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.
@bitsapphire et al - Any update from Moonstone?.. I've been out the loop but happy to now have BitShares2.0 working and then hoping other areas still progressing well.
there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community
It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.
If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.
Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network? If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.
Some actions may be "legal" and yet still be "unethical". It is unethical for the same reason that fractional reserve banking and naked shorting are unethical.
The "ethical plank" does not need to be adjusted; it is the rules that need to be adjusted to conform with honesty and fairness.
Do your realize that your understanding of honesty and fairness is very different from what several billion of people on this Earth think?
You have to determine what you think is honest and fair when you do busyness with me, otherwise I will use my definitions.
I fully realize that my understanding of honesty and fairness does not match that of billions of people in this world. That is why I went "all in" first in Bitcoin and now in BitShares. I assumed that Satoshi and Bytemaster were building ethical platforms. But there is no getting around the machinations of inferior humans. Superior humans will hopefully continue to build the platforms in ways that they become as trustless as possible - because you just can't trust most people to do what is ethical (ie. not to use deceptive practices and to follow the non-aggression principle). And to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or, perhaps better, do not do unto others what you do not want done onto you.
At a minimum, Yunbi should state very clearly on their deposit page, before taking a deposit, that they intend to vote the stake of the depositor as they see fit which may or may not conform with the depositor's wishes.
Has a sharedrop (on bts) been discussed before?
Not yet to my knowledge.
I think it may be advisable to share-drop on BTS though because it seems to be a method for bootstrapping a competiting BitUSD which is what shareholders feared about VOTE DAC and why many agreed to the BTS merger.QuoteThere are many problems we need to resolve as a community:
1) We don't want to compete with ourselves and divide our network effect.
2) We don't want to confuse users with a million brands.
3) We want to have 1 BitUSD for everything rather than many different BitUSDs
5) I don't want to have divided loyalties... I cannot serve two masters.
My Proposal:
1) Drop all other BitShares brands.... rename BitShares X to just BitShares
There will still be other DACs based upon our toolkit (Music, Gaming, DNS, etc) but those clones will not be dividing my loyalty because they have their own teams and are already known and operating independently of us. Those who have joined those DACs can attempt to grow them how they see fit and BitShares will be competing with them where we can.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,10148.0.html
I'm not sure yet, but it also seems like STEEM may be using dilution to fund an interest rate bonus...The SBD (which seems to be a USD pegged asset with a possible interest rate bonus on top) is interesting.
Though unlikely, it's possibly similar to a concept I've been pushing to benefit BitUSD, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.0.html which BM hasn't ackowledged in the forum and only a few months ago believed wouldn't work.That's $365 000 a year of dilution. That could beProviding yield on USD doesn't work because of yield harvesting, people would create USD and sit on it until the rate of return approached 0.on $7 500 000 worth of BitUSD.
Even with a lot of yield harvesting that would rapidly make BTS the undisputed Crypto USD market leader.
I don't know what the SBD liquidity subsidies are but they could also be the best combo from ideas formulated from the BitUSD liquidity thread, https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.195.html
So SBD is potentially a competing BitUSD using concepts that could have helped bootstrap BitUSD or a USD on BTS.
So I don't think STEEM will necessarily be popular with BTS shareholders & given that they've intentionally violated a lot of the crypto communities cultural expectations they're unlikely to be popular with them either.
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/QuotePerhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value while still legally mining a token for minimal cost.We have secured ~80% of the initial STEEM via mining. Our plan is to keep 20%, sell 20% to raise money, and give away 40% to attract users / referrers.
We''ll have to wait to learn more but I think STEEM/SBD could be a BitUSD competitor and we should potentially be looking at options, forking/other to compete with it.
Let's kick stealth into overdrive now, we will do whatever we can to pitch in here!
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.
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.
Any chance of a better name for these? IMHO chance of success is limited when someone names the product after himself. Decent guy though he may be.
That's interesting... I've had this conversation beforeIf you are directing that at the Sollars and Sense/Sollywood TV brand fair enough. If you have an argument that could have convinced Walt Disney, Sam Walton, John Deere, Harvey Weinstein, Amber Crombie and Fitch, Air Jordan, Calvin Klein, Henry Ford, Jacuzzi, Ferruccio Lamborghini, and a million other successful brands derived from their real life owners to change then I actually want to hear it.
And that is not even close to 1/5th of the list. We will be fine
The consensus among most business experts is that if you name it after yourself and you're not a celebrity, you're going to have to spend more on marketing. If it's a product that needs explaining already, then it creates more work and expense for you. If I were seeing something new and unusual on Kickstarter, on the fence trying to decide if it's legit enough to jump in, and then I notice the guy used his own name for the product, that would be it. It would turn me off; I'd run for the hills. If you're an industrial magnate, railroad baron, swanky designer, or NBA superstar, then I see the value, but very few businesses in the latter 20th or early 21st century have gotten away with this. This is new money and I think you're going to have to work harder on it than you would if you just picked a humble, descriptive product name with less hubris.
