practices, protocols, and accounting (the (a) from above) so that the Move Institute might consider adopting some or all of them. I think that this approach might be something more practical for both the BBF and the Move Institute.

2
I think that it is excellent to have another party that can manage escrow of worker proposals, and possibly other endeavors.  I welcome this effort.

Yet there is a part of the release that is very unclear to me

Our primary focus is drawing upon all the principles and needs of having such foundations, bringing more true meaning and concept of decentralization. Zavod Premik Institute will empower the Community and extend the original BitShares Blockchain Foundation mission objectives:– to grow, promote, and advocate the BitShares Blockchain worldwide, in full spirit of the original Distributed Autonomous Community (DAC), and in doing so, grow and build the powers of the BitShares Ecosystem in full collaboration, if BitShares Blockchain Foundation choose to accept this offer.

What is the offer?

The Institute can pursue any of these goals independent of the BBF and the stakeholders.

3
General Discussion / Re: Fees Report
« on: December 02, 2017, 12:55:58 pm »
A new report of collected fees through October 2017 has been prepared and is available at here.

During the month, 2.31 million BTS were collected for 7.89 million operations (within 2.71 million transactions) on the blockchain. 50% of the operations were due to market order creations, and 41% were due to market order cancellations. However, those operations only generated 2% of the collected fees.

The leading distribution of operational fees paid/collected with BTS were as follows:

Operation Type% of Total BTS
Asset Create80%
Account Upgrades14%
Account Create2%
Limit Order Create2%
Transfer Operation1%


If you do encounter any errors in the report, please let me know and I will correct the report as soon as possible.

4
seems you hired another fuck worker task
a core fork development even without code review and test.
you need to hired another fuck test worker and another review worker.
consider hire another fuck requirement worker
maybe a custom service worker.

blockchain fucker
Testers (other than myself) are not paid through the proposal, see http://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2017-07-peter-conrad .

You must not have seen the units tests that were prepared by pc for this worker. In particular, see the completely new tests under swan_tests.cpp file, along with updates to existing tests in order to support the black swan revival.

Additionally, I do not think the words "fuck" and "fucker" means what you think it does. In this context it is both offensive and vulgar (and probably physically impossible). Surely, another word would be more appropriate.

5
I commend you on what you have written up, and look forward to possibly having this capability (or something like it) built into the DEX. I would like to discuss the following.

Concern
A possible scenario that could be gamed by a lender (although this need not squash the whole idea) when the markets are thin:

A cartel of lenders who make up all of the "lending" orders, could game the system by:
1. placing sell orders on the order book for the same asset that they will lend (the cartel controls all of the offers to lend);
2. lend some of what they are offering;
3. withdraw the remaining orders and cause a liquidation (thereby acquiring all of the borrower's collateral)


Question
Is there any term? Or until paid back by borrower or collateral runs too low.


Question
Why not any collateral amount agreed upon by lender and borrower?


Question
Why not any interest rate agreed upon by the lender and borrower?

6
General Discussion / Re: Fees Report
« on: October 02, 2017, 12:11:21 pm »
A new report of collected fees through August 2017 has been prepared and is available at here.

During the month, 0.80 million BTS were collected for 8.92 million operations (within 2.96 million transactions) on the blockchain. 48% of the operations were due to market order creations, and 43% were due to market order cancellations. However, those operations only generated 8% of the collected fees.

The leading distribution of operational fees paid/collected with BTS were as follows:

Operation Type% of Total BTS
Asset Create69%
Account Upgrades17%
Limit Order Create7%
Account Create4%
Transfer Operation2%
Limit Order Cancel Operation1%


If you do encounter any errors in the report, please let me know and I will correct the report as soon as possible.

7
Here is my current opinion of the proposition

Pros
  • It could satisfy the requirements for this new UIA without affecting any other assets nor operations (if the current technical understanding is correct)
  • Easy to implement

Cons
  • Existing unit tests might need to be updated
  • Additional unit tests should be created to confirm proper behavior
  • Additional testing on private or public testnets would be recommended to further testing
  • Require a fork to integrate into the MainNet (unsure whether hard or soft)

8
Background

While recently discussing the feasibility of introducing "Fast Bitcoin" as a UIA to BitShares, a technical constraint within BitShares arose which might limit the introduction of this coin with the full quantity of units in Bitcoin (21,000,000) and with the fractional precision of 8 decimal digits.

Two constraints in the code were first investigated and appeared to be adequate for the requirement:

(a) asset object uses int64_t for the quantity of to "raw"/"highest precision" units (see asset.hpp amount)

(b) the decimal precision of a fractional unit can handle 12 decimal digits (see asset_ops.hpp asset_create_operation)

However, @abit highlighted a third constraint that is not compatible with the requirements.

(c) #define GRAPHENE_MAX_SHARE_SUPPLY int64_t(1000000000000000ll) in config.hpp

With a fractional precision of 8 decimal digits and this existing constant, only 10,000,000 BTC could be handled.

When asked about the origin of this numerical value, @pc noted, that as best as he could recall, it is set to 15 digits because IEEE doubles have 53 bits of precision. 2^53 ~= 9 * 10^15. Therefore, 10^16 could not be represented by an IEEE. In addition, @pc noted that "Languages like JavaScript use IEEE double for all numeric types."


Proposition

@pc suggested that one method of satisfying the requirements would be to change this constant to 9*10^15 without violating the IEEE representation of doubles.


Considerations

@alt suggested that pros and cons of this proposition be discussed publicly hence this post.

9
General Discussion / Re: Fees Report
« on: July 24, 2017, 01:35:38 pm »
A new report of collected fees through June 2017 has been prepared and is available at here.

During the month, 1.60 million BTS were collected for 9.32 million operations (within 2.60 million transactions) on the blockchain. The leading distribution of operational fees paid/collected with BTS were as follows:

Operation Type% of Total BTS
Asset Create64%
Account Upgrades16%
Account Create14%
Limit Order Create3%
Transfer Operation1%


If you do encounter any errors in the report, please let me know and I will correct the report as soon as possible.

10
General Discussion / Re: Fees Report
« on: July 24, 2017, 01:18:06 pm »
Thank you so much for this data!

I've just read it quickly, and I can see that in Table 2
Quote
Table 2. Fees collected by the blockchain from 2015-10 through 2017-04 for the different operation types.
That the 'Quantity' of fees(?) for USD since October 2015 (18 whole months) is only $113.6

Does this really mean that BitShares has only collected £113 worth of fees by enabling the use of bitUSD for nearly 2 years??

No although I see how that could be interpreted that way. Actually, that row is simply reporting how many fees were paid with bitUSD.  All entries throughout the report simply indicate with which assets fees were paid.

11
General Discussion / Re: Fees Report
« on: July 24, 2017, 01:10:46 pm »
In case you missed it the summary says fees collected between October of 2017 to April of 2017. Should be October of 2015.

Thanks for the error notice. Will correct.

12
General Discussion / Re: Fees Report
« on: May 14, 2017, 02:14:14 pm »
A report on the fees collected on the BitShares blockchain through April 2017 can be found here.

During the month, 2.97 million BTS were collected for 2.87 million operations (within 1.01 million transactions) on the blockchain.

During the month, the leading distribution of BTS feed collected for operations were as follows:

Operation Type% of Total BTS
Asset Create67%
Account Upgrades14%
Limit Order Create7%
Account Create6%

Two charts are available within the document: one for fees versus time, another for operations versus time.

13
General Discussion / Re: Fees Report
« on: April 24, 2017, 01:14:30 pm »
This is very important document. It would be very good if we could get those reports on regular ( monthly,  quarterly, yearly) bases.
Yes, I am considering doing that.


I like its findings so far. Although generally informative, I don't understand scope of its interest. I suppose it is meant for Bitshares share holders.
That is correct.  For now, the report is intended for shareholders.


Without:
 - subsequent distribution of the collected fees to entities such as the network, witnesses, worker proposals, asset issuers, referrers, nor lifetime member accounts;
 - the quantities that are reported in the document are all in terms of the asset units that were specified for fee payment
, it lacks basics for valuable conclusions such as ( I'll put my opinion in parentheses):

- how well it performs in terms of a company aka Distributed Autonomous Companies (no clue w/o expenses)
- where is possible space for improvement in terms of income (it partially provided clue)
- does current fee structure supports mentioned above (no clue)
- how does it distribute value that it creates (no clue)
- is this distribution in compliance with its short term and long term goals (no clue)

As a basics for future improvement I would suggest minor changes:
Income side
- all fees denominated in BTS, structured by descending value (gross network fees)
- basic gross fee structure in terms of percentage of the whole (core token, MPAs, UIAs)
- all fees after deductions, that goes to network (neto network fees)
expenditure side:
- witnesses
- workers
- other if exists
Excellent suggestions, thank you. At the moment, I am thinking that this is the first version of a report that will continue to evolve and be updated.

14
General Discussion / Re: Fees Report
« on: April 24, 2017, 01:04:41 pm »
Best if we have charts. Or have raw data (if not available now) so other people can help make charts.
If it hasn't been posted to https://steemit.com/, please do.

Good suggestion. Charts will be coming ...

15
We also need to know more precisely what the monthly collected fees have been since inception of Bitshares 2.0.  I asked in the dev channel and @Taconator has graciously offered to help within a week if no one else has already helped by then.

Per @tbone's request, please refer to this thread for a discussion on the fees collected by the network through March 2017. I hope that this helps the discussion.

I will chime in on this topic in a separate post later.

Pages: [1] 2