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.
Is this still within the same chain, part of the BitShares ecosystem, or is it a whole different ball of wax?I though Plasma is aim at micro payment solution, but it's impossible to be done with BitShares due to the high fee.. Has it changed?
Yes, I noticed the new account created and tested with it before post above, but if I understood correctly without notification email I can't confirm my transfer (the 2nd step). Made one more test just now but haven't got any email yet as well.No email still..I have noticed that google didnt accept my mail for some policy reason but thought it was delivered by now. I'll take look at the logs when back.
In the meantime there should be an account created with your username+"-secured".
before using it check that the owner key is the same and that the active permissions are ok .. you can also take a loom at the history of peermit-reg to find the proper account.
Sorry for the troubles
abit-2fa-secured Created a proposal 3 minutes ago
abit-2fa-secured Created a proposal yesterday
Believe me, the $45000 work (only for GUI) won't bring new "big" users right away, you'll ask for more money. Because ..
As I said I'm not too against Stealth given the money is on the table and I'm not overly exposed to BTS currently, but without incentives for voting or keeping BTS off the exchanges it's likely voting turnout may always be fairly low, allowing bad decisions to be pushed through with fairly little stake even if the majority don't agree.
Non sequitur.
Lack of easy Stealth is probably one of the biggest reasons people aren't willing to vote.
Adding new FBAs is adding reasons to keep BTS off the exchanges as is OpenLedger.
Total participation being low means serious resistance is easy to mount.
And if you don't have enough BTS off outside exchanges right now to vote 'no' with, why should your opinion count?
IF (just assume) the worker is voted out before Jan 1, will you(or CNX) pay xeroc 300$ for created that work proposal, or BTS holders pay him fully via dilution, or xeroc burn the fund which is already paid to him? If it's voted in, will you charge BTS holders $1000 more or $700 more for implement the hard fork? You put xeroc at a strange position.At that time they will face a choice:Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?
1. Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2. Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).
Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.
Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.
That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.
This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.
Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.
Where did you get the one day poll? Voting continues until Jan 1 as I understand the plan. No?QuoteRoadmap
Feedback and discussion of this thread: December 8 to December 10, 2015
Presentation of an amended Cryptonomex Worker Proposal: Dec 11, 2015 This worker proposal should include Milestones of what is intended to be accomplished by the end of week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4 and week 5 so that the Community can follow progress in the github.
Voting for Worker Proposal: Dec 11 to January 1, 2016
onceuponatime forwards $45,000 to Cryptonomex: Jan.2, 2016
Cryptonomex does the development and testing of the feature: (4 to 6 weeks)
Hard fork for implementation of the feature: Monday Feb, 15th
Bottom line is that STEALTH is the only thing we can fund without selling BTS to cover it right now. Hence it is the best bet.Very sorry to hear this..
It will if we have much more liquidity. But now, you may have to create by yourself.
"The process of borrowing/creating stuff is not connected in any way to a 'quality' called price. " Your debt is pegged at the 'quality' called price. Your margin call depends on the 'quality' called price and your maintenance of collateral depends on the 'quality' called price. As in the above example when you are creating bitUSD to circulate the 'quality' called price is important.
very important indeed ....to the tune of exactly 1 BTS [ need to close the 'wrong' loan], before you actually sell your bitUSD (or otherwise spend your borrowed bitUSD).... so not much relevant at all.
My example is about the decision for participants to buy bitUSD or create bitUSD. Assuming they sell 1:1 all the bitUSD they obtain they are getting two different prices to obtain bitUSD to sell. Sure participants can adjust and sell the bitUSD they buy at the market differently from the bitUSD they create, but most will just sell it 1:1 and receive the same amount of fiat dollars whether they buy or create. It's better if the pricing was the same for the collateral and trading.
Anyway you can still vote now..@clayop How about the STEALTH work proposal (1.14.18)? It seems to have already been approved.I was wondering why shareholders have to pay $300 instead of $3 when the fund comes from external source (in this case onceuponatime)
In addition of that, I'm very busy these days to visit my family, so the vote already passed.
Shareholders are not paying for anything else first. Bid up the MAKER asset and create a maker worker to see where that goes. Both can be done at the same time because they require different skills.Those who want to "secretly" support MAKER or other FBAs would disappoint since current implement of STEALTH only supports transfer but not support bid/ask or anything else.
Why don't let us vote for a worker to implement the FBA *first, and only *after that, make *real FBAs tokens for STEALTH, prediction market, bond market ect etc?Good point.
In this way we could see what is the actualy demand for stealth vs other core features...and only in this way the shareholders have real power to decide.
You know that "just take it and develop" means that for like 2 months cnx will work basically only on stealth putting in pause all the others things that shareholders would prefer to have first?Not that bad as we still have svk who is working for UI, and most of this work is in UI. The C++ developers in CNX can still do other things.
The fact is, hard code the 80%/20% split in block-chain level is efficiently discouraging other UI developers (E.G. Moonstone) to produce a better UI, thus CNX could be the only developer for the system. Is it really good for the ecosystem @Stan?At that time they will face a choice:Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?
1. Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2. Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).
Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.
Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.
That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.
This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.
Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.
But maybe it is OK and all around here are just sheep that does not deserve better than pure dictatorship...Tony, BM is as humane as just voted via the "angel" account, he is not abusing his voting power.
bitcrab is not voting on it because it is not directly related to his business interests, fav managed to came up with technical excuse why not to vote at least for the refund worker [so to effectively rise the barrier to entry above bm single vote deciding the fate of any worker proposal]
Maybe it is exactly what bts deserves, just maybe.
At that time they will face a choice:Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?
1. Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2. Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).
Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.
Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.
That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.
This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.
Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.
I'll vote for a refund worker if it's setup and handled by the committee and if there's a proposal.Good point.
I do use different passphrases for 0.9 and 2.0.The passphrase does not change. It's the same.Make a full wallet backup right away and store it somewhere safe TOGETHER with the passphrase ..
First, I had a the older wallet and got the password and passphrase down on paper. Does the passphrase change when upgraded to 2.0? Or is there another passphrase generated?
Thanks
