Quote from: puppies on January 28, 2016, 08:38:01 pm

The entire committee could participate.  I don't think they want to.  Bhuz was the only volunteer.  Unless we use a bot coordination across all of our timezones would continue to be an issue.  Even if participation mirrored the committee this new account would still be faster as it would not need the one hour review period.

Oh I see that could be very useful then. People couldn't use the review period to manipulate the market and mess things up, good idea! I think all committee members should be notified first though as not to create any issues of people claiming you're acting behind the committee's back

I think that the very purpose of this thread is just to have the permission from the shareholders to pass the task and its burden to the committee-trade instead of have the "real" and "full" committee-account manage these operations with difficulties.

Quote from: Akado on January 27, 2016, 06:42:26 pm

This pump and liquidity is a good chance for the fee pool to be used for the creation of assets. Couldn't it help tighten the peg?

The issue here is the slow moving nature of the committee account.  Even if we were able to get 51% of the committee online at the same time, there is a minimum 1 hour review period on all committee actions. 

Realistically speaking if I were to create a proposal to sell the bittassets that we have collected from the fee pool, I would need to set the expiration at at least 12 hours.  This is not exactly real time, and we would have to be careful about what the price was when the proposal expired, so we didn't accidentally end up dumping under the feed.
 
The same issue comes up if we need to cancel an order.  If we set a sell wall, and then the price changes, we are powerless to cancel our sell wall for at least 1 hour.

To help combat this I have created a separate account committee-trade.  This account is owned by the committee account and has active key multi-sig.  Currently it is a 2 of 4 scheme with bhuz (the only volunteer), myself,  Xeroc, and abit (since I didn't think they would mind).  If you are good with the CLI and would like to be added please let us know. 

This is not endorsed by the committee yet.  I have started this in motion in an attempt to spur something.

Since committee member bitcube is actively trying to kill bitshares, I will remove any other committee member who's voting for him.

Removed:
bitcrab
bhuz

Is there any proposal voting going on?

Answer: NO

There is NO proposal going on.
There is only some free discussion on the forum.

So you basically are voting "pro" and "against" some committee even before a proposal started and those committee could express their vote? .... Nice!


Oh, and if you unvote me because I am currently supporting bitcrab with my so little stake, you should know that I am really supporting ALL the current committee members (you know, we are the only ppl that step up to do something really, and I believe in cooperation, and team work).

So at the end of the day, you should unvote me once, and upvote me 9 times!

Any update?

https://github.com/wmbutler

Last contribution Dec 9.

The worker is still up tho.

Can we arrive at a "final" proposal for BSIP#10 before doing any kind of worker and voting stuff?

I don't think the current settings are really the best for the network. There is too much focus on referral at the expenses of the net.
IMO the net should come first as I already stated.

I also would prefer to see this:
"the minimum fee always goes to network, and if 20% of a fee exceeds lower limit, 20:80 scheme can be applied"

I don't see why if the 20% fee cut for the net is higher than lower_limit, the net should only take lower_limit and not his actual cut of 20%.

I also would prefer to see the network take no less than the lower_limit if his 20% cut is not enough. IMO it should *at least* take the lower_limit also at the expenses of the referrer if needed.
At the end of the day the network handle the transactions and "pay" for them, so it should be the first to get a cut...

If ppl do not like the fact that the net comes first, at least we should allow the net to get is 20% cut also when it is higher than the lower_limit.

Sent

He has been busy finishing up the move to a new apartment

I hope to see more action back from Monday

I think that eventually a lot of people in the community would like to know:

1) How much would it cost to implement a simple GUI for PM, making it easier and straightforward to use, hiding all the backend mechanics such as the need to borrow/sell etc.

2) Bond Market. Could we pay a couple of days of your time to make a general analysis about:
- Is it really feasible?
- How hard it would be and what are the biggest problems to work out?
- Some ideas to solve those problems.
- How many man hours would it need, and how much would it cost?

3) Bond Market with Margin Trading (lending + shorting the lended)
AFAIK one of the biggest problem basically is that since all the transactions/lending would be publicly viewable on the blockchain, an attacker could see exactly how much money he need to cause a margin call?
-About this, could the STEALTH feature be used to hide this sensitive data and solve that problem?

Edit: made some edits here and there xD