Quote from: abit on December 04, 2015, 09:07:47 am

@Harvey 老狼
给Witness的投票，如果只投票给一个Witness，票是作废的，建议你调整一下。
是否影响到Committee票不清楚。

commitee 投票好像在GUI里面是没有效果, 求确认

是因为投票结果一小时刷新一次（整点刷新）？

对抗强制清算的思路
1. 在内盘挂卖单，防止被清算
2. 发现有人发起清算后，在外盘拉盘/护盘（据说清算不能取消）

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on December 04, 2015, 06:47:15 am

The BTS share price moved quite a bit today +6%, maybe some whales were buying just to edge ahead in votes.

came on man. we need much better conspiracy theory than that. one that explains (or at least mentions) all facts of the day.

"After OP was exposed for just taking the BTS for writing obits and dumping the BTS on the market, they decided they need to do something one last time. They hired a hacker. The hacker hacked BM account, but to look like it is BM himself before taking off they voted for all init delegates. The money from BM's account were moved using a stealth transfer... At the same time the OL guys were driving the price up so both the money from BM's account and the legally obtained one can be dumped at a better rate. After finishing the pump and dump all bad actors just diapered into the night...."

lol

@Harvey 老狼
给Witness的投票，如果只投票给一个Witness，票是作废的，建议你调整一下。
是否影响到Committee票不清楚。

Quote from: abit on December 02, 2015, 09:00:33 pm

Quote from: alt on December 02, 2015, 12:23:19 am

最开始偏离大概3%吧，比现在随随便便就偏离10%好多了
而且那是在大牛市，每个人都觉得自己发了，stan 的 big thing 即将到来时的情况

可能和牛市有关系。
真的只有3%吗，BM又不傻，怎么会从偏3%改成偏10%。

谁都可能脑袋短路的，你看他bta的设计，准备把bta 锚定的地板价锚在必须高于1.0，
这么愚蠢的问题不是一样没人发现，还是有这么多人在为这个常识性的错误辩护，操

系统有个参数可以调force settlement的执行价格，force_settlement_offset_percent ，可以设置成按喂价的98%或者102%执行，预设值是100%。

另外，个人感觉，系统对short保护越多，越容易出现黑天鹅。

Update: after theoretical has confirmed that GRAPHENE_DEFAULT_FORCE_SETTLEMENT_MAX_VOLUME is indeed set to 20%, the committee has worked with the devs to create another update asset proposal to change the value to 2%.

We set the expiredate to the same as the other proposal, so both parameter changes will go live in roughly 14 hours from now.

You can review the proposal here: http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.21
Thx to @roadscape for quickly adding this new view!
Thx to @theoretical for reacting so quickly and creating the asset proposal!

Looks like the committee rushed changing the daily settlement limit for CNY from 20% to 2% just because "devs intended to set it to 2%, but made a mistake so it was set to 20%"? How do you know that 2% is not another mistake? BM has ever said that he doesn't know the best parameters.
Obviously high limit profits some people but hurt some other people, and vise versa.
We need more discussion before make decisions.

- you promise to vote for reversal, and  yet instead for doing just that and voting for the (20% to 2% change) at the same time, both taking place in the same time you chose to say this "What will you do if I do not vote for reversal? Cry like a baby?"

I think alt meant "What will you do if I do not vote for reversal? Cry like a baby?"

This sounds to me like yet another overly complicated solution which will end up having a flaw and get exploited by someone, causing others to lose money.

If only we had a bunch of funds and could have a community fund that kickstarted the liquidity on major bitassets by providing buy and sell walls, like Nubits (which actually works!)  This wouldnt need to be the final solution, but it qould kickstart liquidity enough for traders to get established in the markets, and then once enough traders were providing liquidity, it wouldnt be needed anymore.

Agree