Quote from: startail on December 10, 2019, 06:21:15 pm

Speaking as one of the developers on the platform, I always kept my bit assets on the dex as I knew I could keep them safe and rely on the fact that I could always know that 1 btiCNY = 1 CNY or 1 bitUSD = 1 USD worth of BTS. That always made me feel that I could trust the platform of a well funded system.

One thing I missed was the possibility to easily trade these assets on other exchanges, thus bringing bit asset liquidity of the bitshares dex. I felt part of a platform that was growing steadily, and didn't see a reason for worry as there where big ideas and a spirit of new things coming (like Wirex integration, bitUSD on other exchanges etc).

These days I see that I was wrong. I now hold "stable" assets that aren't backed by real value and feel that nothing is done to correct this. If the community felt that paying developers in any other way is better I'm always been open for it, but these discussions have not happened. If we are once again supported to develop the Bitshares reference UI I'm willing to look at arrangements just as sschiessl.

Still hoping for a better future for Bitshares.

If bts was gone short to zero by the rule flaw, then nothing is stable, this is the fact, you didn't want to hold a bitasset like bitgold or bitbtc.

We have the chance to revise something several years ago, but we lost the time, we waste too much.

So workers and bitasset holders deserve to have their holdings devalue instead of debt holders?

This is terrible for future prospective workers, nobody wants their savings cut more than 40% after being paid; this will massively encourage workers to immediately dump their pay for more trustworthy/stable holdings in the future.

Further who would want to put their external savings into bitassets when the underlying contract is no longer legitimate? I'm seriously surprised that competitor stablecoin projects aren't dragging the bitassets rep through the mud over these feed conditions.

Terrible state of affairs.

Quote

The current worker proposal expires on 29 DEC 2019. Funding for the core worker 1.14.163 was “fully funded” due to BTS price peaking in July and requested suspension of votes to allow other workers to be funded. However, BTS price continued to drop and thus the core worker is not considered fully funded if it were to operate at full capacity.

Why didn't core worked at full capacity last months but just like 20% ?

It says it in the report:

The current worker proposal expires on 29 DEC 2019. Funding for the core worker 1.14.163 was “fully funded” due to BTS price peaking in July and requested suspension of votes to allow other workers to be funded. However, BTS price continued to drop and thus the core worker is not considered fully funded if it were to operate at full capacity.

So refund400k, devaluaing of bitassets and inactive worker proposal status is the reason why.

Hey,

Can you please update your HERTZ price feed to use a real USD price feed reference? bitUSD hasn't been accurate for months now, so your feeds whilst regularly published are about 40% off.

Cheers

Bitshaes has flaws from initial design, simply speaking:
1.smartcoins operation request BTS be robust in price, otherwise shorting attack will have chance to make smartcoin crash, as well as BTS.

China community press "STOP" in a simple and crude way, it really "stop" the problems but what we need is to solve the problems.

It didn't stop the problem, it shifted the problem from the debt holder onto the bitasset holder, the problem is ongoing as bitassets continue to devalue.

A new BSIP76 vote to feed today's market feed price for USD (1/0.020346=49.149) would be great 👍

A full month later, we're in the same position.

BTS worth $0.024193 looking at CMC, last feed price is 28.98571 BTS/bitUSD aka $0.03449, so (1-(0.024193/0.03449))*100 = 29.85% below the correct feed price.

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

I see nothing to be jealous of here. What 'responsibility' will I have to pay? What do you think you deserve an apology for? Can't you take criticism? Please be more coherent when threatening legal action.

If the lie is a criticism, then I want to say: ******.
this is okay?

No facts, words can't be said

Obviously using explicit words is a breach of the forum rules, many have received temp bans for it. Pointing out blatant flaws in BAIP2 isn't ban worthy.

What lies though? You've admitted to failing to reply to review comments before the PR was forced merged due to being too busy with work - processes were entirely skipped.

How come you can't handle constructive criticism? Even basic grammar correction is completely out of the question - should we not correct you on translation failures next?

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

So what? This is about the BAIP not the BSIP, irrelevant.

Is it a proper attitude to refuse to answer questions?

Again, the BSIP is irrelevant to the BAIP. None of the contents of the BAIP had any improvments from the BSIP comments, nevermind the BAIP review comments.

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

So why when there are many PR review commends outstanding & awaiting any response (regardless of quality) would you proceed directly to voting? Doing so disregards the review process - are you above this?
You just admitted here that the PR review process is not complete given that you've been too busy with work to answer comments.

I have answered the questions in the issue area. The problem in the pr area, I have not had time to reply has been closed.

Answering questions in the issues section does not justify skipping the pull request peer review process, it's a secondary process. You outright did not reply to the comments in the PR review before it was merged - this is not the correct course of action.

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

18 days simply isn't a long time in terms of improvement proposals - many have been dormant for well over a year. Further there is no need for urgency given this BAIP will not be implemented until BSIP76 is dead - this could be months away.

If questions were seriously answered, how come no changes have been made to the BAIP? Even basic grammar suggestions were seemingly disregarded.

Can't you figure out the difference between BSIP and BAIP? We are BAIP2, which is the first BAIP proposal, OK?

Also, please respect the previous community consensus.

I'm fully aware of the difference, however that doesn't discredit the fact that historically improvement proposals of any format have not been a rushed process until BSIP76 & BAIP2.

I am not disputing BSIP76 here, I'm merely pointing out that because BAIP2 proposes to have zero influence on price feeds until the BSIP76 threshold price is exceeded, your BAIP will have no relevancy until that event passes (could be months away), thus there is no need for urgency nor justification for skipping the pull request peer review process. If comments hold no validity/credibility then surely it'd be a walk in the park to address them?

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

So where is the explanation for this on github? You (the PR author) can reopen a PR without creating a new one (see: https://github.community/t5/How-to-use-Git-and-GitHub/Updating-a-closed-pull-request/td-p/9457)

I don't have to answer the question of the closed state.

Then I don't have to believe your explanation for closing the old PR to invalidate the PR comments.

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

The PR may have been merged by another cnvote member (author approving their own PR?!), however the PR review process was not properly followed (given the disregard of review process).

Who is the top manager of the library?？！
Who is responsible for BAIP management issues?

So you don't dispute that the author merged it themselves & did not properly follow the PR review process? Good to know we're on the same page.

Quote from: R on November 08, 2019, 05:35:33 pm

Steps in the BAIP process were skipped, abit (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551024416) and clockworkmgr (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551029088) who are both committee members agree this should not have been merged in its current state nor proceeded to a poll. Do you plan to proceed with legal action against them too?

The problem of BAIP management is beyond my responsibility.

Not true when you're the author. Do you see yourself above the whole committee?

If you are jealous of others, you don't have to pay responsibility, then I will be disappointed with the administrator.

I see nothing to be jealous of here. What 'responsibility' will I have to pay? What do you think you deserve an apology for? Can't you take criticism? Please be more coherent when threatening legal action.

1：Initially we strictly followed the standard BSIP process

So what? This is about the BAIP not the BSIP, irrelevant.

6:After PR, I noticed that there were too many comments, because the work was too busy, and one person commented too much. I hope that when I have time, I will answer it seriously (even if the comments don’t seem to be good at all)

So why when there are many PR review commends outstanding & awaiting any response (regardless of quality) would you proceed directly to voting? Doing so disregards the review process - are you above this?

You just admitted here that the PR review process is not complete given that you've been too busy with work to answer comments.

In fact, this baip was in the issue for a long time, and I seriously answered any questions.

18 days simply isn't a long time in terms of improvement proposals - many have been dormant for well over a year. Further there is no need for urgency given this BAIP will not be implemented until BSIP76 is dead - this could be months away.

If questions were seriously answered, how come no changes have been made to the BAIP? Even basic grammar suggestions were seemingly disregarded.

7：A few hours later, zhouxiaobao-2010 informed me that due to his negligence (he was not familiar with github), he accidentally deleted my pr and asked me to re-pr. I did it.

So where is the explanation for this on github? You (the PR author) can reopen a PR without creating a new one (see: https://github.community/t5/How-to-use-Git-and-GitHub/Updating-a-closed-pull-request/td-p/9457)

8： After the success of pr, I asked the members of our union to created 2 poll worker proposals.

The PR may have been merged by another cnvote member (author approving their own PR?!), however the PR review process was not properly followed (given the disregard of review process).

This is the whole process. If you don't apologize for this, I will take legal action. If the administrator does not preside over this behavior, I will be disappointed by the forum administrator.

Steps in the BAIP process were skipped, abit (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551024416) and clockworkmgr (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551029088) who are both committee members agree this should not have been merged in its current state nor proceeded to a poll. Do you plan to proceed with legal action against them too?

Quote from: R on November 07, 2019, 11:01:28 pm

Quote from: binggo on November 07, 2019, 10:18:30 pm

@ R   
Do you want to be stronger？hold more bts.

Increasing my BTS position will have zero impact on the 'strength' of my forum posts 🙄

I'd be willing to bet it'd have no impact on your demands to buy more BTS than speak freely about the current state of affairs neither.

Vote is power, you can easily understand it.

R, don't speak other thing, just answer the questions which i have asked:

can you tell me where the development fund come from of these coin, BTC，LTC?

and how old is BTS？

Lack of development will not stop investors to buy, the truth is very simple, investors like to buy BTC/LTC/BCH/BSV/XRP/XLM/DOGE/blah, blah, blah... en，they even like to buy more shitcoin... en, why?

BTC from private companies which seek funding to centralize and control the blockchain - Blockstream for one. Will cnvote start paying devs in place of worker proposals?

LTC - they just copy BTC, their founder dumped their token.

BTS is several years old, sure. Only a couple years of that were unpaid max, during which we lost key devs to other projects which are now worth more than BTS.

Why do people buy 'shitcoins' which don't have proper paid dev teams? Poor investment decisions & lack of insight into such technical matters.

You made your point though, you believe that no matter reduced development the investors will come. It's been 6 weeks of BSIP76 without that outcome, how much longer for this scenario to unfold?