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: Bitshares at the cross roads
« on: May 19, 2019, 06:27:31 pm »
I still have reservations about BEOS, primarily due to the favorable attitudes I've read concerning regulatory compliance by members of the BEOS team. I have much respect for Stan, OnceUponaTime , MichaelX and Dan Notestein, but I also see their track record of mistakes. We' all have one, we're all only human, and mistakes can't be eliminated. However, when mistakes become a pattern and ignored, aren't seen as a lesson to learn from, something must be done to raise awareness to a higher level, to stop the cycle.

For the record I have not participated in the BEOS rainfall. I am on the fence about it and I would hate to succumb to manipulation or bribery. It is very difficult to know the actual agenda of all the players, especially those behind the scenes, so abstaining is the best way I know to avoid that.

The main question is, is the BEOS voting power being used to restore the original disruptive, decentralized vision that BitShares was created for, or to dominate and control stakeholders towards a legally regulated, personal freedom limiting ecosystem the uninformed masses will accept? Is this a slippery slope towards incremental control, or the restoration of Austrian / free market economic principles that provide an ecosystem with integrity, accountability and promote personal financial freedom?

One question you need to ask yourself, if you don't want to see kyc and increasing regulator influence on BitShares, is whether the BTS held by those in control of BEOS deposits was intended from the start to be used to do more than facilitate the integration of BitShares and EOS, or, whether such integration requires kyc and fundamental regulatory changes to BitShares. If you don't care about that, feel free to put your head back in the sand and pay no attention to this question. If you do care I urge you to choose your course of action wisely.

I have observed the centralization of control through voting proxies, which was established to address the problem of voter apathy. It did solve the problem of apathy that paralyzed development and growth, but at the expense as time went on of centralizing control. I was not happy with the changes  imposed on BPs wrt price feeds. BSIP42 was a disaster in my mind, particularly in how it was thrust into production, and without any type of report or written conclusion to summarize the results of those "experiments". We now see a downward pressure on MCR from 175% down to 160%, rather than holding individuals personally responsible for their own collateral management. The global MCR value for an asset should be set with investor's safety, not profit as it's primary criteria. I see the influence of Keynesian economic advocates and if those are allowed to prevail we will end up with the same "brink of disaster" situation as mainstream financial markets are experiencing right now.

Perhaps we need more centralized planning to restore the vision and replace the Keynesian perspective with the superior Austrian approach. Ofc if that is to be done the centralized control must be trustworthy and be committed to doing that. I myself have more trust in those I specifically mentioned above, than I do with bitcrab and those who defer to his proxy.That's not to say I totally trust them, b/c of the regulatory attitudes they have expressed, especially wrt kyc policies. 

Whichever way you decide, the choice is currently yours to make. Choose wisely. 

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Witness Report for Verbaltech2
« on: April 02, 2019, 10:54:55 pm »
I posted my witness update today. You can find it on Whaleshares here:

or on steemit here:

If you find this information useful please give an upvote.

Thank you!

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Witness Report for Verbaltech2
« on: February 01, 2019, 05:05:26 pm »

I posted my witness update today. You can find it on Whaleshares here:

or on steemit here:

If you find this information useful please give an upvote.

Thank you!

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Witness Report for Verbaltech2
« on: January 02, 2019, 02:22:06 am »
I posted my monthly witness report for December today, you can find it on Whaleshares here:

If you find this information useful please give an upvote.

Thank you! 

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy:baozi - proxy for anti-dilution
« on: December 18, 2018, 10:40:26 pm »
I highly recommend that people who are voting for this proxy should think again what they are doing.

Bitshares isn't just another pump'n'dump currency but a DAC. This means we are a company that is creating services and products for paying customers.

Currently baozi is voting against every worker proposal except refund and burn workers. This is basically same thing as voting for destruction of Bitshares. Without any development we are pretty much unable to serve our customers. Without customers we can't be a succesful company and make money.

For example xeroc's worker proposals are highly valuable for DAC because they enable other businesses to build on Bitshares blockchain. By voting against these proposals, you are voting for restraining other businesses and developers using Bitshares. Is that really what you want?

Also the whole antidilution talk is misleading. There is no dilution anymore in Bitshares. The quantity of BTS is hardcapped to 3.7 billion. If you want to grow the portion of BTS that is in the reserve pool, it is much better choice to try to get more paying customers rather than deny a salary for a worker. It is true that not paying a salary for a employee is a way to save money for a company, but it is also highly risky way of action because it is very hard for a company to become succesful and make lots of money without any employees.

So I think you have misunderstood the concept of DAC. If you don't like the current model that we have now (no dilution, reserve pool) you should suggest a better model rather than bluntly hamper the development of Bitshares. Voting for baozi is not helping anybody, on the contrary it is a way to decrease the value of BTS which will harm all of us.

I totally agree with you. This seems to be the same sentiment returning as we saw in the last bear market of 2015 and 2016. It severely hurt our progress. Now that we have solid dev teams for core and UI here comes alt and boazi to HALT ALL workers under the guise of "anti-dilution".

There is no dilution going on here. The amount of BTS is fixed, set in stone.

It is crazy to push for this and I sincerely hope proxies join together to defeat this wave of ANTI-PROGRESS.

General Discussion / Re: another way to development the economic
« on: December 18, 2018, 10:28:50 pm »
How about we start punishing bad debt holders? Stripping them of their LTM would be the simplest option.

I'm all for that, a penalty for those that push for unsafe debt. Let's disincentivize those who abuse the collateral requirements. Otherwise they'll continue to do it as long as they can.

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.

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