Quote from: abit on April 04, 2016, 12:37:00 pm

Some updates here:

After CNX reviewed the first version of my code, we decided to postpone the development, the most important reason is this feature need to  extend the global fee schedule which I've done in my way, but we think it's best to improve the implementation of fee schedule structure first so it will be easier to be extended both this time and in the future. CNX did make some efforts on the development on fee schedule improvement, but apparently it need more efforts to have the work done. Since now the maintenance worker has been voted out (maybe temporarily), I don't know whether it will affect the development work on CNX side.

Related discussions in github:
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/583
* https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/554

Another thing is about @jakub, OP of this thread. Due to some reasons (See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19247.msg278204.html#msg278204), he is no longer active here (maybe temporarily, as well). IMO it's a pity. A part of work of this worker was supposed to be done by him, and he did ask for paid. I don't know if it's still possible to ask him to finish the work. Anyway, most of his work need to done after the code is stable, but now the development itself is paused, so even if he come back right now, he can only finish the work later. But if need to wait too much time, perhaps value of his work will be less than supposed (he supposed to write the first document/tutorial for coding inside Graphene).

Jakub is one of the owner authorities of creator of this worker (see https://cryptofresh.com/u/bsip10-worker), which means nobody can get payment from this worker without his approval (unless hardfork). From this POV, his inactivity is a bit annoying to other developers (mostly to me).

Yet another thing is about voting. Recently this worker became not fully funded, and probably be voted out very soon. Yes, this is the game, worker proposal is not contract, even if some parties agreed the proposal at start, nobody will guarantee the agreement will be kept to the end. Asking the committee as escrow is also a joke, since the members of committee can change every hour, so the committee can't guarantee anything. An "approved" BSIP means nothing as well. If we see BitShares as a company, it's really bad reputation.

OK, some personal words (or complaints) at the end. Perhaps I am the only loser because I've put much efforts into the work already but will get no return in the end (except so-called knowledge, skills, experience etc). For me, right now, if I found it's impossible to get what I asked 3M BTS which was accepted by whoever in this system, I won't work on this feature anymore. In addition, I tend to start working after I got 1.5M BTS (half paid) to my account (not the multi-authority account). Whatever, who cares. Will I work on other items in the system? We will see.

So you are gong to discontinue working on this, while still getting paid at the 57% funding rate??

Perhaps you missed this part in a rather large report with numerous things to address.. he didn't get paid.. he can't get paid because the other guy involved who created this worker has abandoned it. So at this point he doesn't see how everything he has done is even going to result in him getting paid anything at all unless the maker of the worker decides to show up and do something.

It would be a lot easier to handle situations like this if there was even a degree of accountability that had some semblance to the real world. ie. we have the full name, address, and contact info of the Worker prior to approving them. By maintaining an anonymous profile, it makes it that much easier to just up and leave with zero consequence.

Funny? It makes you look very bad and will leave a stain on this coin that you're gonna have to work very hard to overcome, if it's even possible..

Said about every altcoin ever started.. since the beginning of time... after some random guy goes on about it being a scam.

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on April 02, 2016, 09:51:45 pm

Quote from: liondani on April 02, 2016, 06:28:30 pm

The good news....

Loan Offers
Total:
22868465.73288286
BTS
Rate   Amount (BTS)   Duration
Rate
   
Amount (BTS)
   
Duration
0.0061%   931.32308276   2 Days
0.0062%   64130.04554962   2-7 Days
0.0063%   50000.00000000   2 Days
0.0064%   3184.45808188   2 Days
0.0065%   440175.83967349   2 Days
0.0067%   34267.71326509   2 Days
0.0068%   50000.00000000   2 Days
0.0068%   15232.29107020   2 Days
0.0069%   49999.35297136   2 D

This is very telling.. we could have this 22m+ being offered for lending on the DEX.

1) How does one offer it for lending on the Dex?

2) What are the current rates being paid for the BTS on the Dex?

3) Is there any risk of loaning out on the Dex, of having your BTS borrowed and not returned in any way?


If loaning on the Dex is at least as good as Polo, I'll put up a couple million.

I said we could.. didn't say we have.. we been talking about this for a long time, just never got implemented.

The good news....

Loan Offers
Total:
22868465.73288286
BTS
Rate   Amount (BTS)   Duration
Rate
   
Amount (BTS)
   
Duration
0.0061%   931.32308276   2 Days
0.0062%   64130.04554962   2-7 Days
0.0063%   50000.00000000   2 Days
0.0064%   3184.45808188   2 Days
0.0065%   440175.83967349   2 Days
0.0067%   34267.71326509   2 Days
0.0068%   50000.00000000   2 Days
0.0068%   15232.29107020   2 Days
0.0069%   49999.35297136   2 D

This is very telling.. we could have this 22m+ being offered for lending on the DEX.

All I'm hearing is the same people reinforcing their opinion. While it's certainly popcorn worthy reading watch each side holding strong on their position, is there a compromise? I liked what BM talked about in the mumble, moving toward cleaning up core features and challenging individuals to come up with funding models on the side chains. At the same time, doesn't it make sense to keep our maintenance workers healthy?

Before this turns into 50 pages of more chest thumping, what's the compromise look like?

If you scroll back a few pages I attempted to formulate a compromise based on the suggests provided from the anti-dilutioners

I got no response in return.

The message seems to be no compromise.

At this point it's only about saving face for those cultures that value such.

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on April 02, 2016, 12:46:31 pm

Quote from: gamey on April 02, 2016, 11:32:54 am

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

Spot on... 

Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.

From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.

Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.

DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a  sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms,  20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.

From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent  developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.

When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.

Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.

Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .

Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . 

Of course , you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump , marketcap doesn't count " . But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?

There was a time when we were beating it.... so your arguement is moot.

Why you insist on making comparisons to snapshot moments as the reasoning behind and overall future strategy to running a company is beyond me.

This thought occurred to me while making my last post but it didn't match the rest of my reasoning.

Another reasonable explanation for the situation we are facing is that this is what you get when you lets traders pretend to be visionaries/CEOs/entrepreneurs. You get silly notions like the above as though it is a reasonable explanation for their position, when in fact they can't think beyond the speculative trader headset.

This is what you get when the control of how funds are spent are given to the majority of speculators. There is no other crypto-project that has this type of control given to its stake holders.

Ultimately you need leadership, you need people who know what they are doing. Instead you have traders and speculators that have taken hold of the enterprise and are making decisions that are driving it into the ground.

BUUUUUUUUT... since you brought up dogecoin... lets take a look at what was posted just 3 months ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/3x9ei0/brain_dump_dogecoin_on_ethereum/

What was the first comment?



Wow.. that sounds exciting.. what else?



Wait what? Doge innovating... perhaps why they got such a market cap... noooo it couldn't be?

What kind of commentary does Bitshares innovation and dedicated development team look like?

"Oh yeah.. Bitshares looks like it has potential, but the China regime has stopped all development and they have lost all developers and development because of it. They wanted everyone to work as slave laborers and contributed nothing themselves. Shame really, it had some really cool stuff."

So now @btswildpig now that we have established that Dogecoin is all about innovation.. lets turn on those spigots and start supporting MORE innovation! How about it?

Please refer to my original Innovate or Die image above.

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

Spot on... 

Keep in mind from where you sit your arguements make perfect sense.

From China.. when they see the tons of money that Westerners make.. they think we are all rich and should be able to buy shares in the ridiculous way that has been suggested.

Also from where they sit, developers are being paid far too much.

DACPlay received over $1m in donations about 14 months ago. By western standards this can fuel a  sizable dev team for a good 2 years. In China terms,  20 years. Yet we haven't seen one single free improvement delivered from them since 2.0.

From all I have seen.. the Worker proposal is not well suited for independent  developers in its current iteration, but better suited to well funded companies that can do all the extras about detailed reports, marketing themselves, and even potentially taking payment in some vested balance.

When you see other graphene chains come up where work they do can, if not paid, simply be taken to the next chain that is willing to pay for it, then you will might see this happen.

Right now though as many can see, we have a regime that is attempting to put a strangle hold to it all... possibly because of some of the things I mentioned, making the time ripe for a company with the available funds to just launch a competitor to Bitshares... a competitor that understands innovate or die. How's our 1.5% current dilution going to look then? Kinda like too little too late.

Quote from: btswildpig on April 01, 2016, 12:33:09 pm

Quote from: gamey on April 01, 2016, 09:15:49 am

Quote from: laow on March 30, 2016, 12:36:26 am

3. remove any worker
free developer maybe come. because if they don't contribute for Bitshares, they holded bts will become nothing.
If they work for it for Free. Maybe one day, they will get paid more than they ever paid Worker salary.
that is the motive.

Wow this is stupid. The obvious play is just to sell your Bitshares.

Maybe irrational Chinese gambling fever will take hold though once dilution goes to 0 and BTS will land on the moon.   Maybe.

i agree he is stupid . One should not work to raise the value of other people's stake .

The correct motive for working for free should be : 
If you believe there is a future with this technology , by contributing in this technology and learning all its components and helping it build a solid base , you're essentially making your own money cow/business model in the future.

That's why with no development budget , companies still build business model around Bitcoin , donate funding to Bitcoin developers .

Of course , some still want to paid by the hour . It's ok . It's one's right to earn hourly pay . However it's not feasible that even the founder of this project rely on a unstainable way of funding instead of building a open community which brings more capital in and then achieves more development by actual incoming capital .

What you can dilute on the blockchain is petty cash . It will fail eventually because it was constructed to support a small team (namely the I3)  working full time without a business model nor future growth plan .

Bitcoin was started on a more crappy base than what BTS is now . What you need is not development , but a eco-system and a culture that will support development naturally in a sustainable way  . If you can not find those support outside with supposely by far the most advanced technology , then I'm afraid you can not grow even with more coding , function and documentation , and its work product will just be taken by those who could do it and all the dilution would be spent for nothing . Lisk is already starting the trend if you've been watch their forum .

By the way , I3 threaten to leave BTS for dead even when AGS fund was left with 1 million USD worth of BTS , and that was more value than they've diluted since the merger , and yet they still claimed that they don't have incentive . The issue with BTS is not really with funding . It hasn't been from the start . No amount of dilution budget could fix that issue .

Any way . Whatever .....  maybe I should spend more time on the things that actually pays me either instead .

One thing I have learned is to not pay attention to those who reference 1 time phenomena whose biggest advantage was being in the right place at the right time in history.

Linux.
Apple.
Bitcoin.

You know what these have in common?  There is only one of each.  Yet you'll hear people making analogies over and over. Bitcoin has barely changed from the beginning.  If you think thats what BTS needs, then you are entitled to that opinion, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Companies and products in heavily competitive areas do not get ahead by stopping all innovation and waiting for people to do work for free.

 I see the rest of the blockchain world moving forward at a fast rate.

I could go on and on, but this is all so much insanity.  BM screwed up in a lot of ways (did some things well). So now a certain group of people want to make more mistakes because of it!  Insanity !

BTW, what is the ratio of Chinese dilution complainers to Chinese free development providers?  Anyone know? 

BTW - I agree that we should not blindly trust I3.  I don't keep up with it but my understanding that "transparency" was abandoned.  However, the dilution issue goes far beyond I3 and you can't hold them up as a reason to cut out *ALL* payment.

BTW2 - WIldpig, you didn't seem to get my original point.  It doesn't really make economic sense for a person to put all their future payment into BTS,then go develop on it for free in hopes that they'll be paid out.  I could write up a page why this is a *stupid* belief, but I'll spare everyone.  Needless to say, you'd be better off just writing your own fork and giving yourself equity instead of paying for equity, then developing, then hoping things work out with all the various actors that are outside your power.  A lot of these actors acting in a seemingly irrational manner at that.