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 - Thom

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 104
General Discussion / Re: another way to development the economic
« on: December 17, 2018, 03:46:12 pm »
Your idea makes perfect sense Alex, but need to get an attorney to weigh in if it is likely to be considered a security to USA jurisdiction. If so, perhaps maintain option of payment in BTS.

Ofc there is the issue of the changes required to witness payment / vesting code, severing it from a fixed amount of BTS per block. Not sure if that will be a major issue to deal with. Not even sure why vesting for witness pay was ever involved tho, seems that could be eliminated IMO.

If there were an option to set a "multiplication FACTOR", whereby the BTS paid per block were calculated by a formula like:

committee witness rate setting (currently 1 BTS / block) * FACTOR == BTS paid per block, then if USA witnesses want to retain current pay method their FACTOR = 1, otherwise FACTOR is set to value that takes feed price into account to achieve a USD / CNY / EUR pay rate.

That would also require additional committee parameters to set USD / CNY / EUR pay rate values.

Haven't thought this thru in detail through, so may have some issues that haven't occurred to me.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Witness Report for Verbaltech2
« on: December 05, 2018, 03:53:53 am »
Where did you get that info @j.galt? Actually it wasn't far off the mark, but upon reflection I've decided to post links to my monthly report here and on steemit, with primary content being posted on the Whaleshares blockchain. So here you go:

If you find this information useful please give an upvote.

Thank you! 

I agree fox. I don't think we need the overhead of a totally new wallet in order to provide HW wallet functionality.

Not that a simple sign / transfer in / transfer out wallet design wouldn't also be nice to have, just not an initiall requirement for HW.

For anything that requires voting (witness, worker proposal), reptuation is key.

Exactly. Well put xeroc I couldn't agree more. @clockwork is a perfect example.

why don't we improve step by step?
I guess reduce MSSR will be more easy to reach the concenses.
But dynamic tuning the MCR is not acceptable for me,  at least you need to give enough time to the shorters before adjustment the MCR.
you just can't make me margin call when you decide to increase the MCR next seconds. I consider this as   manipulation.

I understand that letting witness tune MCR introduce much uncertainty, so now in my mind it will be better if we can do this in another way, like:

1.witnesses just feed market price and premium.

2.system tune MCR periodically based on the fed premium, for example the rule can be: system adjust MCR every hour, if premium is inside -2%-1%, do not adjust the MCR, otherwise, tune it 0.001(start point 1.75) to according direction. 

maybe need to set max and min limit on MCR, for example 1.25-2.

however I am not sure whether this is technological possible and whether community can reach consensus on this.

This sounds like the most reasonable proposal I've seen from you @bitcrab:
- it requires honest market price reporting
- it sets limits on MCR adjustment
- preserves baseline collateral at 1.75

Clearly trade-offs are required between various "feed factions" that want their advantage / opinions implemented. This is easier to understand, easier for witnesses. Will it work?

Depends on the goals you have. We need to define those, otherwise we'll all vacillate between appeasing one camp or another.
Main things we need to define is what is minimum safety - i.e. absolute limits on MCR and how tight the peg must be held.
Another consideration is do we need to define different sets of limits when market is "volatile", and how to define what metrics to use to say market is volatile. You could define criteria that sets a boolean "isVolatile" flag, or, it could be an analog value from 0 (stable) to 1 (volatile). Perhaps this is same or similar to what is now labeled "premium". Can't say I understand how "premium" is calculated and what factors are involved. 

Also, why not publish a report to describe all this great knowledge learned from experimentation so we ALL can learn? Still waiting on that. If you've learned so much please summarize these "golden lessons" for those of us with lessor economic skills. Please help raise our understanding with a summary.

General Discussion / Re: price feeding review
« on: November 23, 2018, 03:16:48 pm »
Since very few were willing to contribute to this thread, I am posting a link to it here. @clockwork's description / proposal of how to conduct testing to achieve a tighter peg with sane limits is exactly why I started it.

Too bad more people didn't contribute ideas and easy to understand descriptions like this one offered by @clockwork.

Take a look and please help so the next round of experiments will be more orderly and constructive to achieve the goal of a tighter peg but with well known limits to provide safety.

Don't waste your breath Thul3. It's clear the priority of bitcrab et al is to depress and keep the price low so he can accumulate more and sell it high later. He has learned market manipulation from his Keynesian mentors, the mainstream banksters and centralized economic controllers.

His priority is not the long term integrity of BitShares or the disruptive vision BitShares was founded upon for the cause of freedom, nor the concern for collateral which as you say he is putting at risk. When so much profit can be taken earlier (not now, but when BTC and other market movers start to rise again) that is his focus now.

Holding a peg in this bear market? Shouldn't be the primary concern. Safety of ALL investors and preservation of collateral should be. THAT is what will increase trust in the few who are steering this ship.

Bitcrab and the Chinese have truly helped bitshares, I have zero doubt that. But why? That is the trillion dollar question his actions answer. Manipulation is a psychological game of wits, and you must establish trust first for it to be effective.

BTS(比特股)登录BIONE交易所的公告 :D :D :D

They have no impressum, or do state what is the legal entity behind the exchange (at least I couldn't find one). On the site and the "Contact" or "Join us" buttons are not functional.

Not a very good sign of a reliable reputation either.

You should notice Alt that I (verbaltech2) and Alex (clockwork) aren't feeding either BitCNY or BitUSD.

Alex has been almost as angry as you lately about the bsip42 manipulation. I have been very vocal from the start about what I don't like about it.

General Discussion / Re: price feeding review
« on: November 17, 2018, 03:13:09 am »
I find this talk of transparency somewhat disingenuous, as very few witnesses produce a report of their operations periodically.

I will soften that to the extent I don't monitor non-English publications, so if there are non-English witness reports out there, great. Would be nice to see them announced on a prominent platform or in the Bitshares_Witnesses channel of Telegram. I asked one Chinese speaker to translate for me once, but he never followed thru. Neither did I in finding another.

I think Google translate has probably gotten good enough where it is adequate to bridge the language barrier between Mandarin & English now.

I have very consistently published a monthly witness report, I have been more transparent than most witnesses in what I do each month. I have repeatedly stated I use bts_tools for my price feeds. That will change when the MCR fix is released, at which time I will use zapata's price feed script.

I have been publishing my reports on steemit, but given the recent changes on that platform I will be moving to the whaleshares platform. I have no idea which sites Chinese shareholders have access to, given their governments censorship of the internet. I will make it a point to update my witness proposal thread here on this forum, to at least provide a link to my full report on Whaleshares.

I encourage all witnesses to follow the lead of zapata and myself to improve your level of transparency of ALL of your witness operations, at least those that don't compromise security, not just transparency in how you produce feeds.

Maximum respect to you @zapata. As a relatively new witness you set a good example for others to follow.

General Discussion / Re: price feeding review
« on: November 16, 2018, 03:28:17 pm »
Our views are slowly becoming more consistent in practice. From the beginning of the reform, I have always suggested that without the chain acceptance function, there is no objective judgment on whether the supply of bitCNY is sufficient or not. Based on this, the strength of the negative feedback should not be too large. In addition, the establishment of the chain acceptance function helps the commercialization and promotion of bitCNY. Now I think the most important thing is to discuss the feasibility of accepting on the chain. By the way, we can also "pull it."

WTH? "chain acceptance" "pull it" ? I do agree an lack of objective judgement for BitCNY supply being "sufficient", depends on who you ask. We've heard from bitcrab and his followers. The same thing can be said for all other bit assets.

General Discussion / Re: price feeding review
« on: November 16, 2018, 02:38:19 pm »
I will resume cny and usd feeds when a proper fix is available thru MCR AND a reasonable algo is established that doesn't need minute by minute "adjustments".

We actually can't be certain without doubt bitcrab's objectives can be achieved through MCR, but that is our best hope. Time will tell.

I'm not a fan of rushing when it comes to these things. I wish more witnesses would think independently and question what is actually going on, not just trust in proxies blindly.

I also wish more witnesses took their roll more seriously and work to set standards and conventions, to "tighten the ship" and consider the many factors, not only focus on 1 or 2 aspects like feeds. Very few are even wiling to discuss those matters, such as better ways to track witness operations. What can be automated and what are the metrics we could measure?

That is MY appeal to witnesses.

General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 13, 2018, 02:44:24 pm »
I'm assuming the vote above is just informative - I guess the Committee have the authority make the decision and if they decide they want to put it to a worker vote on chain they do?

Sure informative, like CNN or fake news.

Rather than admit the sentiment is against this change, those pushing for it will keep trying to spin inputs until they get what they want, damned be the shareholders and contrary opinions.

There was also no annoucement of bitusd feed price getting manipulated .It just raised by 40% .
This kind of behavior is the reason why no big exchange is going to implement these bitassets as a small group is using it as it is their private toy they can experiment with.

I stopped my USD feed when USD feed manipulation started, despite xeroc and others being very direct in saying experimentation on that bitasset was dangerous and should wait for the MCR fix. Nevertheless, many witnesses decided to start playing around with BitUSD despite admonitions and the dangers.

I'm sure some of the witnesses that did so justify their actions saying bsip42 didn't prohibit it. In fact the only statement about when experimentation could start on BitUSD is:
It will be good to apply the change to bitCNY first, which has much better liquidity than other smartcoins. After witnesses and community learned enough in the process it can be also applied to bitUSD.

When did we pass the threshold of "enough" ?

I have maintained from the start how loose and vague the language of bsip42 was, and have been vocal about tightening that up BEFORE the MCR fix is ready and another hap hazard, poorly organized round of "experiments" are conducted, but that thread has not gotten the attention it should have.

Another important point is that bsip42 can be enabled and disabled at anytime through the poll workers 1.14.118 and 1.14.119, which is the best thing about how bsip42 was written. However, as of this moment the NO worker has only 6 committee supporters while the YES worker has 8. The plain fact is bsip42 could be disabled at any time by committee involvement.

The bsip should never have been approved as written. It was too vague, especially regarding use on non CNY bitAssets. Xeroc has been vocal about wanting to support the bsip for CNY, but not USD. He was put in a bad position due to how the bsip was written. I presume that's why he is supporting the YES worker. IMO he should have pulled his vote for YES and added it to NO worker as soon as it became apparent manipulation of BitUSD started, but he didn't.

TBH and genuine with my sentiments on this matter I am disgusted by the lack of concern I see on this feed issue as well as how poorly our "DPoS governance" works to establish consensus on important matters. 

Although Thul3 was very blunt with his most recent remarks I can't say I blame him for expressing his dissatisfaction with a strong emotional tone. I also think he raises an excellent point about why would any legit, non-fake volume exchange risk listing out bitassets with all this drama going on. The ecosystem is not unified and doesn't seem to operate with consensus and clear understanding of how to manage or market bitassets.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 104