New block produced:
locked >>> get_block 2359545
get_block 2359545
{
  "previous": "002400f85a7d07a722f801b839c75f89a4f55e67",
  "timestamp": "2016-01-04T02:08:30",
  "witness": "1.6.35",
  "transaction_merkle_root": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
  "extensions": [],
  "witness_signature": "1f43e7663aa4f9f204506a7e29ae2c13b4a2d064444f635c644cd451f6fba132622a79c39a9785624b3953dff0eac5853c2f18195622b63861d188279161d44667",
  "transactions": [],
  "block_id": "002400f965e4ad8b494d48dfb8d311d59cd771bc",
  "signing_key": "BTS83K3qNNZBRLWMa6pXcwnfMJqC9J46ZpMFEYDKUDCNy2BgNrWth",
  "transaction_ids": []
}


please add this to the witness_node start command:
--checkpoint '[2359545,"002400f965e4ad8b494d48dfb8d311d59cd771bc"]'


Quote from: Akado on January 04, 2016, 12:09:18 am

so, committee members, do you have something here with proposal potential?

@mindphlux @BunkerChain Labs @baozi @bitcrab

I agree we should use the fund to support liquility.
and I agree tony's advice

Make a proposal please?

Caused by a "0 amount" settlement in GOLD

Requested in block 2330819: http://cryptofresh.com/b/2330819

get_settle_orders GOLD 100
[{
    "owner": "1.2.95758",
    "balance": {
      "amount": 0,
      "asset_id": "1.3.106"
    },
    "settlement_date": "2016-01-04T00:19:54"
  }
]


Quote from: bitcrab on January 03, 2016, 11:47:48 am

Quote from: Samupaha on January 03, 2016, 11:15:48 am

The rules of the real DAC are not changed whenever somebody is unhappy with the result of current voting.

If you want to change the rules, you have to make a case that will prove that the new rules produce good and fair results no matter who are the voters or the candidates. The point of this is to have a sufficient mechanism to elect reliable people to change blockchain parameters. Not just this time but every time.

I don't even see any reason why there is a need to decrease Bytemaster's power on blockchain parameters. On the contrary, I would like him to take more active participation on these decisions, because he knows the system best. So far he hasn't changed or proposed any parameters that I would consider harmful for Bitshares.

ya, there are always people that like to live under the rule of a dictator, because he think the dictator is the wisest people he ever met.

but humankind finally select democracy, not because they cannot find wise people to be the ruler, but because they come to understand that unrestricted right will always lead to disaster.

can anyone prove that each time the elected US President is always relied person? no one can prove, but few US people think US need to go back to monarchy, like north Korea. no need to explain.

DAC is not compatible with dictator, we built committee in order to push the decentralization, not to put it under one people's control, I think this is easy to understand.

it's ok for you to trust BM mostly, you can support him by voting, but this is not the consensus of the whole community. the community need a mechanism to avoid dictatorship.

So what am I missing?  What would prevent someone from just splitting their stake across multiple accounts to get around this?  It seems like a soft rule that is only meaningful to those who choose to stay within the parameters.

This makes sense.
BM has about 45% of active voting power, so he voted in 5/11 of his own committee members, it's nothing wrong (at least by now).. theoretically he is able to vote in more inits with current rule.

CASS申请worker了，现在得票数不少。参考 http://cryptofresh.com/workers ，是这个worker

Graphic Design / UI/UX Design / Web Development (1.14.28)

CASS出5000BTS找人翻译拉票帖子。 https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20856.0.html

大家看着办吧。

Quote from: abit on January 03, 2016, 08:49:06 pm

Quote from: Ben Mason on January 03, 2016, 07:48:56 pm

Just for info I'm a brownie holder but not in the list. As I've been unable to import my account yet, I can't tell you if I've received anything, sorry. Anyway hope that helps Ronny.

Unable to import, due to lack of privacy or other technical issues?

Tech issues I'm afraid....Xeroc and several others have very kindly tried to help but no joy.

A little off topic.. I found your post, don't know how xeroc has helped you though. I replied in that post, wish it helps.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20197.msg269870.html#msg269870

Quote from: tonyk on January 03, 2016, 10:39:21 pm

  2.Start selling the collected fees in bitAssets tomorrow...start at 12-15% above feed and lower the price 0.5% every other day...

Yes this makes sense, put all the fee pool bit assets up for sale now at feedprice +15%  and drop it each day until it's all sold.

This can be done now, and is nice and simple. 
more complex ideas will take time and are less likely to get shareholder support.

Agree.
Tony is a genius.

OP: Why not create at least one asset by yourself, just like what bitcrab did? It's just 5000 BTS of fee. If you don't like to own the asset, just update the owner to committee-account so the committee will be able to deal with the following matters when needed.
Witnesses would need efforts/fund to maintain price feeding for your asset. Best if you can fund @xeroc to implement a price feed script first.

Let's do it? Just do it.