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 - mindphlux

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16
31
General Discussion / Re: Committee Town Halls (Poll)
« on: December 07, 2015, 08:07:17 pm »
Fuzzy, I think you're overreacting. You have to remember we're all doing this unpaid, and this has been alot of unpaid hours in the past weeks

We've used telegram since the very start and have had there VERY heated discussions regarding various proposals (esp. the last one), and it's sometimes very hard to work with certain committee members. We also have fav and jakub in the channel since they hold alot of stake and we value their opinion very much. I can invite you into that channel if you like.
Also we've (I) been working on committee guidelines to streamline how we deal with proposals and this is very hard job to do since not everyone thinks there should be rules that are supposed to be followed. I'll publish the draft when I have enough committee support.

That said, I'll gladly step down if someone else wants to take my place.

this is not overreacting i assure you.  as for doing it unpaid, trust me i can feel you on that one.  this is the reason i advocate that if we go the route of community volunteers (as opposed to leadership of consensus-honoring graphene-based chains), that you DESERVE payment for it.  Also i am not calling i to wuestion motives, but i am calling into question why it has taken this for you all to respond to my multiple attempts to show you (both in the forums and even in a pm) that the community wants more openness. 

The way outsiders look in on is will define what the world thinks a out bitshares.  this is no small thing and i honestly think it is a disservice to you as a volunteer to be expected to do it when we have other bitshares based chains that could be represented and would bring with them their own resources.

i greatly appeciate the attempts but at this juncture i am floored that we do not have a means of bringing the shareholders i  to act as a check and balance to the committee's power.

The thing is, there is no committee. They're just a loose bunch of elected people who try to do their best to serve the community. There is only a little bit of organisation and as long there is not a code of conduct (or guidelines), this "commitee" can also not act as a committee but instead they will act as individual people - I've been trying to get some binding guidelines but it has been very difficult task to get everyone to agree on a single document.. in the past, the committee has acted as a real committee in some cases in cases of emergency, but that's not happening too often.

IMHO that needs to be solved first before there can be official communication from the committee.

Feel free to help.

32
General Discussion / Re: Committee Town Halls (Poll)
« on: December 07, 2015, 07:34:46 pm »
Fuzzy, I think you're overreacting. You have to remember we're all doing this unpaid, and this has been alot of unpaid hours in the past weeks

We've used telegram since the very start and have had there VERY heated discussions regarding various proposals (esp. the last one), and it's sometimes very hard to work with certain committee members. We also have fav and jakub in the channel since they hold alot of stake and we value their opinion very much. I can invite you into that channel if you like.
Also we've (I) been working on committee guidelines to streamline how we deal with proposals and this is very hard job to do since not everyone thinks there should be rules that are supposed to be followed. I'll publish the draft when I have enough committee support.

That said, I'll gladly step down if someone else wants to take my place.




33
General Discussion / Re: Committee proposal to re-enable force settlement
« on: December 02, 2015, 09:55:09 pm »
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!

34
General Discussion / Committee proposal to re-enable force settlement
« on: December 02, 2015, 06:00:13 pm »
Dear community,

Today, we tested the new version of xeroc's price script and have fine-tuned the configuration and the reported CNY price is VERY close to the real counterpart. All other asset prices have been improved too. Thank you very much to @cube @Bhuz and @xeroc for spending so much time yesterday and today for making it possible!

All witnesses have been instructed to upgrade to the newest pricefeed version.

This means we can finally re-enable the force settlement function and have done so in http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.19

Best regards
mindphlux

PS: Committee members who support this motion, please post here as well.

35
Update: The new price feed script has been finetuned and tested, and witnesses have been instructed to do an update. I expect us to create a proposal to unlock force settlement pretty soon now.

36
General Discussion / Re: Witness Alerts and Status
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:54:55 pm »
All witnesses,

please update your witness to the latest pricefeed script from xeroc and use the recommended settings in the example config file.  The script has been updated to use more chinese exchanges for the CNY price, and as a result it is much more accurate to the real price now and all witnesses should upgrade to it.

Once the committee sees that the bitCNY price is moving in the right direction, we'll create a committee proposal to unlock force settlement. This shouldn't take long hopefully.

37
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: witness, please add 2% for settlement price
« on: December 02, 2015, 02:12:28 pm »
I'm against this, merchants and users are supposed to have a price floor at feed price.

A user can always be sure he can exit at 1 USD or 1 CNY.

38
General Discussion / Re: Smart Coins & Forced Settlement
« on: December 01, 2015, 10:28:52 am »
The way I understand it, the premium will get lower with more liquidity in the market, and could be much less than 1% eventually.

Is that assumption correct?

39
Initial test run results show a 'deviation' towards the real price of about 2% and we're quite happy about that. So no, we're not expecting the price to be meet the precision of 10^-7. A deviation is a given.

40
@tonyk I want to get it re-enabled ASAP and we have a 'meeting' scheduled tomorrow for a witness test-run, once that is through we'll get to the proposal ASAP.

41
Actually, TonyK, that is wrong. Please see:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261819.html#msg261819

However, we're considering to create the proposal as soon as the new script is tested and adopted by the majority of the witnesses. Which could be as early as tomorrow.

42
@alt, I think it is very inapproriate that you call anybody in this community 'stupid'. That is very unprofessional of you.

The problem here in this thread is that some shorters on the bitCNY market (probably chinese people!) didn't know of the force settlement feature, even though it has been on the bitshares.org technlogy page since June 8th. One can blame it on the language barrier perhaps or perhaps missing due dilligence to base a business on a market you did not fully research. That is the real issue here.

43
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Commitee guidelines for future proposals
« on: November 30, 2015, 12:31:50 pm »
I support Bhuz's suggestion list.

Distinction between emergency and normal could be:

Bug in the code that is causing a loss or malfunction that threatens the network
It includes not: a specific entity is loosing money because of a misunderstanding or not understanding a specific feature (not having read the whitepaper)

44
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Commitee guidelines for future proposals
« on: November 30, 2015, 11:18:04 am »
Apology accepted.

And I agree with your suggestion, it seems like a good idea.

45
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Commitee guidelines for future proposals
« on: November 30, 2015, 10:44:52 am »
I posted the relevant screenshot to bitcrab since he asked for it. The fact that this issue was misrepresented is an issue though - both me and Bhuz voted only positive because we thought real money was lost - hence the entire committee proposal was 'rigged', it would have not passed otherwise. I will not go public @ to the community however, since this has been an internal issue.

That is why I insist on blockchain facts so this can not happen again.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16