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 - Digital Lucifer

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 24
1
And most important part that you missed... Escrow.

Ask BBF who negotiated the terms and asked them to be escrow for all these upcoming workers and based on what.

Also, while you're there, ask them is Move centralized owner of brand or we (as we always did), agreed to collaboration and decentralization where

Move Institute is owner of trademark on word
BBF handling ownership of trademark on logo.

You might reconsider your actions, it's still not late for you to stop being so wrong, so we can actually together make BitShares better instead of whatever is your intent atm.

Chee®s

2
1) Domain - given by original owner, never asked for it. Why nobody else picked it 2017 ? Ended up in non-profit as a request of community. Maybe community would be happier if I gave it back to CNX ?

2) your idea was for me to take on core worker. I was the only one willing to spend months on actually assembling core work, not just ask for money like other offers did without even idea what to do. I hold no core team, I manage core team for 35$/h which is nearly 5x less than previous manager

3) you as someone who was publicly destroying BBF in all groups this is a twist. We are attorney and a legal representative for the blockchain/community not the legal. Best part, i'm not even on the worker. Unless holders and move doesn't come to agreement what will be done that worker holds only legal liability for this ecosystem without taking single BTS. Small thanks would be nice if not vote

4) once you, alt and cn-vote demonstrated very wrong centralization event of refund400k, I did what I had to protect the brand. You as holder had  BBF as legal representative 2.5 years to do so, and any of you holders individually for circa now 7 years. It's my fault you haven't paid 1200 euros or just made the order but I did ?

Worried what might happen ? Worry not. BitShares can only be better not worse. Did no damage to it in 3 years and will not change in a lifetime. I will protect it from any damage though, without ask, blink or consensus (e.g. trademark)

And for ignorance on BBFs worker and position around the blockchain, why just not reach them out directly but just stiring publicly fire ?

And to be clear - even cn-vote group came to reason and all they needed was someone willing really to break language barrier, while you in the meantime drifted away from it, without any concrete reason apart from trademark initiative that made you turn 180 degrees. You have some handles there ? What's up for real ? 

Chee®s

3
20$+ to the pool is better than 0$ to the pool. Is there any other bsip profitable for reserve pool you holders came up with ?

And how is illegal P2P lending profitable for the blockchain ?

Chee®a

4
Quote
Why Gateway not pay?
2) You can't increase fees on transactions when you have no business or customers. Binance can, we cannot.

“chicken-or-the-egg”

This is a very complex problem.

Quote
3) DEX is NOT BITSHARES. It's time to filter businesses who "wants to build" to the one who are legit and have liquidity (wanna do business) and ones who dont wanna do business and are illegal.

ok,want to learn the Binance DEX(https://www.binance.org/)?I don't think so.

Quote
4) What sane business&development manager will let everyone fuck his project for free ?

en, the project still get the transaction fees, not free.

Quote
BSIP86 ISSUE

Just a small group people discuss it, even me just have a little words in the ISSUE, no body want to think and read it seriously,and even no Chinese version,how many members of CN-VOTE know what‘s the means of this BSIP? only less.

I don't like this BSIP86 in this mini mainnet releases as it is not so important, just can get a very little income from it.

I have quit all the groups of BTS long time ago, as i can't get any valuable discussion, maybe they more like to participate in the battle of steem.

I even don't like quietly any more, somebody have injured the bts holders and bitassets once and once again, and can't or not want to get any lessons from it. maybe i should be quietly like blocktrads, sell 35M bts and hold 7M BTS of community, and say “ i don't trust them.”

Quote
spammer

I like this words, abit and bitcrab call me that, i like to be it, they think they know and right, let the time show.

or you can ban me as a spammer for a year,so i will can't question anything in here,they also have a quiet environment to do what they like or want to do, that's very equal and reasonable.

Ill be simple with math and numbers, since words means nothing in this case and there is no "chicken-or-egg" in business terminology. Maybe it does in agriculture, but not here.

Currently BitShares blockchain has
Weekly: <1400 unique accounts
Daily average: 200 unique accounts
OPS Average: 215000
TX Average: 1.44 per second

24 hours = 86400 seconds

Total daily TX average: 124416

Basic member regular transaction fee to place order: 0.04826 BTS
Lifetime member regular transaction fee to place order: 0.00965 BTS

If we TAKE MID AVERAGE between basic and lifetime we get

Average member regular transaction fee: ‭0.019305‬ BTS

Moment of truth...

124416 TX * ‭0.019305‬ BTS = 2401.85088 BTS per day (if we have full day of regular transactions)

At the current ticker price of BTS this blockchain and project is making

DAILY PROFIT FROM FEES: 2401.85088 BTS @ 0.017224 USD = 41.37 USD

Monthly: Daily * 30 = 1241.1 USD


Costs of bitshares.org and news.bitshares.org monthly are x3 that.

What profits you are talking about and why i still need to let anyone build for free or list for free or operate on TOTALLY UNPROFITABLE BLOCKCHAIN AND OUR OWN BUSINESS FOR FREE ?

Chee®s

 

5
Worker is now posted on chain with worker ID 1.14.256.

Public accounting is available as always

Personally supported.

BEOS support since 1 hour ago.

Thanks for all compromises made, time and effort you spent on preparing this worker and dealing with me through it. Good luck to all the teams in upcoming workers and deliveries.

Chee®s

6
Thanks to GBAC and Linda for translation.


I've seen in DPOS forums that few Chinese members are against BSIP for market fee sharing and is complaining on how blockchain already collect fee from users, and in general against this worker. But I haven't seen them last 30 months doing nothing apart stiring fire, being unhappy and constantly "knowing" for better but never doing it themselves. Step up with solutions if you have better, nobody stops you and nobody ever did, but stop saying shit that has no sense or brain behind closed doors because ill be reading them. Always.

And to be clear for one fact about this project. BitShares exists 7 years, and NOT A SINGLE GATEWAY made it profitable for the blockchain in that period of time. It did made it for themselves. Fees collected from the blockchain would not be sufficient even if we would be having 100M USD volume a day with our fee structure over the past and to not mention that only reason WHY BITSHARES IS NOT PROFITABLE IS BECAUSE EVERYBODY CAN BUILD AND EARN FROM IT FOR FREE WHILE BLOCKCHAIN GETS NOTHING.

So, yes, it's time to stop doing everything and giving everything for free. Thanks for your support.

Chee®s

Must be clear,nothing in BTS is free,every transaction will pay the transaction fee.

If BTS can't feed himself with these transaction fees,why not to increase the transaction fee?

If we charge the fees from BSIP86, so give a reason to these GATEWAYs:

why they should build a business in BTS,not in other block chain?

why they should build a Gateway not a Bridge?



Quote
    Valid range of that parameter is [0, 100%].

why is 100%,not should be [0, 1%]?

I think no one like this valid range of that parameter is [0, 100%], too dangerous for a business.


FEES/INCOME ISSUE:

1) Why Gateway not pay for software to fork ? Why Gateway not pay listing in wallet ? Why bitshares.org owner has to bare legal responsibility for free ? Why gateway not call itself BitShares so it marketing more people to the blockchain itself ?
2) You can't increase fees on transactions when you have no business or customers. Binance can, we cannot.
3) DEX is NOT BITSHARES. It's time to filter businesses who "wants to build" to the one who are legit and have liquidity (wanna do business) and ones who dont wanna do business and are illegal.
4) What sane business&development manager will let everyone fuck his project for free ?

CB perfect example what happens when you let someone run for free for so long without any legal due dilligence, and what consequences it leaves on us.


BSIP86 ISSUE:

We already had discussion and nobody will push 0,100 as even me was never ok with it who isnt gateway owner. You just failed to follow up on time or participate when consensus actually did, now you're just creating fire for nothing. 

25% is tax in some countries, VAT on operations and sales - so we are not asking anything here that is not reasonable. Maybe we dont like governments, but they still do make money and we are not. Guess we are doing it wrong, not them.

Now for a holder who missed discussion on github for MONTHS, failed to respond in all groups when it was actually discussed and not being willing to read or do proper due dilligence -

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/253

Check this out.

I have nothing against you, but you really need to start participate more quietly and spend more actual effort participating - now you're being classified as a spammer just because you THINK you know but you DONT want to read/hear.

Chee®s

7
Thanks to GBAC and Linda for translation.


I've seen in DPOS forums that few Chinese members are against BSIP for market fee sharing and is complaining on how blockchain already collect fee from users, and in general against this worker. But I haven't seen them last 30 months doing nothing apart stiring fire, being unhappy and constantly "knowing" for better but never doing it themselves. Step up with solutions if you have better, nobody stops you and nobody ever did, but stop saying shit that has no sense or brain behind closed doors because ill be reading them. Always.

And to be clear for one fact about this project. BitShares exists 7 years, and NOT A SINGLE GATEWAY made it profitable for the blockchain in that period of time. It did made it for themselves. Fees collected from the blockchain would not be sufficient even if we would be having 100M USD volume a day with our fee structure over the past and to not mention that only reason WHY BITSHARES IS NOT PROFITABLE IS BECAUSE EVERYBODY CAN BUILD AND EARN FROM IT FOR FREE WHILE BLOCKCHAIN GETS NOTHING.

So, yes, it's time to stop doing everything and giving everything for free. Thanks for your support.

Chee®s

8
Bsip64 has not been voted active.

Quoted from the English version of worker above:

"Important Notice to BTS Core Token Holders

By approving this worker you're not approving BSIP's available for voting on chain that are included in this worker. To avoid any delays with mainnet release upon delivery of this worker, please provide vote of support to listed BSIP's within 45 days from the worker start."


Chee®s

9
After long and productive discussion with holders from the East, we agreed that some implementations and fixes cannot wait, but we also agreed that we cannot squeeze 2 mainnet releases in 6 months worker.

As a compromise and demand for urgent deployment before actual full core worker, I'm coming here on behalf of holders and core team to present you new 2020-core-prelude mini worker

2020-core-prelude 2 months (8.7 weeks) worker

Github - English version

PDF - English version (accessible from China)

Worker is sent to Linda Tian for translation and to the escrow to go on-chain, more updates to follow.

Chee®s

Which holders from east?

Why BSIP87 is more important than BSIP77?  need some reason.

1) Everyone I was able to reach by WeChat and it's respective groups.
2) It's not that it's less important. It's more important to people with significant stake who are publicly agreeing to it and requesting it to be implemented. From the developers perspective, BSIP87 is far easier implementation that requires less time in testing over BSIP77.

Chee®s

1. En, i can't get any informations from this respective groups in any public outlet,seems they are mysterious.
2. I can't get any enough reason for BSIP87, maybe just they like it.

I think BSIP74 and BSIP77 is enough for this mini mainnet releases, maybe incloud BSIP 64, so we may make a deployment in 1 month.

Besids, BSIP74 still have some problems need to check.

Ok, they can do what they like, wish they can destroy the bitassets totally.

Best regards.

To be clear, I've personally originally have wanted full workers and list of BSIP's that satisfy all sides. Result is that there is a requirement for this to happens and here we are. Even though i respect your sentiment, i would still advise you to cheer up. Overlapping worker will be published in less than 2 months that will include both of mentioned BSIP's and will be proper worker as original intentions were.

Hence why worker name has `prelude` in it.

Chee®s

10
After long and productive discussion with holders from the East, we agreed that some implementations and fixes cannot wait, but we also agreed that we cannot squeeze 2 mainnet releases in 6 months worker.

As a compromise and demand for urgent deployment before actual full core worker, I'm coming here on behalf of holders and core team to present you new 2020-core-prelude mini worker

2020-core-prelude 2 months (8.7 weeks) worker

Github - English version

PDF - English version (accessible from China)

Worker is sent to Linda Tian for translation and to the escrow to go on-chain, more updates to follow.

Chee®s

Which holders from east?

Why BSIP87 is more important than BSIP77?  need some reason.

1) Everyone I was able to reach by WeChat and it's respective groups.
2) It's not that it's less important. It's more important to people with significant stake who are publicly agreeing to it and requesting it to be implemented. From the developers perspective, BSIP87 is far easier implementation that requires less time in testing over BSIP77.

Chee®s

11
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll]BSIP87:Force Settlement Fee
« on: March 20, 2020, 09:29:52 am »
Included in 2020 prelude core worker and supported.

Chee®s

12
I generally support the new UI worker and the team behind it, however I do have one concern:

Something I would like to see, in addition to the offering, is added budget for 6 month commitment - beyond the contract period - for a single developer to perform code review ONLY on community submitted PR's.  This would be only for continuity's sake; in the event that there is another lapse in full "UI dev team" funding.   

Those with control of the github repo generally slow down and do nothing unless they are being funded; which is understandable as they are not paid.  However, that inaction drags down any ability for pro bono work to continue.   Then since there is no pro bono work... we must fund the new "dev team" ...or get nothing.   That negative feedback loop is frustrating and invokes a sense of conflict of interest.

It is untenable to have a buggy UI representing Bitshares with pull requests open by the public in the time lapsing between funding efforts.

I support this worker, but I also support a "no lapse community code review" addendum.




Love the idea, but would be creating it as separate worker with limit-budget every 6 months.

If the regular UI is not voted in that one can always serve as a replacement to keep UI up-to-date for community efforts and releases.

Chee®s

13
Much appreciated and thanks for the votes of support.

Since worker has been up for a while, all holders presented with it and notified on time, believe that next step would be lobbying for removal of votes from refund workers (lowering threshold) in order to continue production and operations for the project.

As long as we are in life, every problem can be solved.

Chee®s

14
After long and productive discussion with holders from the East, we agreed that some implementations and fixes cannot wait, but we also agreed that we cannot squeeze 2 mainnet releases in 6 months worker.

As a compromise and demand for urgent deployment before actual full core worker, I'm coming here on behalf of holders and core team to present you new 2020-core-prelude mini worker

2020-core-prelude 2 months (8.7 weeks) worker

Github - English version
PDF - English version (accessible from China)

Worker is sent to Linda Tian for translation and to the escrow to go on-chain, more updates to follow.

Chee®s


15
Supporting BBF as legal representative should bitshares have one.



Price is also way cheaper 24k compared to 36k and already some years of history.

Sorry to inform you, but you're late for about 1 month and 14 days (6.2 weeks) on this vote and decision despite your initial request. Now small recap:

1) You were first holder to ask me will Move setup counter worker. I've stated if holders decide to not support BBF, Move will push replacement worker.
2) On 31st of January (4pm Holland time) I've posted this above as last attempt to uphold existing legal and agreements done. Yours and Alt response was `no support` to BBF.
3) To explain difference to all holders between "fixed price" and "budget price" type of workers for this existing remark on the price:
               a) BBF had a 24,000 EUR FIXED PRICE to be legal representative for 365 days and uphold existing agreements. They get paid monthly amount of 2,000 EUR regardless of what they do, and YES it was very simple cost to maintain legal availability for the blockchain. Now it's gone.
               b) Move Institute has 36,000 EUR BUDGET AVAILABLE for any need/request done by holders to be processed according to the price table for 365 days and in mind that we need to obtain/redo most of agreements. Budget is bigger for the reason of possibility to redo all the existing/cancelled agreements or proceed with transfers with in-house lawyer/attorney and legal. No payouts will be made unless task is assigned/done.
4) I'll quote reply from BBF (Annemieke Dirkes) on the initial request (3rd of February via email) to extension/grace period for worker to get voted in or possibility for transfer:
"Dear Milos

thanks for reaching out and showing your concerns regarding the BitShares ecosystem. You are indeed correct that the latest worker has not received the required support to continue the work for the BitShares community and the BBF lost its mandate to be the legal representative effectively end of 2019. The agreements between the BBF and other parties where based on the legal representative status of the BBF and as such the counterparties need to be informed by the BBF that it is no longer said representative. This will of course happen in a non-offense way. After thorough investigation we concluded this is the only possible choice.

With regards to done agreements: All ongoing and relevant information that led to signed agreement are public records and found in the relevant channels of the BBF. Unfortunately, I am not in the position anymore to disclose such a list directly due to the legal position and potential liabilities.

With regards to the legal opinion letter: The opinion letter has been distributed to exchanges upon request, enabled through the BBF being the legal representative for the BitShares blockchain. As it stands now I am no longer in the position to distribute it due to the legal position and potential liabilities. Besides that the law firm has explicitly not agreed to publication.

As far as the handover cost: There no cost involved when a new legal representative is being introduced. In a decentralised blockchain like BitShares everybody has the same opportunity to introduce changes or proposals which can voted in based on popular vote. There is no requirement or obligation for any new legal representative to meet the BBF or continue the work that the BBF once did. The community has to decide what happens next, what kind of services they would like to see and which entity is going to be offering those services.

The BBF respects the choice of the BitShares community and has seized its operations as legal representative after 31st of December 2019, and has withdrawn the offer to continue for 2020 after the grace period ended on 31st of January 2020 as stated in the worker proposal https://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2020-01-bitshares-legal-representative.

Kind regards,

BBF
"


I don't know how to please you all and I've arranged best agreement for the blockchain I've possibly could. No BBF despite attempts to uphold it as a first mover, no hurt to the ecosystem and worker that asks nothing unless holders wants it done, but available for any request or legal need, and you stated that 36k budget is more costly than 24k fixed payment. I hope this made it clear once and for all.

P.S. Public statement to holders on Trademark and recent initiative will be released soon, priority is core worker this weekend. In short: I'm getting info that some of you are stressed because of it. There is no need for anyone long-term in this community and with healthy intentions towards ecosystem to be worried about trademark or handle they own. They just need to legally communicate so we can protect our brand from any scam, fake news, defamation or miss-information to wider public. Nobody prevents people of advertising BitShares, but we will prevent scammers, BitShares fake profiles, and people who don't properly promote (miss-information outside of streamline scope that project has). We had 2 years of experience to see how much brand can get hurt by random dojos that nobody can touch - and we had legal representative at the time. BitShares had 7 long years to find a way to protect the code and reputation, and it failed badly. Why ? Possibly that everyone were interested in profits more than consequences and impact of unfinished business on project of this scope.

It's still remains decentralized. Move will hold trademark on `word` and support BBF legally to take over and uphold trademark on `logo`. We do want unity here and we had our chances to be competition if we wanted over past 2 years, we never did and we don't want to. Otherwise I would be not spending so much time around ecosystem or workers for literally free/no-cost.

Above all facts and deal with them. I mean no harm. I meant no harm when i first time asked/warned:

- witnesses on security and lack of vpn on the nodes
- openledger domain security leaks
- bcl failure (ask Kimchi King)
- eosio fail to launch (2 months before hack and delay of launch)
- eosio fail to deliver promises (BFT implenetation to eosio)
- bsip42 disaster 
- cryptobridge closure
- spark closure

Now, at the times of my statements you people called me fuder, lunatic, devil, idiot and what else... bad guy eventually. Now after so long me still being here comes the question, was I wrong ? From the answer you find, you may all learn something. So trust me on trademark again - it's very much needed after everything I've seen in past 30 months around here. And tbh I never hurted BitShares brand or it's reputation in any way or I'm gonna do it ever, so same as I wasn't clear why Spark is against gateway legalization, I don't know why some of you are now against Trademark, but smells as dodgy stuff once again. Same as it was said to George -> only time will tell.

Chee®s

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 24