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 - BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 168
Better idea: you send me 1m bts, so you'll never have to sell it

jokes aside, a lock feature (see savings account in steem) would be convenient.

This is something that can be done now without any modifications. Besides if someone moves their stake after making the promise then they have just declared themselves an untrustworthy witness fit for not being voted for.

Aside from that, my idea on having shareholder balances would certainly benefit from this. Could be something similar where you need to have 1m BTS deposited in order to register to be a witness.

Good Day,

Several hours ago @alt talked about how witnesses in Bitshares have nothing to lose if something goes wrong with the network.

I proposed that witnesses should then have at least 1 million BTS in order to be a witness.

For the duration of the time you are a witness you to never sell this 1 million BTS.

As of today witness DataSecurityNode will not sell it's over 1 million in BTS in it's wallet unless and until it is voted out as a witness.

Aside from this, DataSecurityNode witness has been a long standing witness who has always performed and provides a nuclear bunker data center level protection to the network. This lead to free press for Bitshares last year in interviews with the Daily Decrypt that brought more press and exposure to DPOS and Bitshares.

@alt @bitcrab @JonnyBitcoin @cass @Chris4210 @xeroc @fav

I call on all other witnesses to make the same promise if you wish to secure the support of variour proxies and voters to show your dedication to the network.

Once you have done this post in this thread your witness account and make your promise declared public.

General Discussion / Re: plan for sidechain?
« on: January 20, 2017, 11:09:07 am »

If it is 'with risk' then it is not a sidechain. It s a multi-sig gateway. It should be called a multi-sig gateway. Calling it anything else is false advertising in my estimation.

As bitcrab noted.. some projects have claimed they are going to deliver blockchain interoperability in some way. There has been literally tens of millions of dollars of funding going into the research and development of this concept/idea. Still, nobody has done it.

Lets have a degree of realism about the technical possibilities with what is in reach with a virtual zero budget available to Bitshares dev.

Multi-sig gateways, sure, that can all be done right now. Just takes some individuals willing to take the risk and technical difficulties of running one. I for one won't participate in something like this till I have seen it working with considerable transactions. I don't want to be liable for the lose of peoples bitcoins for whatever reason.

So to recap. We are talking about multi-sig gateways here, not sidechains.

if I can, I'll remove the referral program from the platform.

I am not only to push senseful change, but also to reject unnecessary/senseless/reluctant proposals.

in my view, the core point to run Bitshares platform is to attract more people to use the service, attract them to trade in DEX, to pay  with smartcoins or to issue UIAs.

I don't think to attract them by interest or dividends is the right way. however, maybe we can build some kind of service, with which A can borrow assets from B with paying interest(the planned bond market?).

I have some idea to let the non-LTM users enjoy the same transfer/trade fee schedule with LTM, but only LTM are authorized for issuing assets, shorting...etc...but seems referrers do not like this?

up to now this is what I think about this, surely you can continue to explain/persuade, maybe sometime I can change my idea.

I believe this is part of the cultural difference once again. China and India are similar where it only takes some to move in one direction to have others follow and create a network effect... not so in western markets which is where everyone who has been cheering for the refer program are located. From where @bitcrab is sitting, he really doesn't see any usefulness for it at all because in his market it isn't necessary. Everything he said is right in regards to business as far as China is concerned.

He also made the point about LTM being the only ones being able to create assets etc.. and wonders why this isn't enough to promote LTMs. Offhand I would say because the market of users who are going to do that are very small to something like trading. Being a DEX that is the most obvious value.. being able to create a UIA is only for particular use case I think.

I have already given my thoughts in telegram regarding the LTM. I think by implementing a shareholder balance that is only accessible to LTM which enables balances to partially back bitassets in the system while paying back a dividend/interest would be a much clearer value proposition for the LTM to sell it to a wide audience in crypto/trading. This would be a major fork.. but it would solve the bitassets liquidity issue and give people a new reason to want to buy bitshares... not to mention the refer program having a second life without increasing fees etc to give it value. Oh... not to mention I suggested the shareholder balance be the voting balance... eliminating the exchanges security issue.. and making dedicated holders the voters... but that has nothing to do with the OP topic.

General Discussion / Re: how about to raise block reward?
« on: January 15, 2017, 09:29:04 pm »
I agree that the wage of witness now is too low, but I suggest that the income should be adjusted automatically according to the current network load, say"work more, get more".

This would be very bad. Very easy to setup bots that would artificially flood the network to increase rewards. The incentive to do so is aligned and it could be completely anonymous.

We already have the committee capable of making adjustments as needed. At present that is our most efficient means to adjust reward rates.





Please stay tuned to Beyond Bitcoin every Friday morning at 15:00 UTC for the latest Peerplays updates, including live Q&A with Peerplays founders Jonathan Baha’i and Michael Maloney.

General Discussion / Re: how about to raise block reward?
« on: January 12, 2017, 02:29:46 pm »
I tend to disagree to increase witness pay, on the opposite, perhaps it's better to decrease it. Witnesses are investing into the system, they're not pure employees.

In many cases higher wage doesn't bring higher performance.

We need a HR department to review every employee's performance, including witnesses' and workers' and perhaps committee members', say, give them a basic wage, then a bonus depending on their performance.

An HR department type setup is something I have been encouraging for a while. Put the hiring, firing, management of the workers in their hands so that real measures can be done, and greater accountability.

I think the pay pressure is going to increase the need for accountability.. I think there will be less tolerance for 'lazy witnesses' after this while at the same time heating up the competition. If the objective is to get new blood, better feed data, and make being a witness something that people are striving to be best at because there is a clear reward for it, then this will help accomplish that. I think the change in the rate is going to change the culture significantly.

General Discussion / Re: how about to raise block reward?
« on: January 12, 2017, 01:38:06 pm »
I vote for steem like witness payouts to attract steem witnesses.

For several months they have developed a very strong witness following. Very few have ventured into bitshares in some part due to the lack of incentives to do so. Many witneses there are skilled developers and have contributed significant apps to the steem in order to win their approval.

I believe if rewards were high we would see the likes of @arhag come back.. and other new witnesses in steem who could take some of what they have done with steem and reapply it to bitshares.

I am quite confident this could be a significant turnaround.. it does however require more communication from the Chinese. If it is an uphill battle to gain votes from the chinese proxies who control the majority of voting power then they could be turned off.

Aside from attracting new blood, this provides considerable funds to consider incorporating paid price feed data from various sources. So with this I also think it raises the bar for witnesses in bitshares to improve on what they provide. This was what I talked about recently when there was discussion surrounding the feed data.

Raise the standards for bitshares, we raise the quality and increase our value prop.

So with that, as a Committee member, at present I am supporting a raise of 8BTS per /block payout for these reasons given primarily. If you wish to also support these types of reasons, then set your vote for Committee member to Bunkerchainlabs-com.

If the increase is only a doubling or a half measure, I don't believe we will see any significant changes at all. You can't catch your breath only making half effort from being underwater. We either go all the way to effect results or not get above the water at all.

This is my current thinking on the matter. I am open to listening to others take on this and to be swayed otherwise to be shown some other amount being able to breath air into bitshares.

Technical Support / Re: Peerplays - Purchasing Error
« on: January 12, 2017, 01:17:54 am »
When I try to Buy Peerplays I get the following error " Failed to Broadcast the transaction: is_authorized_asset( d.*seller,*_receive_asset):". Not sure what I'm doing wrong?

Market is shutdown for the snapshot.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] New BitShares Core Dev
« on: January 12, 2017, 01:12:40 am »

This Worker Proposal is for 6 months, and will include fixing Graphene Issues via github, and building the new features for the Bitshares platform and DEx that the community has been asking for.

What exactly does this mean? There is room for a lot of clarifiaction:

Issues in github? There are plenty to go for a while, which ones are planned for with what milestones?
What new features specifically has the community been asking for?

Without a clear plan for work inefficiency creeps.

Looking forward to the reply.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] jerryliu
« on: January 10, 2017, 02:43:00 pm »
kindly vote witness node "jerryliu".

I am not senior in programming or administration, so I get help from @alt and @boombastic and some other developers. and as an active trader/market maket I will keep on caring the market and also the witness status everyday.

at beginning I'll run alt's btsprice script to feed price for bitCNY and bitUSD, later will feed price for other key smartcoins.

Server Specs: Linode VPS, 6 Cores, 12G, Tokyo.

Appreciate your vote!
见证人 id:1.6.72
见证人服务器配置:Linode 6核,12G 内存,东京

bunkerchainlabs-com proxy supports this witness.

General Discussion / Re: AGS investor out of the loop
« on: January 09, 2017, 12:06:16 am »
PEERPLAYS (to be released)

Egad, Brain, do you know something I don't know?  (Other than what I know you know that I don't know?)

AGS would apply to Peerplays only if you have already claimed BTS with them in BitShares 0.9.3c and then imported those into BitShares 2.0 prior to the Peerplays snapshot, no?
Thats true .. you need to have them claimed in an account
until when do I have to claim all my BTS so get the maximum amount of peerplays from my up to now partially unclaimed BTS (haven't yet claimed all from the merger...)?

The snapshot date took place September 2nd last year. Whatever BTS you had claimed at that time will be sharedropped on.

General Discussion / Re: more professional price feed?
« on: January 08, 2017, 08:51:16 pm »
whether we can call it competition is not so important, a similar thing is US President election, are there clearly defined what kind of people should be elected president? no, but is this a competition? I think so. the final result comes from competition.
to qualify witness, take the "feed price every 5 min" as an example, at the time that the market price does not change in 30 mins, why should the witness publish price every 5 min?

another example is, several witnesses removed yunbi price when they are told that yunbi price is easy to manipulate, however alt's script uses a different alogrithm: it collect orders from different exchanges, including yunbi, and simulate to put these orders together to generate a result price, so this gives each exchange the weight it should have, right? but before this script comes out, I don't know the price script can be coded like this.

in my view price feed is such an area that it is easy to judge which witness doing well but it's not easy to hard code some rules to determine which nodes is qualified.

as a proxy, in long run I think I will vote witness that
1. generate block with low block missing rate.
2. publish price that reflect market price exactly and globally enough, maybe no need to be very frequent, but when market price changes obviously, need to publish price in time.

maybe I will unvote all the witnesses that does not publish price. however I think we need first reach some conclusion on the reward issue.

I do not like the worker proposal advice, as it depends on trustee, not decentralized enough.

the voting machanisim can work without clearly defined game rule, just as a satisfactory president can comes out from the general election. of course, a lot of communication are needed here between the proxy/stakeholders and the candidates.

There are rules to being able to qualify for election for president. It is not ruleless. In the above however this is being conflated with electioneering. Before they even get into the game, they have rules to follow and know what can and cannot be done. There are laws. Witnesses have nothing but the whim of some people who have no clear guidelines, rules, or to compare to running for President of the USA, laws, that they can then follow to become a candidate.

You want competition to be a factor, then there has to be a playing field that has rules and/or guidelines that can be followed and considered.

General Discussion / Re: who can tell me what's the GOLD price?
« on: January 08, 2017, 06:09:58 am »
Updated GOLD SILVER and CNY for witness DataSecurityNode

@alt please check.


General Discussion / Re: more professional price feed?
« on: January 08, 2017, 05:53:36 am »
I agree to let the competition machanisim solve the problem: obviously shareholders appreciate and would like to vote the witnesses that provide more and better service.

and AFAIK, to provide good price feed is also possible via free/open source script, for example, alt has published his script at, it's a good reference.

on the other side, I wonder whether  we need to consider one question: suppose publishing price feed become what witness must do,  shall we increase the block reward? and to how much?

now being a witness can get some reward, but the reward is not very attractive, we need to balance the responsibility and the reward, maybe we need to reestimate what a reward is more reasonable? maybe a more reasonable reward can lead to more active ecosystem?

kindly give your input on this topic.

@Bhuz sorry if I did things carelessly, I' recheck and take actions accordingly.

Competition COULD be part of the mechanism. Proxies are making choices about who to vote for for other reasons however. The way the system is now that is their right. However, we cannot claim this to be a competitive field so long as the voting is done by different rules for each proxy voter and stakeholders.

In other words, you cannot expect people to compete in a competition where the rules are not clear for being a witness. I can point to myself for example. Regardless of fulfilling what I and many consider the parameters of what is needed for a witness, I still do not get your vote. So if you want competition, you have to offer a fair playing field. It doesn't exist now. In Bitcoin mining as @btswildpig likes to keep referring to, such competition is all just mathematics. Those that enter into that play field can simply do the math and calculate the reward/risk and invest accordingly. Comparing that to what happens is DPOS is utterly futile.

Sure there are plenty of free feed scripts, however the primary issue which this thread claims is the sources being the problem. Specifically Yunbi and its thin and easily manipulated market. I have chosen to remove Yunbi entirely as a feed source thus, and have enabled some other sources for publishing CNY. My price appears to be similar to abits now in its median.

If publishing feeds are to become 'officially' part of being a witness, then the process the way it works now would be reversed. Each witness would generate blocks at random intervals as they do now, and at random intervals the blockchain would query the witness for feed data. If it is not available, then there is no 'reward' for the generated data. This would help a number of factors over the way the current way works. Right now being completely voluntary you have some witnesses publishing at different intervals than others.. some every hour or every several hours, while others more frequent like every several minutes (as I do).

Now with feeds being 'unofficially' part of what witnesses do, witnesses are disincentivized to publish data feeds because they are an expense. Some of the TOP voted for witnesses (including ones you vote for) do not publish very often only for the sake of not having to pay as much BTS fees. This is doing nothing good for the median price in my estimation. I maybe wrong, but I think having as close to real time data as possible certainly makes the DEX look more attractive and impressive than a floating median that bears no resemblance to any current pricing due to a motley crew of variable price times.

To have it something they must do as part of the job description, but increase the price, might be helpful, but only if the 'rules of the game' are clearly defined. eg. a witness MUST publish feeds at a minimum of every 5 minutes. If a witness settings are shown not to follow the rules, then votes should be removed regardless of the political implications or nepotism. That's the only way to have competition.

Increasing the block reward would certainly make for raising the bar more attractive and bring in new blood. Again though I come back to the rules of the playing field, without that, we can never attract anyone to want to play. The current compensation makes being a witness a hobby at best. It is not monetarily attractive as current compensation for running optimal nodes instead of minimal ones is break even at best. The only saving grace now is that because there is zero development happening on the blockchain and thus no new version updates due to no worker proposals, it doesn't require a lot of time.

I already know the arguments against increasing the reward are going to be that we should be willing to settle for less and work harder to increase the value of BTS so that what we get becomes more valuable. Nobody in the crypto space is going to tolerate this line of thinking for long when they can go to other projects and get paid reasonably well for even less effort than what goes into being a witness (eg. dash master nodes). So this volunteerism fantasy really needs to be considered just that, a fantasy, and we need to start presenting BTS in a unified community manner that is no nonsense, rational, exciting, and profitable.


Worker proposal is made to pay out to witnesses for professional feed data. The worker proposal will be administered by a trustee who operates a script. The script will take all BTS and borrow bitUSD collateralized at 300%. It will then daily distribute the bitUSD to all the witnesses based on the number of publishings done daily to a certain maximum, and the number of markets that were published too. Ideally if all witnesses are participating they should all receive the same reward. However, if some are doing better than others, they will get more. Competition keeps everyone going for the greater reward, or at least keeps everyone putting MAXIMUM effort into getting the rewards that are available for publishing feeds.

It would be more ideal if we could know just how many data feed sources are being used, but the current system doesn't support that in any transparent way. If it didn't then I would suggest rewards be distributed based on number of sources.

That is my input on this topic.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 168