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 - matle85

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] 1.6.129 - zapata42-witness
« on: November 17, 2018, 11:34:18 am »
I'm not aware of any agreed weighting, but abit has publicly expressed his opinions, and this topic has been discussed multiple times here and on telegram.
I agree that some volumes (and trade history) seems faked, so I'll take some time to forge an updated opinion and scale my volumes accordingly.
I'll keep you informed.

Thanks Zapata and just to say, reading through all your posts I'm really impressed by the professional approach you have to this work. You're a great asset to the community.

It would be really interesting to see how the prices at different exchanges vary over time. That will show if some are skewing the price and causing some of the odd effects that Bitcrab & others are concerned about around discounts and force settlements etc.

It may be we consider some more reliable / relevant than others for bitCNY specifically. If the weighting is transparent and justified then it would be fine in my view to give some greater weight and others a reduced weight.

2
at beginning I'll try LBANK and RightBTC.

account:bitcrab
email:[email protected]

Hi Bitcrab - I contacted RightBTC on 20 October when we were discussing the draft worker. They are registered in Dubai which gives me some connection.

They have come back to me today with a quotation for listing bitCNY. I am not sure if you are discussing with them separately but I have private messaged you on Telegram so we can coordinate.

3
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] 1.6.129 - zapata42-witness
« on: November 16, 2018, 05:10:06 pm »
That's great - thank you!

Have we got agreed weighting for the different price feed sources? I.e. if we are concerned one exchange has faked volume it could be having an unjustified impact on the feed - I can see various discussions on the reliability of different sources but not sure if we maintain a weighting somewhere?

4
General Discussion / Re: price feeding review
« on: November 16, 2018, 02:42:30 pm »
price feeding is so important for Bitshares and it need witnesses to pay more attention and efforts on this.

witnesses need to publish their algorithm to for voters to evaluate and check with the real feed price.

the published algorithm need to include

1. how the premium is calculated out.
2. how the feed price is calculated out based on premium and other factors.

I am sorry that I'll use my voting power to push this thing, after 20th, Nov, I may update voting on witnesses if the behavior on this is not satisfactory.

I agree price feeding is absolutely critical and the more transparent the better. The clearer we are on what is going on the easier it is to understand / discuss the various adjustments being considered.

5
General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 13, 2018, 03:36:56 pm »
One positive is nobody voted 'Don't care' so at least we are all engaged   ;)

6
General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 13, 2018, 03:35:43 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.

Well the first vote was No and after it was reset and the new option was set the vote was still No.

Some people I would have expected to be against the change aren't though so Ill spend sometime this weekend doing some background reading to see what I'm missing.

My feeling is that we are still in the midst of a pretty serious stress test for BTS stablecoins as the price of BTS has dropped by 90%. That has meant a lot of us have been hurt pretty badly with our margins (I actually had to largely exit mine on the way down with quite a big loss of my BTS).

We need to take this as an opportunity to fix on something that works - the price will go up again during the next bull run but there will be more hard drops and margin holders exposed. The mechanism we figure out over the coming months should maintain the peg / underlying basis for it being a stablecoin above anything else.

7
General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 13, 2018, 02:14:22 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?

8
General Discussion / Re: Breaking Bitshares: The Wargame
« on: November 11, 2018, 10:23:33 pm »
As a bitshares supporter I do not like the constant trail of uncertainty and paranoia strewn about.

Open ledger's DNS was hacked, for a while, and no one cared about security. But here now you post as if security is a major concern.

What is the procedure to resolve a breach, beyond calling BM? That info would be beneficial to the community.

And no one named Kristen works with me on Spark. Yo must be talking about bitspark.

Yep sorry Bitspark, SparkDex, Zeph etc - I hadn't realised there is another Spark project. Any link so I can educate myself?

9
General Discussion / Re: Breaking Bitshares: The Wargame
« on: November 11, 2018, 09:35:09 pm »
Although I was concerned about seeing this topic in public, and introduced by a total newbie to the forum, I commented. Not adding ideas to how to break the system as much as what we should be weary of.

Nevertheless, I don't believe such vulnerabilities should be discussed in public. I have thus suggested that this thread / topic be removed.

Although significant improvements can and should be made to provide a trusted way to discuss these things, it should not be public for obvious reasons, and should not allow anonymous newbies, no matter how well intentioned, to participate. Trust must be earned, and that come from being known, and that takes observation of person's actions and words over a period of time. Instantaneous trust is worthless.

I suggested keybase as a secure app we could use for secure, private comminications. Most of the devs are already on keybase, as are some witnessses, includning myself.

No objection to it being removed from my side - suggest it would be good to continue in another channel though.

And for info I thought the same but it's Kristen from Spark who posted originally, he's just not on the forum much.

10
General Discussion / Re: Breaking Bitshares: The Wargame
« on: November 11, 2018, 07:17:32 am »
7) Seize control through purchase / seizure of BTS or manipulation / bullying of holders to proxy.

I've added the above following Thom's point. This is an interesting one as it wouldnt have to be an individual / group of individuals. If we have more adoption and more CEX's holding significant BTS then conceivably they could be compelled to act. Just look at how big a voter Binance are on their own.


11
General Discussion / Re: Breaking Bitshares: The Wargame
« on: November 10, 2018, 08:39:40 am »
Great idea Kristen.

I'll have a proper think but initially:
1) Spread fear and FUD about decentralised exchanges (underway) to throttle interest, the price etc.
2) Block access by taking down the website or restricting access to it.
3) Go after committee members or witnesses (charges, court orders, seizures).
4) Go after users (as above).
5) Try and clog up the network (seems doomed to fail).
6) Launch spam/scam versions of it to undermine confidence and create general feeling it's a scam.
7) Seize control through purchase / seizure of BTS or manipulation / bullying of holders to proxy (added following Thom's post)

I think 1) with some high profile 3) or 4) is most likely.


12
Bitspark / Re: Spark announces new roadmap with token buyback date
« on: November 09, 2018, 10:47:46 am »
Great job with the buy back last month. If anyone is thjnkngkt is a bit quiet here I suggest to join their telegram group as Spark are very active at providing updates.

13
Graveyard / Re: [Board Removal] Gravity.io - Abandoned project
« on: November 09, 2018, 08:00:40 am »
The forum has a "graveyard" .. i'd recommend move it there instead of "deleting" it

I like this idea. It is good to look into the past every once in a while :)

Agree with Red and Xerox if that's an option

14
General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 09, 2018, 06:55:13 am »
I'm going to read up more today as I feel like I'm a bit poorly informed / haven't quite got my head around the interaction of the different mechanisms and how these are most fairly adjusted to achieve the best possible stablecoin.

My preference would be for calculating the feed price in a far way that recognises the liquidity and market for bitCNY. We want more bitCNY not less so I agree seeing liquidations on a token which is seeing good use and wider adoption is not desirable. That said it is also important that there remains a clear decentralised basis backing the value of the coin with sufficient BTS.

Let's see if I can get my head around it a bit more today.

We should all bear in mind BTS fell 90% and bitUSD / bitCNY survived, that's a pretty impressive stress test but it does mean a lot of people are hurting a bit / are close to the line now.

Basically the price of BTS needs to go up and all this just goes away... ;)

15
Graveyard / Re: [Board Removal] Gravity.io - Abandoned project
« on: November 08, 2018, 08:56:24 pm »
Well, gravity *IS* a graphene fork. They do stuff and even presented @ GrapheneDev Conference in Shanghai.
Not sure if they use the forums still, but gravity seems legit

Gravity.io moved on to another project called UCommunity, earlier in August. Confirmed personally in their TG that website, project and open-source github - FINISHED.

Their ex Community Manager - Brendan (@iamredbar) can confirm.

CheeĀ®s
Confirmed. I voted to remove Gravity.io from bitsharestalk.org.

While I still have control of the Twitter account and am an admin on the old Telegram chat, the project is done. They did not let me know they were joined with Ucommunity until I started asking questions.

I've voted yes on this basis.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4