Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

I see nothing to be jealous of here. What 'responsibility' will I have to pay? What do you think you deserve an apology for? Can't you take criticism? Please be more coherent when threatening legal action.

If the lie is a criticism, then I want to say: ******.
this is okay?

No facts, words can't be said

Obviously using explicit words is a breach of the forum rules, many have received temp bans for it. Pointing out blatant flaws in BAIP2 isn't ban worthy.

What lies though? You've admitted to failing to reply to review comments before the PR was forced merged due to being too busy with work - processes were entirely skipped.

How come you can't handle constructive criticism? Even basic grammar correction is completely out of the question - should we not correct you on translation failures next?

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

So what? This is about the BAIP not the BSIP, irrelevant.

Is it a proper attitude to refuse to answer questions?

Again, the BSIP is irrelevant to the BAIP. None of the contents of the BAIP had any improvments from the BSIP comments, nevermind the BAIP review comments.

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

So why when there are many PR review commends outstanding & awaiting any response (regardless of quality) would you proceed directly to voting? Doing so disregards the review process - are you above this?
You just admitted here that the PR review process is not complete given that you've been too busy with work to answer comments.

I have answered the questions in the issue area. The problem in the pr area, I have not had time to reply has been closed.

Answering questions in the issues section does not justify skipping the pull request peer review process, it's a secondary process. You outright did not reply to the comments in the PR review before it was merged - this is not the correct course of action.

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

18 days simply isn't a long time in terms of improvement proposals - many have been dormant for well over a year. Further there is no need for urgency given this BAIP will not be implemented until BSIP76 is dead - this could be months away.

If questions were seriously answered, how come no changes have been made to the BAIP? Even basic grammar suggestions were seemingly disregarded.

Can't you figure out the difference between BSIP and BAIP? We are BAIP2, which is the first BAIP proposal, OK?

Also, please respect the previous community consensus.

I'm fully aware of the difference, however that doesn't discredit the fact that historically improvement proposals of any format have not been a rushed process until BSIP76 & BAIP2.

I am not disputing BSIP76 here, I'm merely pointing out that because BAIP2 proposes to have zero influence on price feeds until the BSIP76 threshold price is exceeded, your BAIP will have no relevancy until that event passes (could be months away), thus there is no need for urgency nor justification for skipping the pull request peer review process. If comments hold no validity/credibility then surely it'd be a walk in the park to address them?

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

So where is the explanation for this on github? You (the PR author) can reopen a PR without creating a new one (see: https://github.community/t5/How-to-use-Git-and-GitHub/Updating-a-closed-pull-request/td-p/9457)

I don't have to answer the question of the closed state.

Then I don't have to believe your explanation for closing the old PR to invalidate the PR comments.

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

The PR may have been merged by another cnvote member (author approving their own PR?!), however the PR review process was not properly followed (given the disregard of review process).

Who is the top manager of the library?？！
Who is responsible for BAIP management issues?

So you don't dispute that the author merged it themselves & did not properly follow the PR review process? Good to know we're on the same page.

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

Steps in the BAIP process were skipped, abit (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551024416) and clockworkmgr (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551029088) who are both committee members agree this should not have been merged in its current state nor proceeded to a poll. Do you plan to proceed with legal action against them too?

The problem of BAIP management is beyond my responsibility.

Not true when you're the author. Do you see yourself above the whole committee?

If you are jealous of others, you don't have to pay responsibility, then I will be disappointed with the administrator.

I see nothing to be jealous of here. What 'responsibility' will I have to pay? What do you think you deserve an apology for? Can't you take criticism? Please be more coherent when threatening legal action.

1：Initially we strictly followed the standard BSIP process

So what? This is about the BAIP not the BSIP, irrelevant.

6:After PR, I noticed that there were too many comments, because the work was too busy, and one person commented too much. I hope that when I have time, I will answer it seriously (even if the comments don’t seem to be good at all)

So why when there are many PR review commends outstanding & awaiting any response (regardless of quality) would you proceed directly to voting? Doing so disregards the review process - are you above this?

You just admitted here that the PR review process is not complete given that you've been too busy with work to answer comments.

In fact, this baip was in the issue for a long time, and I seriously answered any questions.

18 days simply isn't a long time in terms of improvement proposals - many have been dormant for well over a year. Further there is no need for urgency given this BAIP will not be implemented until BSIP76 is dead - this could be months away.

If questions were seriously answered, how come no changes have been made to the BAIP? Even basic grammar suggestions were seemingly disregarded.

7：A few hours later, zhouxiaobao-2010 informed me that due to his negligence (he was not familiar with github), he accidentally deleted my pr and asked me to re-pr. I did it.

So where is the explanation for this on github? You (the PR author) can reopen a PR without creating a new one (see: https://github.community/t5/How-to-use-Git-and-GitHub/Updating-a-closed-pull-request/td-p/9457)

8： After the success of pr, I asked the members of our union to created 2 poll worker proposals.

The PR may have been merged by another cnvote member (author approving their own PR?!), however the PR review process was not properly followed (given the disregard of review process).

This is the whole process. If you don't apologize for this, I will take legal action. If the administrator does not preside over this behavior, I will be disappointed by the forum administrator.

Steps in the BAIP process were skipped, abit (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551024416) and clockworkmgr (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551029088) who are both committee members agree this should not have been merged in its current state nor proceeded to a poll. Do you plan to proceed with legal action against them too?

Quote from: R on November 07, 2019, 10:57:48 pm

Quote from: binggo on November 07, 2019, 10:38:15 pm

Quote from: R on November 07, 2019, 06:06:08 pm

blame refund400k & bsip76

This is only your option.

Sure it's my opinion/speculation, but they're both clearly severely detrimental and are ongoing.

en, this is just your another option.

Refund400k & bsip76 being ongoing is not an opinion but fact. You've already made this point towards my belief that they're detrimental.

@ R   
Do you want to be stronger？hold more bts.

Increasing my BTS position will have zero impact on the 'strength' of my forum posts 🙄

I'd be willing to bet it'd have no impact on your demands to buy more BTS than speak freely about the current state of affairs neither.

Excellent work, this is great exposure for Bitshares 👍

Quote from: R on November 06, 2019, 11:06:49 pm

So you're saying that by not developing what investors want they won't invest? So why would they invest if there is no development to develop that which they want?

I agree with OP, a lack of development will lead to stagnation and decaying software quality. If HackTheDex runs out of funding then there are always external security groups who pay much more for zero days & wouldn't hesitate to use them.

The combination of hackthedex and bitshares-ui development resolved multiple critical vulnerabilities in the last year which had they fallen into the wrong hands could have led to ransomware & worms speading through the network with precision and minimal input by the victim.

It looks like you want to argue for something and want prove your opinion is right, that's very interesting.

Don't believe it? Go check out hackthedex reports (not conclusive): https://hackthedex.io/#/reports

Now that UI development is no longer funded, are you certain there are no further issues?

By voting for refund400k you seek to actively degrade network & client security to the financial advantage of malicious actors who won't have your best interests at heart.

and please calm down!

I will not remain silent as malicious actors continue to degrade and besmirch Bitshares for their own financial gain.

The latest version isn't loading at all on my phone when I've got nordvpn running - why is it being blocked by nordvpn?

Do you have usage statistics? Google play only shows 1000 installs..

Any plans for more feed price details than just USD & CNY? Similarly any plans to allow borrowing assets other than CNY,USD,EUR,JPY,KRW?

The FAQ is only in Chinese, there's no english FAQ despite the english locale being set.

After translating the FAQ using Google Translate:
* section 2 lists current circulation as 2.6 B, it's closer to 2.75 B https://open-explorer.io/#/assets/bts
* section 2.3 doesn't mention the refund400k threshold for workers?
* section 2.4 Voting does consume a small amount of BTS when you update your voting slate.
* section 3 still states that 1bitCNY = 1 CNY & that there is at least 1.75x backing collateral. This has been factually inaccurate for the last 6 weeks since BSIP76 was implemented. Please don't mislead users.
* section 8.1 mentions that BTS is the backing collateral asset, but UIA, MPA, EBA can also be used as backing collateral.
* section 8.2 isn't true for HERO, Hertz, Norns, and potentially other private smartcoins.
* section 8.3 again uses pre BSIP42 MCR values
* section 8.4.1 is currently factually incorrect for bitCNY & bitUSD as the current BSIP76 set threshold feed price is not based on current market rates. Further there can be committee fed & private price feed publisher lists for private smartcoins.
* section 8.5 again wrong MCR
* section 8.6 isn't correct for the bitassets, instead the feeds will seemingly be manipulated to spare you from the consequences of gambling to the detriment of bitasset holders.
* section 8.7 same incorrect MCR