46
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [POLL]BAIP9 : Set Force Settlement Fee Percent
« on: August 16, 2020, 09:34:33 am »
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.
47
Stakeholder Proposals / Re:[Poll] Plan C: release new version with the unplanned features processed
« on: August 16, 2020, 08:33:05 am »In fact in most condition whether rule A or rule B is not a big deal to me.
What I really concern is the business based on core which make BTS more valuable like gdex\rudex\CNC\magicwallet...
I expected a stable core since years ago, but seems it's still not coming today.
What abit had done is totally not acceptable in my opinion.
But it's already happen. I can accept the changes even some details is not reasonable to me.
The important thing is how to ensure our developer don't do it again.
I don't support fork, it's a disaster to all business based on BTS, what will happen to bitCNY/GDEX.BTC/CNC.. ?
Anybody will have faith to build business on BTS in the future?
I wish you can resolve disputes, somebody can give a concession, price will rise, BTS can have a good future.
what abit had done is not acceptable to me either, however I understand why he do this.
but, it seems in high possibility the fork will happen, not like you, many people in the community think fork is good to BTS, it will lead to free token and price rising.
I'd like to see the fork can be avoided, but if it really happen, we need to face it.
in my view, either the fork happen or not, we need a new version with removing/keeping/updating what abit added, that's why I suggest this Plan C.
I think this can help BTS to get the faith and reputation back, and also get the senseful voting system evaluation.
48
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] Plan C: release new version with the unplanned features processed
« on: August 16, 2020, 08:10:13 am »vote decay YES
collateral Not really
DPOS1 YES
Stacking Never in this form
Way of implementation Never
possible to vote to tell the community your opinion?
49
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [POLL]BAIP9 : Set Force Settlement Fee Percent
« on: August 16, 2020, 06:25:23 am »QuotePoll-BAIP9-Set bitCNY FSFP to 1% and FSO to 1%
Not better FSO 0% and FSFP 2% ?
the higher the fee, the more pain to the users, let's begin with a lower one.
50
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] Do you support what abit changed to voting system?
« on: August 15, 2020, 08:40:09 am »
You talk about CN-Vote controll committee.The funny thing is what i saw is that Abit controlled committee and everyone else complaining including cn-vote that he executes only his own and your personal views and doesn't consider the opinions of any other committee member.He only stopps when being forced when not getting enough votes to pass transfers for exmample.
what binggo said is right, you do not understand the things among cn-vote, abit and committee.
and clearly, if you dislike one, he will be the worst people in the world in your words.
enjoy.
51
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] Do you support what abit changed to voting system?
« on: August 15, 2020, 02:25:09 am »he has put trojan in the code, he was paid to audit this code, and he abandoned his duties, easy as that
now you're asking is it ok that abit raped the community trust? it is not ok
why he is not kicked out, and we're discussing this fraud at all
things are not so simple as you think.
before BTS4.0, actually cn-vote was able to control the committee if they like.
so is it possible to implement a DPOS1 to eliminate this kind of risk through the BSIP draft -> voting ->core development process? I don't think so, one reference is BSIP22, although now almost everyone says he agree vote decay, BSIP22 has not yet been approved after about 2 years.
I don't think what abit did is acceptable, but he was definitely not doing evil.
and I don't think to just remove the unplanned features is a good enough solution to this problem.
maybe a better solution is to plan another protocol improvement with a new version.
1.include the vote decay and DPOS1 features(maybe DPOS1 can also be applied to witness voting)
2.remove, disable or update the Staking Voting Power and the Additional Voting Rules, dependent on some more deep discussion.
things will be done following the BSIP draft->voting and approvment->development and release->code audit and test->protocol improvement process.
52
Stakeholder Proposals / [Poll] Plan C: release new version with the unplanned features processed
« on: August 14, 2020, 11:01:49 am »
I believe fork is not the best solution for the current opinion conflict, although the expectation to fork lead BTS price to go up in short period, in long term view the fork will make the community break up and hurt the BTS brand. so I created below poll worker proposals to collect opinions from the community. I hope it can be the new start point for the community to look for consensus. please vote for each of the 4 unplanned changes to the voting system according to your opinion. I do not defined any subsequent actions that follow the poll result, however I believe the result will be important reference for any players in this game.
please check https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32546.0 for detail of the 4 unplanned changed features:
1.14.274 Poll-Unplanned Change-Support Vote Decay
1.14.275 Poll-Unplanned Change-Do Not Support Vote Decay
1.14.276 Poll-Unplanned Change-Support DPoS1
1.14.277 Poll-Unplanned Change-Do Not Support DPoS1
1.14.278 Poll-Unplanned Change-Support Staking Voting Power
1.14.279 Poll-Unplanned Change-Do Not Support Staking Voting Power
1.14.280 Poll-Unplanned Change-Support the Additional Voting Rules
1.14.281 Poll-Unplanned Change-No Support the Additional Voting Rules
Here the "Additional Voting Rules" stand for this:
4.voting rules after the permanent locked up appears
when the first "permanent locked up" position appear on the chain, below rules will be alive:
4.1 the voting power of the account with no "permanent locked up" position will be 0
4.2 BTS in collateral or ordering status will have no voting power
Now we have Plan A and Plan B:
Plan A: fork smoothly.
Plan B: fork with exception handling, which is discussed here: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2239
I'd like to suggest a Plan C: release a 4.* version with removed/kept/updated the features which abit had added, based on the voting result and additional discussion and voting. and surely follow the BSIP approval->development and release->code audit and test->protocol improvement process.
In my view, either the fork happen or not, the current chain always need such a Plan C.
I hope all stake holders can positively vote to tell your opinion.
please check https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32546.0 for detail of the 4 unplanned changed features:
1.14.274 Poll-Unplanned Change-Support Vote Decay
1.14.275 Poll-Unplanned Change-Do Not Support Vote Decay
1.14.276 Poll-Unplanned Change-Support DPoS1
1.14.277 Poll-Unplanned Change-Do Not Support DPoS1
1.14.278 Poll-Unplanned Change-Support Staking Voting Power
1.14.279 Poll-Unplanned Change-Do Not Support Staking Voting Power
1.14.280 Poll-Unplanned Change-Support the Additional Voting Rules
1.14.281 Poll-Unplanned Change-No Support the Additional Voting Rules
Here the "Additional Voting Rules" stand for this:
4.voting rules after the permanent locked up appears
when the first "permanent locked up" position appear on the chain, below rules will be alive:
4.1 the voting power of the account with no "permanent locked up" position will be 0
4.2 BTS in collateral or ordering status will have no voting power
Now we have Plan A and Plan B:
Plan A: fork smoothly.
Plan B: fork with exception handling, which is discussed here: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2239
I'd like to suggest a Plan C: release a 4.* version with removed/kept/updated the features which abit had added, based on the voting result and additional discussion and voting. and surely follow the BSIP approval->development and release->code audit and test->protocol improvement process.
In my view, either the fork happen or not, the current chain always need such a Plan C.
I hope all stake holders can positively vote to tell your opinion.
53
Stakeholder Proposals / [POLL]BAIP9 : Set Force Settlement Fee Percent
« on: August 14, 2020, 09:30:09 am »
Below polls are created to set force settlement parameters for bitCNY, bitUSD and bitEUR:
For bitCNY:
1.14.267 Poll-BAIP9-Set bitCNY FSFP to 1% and FSO to 1%
1.14.268 Poll-BAIP9-Set bitCNY FSFP to 1% with FSO unchanged
1.14.269 Poll-BAIP9-Keep bitCNY FSFP and FSO unchanged
For bitUSD:
1.14.270 Poll-BAIP9-Set bitUSD FSFP to 1%
1.14.271 Poll-BAIP9-Keep bitUSD FSFP unchanged
For bitEUR:
1.14.272 Poll-BAIP9-Set bitEUR FSFP to 1%
1.14.273 Poll-BAIP9-Keep bitEUR FSFP unchanged
Here FSFP stand for Force Settlement Fee Percentage which is defined in BSIP87 and FSO stand for Force Settlement Offset.
According to the BAIP rules, for each bitAsset, the FOR proposal will be considered approved while meeting below 3 criterias:
FOR worker get more voting power than AGAINST worker.
FOR worker get more voting power than BAIP-Threshold Worker.
Both No.1 & 2 above last for three consecutive days.
Here the "Keep parameters unchanged" proposals are the AGAINST proposal, the proposal to set the parameters are FOR proposal, for bitCNY there are 2 FOR proposals and if both are approved the one that get higher voting power will be executed.
Please vote according to your opinion.
For bitCNY:
1.14.267 Poll-BAIP9-Set bitCNY FSFP to 1% and FSO to 1%
1.14.268 Poll-BAIP9-Set bitCNY FSFP to 1% with FSO unchanged
1.14.269 Poll-BAIP9-Keep bitCNY FSFP and FSO unchanged
For bitUSD:
1.14.270 Poll-BAIP9-Set bitUSD FSFP to 1%
1.14.271 Poll-BAIP9-Keep bitUSD FSFP unchanged
For bitEUR:
1.14.272 Poll-BAIP9-Set bitEUR FSFP to 1%
1.14.273 Poll-BAIP9-Keep bitEUR FSFP unchanged
Here FSFP stand for Force Settlement Fee Percentage which is defined in BSIP87 and FSO stand for Force Settlement Offset.
According to the BAIP rules, for each bitAsset, the FOR proposal will be considered approved while meeting below 3 criterias:
FOR worker get more voting power than AGAINST worker.
FOR worker get more voting power than BAIP-Threshold Worker.
Both No.1 & 2 above last for three consecutive days.
Here the "Keep parameters unchanged" proposals are the AGAINST proposal, the proposal to set the parameters are FOR proposal, for bitCNY there are 2 FOR proposals and if both are approved the one that get higher voting power will be executed.
Please vote according to your opinion.
54
General Discussion / Re: Cn-vote's statement on version 4.0 Upgrade -- to all witne公会关于4.0版本升级的声明——致所有见证人
« on: August 14, 2020, 07:27:39 am »
gdex-witness 也将部署一个打补丁的见证人，以协助平滑分叉。
gdex-witness will also run a witness with patch installed, to help the fork happen smoothly.
gdex-witness will also run a witness with patch installed, to help the fork happen smoothly.
55
General Discussion / Re: Cn-vote's statement on version 4.0 Upgrade -- to all witne公会关于4.0版本升级的声明——致所有见证人
« on: August 11, 2020, 11:03:06 am »Bitcrab you are always smart enough trying to switch VP to entities which favorise your actions.
Who managed to get the inside deals with BEOS on committee and witness ?Was it you?
Which chinese is in big favour of BEOS ?Jademont and you ?
Who coworked with you trying to centralize bitshares like kicking out other gateways or registering bitshares in thailand?Digital Lucifer ?
What a coincidence.......
Who has the biggest track on corruption and lack of ethics ?
The people who claim to be the solution ?
I have very few contacts with BEOS, maybe have talked some words with them, how possible I have inside deals with them?
when have I kicked off other gateways?
you are speaking at random.
56
General Discussion / Re: Cn-vote's statement on version 4.0 Upgrade -- to all witne公会关于4.0版本升级的声明——致所有见证人
« on: August 11, 2020, 08:16:32 am »Quotewhat happened has also proven, the voting power from collateral is always biased on bitAssets relevant voting, they always focus on maximizing the benefits of the debt positions owners, it's always impossible to let them to do a little compromise for the optimization of the whole system, it's not bad to cancel these voting power.
You are a hyprocate.
The threshold for price feed was Abit's idea which was supported by you and Jademont.
CN-Votes disagrees with many of your ideas which does the majority/nearly all of foreigners too.
It's basicly you trying everytime to enforce your point of view with the help of Abit where voters opinion are not being considerated at all.
Great example the MM contests
hehe, interesting, now I don't care whether cn-vote agree or disagree with my ideas, I just care whether this patch will lead BTS to a better future.
57
General Discussion / Re: Cn-vote's statement on version 4.0 Upgrade -- to all witne公会关于4.0版本升级的声明——致所有见证人
« on: August 11, 2020, 07:58:30 am »
gdex-witness将不会安装公会的patch.
总体来讲，我们认为abit做的几项投票系统的更改对BTS的影响是正面的，而且是通过投票的途径很难达成的，为BTS的未来考虑，与其为了政治正确回归旧世界，不如顺势开拓新世界。
以往的实践也充分证明，抵押的BTS对应的票权在bitAssets相关的投票中保持中立是极难的，这些票权只会以抵押债仓的利益最大化为出发点，很难期望他们为系统的整体优化做出哪怕一点点牺牲。从BTS的整体和未来考虑，取消抵押BTS的票权不坏。
gdex-witness will not install the cn-vote's patch.
generally speaking, what abit has changed on voting system give positive impact on BTS, and it's almost impossible to get that impact through voting, considering to get a better future of BTS, it's better to accept the current version than returning to the version without the updated voting system.
what happened has also proven, the voting power from collateral is always biased on bitAssets relevant voting, they always focus on maximizing the benefits of the debt positions owners, it's always impossible to let them to do a little compromise for the optimization of the whole system, it's not bad to cancel these voting power.
总体来讲，我们认为abit做的几项投票系统的更改对BTS的影响是正面的，而且是通过投票的途径很难达成的，为BTS的未来考虑，与其为了政治正确回归旧世界，不如顺势开拓新世界。
以往的实践也充分证明，抵押的BTS对应的票权在bitAssets相关的投票中保持中立是极难的，这些票权只会以抵押债仓的利益最大化为出发点，很难期望他们为系统的整体优化做出哪怕一点点牺牲。从BTS的整体和未来考虑，取消抵押BTS的票权不坏。
gdex-witness will not install the cn-vote's patch.
generally speaking, what abit has changed on voting system give positive impact on BTS, and it's almost impossible to get that impact through voting, considering to get a better future of BTS, it's better to accept the current version than returning to the version without the updated voting system.
what happened has also proven, the voting power from collateral is always biased on bitAssets relevant voting, they always focus on maximizing the benefits of the debt positions owners, it's always impossible to let them to do a little compromise for the optimization of the whole system, it's not bad to cancel these voting power.
58
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 流动性挖矿
« on: August 10, 2020, 03:46:12 pm »
由于在4.0升级之后理事会就挖矿规则未能达成一致，导致7.29-8.6日的奖励提案至今未能批准执行。故挖矿自即日起暂停，是否重启以及何时重启另行通知。
59
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 流动性挖矿
« on: August 06, 2020, 01:35:03 am »
流动性挖矿的规则将从8月7日起作以下变更：
交易对组 买卖单收益比 交易费返还比 交易对日封顶奖励 每档目标深度 最小有效挂单
A组(BTS/gateway.assets) 7:3 30 4K BTS 400K BTS 100BTS
B组(BTS/bitEUR,bitRUBLE) 8:2 10 4K 400K 100BTS
C组(gateway.assets/bitAssets) 5:5 10 4K 400K 0.0001BTC/2USDT/0.01ETH/1EOS
D组(BTS/bitCNY,bitUSD) 10:0 4 10K 1M 100BTS
E组(bitEUR/USDT) 5:5 5 4K 400K 100BTS
A组每日最高奖励2万BTS
B组和D组每日分享最高2万BTS奖励
C组和E组每日分享最高2万BTS奖励
另外，对挖矿奖励发放的制度进行改革：每日费用从奖励的1%改为500个BTS, 以保证发奖执行方有足够的收入来执行每日的操作，该数额以后可在BTS有大幅涨跌时调整，但发奖执行方需在每日北京时间晚20：00前完成上一日的工作（发提案+论坛发帖）才能拿到足额费用，如第二天早八点完成，费用只付50%，之后完成不付费用。该费用支付也不再包含在发奖提案中，而由理事会单独执行。
交易对组 买卖单收益比 交易费返还比 交易对日封顶奖励 每档目标深度 最小有效挂单
A组(BTS/gateway.assets) 7:3 30 4K BTS 400K BTS 100BTS
B组(BTS/bitEUR,bitRUBLE) 8:2 10 4K 400K 100BTS
C组(gateway.assets/bitAssets) 5:5 10 4K 400K 0.0001BTC/2USDT/0.01ETH/1EOS
D组(BTS/bitCNY,bitUSD) 10:0 4 10K 1M 100BTS
E组(bitEUR/USDT) 5:5 5 4K 400K 100BTS
A组每日最高奖励2万BTS
B组和D组每日分享最高2万BTS奖励
C组和E组每日分享最高2万BTS奖励
另外，对挖矿奖励发放的制度进行改革：每日费用从奖励的1%改为500个BTS, 以保证发奖执行方有足够的收入来执行每日的操作，该数额以后可在BTS有大幅涨跌时调整，但发奖执行方需在每日北京时间晚20：00前完成上一日的工作（发提案+论坛发帖）才能拿到足额费用，如第二天早八点完成，费用只付50%，之后完成不付费用。该费用支付也不再包含在发奖提案中，而由理事会单独执行。
60
General Discussion / Re: Liquidity Mining(main thread)
« on: August 05, 2020, 02:32:44 pm »
The liquidity mining rule will be adjusted as below from 7th Aug:
TradingPairGroup Buy-Sell Reward Ratio Fee Return Ratio Pair Top Reward Gear Goal Depth Minimum Effective OrderVolume
GroupA(BTS/gateway.assets) 7:3 30 4K BTS 400K BTS 100BTS
GroupB(BTS/bitEUR,bitRUBLE) 8:2 10 4K 400K 100BTS
GroupC(gateway.assets/bitAssets) 5:5 10 4K 400K 0.0001BTC/2USDT/0.01ETH/1EOS
GroupD(BTS/bitCNY,bitUSD) 10:0 4 10K 1M 100BTS
GroupE(bitEUR/USDT) 5:5 5 4K 400K 100BTS
Group A each day share at most 20KBTS reward
Group B and D each day share at most 20KBTS reward
Group C and E each day share at most 20KBTS reward
Operator will get 500BTS as payment everyday, this amount may be adjusted when BTS price change greatly, however, operator can only get 100% payment while finishing the job(create proposal and submit post in bitsharestalk.org)before UTC 12:00, get 50% while finishing the job before UTC 24:00, and 0% if later, this pay will not be included in the mining reward proposal, but will be executed individually by committee.
TradingPairGroup Buy-Sell Reward Ratio Fee Return Ratio Pair Top Reward Gear Goal Depth Minimum Effective OrderVolume
GroupA(BTS/gateway.assets) 7:3 30 4K BTS 400K BTS 100BTS
GroupB(BTS/bitEUR,bitRUBLE) 8:2 10 4K 400K 100BTS
GroupC(gateway.assets/bitAssets) 5:5 10 4K 400K 0.0001BTC/2USDT/0.01ETH/1EOS
GroupD(BTS/bitCNY,bitUSD) 10:0 4 10K 1M 100BTS
GroupE(bitEUR/USDT) 5:5 5 4K 400K 100BTS
Group A each day share at most 20KBTS reward
Group B and D each day share at most 20KBTS reward
Group C and E each day share at most 20KBTS reward
Operator will get 500BTS as payment everyday, this amount may be adjusted when BTS price change greatly, however, operator can only get 100% payment while finishing the job(create proposal and submit post in bitsharestalk.org)before UTC 12:00, get 50% while finishing the job before UTC 24:00, and 0% if later, this pay will not be included in the mining reward proposal, but will be executed individually by committee.
