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 - Thul3

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 39
1
General Discussion / Re: Old BitCNY MSSR updated to 150%, ICR 225%
« on: October 01, 2020, 06:37:32 am »
so you kill bitcny to

Quote
改参数是在围剿猴哥吗
encircle monkey brother ?

You are killing bitcny and making many people a big loss on purpose in hope people like alt can't use much bts for stacking?

You are a criminal and nothing more


Next step forking out someones asset you don't like ?


For peoples attention


Parameters bitcny

ICR 225%
MCR Unknown
MSSR 150%


Parameters for his cny1.0

ICR 175%
MCR 175%
MSSR 110%


Now tell me based on these two parameters abit is not killing bitcny on purpose and causing knowingly many people to lose big money.

Thats a clear criminal act.

The best part he won't announce even the new MCR but just change it when he wants to.



2
General Discussion / Audit page
« on: September 29, 2020, 11:04:17 pm »
Any reason why audit page from gdex and xbts stopped where rudex audit page is still working?

https://www.gdex.io/noticeAssets

https://xbts.io/audit



3
General Discussion / @criminal abit
« on: September 29, 2020, 07:53:18 pm »
So you destroy bitUSD with a revive price of above 5 cents to force people to use onest.usd or honest.usd or other new assets instead ?

Seriously ?


4
Quote
Increased limit order taking fee to 0.9 BTS

这个有点高啊...
不收费怎么赚钱
没有用户怎么赚钱?
how to make money with no users?

5
General Discussion / Re: BitShares 5.0 (2020-09-30)
« on: September 18, 2020, 07:11:35 am »
The other change removing voting from liquid BTS is a huge and fundamental change to the functioning of BTS and should not be introduced without consensus. The previous change with stake multiplier already gives an (excessive in my view) increase in voting strength to stakers.

The removal of voting for collateral was a special case as far as I'm concerned - it was giving disproportionate voting power to a group that had every reason to corrupt the system during bear markets.
The new changes in 5.0 are necessary too. It's rolled out because the previous changes are insufficient for protecting the platform since corruption evolved.

Could you please point which corruption exectly ?
Because in my opinion it is about that cn-vote and alt increased their voting power which you didn't expected.

Also claiming it is because of corruption i guess there is no bigger corruption on bitshares than what you have done so many times in the past and even you openly admited in telegram groups you have no problem with it as long as it fits your point of view.

Who created the biggest lies on bitshares and got #1 fudder together with DL ?

Didin't you fudded that cn-vote would fork out all over bitshares when there was no intention to fork at all ?
Later when being asked by others you and DL changed your tactics blaming cn-vote ?

Did you and DL demanded others to spread fud that cn-vote tries a hostile takeover even their actions have majority of votes and your actions nearly none and informing cexes with this kind of BS story so they block cn-vote ?

The list goes on and on how much lies and fud you spread.

Now you guys even lie to witnesses that they won't have any liability if they chose your update to change completly the voting system without any community consent.


I recommend witnesses to check law for terms like habits,practice or custom (lat usus).
Bitshares practice was till today always to update bitshares based on DPOS consensus and nothing else.
Thats a year long practice and under law something like that is being considered a standard or unwritten term.

If they claim you won't be liable thats a blatant lie.
At least know what real consequences you can get as anybody holding bts would be eligible to open a case.
Ignorance does not protect one from punishment


Quote
BitShares core recently gave some sneak-peak info about BitShares core 5.0 release, via the community Telegram. Rapid progression is occurring since the recent consensus fixes in BitShares 4.0 happened earlier in July.
Could you please point who exectly is bitshares core and by what consensus ?
Also who decides about the points added in the rapid progression ?Where are the discussions ?
Because your next innovation to add more taxation again seems to be somehow poor.





There are way better devs with real innovations and ethics waiting to get active which are being blocked for ages by the same caste who made majority of members already leave bitshares over the last years thanks to their poor inovation they enforced to everyone each time without consensus or breaking it.

The same people from
OMO fund till (excessive margin wall leading nearly to GS by breaking consensus from CR 3 to CR 1.86,buying own margin call to not lose 10% on MSSR)
BSIP42 (on BitUSD enforced without consensus and against clear community will even with promise to not touch bitUSD which leaded to GS,bitcny saved due to GS protection but still big part of community gone)
BSIP76 (promise to be temp which they didn't cared anymore till today)
BAIP scam instead of normal worker.    (Getting funds indirectly for GDEX by creating BAIP instead of normal worker to take funds from committee as they could get no funds from reserve pool)
Trojan (This is a major issue which i can't understand how some people can support it.For a DeFi its a disaster on reputation and trust.)
scam workers and exchanges (supporting knowingly workers for scam exchanges for benefit or approving scam exchanges for bounty)
Fork Fudders (notorious liars and fudders pushing cn-vote to fork out even cn-vote had no intention in doing so but to restore voting system and vote in DPOS1,vote decay,collateral 50/50 in regular way with no stacking.

How many members have we already lost thanks to them ?


A major point which people totaly forgat is TRUST.
Without TRUST no succees.
And all i can say is majority lost trust which you could see before on the decline trading on GDEX assets
and increasing by even Abits supporters dumping their BTS.
Abit ,DL and co leaving bitsharesdex channel because of massive amounts of frustrated members calling them scammers even before the trojan.Abit even implementing his bot to mute or ban all people who openly criticize his actions.

Does majority of community trust abit and co ?
Or is it a minority?
The minority going to replace the liquidity from the majority ?


6
General Discussion / Re: BitShares 5.0 (2020-09-30)
« on: September 17, 2020, 05:48:36 am »
Quote
Voting is used for governance purposes; governance is used for stabilizing the blockchain, it's infrastructure and development;

Is it?Or is it being used to safe your income no matter what you offer?





7
General Discussion / Re: BitShares 5.0 (2020-09-30)
« on: September 16, 2020, 08:04:32 pm »
Remove voting power from liquid BTS and tickets #2262
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2262

New BSIP or BSIP24 discussion: stake lock-up mechanism, count only real "locked" stake as voting stake #83
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/83


Maybe someone explains Abit that BTS is not Steem and that BTS is core token of our ecosystem .

So somebody who is inactive and stacking BTS has in his eyes more value in governance than somebody who is activly using bitshares ecosystem and knows the ins and outs and creates income for bitshares.
The active member having completly no say as he is using BTS in the ecosystem which is the main purpose of BTS.

Maybe Abit can explain to us how somebody who stacks only participates in bitshares growth and i'm not talking about price.


Comments from that BSIP in github

TheTaconator DEV
Quote
My main concern with the proposition is for the stake in collateral. It seems unfair to those holders to limit their influence on voting especially due to the value that their collateral brings to the ecosystem.

startailcoon UI DEV

Quote
BTS locked in collateral could be counted as locked assets. Even if it could be liquidised its also a risky business while making good volume for the bitAsset as well. It could be considered a good thing that the asset is used, and thus should be counted.

Open orders aren't locked, since they are for sale, and shouldn't be counted.

xeroc DEV

Quote
Collateral: I would argue this should be voting because it is not quickly liquidated in case the BTS valuation goes down. Also, people have been asked to go short if they really want to support the system and we would take away their voting right now. Doesn't feel right.

Quote
If we were to require a powerup to enable governance features I see the following major issues:
This changes the previous deal which has potentially been used by investors to decide to buy in. Given that BTS is much more decentralized than STEEM (there is no 'steemit inc.') this might open up the possibility for class action suites against a) the proxies who approved that change, and b) the witnesses who applied the change.

Schiessl UI DEV

Quote
Just FYI: Removing liquid BTS from voting power will strip ref UI users of their voting since you can only stake BTS with CLI.

blckchained gateway DEV

Quote
dude you went against consensus and brought trojan in previous release, as a top witness I will not support any code from you


Litepresence DEV and honest asset

Quote
The world is full of good locksmiths: some of them are unethical thieves


R DEV and security tester

Quote
Degrades BTS Utility

I could continue with the statements of honest DEV's on bitshares.

You Ammar belong to a red socket dev caste who thinks like socialist leaders who have nothing and want to control everything claiming that folk can't handle wise decissions.
That's the exect same explanation of eastern communism why they had planned econemy.
Btw you red socket proofed already on iobanker that you totaly failed.I told you a year before that noone nuts enough is going to follow an unethical dev with poor trading fundamentals and law knowledge who proofs himself untrustworthy each time on telegram.
Did something changed after a year of your spamming and garbage claims ?I guess not ?How much debt has your token now after such a long time ?Like $2K in total which you call a great success?

8
General Discussion / Re: BitShares 5.0 (2020-09-30)
« on: September 16, 2020, 06:39:52 pm »
Remove voting power from liquid BTS and tickets #2262
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2262

New BSIP or BSIP24 discussion: stake lock-up mechanism, count only real "locked" stake as voting stake #83
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/83


Maybe someone explains Abit that BTS is not Steem and that BTS is core token of our ecosystem .

So somebody who is inactive and stacking BTS has in his eyes more value in governance than somebody who is activly using bitshares ecosystem and knows the ins and outs and creates income for bitshares.
The active member having completly no say as he is using BTS in the ecosystem which is the main purpose of BTS.

Maybe Abit can explain to us how somebody who stacks only participates in bitshares growth and i'm not talking about price.

9
General Discussion / Re: BitShares 5.0 (2020-09-30)
« on: September 16, 2020, 05:54:25 pm »
Does i understood correctly that abit decided himself now to implement that all BTS even non collateral will lose all voting power and only stacked BTS will have voting power ?


I guess it can't be more stupid to punish active traders on bitshares.

Seems like abit joined hardcore socialism where he knows best what others want as they are to dumb to vote correctly like in good old east block.


Maybe we should rebrand bitshares to abitshares?

10
General Discussion / Re: BitShares 5.0 (2020-09-30)
« on: September 16, 2020, 12:33:00 pm »
Quote
The plan is to activate BitShares 5.0 on 2020-09-30.

Who's plan ?

Please point witnesses the BSIP's which have been voted in so they can follow protocol based on DPOS which bitshares is.

Also the last dicussions about these changes and what exectly will change and what it will enable like someone asked on github.

Where were discussions about changing voting power and where did they get approved so i can read about it myself ?

Who made the audit ?

The same person who put the last trojan into mainnet 4.0 ?Bitshares now a one men show where community doesn't need to participate anymore  ?

Another group already preparing to fork away should your madness and ignorance of their demand not stop where everyone else tried to not let a serious fork happen.

Quote
Can we get an overview of each of the changes and why they are proposed?
They are not proposed.Proposals can be refused or modified.They are enforced in full against any protocol or community participation where majority doesn't even understand the changes which will be implemented because of lack of any explanation or discussion.


Some points are not even 24h old on github with open questions by participants which are not answered.

This whole upgrade is a joke.

Sorry i won't support a one men show who went nuts not answering a single question on github or letting other peoples opinion be included.

11
中文(Chinese) / Re: 关于4.0的几点说明
« on: August 20, 2020, 09:22:21 am »
I'm glad you took this step and think the changes are beneficial for Bitshares governance.

I would have preferred change by consensus but consensus was broken and corrupted by debt voting.

As stated I think the staking vote multiplier should be lower but all the other changes are clear and dramatic improvements to consensus mechanism.


You guys are really funny and all the lies you spread on chats are just a shame.

First of all who was and still is the most corrupted member on bitshares?
Who broke any consensus and caused that community said bitshares is corrupted and governance failed ?
Was it the action of Abit who gave a total fuck about community opinion or consensus ?
Did he installed workers as BAIP which were normal workers to get it done destroying the governance and voting system even the whole community were against it ?
Was it Abit who supported scam workers and gave a total fuck that the western community where against it and called him a scammer ?
All the abuses that people left bitshares and now you guys are saying he did good because  now workers will be voted in?

You post BS like TnT will be voted and and other important workers.
Let me tell you Mr Brain who voices always his opinion with wrong facts.It was Abit and Bitcrab who refused TnT and people like me tried to push it forward.
So claiming he will now able to push it forward is a blatant lie.He could have done it anytime.
You say core prelude worker was a good worker fixing many small issues.
Thats the next big BS claim.It was said we should work on p2p and other defi.
I even insistet to get it done quickly to not lose the train.
What we got is an inside deal between Abit,Bitcrab,DL who took the support of BEOS and CN-Vote convincing them about their BS.DL even attacking defi .You can read it on forum or chats.Its not hidden i had a dispute with DL for not working on DEFI.
All we got thanks to the core prelude worker is peanuts.Wasted half a year for getting taxation features mainly.
People asking why we are not on DEFI pump and why bitshares gets ignored.
Is that progress ?
Who is responsible for it ?Abit ,Bitcrab,DL ?

And you with your never ending BS claims support exectly these people who refused to get pegg back,who changed the core worker into total BS,Who broke any consensus and act like kings of BTS deciding in closed groups where noone else can participate.
Its basicly their view or no other.

MM contest was called a scam and corruption and proof of lack of governance.
Who did it ?Abit ?


Who gets soon 70 Million voting power ?The most corrupted member on bitshares whoo gave till today a total fuck about communities demand and decission.

So who the fuck are you supporting again ?The most corrupted guy who you accused before to destroy bitshares?


Telegram chat demanding daily from him to unban all people.
Does he care?

So how do you come to the conclusion he gives today a fuck about communities demand ?
Has any corruption stopped because of him?Or because of the actions of others who are trying to kick out all corrupted people from key positions ?

Seriously would Abit succeed you would have maybe a new voting system (instead of waiting a bit and doing it the right way without the benefit stacking for a special group) but you would have the old corrupted people in power where you demanded changes.

Think once again who were the most corrupted people in bitshares who gave a fuck about community voting.

All it is about is keeping old corrupted people in position and key functions.

You have more votes ?Who gives a fuck if you have more vote now if they fuck any consensus like befor when holding key positions.


Funny now all BEOS supporters come out from their wholes

Even Liondani and Evangelist were able to make a post in committee after so long

Funny they were not able to make noice in committee when corruption happened or suggestions what to change or were even able to vote to get pegg back.
That was a problem for them.
But now they promote to support Abit so they will restore pegg which they could have done before but refused.

Sorry but if you want to support corruption you can go on.Foreigners are tired of Abit and a trojan horse won't change this sentiment.
To limit corrupted people like Abit it's difficult.You see the fight arround the centralization arround him.
CN-Vote has 210 million votes.No big deal to get workers voted in which really has support of majority.

However soon you will have  people like Abit who will have 70 million votes who blocked TNT,Pegg,Real core worker (defi),Fresh DEV's,
supported scam workers and all other staff  i won't repeat 100 times.


You remember Abits reply to everyone who accused him of supporting scams ?
GET MORE BTS.
It will be no diffrent just that you put these corrupted people back in power including DL and BEOS

Also the misleading BS propaganda that CN-Vote used CEX votes to block workers.ZB's votes where in control of Bitcrab who supports Abit and not CN-Vote.

So you support total corruption and nothing else when supporting Abit

12
Quote
You are known to the community for spreading lies and FUD.

You mean known for it at BEOS,CL and Abit when posting staff they don't like.
Isn't Stan now attacking so many members who accuse him the same as i do calling them with diffrent names ?


Sorry i don't have much time since i'm currently on business travel and prefer to focus now my limited personal time on positive things which will bring bitshares forward.
It is witness decission which way they go but don't expect people to follow your decission if they don't like it.Trying to force them is even worse and gets a bigger response.


Have a nice day


Quote
I guess they have different date ...

Correct ,so it can be done correctly




13
You installed knowingly malcious code and were silent about it.You did it with full intention.You broke once again rules and protocol as witness.

I have no idea what you smoked, but I urge you to stop because it seems to hurt you and makes you think you are omniscient.

You did wrong and want to force as a small minority the majority to accept your point of view by creating fud and fear.

You are the one creating fud and spreading bullshit here. Stop claiming or even speculating about me being aware of the latest addition to the 4.0 release. I was not aware of any changes in voting rules, so stop bullshitting around.


Wasn't it you personly on telegram chat who asked cn-vote for supporting you as witness with the explanation you will always follow consensus based on voting ?

cn-vote is the same group that kicked me out exactly because I was following the consensus.

If there is really consensus then active witnesses will be changed to reflect community will. I encourage that.
If a fork is going to happen that's exactly because there is a split in consensus (so no real homogeneous consensus).


And if you don't understand the patch i recommend reading the forum.There is an explanation from me and cn-vote that reversal of code needs more work so the easiest way was to change parameters only to not change compatibility.

"Not change compatibility" ?
...Applying that patch will create a fork... what other "compatibility" are you trying to preserve? It doesn't make sense.

As a witness I also have to evaluate the risk in running a certain version of the software, and as already stressed, that patch was not tested, it introduce new unspecified behaviour and above all it doesn't reverse the controversial changes that required the patch itself...it will also cause dangerous situations for the current BitShares ecosystem.

I invite you, cn-vote, and everyone that feels a come back is needed, to take the necessary time and make it right instead of rushing it so badly.

You use DL words.Are you guys chatting a lot ?
Quote
think you are omniscient
Am asking because to CN-Vote and Me you were basicly silent when asked about your opinion.

Quote
cn-vote is the same group that kicked me out exactly because I was following the consensus.
Actually it was Abit and another chinese who got you kicked out with the help of CN-Votes VP at that time.

Quote
If there is really consensus then active witnesses will be changed to reflect community will. I encourage that.
There is consensus who hold majority of vote power even after the malcious upgrade.

Quote
If a fork is going to happen that's exactly because there is a split in consensus (so no real homogeneous consensus).
CN-Vote and other proxies who are on their side do not want a fork and won't fork out of bitshares.Thats very clear.Anything else is FUD.
However we won't accept Abit's and DL's dictatorship anymore.There everyone agrees on.

Quote
As a witness I also have to evaluate the risk in running a certain version of the software, and as already stressed, that patch was not tested, it introduce new unspecified behaviour and above all it doesn't reverse the controversial changes that required the patch itself...it will also cause dangerous situations for the current BitShares ecosystem.

I invite you, cn-vote, and everyone that feels a come back is needed, to take the necessary time and make it right instead of rushing it so badly.

Would be good to have these concern posted as witness way before and trying to find with us a soltion.

@zapata42

We do it the right way.
I guess cn-vote is still translating.

There will be no risky situation for bitshares created




14
I don't support the patch nor the fork:

  • The patch is not properly tested (no unit test, no testnet)
  • the content is not a reversal as announced, but a new unspecified behaviour;
  • from my understanding of the code it does not remove most of the controversial behaviours like non voting rights for bts in collateral or in orders;
  • the fork not properly prepared is not good for Bitshares as it is untested, feeds are not ready, exchanges and gateway supports are not properly defined, liquidity will be reduced.

There will be an update about the points you posted from cn-vote

15
I am not sure to understand the point of this patch...

I would understand it if it was a total reversal of the latest voting rules/changes, but from what I saw and from other analyses, it is not. Most of the "concerning" changes are still there, so I don't really see the point in setting up a second node to support that fork.

There is still time to set it up, so if anyone would like to enlighten me, I could change my mind.

As for now, my main witness node and API server will not run the patch.

You do nothing diffrent than on steem where witnesses hijacked steem which many proxies where against.
There you had at least the support of the community.
Here you have no support.

You installed knowingly malcious code and were silent about it.You did it with full intention.You broke once again rules and protocol as witness.

CN-Vote is not going to fork out of bitshares.
We have the majority of votes and also majority of community behind us even in foreign community.

Anyone supporting malcious code of Abit with the poor explanation it is the legit one won't receive votes from majority of proxies anymore.

You did wrong and want to force as a small minority the majority to accept your point of view by creating fud and fear.
The next attempt to disable witness voting because you couldn't even receive enough support when changing in a hidden agenda shows clearly what bad actors you are who doesn't care about consent at all.
Wasn't it you personly on telegram chat who asked cn-vote for supporting you as witness with the explanation you will always follow consensus based on voting ?
Seems your words are worth nothing.

We don't accept it and i will be very clear i see no bigger proxy supporting it other than beos,bitcrab,abit.

And if you don't understand the patch i recommend reading the forum.There is an explanation from me and cn-vote that reversal of code needs more work so the easiest way was to change parameters only to not change compatibility.

Quote
liondani witness will not install the cn-vote's patch.

Could you please tell what infra you provided as witness other than a VPS and where you activly where participating in bitshares ?
Cause in committee you glanced with total  absence over the last 1 1/2 years

You were also one of the known steem witnesses who fucked up ?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 39