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 - sschiessl

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 44
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blocksights
« on: January 17, 2021, 03:55:56 pm »
Hi Stefan, is your ES wrapper compatible with the reference UI? If yes, are you willing to add your ES wrapper address to so that others can use it directly from the reference UI?


Hey there abit,

it is indeed compatible with the reference UI, have a look here Availability not guaranteed.
I have also unlocked account history export for (accounts with less than 10k operations, larger history needs promo code).

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blocksights
« on: December 29, 2020, 07:35:42 pm »
Looking for feedback for account history export feature of Preferably with people that are filing their crypto taxes to validate the format in terms of completeness.

See on the top right of the account history list

Please contact me if interested, currently the feature is only available with a code.

Added chainid to ChainConfig ws-js?

Did you do this?

My answer was concerning bitshares-ui source code.

Any console log output? Added chainid to ChainConfig ws-js?

General Discussion / Re: Analysis of My Bitshares transaction blunder
« on: December 02, 2020, 03:59:38 pm »
Sorry to hear of that expensive mistake. I do hope you can recover from this!

The UI allows to add "Contacts" or "Favorites". The Account Selector on first click should also populate those (just tested on develop, does not seem to work). Furthermore, contacts are highlighted in green. The issue is that people simply don't use that function. The UI would need to train or know by itself what the exchange accounts are (imho).

General Discussion / Re: The smallest unit of bitshares
« on: October 13, 2020, 02:23:27 pm »
I use for any cryptocurrency "satoshi" as smallest unit.
Satoshi is meant for BTC please choose something else

Hmm. Still easiest

General Discussion / Re: The smallest unit of bitshares
« on: October 13, 2020, 01:52:04 pm »
I use for any cryptocurrency "satoshi" as smallest unit.

Stakeholder Proposals / [Witness Proposal] blocksights
« on: October 07, 2020, 09:26:21 am »
Dear BitShares Community,

we are seeking to become a block producer for the BitShares Blockchain and want to introduce our services. The "we" here refers for the technical team to Fabian ( and myself (Stefan,

Testnet Block Producer
Account Name:blocksights
Account ID:1.2.25653
Witness ID:1.6.120
Current signing key:TEST7CKF8GKknjvfwp7RM3vr28sZzwGM8z2zruEQwCJLpWmVvCwvis
Up and running, voted active and producing blocks since last week.

Mainnet Block Producer
Account Name:blocksights
Account ID:1.2.1793091
Witness ID:1.6.180
Current signing key:BTS8jE5q5e1NhekG7dbrzn9RunyKUCf5XkaqagfYJhtzhnHKtBr8H
Up and running, ready to be voted active.

Blocksights Explorer and API
Key service that we are providing is the Blocksights Explorer and its underlying API:

The explorer supports mainnet and testnet (switcher in the upper right corner) and will be continually improved and extended provided we get the voters backing or funds through other means. The API itselfs offers current state and historical data of the blockchain through ElasticSearch, and supports crawler endpoints for cryptoranking websites like CMC, CoinGecko, CoinPaprika, Nomics, Blocktivity and, last but not least, Feixiaohao.

  • We do not seek to participate in price feeding as we do not see that as our area of expertise.
  • At the time of writing the source code of the explorer and the API is proprietary.
  • The explorer may contain bugs here and there, please let us know if you find any.

Any and all feedback on our block producer introduction or the explorer is welcome.

Happy voting!

This brings huge risks to investors, and CNVOTE retains the power to pursue further legal actions.


We call on all bts holders to vote in timely manner in order to form a community consensus as soon as possible.

In order to maintain the foundation of trust in the blockchain , CNVOTE have no choice but fighting back.

In the past risk-free margin positions (deemed temporary solution that are now more of a permanent one with the main objective of protecting debt holders it seems) and other agendas were pushed, even with the help of the voting power of CEXes, other questionable methods and without following proper voting procedures (some would call that playing dirty utilizing the tools available at hand). Attempts were made several times to point in the right direction, follow consensus guidelines and alternatives presented.

The current events are not surprising considering that. Finding a compromise will be hard with that history, but not impossible. Your statements are quite bold.

The patch is not a straight reversal of the voting system, it is something else and it looks less stringent to me than what abit did.

中文(Chinese) / Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« on: August 03, 2020, 11:30:53 am »
They can't make a patch on BitShares for BitShares
Maybe he said is right,seems he own the trademark of “BitShares” and "BTS", if this is true, anyone can't change it.

The blockchain consensus is ultimately decided by the witnesses and what version they are running, and the voters have the indirect power over that by voting in witnesses that support whatever version they deem the correct one. It boils down to similar situation like Steem does it's consensus upgrades now, I don't see yet how the trademark affects that.

General Discussion / Re: So, who can tell me what happend in voting?
« on: July 30, 2020, 07:02:03 pm »
Any chance for a volunteer translator please?

The automatic translation sounds quite weird.

UI team more like self oriented (Pay me and I fix any small random bugs and develop some new features from Core) and BTS++ team more focus on community need(Features that highly demanded now and Bugs that blocking users having good user experience). If UI team fail to learn from BTS++ team, then nothing will change.

The approach from BTS++ team and UI team was/is quite different. BTS++ does private discussions and management to define what they do next. Advantage is that they seek proactive feedback (and also get it because they are included in chinese community), disadvantage is that there is no transparency whatsoever to the outsider (not even I would know where to look).

The UI team has done everything managed publicly through the GitHub repository ( The advantage is full transparency and accountability, and also a public well-defined development cycle. The disadvantage is that it was expected that the community gives feedback by opening an issue in the repository (it was always open for all, anything that I have seen I have created an issue mostly myself).

In that sense, BTS++ collects private feedback proactively, and UI team collects public feedback passive (proactive for anything that I saw). So in that sense I strongly disagree with your statement I quoted above, especially since the current worker proposal addresses your concerns.

Any estimates how much it would cost to just get the most urgent done ?

Depends how you define urgent. Node connectivity seems to be a prominent issue.

The concern is UI team fail to identify what need to be done and how much the budget.

The Core worker have list down what need to be done and maximum hours for each BSIPs.

Quite different situation. Please read the UI worker proposal, intention is laid out there.

Core is following BSIPs, second step is to make UI compatible to the changes / new features of core 4.0

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 44