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 - pc

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 102
General Discussion / Re: What will be Black swan incident for bts and btc
« on: December 28, 2019, 07:41:52 pm »
Quantum-resistant signature schemes exist, and are probably not too difficult to implement, but they generally have much bigger signatures and/or keys than ECC. This would seriously affect TX/s.


No, it's not OL.
Not going to mention names here, but it wasn't anyone from the Graphene Lab team.
I know where the quoted sentences came from and who said it. The mentioned name was OL. That's why I added my comments above as I don't think OL's code is too low-quality, just to be fair.

Oh, ok, sorry. I agree with your comments about OL, that's why I was thinking of someone else.


It's OpenLedger.

No, it's not OL.
Not going to mention names here, but it wasn't anyone from the Graphene Lab team.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Core Team 2019
« on: December 18, 2019, 09:20:59 am »
What's the reasoning behind this?

The most obvious point is that the chain can no longer afford a core worker team of a similar size and scope.

Some individual team members have additional reasons, but IMO it's pointless to discuss them. Anyone who has followed the discussions and events during the past couple of months should be able to come up with a pretty good guess what these reasons might be.

General Discussion / Re: [Info] BBF paying based on fiat
« on: December 12, 2019, 09:48:33 am »
Core team knew about that risk

Yes, which is why the worker is denominated in fiat not in bitassets.

General Discussion / Re: [Info] BBF paying based on fiat
« on: December 11, 2019, 02:05:33 pm »
BBF is paying invoices now in FULL fiat means they add depending on BTS price up to 62% more bitcny in the payout.

The worker rates are deliberately denominated in fiat, due to our bad experience with global settlement of bitUSD in late 2018. Did you seriously expect that we'd accept bitCNY=CNY at the fake price?

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [poll] BTS repurchase destruction proposal
« on: December 06, 2019, 06:12:38 am »
         execute Instant Settle for this amount and send those BTS to reserve pool

in this way we create a permanent source of partial financing of bad debt, but I also like the idea of additional funding for the WPS fund

Settling at the fake feed price rewards bad debt. Speaking of it, when will you start feeding the true price again?

Message I agreed to or whatnot:

1.11.xfdgdfgd9385   UPDATE ACCOUNT   
bit55645643cds updated their account data
0.03872 BTS   2019-11-25 12:19:42
1.11.1ujjbnb9384   UPDATE PROPOSAL   
bitcoin-wizards updated a proposal
Owner approval(s) added

Your account has been hijacked. By accepting that proposal you have assigned ownership to someone else, that's why you cannot transact anymore.

Now that it is glaringly obvious that the current BTS downtrend has nothing to do with "price manipulation" and "short selling" on a CEX, but is due to a global BTC downtrend, can you guys finally scrap the "temporary" threshold price and just feed the true price?

Or what is the excuse du jours?

General Discussion / Re: consideration on buybacks and other hot issues
« on: November 10, 2019, 12:56:14 pm »
BTS system which is an already degraded and failed cryptocurrency system.

If you think that, why are you still here?

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Decentralized 2019 Recap
« on: November 07, 2019, 06:28:52 pm »
Thanks for your hard work!

General Discussion / Re: D*Match betting in chain
« on: November 03, 2019, 08:10:44 am »
Is here a update considered ?

BSIP-17 describes a possible solution. IIRC it was never voted on, because BSIP-18 was a much easier to do, but for MPAs which were more in focus back then.

General Discussion / Re: consideration on buybacks and other hot issues
« on: October 30, 2019, 04:07:54 pm »
Wasn't it merged to early ?

No. The reason for reverting it was

Transferring voting rights from BTS to another token is not acceptable and should never be an option. PR reverted.

The PR had seen much discussion over a period of two weeks. Many comments from various parties were addressed. No further comments were received for two days before the merge.

Compare this with BSIP-76, which was created, approved and merged within 17 hours. Community comments were completely ignored.

General Discussion / Re: consideration on buybacks and other hot issues
« on: October 30, 2019, 01:48:09 pm »
Bsip83 should not exist

I have checked bsip83. it is ass idea.

Bsip83 is trying to rape bts holders. 

Regardless of what you think about BSIP-83, an organization that calls itself "decentralized" cannot allow a single person to control the voting.

General Discussion / Re: consideration on buybacks and other hot issues
« on: October 27, 2019, 02:00:29 pm »
Observation1: The administrative authority is fully decentralized and in the hands of the users (BTS token holders) by voting method, the voting is to reflect the will of the majority and make decisions according to the majority.

That's the way it *should* be. However, the truth is that a single person is refusing others the right to propose changes and have the community vote for it.

tl;dr: Some members of the Core Team have (on their own time) discussed the recently observed governance problems, and have come up with a proposal that tries to rectify the situation. After some discussion and various amendments, the proposal was merged last friday. Shortly thereafter, the proposal was reverted single-handedly by an individual. Furthermore, said individual has removed write access to the BSIPs repository for most members of the Core Team.

It is noteworthy that the management of the BSIP process is explicitly listed as a task in the Core Worker Proposal, which was voted on and accepted by the community.

It is also noteworthy that the same individual who is now complaining about said BSIP pushed through a different proposal without any discussion just a couple of weeks ago.

Decentralization my ass.

Observation2: Any attempts to modify the BTS voting mechanism e.g. removing debt voting are illegal, and shall be stop.

This is not an observation, it's an opinion. Others may disagree.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 102