Why pay for SSL certs when you can get them for free using certbot?

I'm not sure of the neccessity of the newsletter, email nor professional inquiry panel, these feel like centralizing BTS around this website.

Any updates or blog posts about this WP's re-organization? Waiting for bug report feedback 👍

Supported on my side under following conditions.

1. Expiring proxy assignments (expiry period longer than proxy's decaying period)
2. Voting portal to counter voter apathy
3. Stateful notifications in UI or voting portal:
   a) Prompt user to check/refresh his voting slate (if sufficiently decayed)
   b) In case of user with proxy set, notifications when proxy modifies voting slate

Raised an UI issue for the 3rd item: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/1932

Update:

Thanks to everyone + special thanks to whoever was yesterday deciding vote on worker to gets voted in.

We are creating today on github repository and team will start work/logging hours no more late than this Friday. Commits will be available only to the BitShares github team until admin decide/review what is for public release.

@abit

Pinged you on telegram - re Github Repository, Fabian is away, please check when you can.

How are things coming along? We were discussing this WP at the bitfest event last week, looking forwards to the developments. 

The Whaleshares sharedrop has been extended - https://whaleshares.io/whaleshares/@whaleshares/whaleshares-sharedrop-claim-period-2-is-now-open-instructions-inside

This second claim period will run for 30 days and end on October 25 at 23:59:59 UTC. Claims will be subject to a 5% reduction during this second claim period. Example: If your original sharedrop was 100 WLS, you will now receive 95 WLS.

If BSIP42 is implemented on bitUSD, then Hertz will probably need to change its USD:BTS price reference https://github.com/BTS-CM/scripts/issues/2

Does BSIP42 apply to all smartcoins?

I think fees should still be paid in BTS, however the fees should peg against USD|CNY to be a fixed FIAT value instead of being detached from their intended value when BTS price is volatile (until the committee manually adjusts them). If the committee could set the fee values once then forget about them (until economic policy changes are proposed) that'd be great.

Quote from: Customminer on September 16, 2018, 01:08:02 pm

Quote from: bitcrab on September 15, 2018, 07:43:29 pm

Quote from: abit on September 15, 2018, 08:55:49 am

In current situation, I concern more about forced settlements than black swan or global settlements. IMHO forced settlements are needed. For better user experience, perhaps we should match force-settle "orders" with limit orders when prices of limit orders are better than settlement price for the settler.

if then, why not disable force settlement and just let the users place buy orders in market if they want to convert bitCNY to BTS? what's the difference?

The difference is that without force settlement there might as well be no backing collateral, especially if nobody buys your sell order entirely within 24hrs of placing it at/around the settlement price.

It's also possible that the "if" will not happen. If the price of your order is competitive, IMHO it will be filled quite soon in a liquid market. Being able to buy a large amount without affecting the market trading price is a stupid design.

So if the 'if' will not happen, why disable forced settlement at all in the first place? Fractional reserves should not be encouraged due to shorters poor gambling choices - they should be globally settled upon rather than bailed out, as laid out in BSIP 18.

Quote

Alternative proposal - disable (permanently) the following centralized permissions in bitCNY/bitUSD:
White list
Override authority
Transfer restricted
Disable force settle
Disable confidential

This is off-topic.

I disagree, with these permissions available (including 'Disable force settle' as referenced in this topic) there is the risk of malicious actors attempting to abuse such centralized permissions.