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 - blockchained

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 17
1
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: November 13, 2020, 07:13:21 pm »
All further RuDEX announcements will be published in our official channels:

https://steemit.com/@rudex
https://golos.id/@rudex
https://twitter.com/team_rudex
https://t.me/RU_DEX


---

Those of you who are following the Bitshares platform certainly know about the recent event, that caused a lot of debate. During the BTS4.0 protocol upgrade, one of the hired core devs (abitmore) added a community unapproved backdoor to the code, which led to the change of the voting rights, and a major change of the consensus procedure. As a result multiple conflicts ensued with a significant portion of chinese community leaving Bitshares.

After thoroughly analysing the consensus changes, that were made without voting or any discussion by community members, we verified that the resulting system is unscalable and doomed to stagnate. As a result our team decided to launch a fork of stable and time tested Bitshares3.0 consensus code using Graphene — the original name of the technology.

---

Bitshares Drama

This is a translation, Russian original: https://golos.id/ru--blokcheijn/@akledirs/khroniki-dramy-v-bitshares

There always is, was and will be a place for drama in Bitshares, as it is a blockchain with DPoS DPoBS consensus, where “meat bags” play an important role. In the last year the scale of the drama reached mythica sizes. Recently in Russian community there was a request for coverage of the events that split the community and resulted in the launch of two new blockchains. This request was answered by Alexey Petrov (@tnam0rken) with his article “Split in the Bitshares community. How it happened…” (article is in Russian)

Below is my attempt to cover some facts and events during this period in more detail, gather all the scattered pieces of information and all the changes that affected the chain of events. I am doing this for all who are interested in the history of the project, and would like to understand these events better. Some of the details that were covered by Alexey’s article will be omitted here for the sake of brevity.

HF 4.0

30 June 2020 a new version of Bitshares-core was released, which included a significant upgrade of the protocol (hardfork) to version 4.0. Release was planned for November 2019, but due to changes in votes for the core worker and disruption in financing that resulted the release was delayed.

Protocol activation happens with a delay of 1 month, which means that the changes will come into effect on 30 July 2020. To get details about the changes in the release you can check the release page. Here I will list the most significant.

Economic model changes


BSIP-74 — Introduction of a Margin Call Fee Ratio
In addition to the Maximum Short Squeeze Ration (MSSR), which is the premium that goes from the borrower that allowed a margin call to happen to MPA holder that sells their assets to fill that call, an additional fee is introduced, that can be set by the asset owner, and that is paid by the borrower — Margin Call Fee Ration (MCFR).

Info about this fee is not displayed in the UI.

BSIP-75 — Asset Owner Defines MCR and MSSR Values
Now the owner of the asset can define who can change those parameters (asset owner or blockchain witnesses, before the change only witnesses could change them). Additionally the owner can freeze the values, and permanently decline the access to change it, which results in lower control over the smartasset, but higher level of trust, that results from the lowering of the amount of vectors for manipulation.

BSIP-77 — Require Higher CR When Creating / Adjusting Debt Positions
A new parameter is added to all MPAs — Initial Collateral Ration (ICR), that is defined by the smart asset owner or witnesses. It allows the blockchain to require from the borrower to put up higher collateral in relation to the Maintenance Collateral Ration (MCR).

BSIP-81
— Simple Maker-Taker Market Fees
Now the asset owner can define different market fees for the asset buyer, depending on whether the order is filled from the market (Taker), or is added to the order book (Maker). By default the fees are equal.

UI does not reflect the difference in the fees.

BSIP-85 — Maker order creation fee discount
In essence this proposal is similar to BSIP-81, but in this case it talks about fees in BTS and their size is defined by the blockchain committee.

BSIP-86 — Share market fees to the network
This inconspicuous name hides a tax on the revenue of the asset owner from the market fees. Committee can now set a ratio of up to 30% that the asset owner must pay to the committee account vesting balance. The idea to call things as they are and rename the BSIP to “Share market fees to the committee” got a negative reaction from Abit.

BSIP-87 — Force Settlement Fee
In addition to static MPA Force Settlement fee and Force Settlement Offset (FSO), that is paid by the user requesting the settlement to the borrower, this BSIP adds an ability to specify a percentage fee from the amount of amount being settled (Force Settlement Fee Percentage (FSFP)). The size of the fee is set by the asset owner and is paid from the user requesting Force Settlement to the asset owner when the MPA is settled. The change was suggested by bitcrab (Jerry Lee) and supported by Abit.

This adds a new risk for smartcoin holders: the asset owner can at any point specify a 100% fee, in effect taking the collateral without an ability to control it until the settlement request. The risk is made more severe by the fact that the information about the fee amount is not displayed in UI.

Governance model changes

These changes were not announced — they were added by the auditor (abit) despite no consensus decision on them. These changes were announced after the fact.

BTS in collateral are no longer counted for voting purposes.

Why was this decision made? Let us use Abit’s explanation:

The past flaw was simply that BTS in locked collateral would retain voting power. So when those holders found the market against them, were easily corrupted to vote against the common good. In other words, give everyone a free vote, and a majority will always form to use it for ‘themselves’.

The result of a group of holders doubling power through collateral, then locking price feeds through block producers, held the blockchain ‘hostage’ since 2019 – destroying the standing reputation of a product with highest demand in 2020.

BitShares BitAssets Reloaded | Committee Owned True StableCoins

Indeed a group of borrowers, who were also holders of BTS, used collateralized borrowing to increase their stake in the project to a significant level. They had an interest to protect their capital, influence and also enough influence to elect witnesses who would provide feeds that would satisfy their interest. And they used that tactics for a long time to provide fake feeds, promote BSIP-42 and price feed level freeze at a set level for bitUSD and bitCNY. A conflict of interest is apparent, and talks about it were ongoing since 2018. Something had to change, but the borrowers facing margin call liquidations of all of their leveraged positions were clearly against it.

Automatic vote weight decrease for sleeping accounts
After each vote the vote weight would return to 100%. First 360 days of inactivity it is lowered by 12.5%, and then for 315 day the weight is decreased by additional 12.5% points every 45 days. On day 675 of inactivity the vote weight is 0.

One vote principle
If the holder of BTS votes for more than one committee member, then the sum of their stake weight is split among the number of votes for committee members. Before the change every voted member would receive full stake weight of the voter.

Staking based voting
This change requires freezing BTS for them to be eligible for voting with 4 durations: 180/360/720/∞ days. Depending on selected duration a multiplier of x2/x4/x8/x0 is applied respectively. x0 multiplier for permanent freeze is explained below. Fee for this transaction type is 50 BTS and not subject to change by committee.

In the case of the permanent blocking of BTS the blocked amount loses its vote weight and can not be used ever, which is equal to burning of BTS, but the equivalent sum staked has a multiplier of x8 applied to it. The multiplier is temporary, it decreases every 180 days by half, and in 720 days its influence is over. The maximum multiplier possible using the staking rules is capped at x32.

After the staking transaction the multiplier comes into effect gradually in stages, with a delay after every stage, each stage comes into effect in 15 more days. The staking can be canceled in 15 days, but tokens will stay staked for 7 more days.

Unstaking transaction removes the multiplier immediately, but the funds will stay staked for the period chosen by the user during staking. In case of the permanent token lock, the funds will stay blocked.

A user can have more than one staked position, with duration of the staked positions tracked separately.

After the first permanent staked position...

New rules come into the effect:

- Accounts that do not have at least 1 BTS staked do not participate in the voting;
- BTS used as an MPA collateral no longer have voting power;
- BTS in the order books no longer have voting power.

DPoBS — new consensus algorithm and its justification
This new model where voting preference is given to those who stake, and even effectively burn their tokens by permanently blocking them, which results in deflation Abit has called DPoBS — Delegated Proof of Burn and Proof of Stake

CustomMiner has suggested back in 2017 the implementation of BSIP-0024 that gives voting preference for those who stake their BTS.

You can get the most detailed view on Abit’s stance on voting by reading this article on Github from 2018 New BSIP or BSIP24 discussion: stake lock-up mechanism, count only real "locked" stake as voting stake .

On 30th July 2020 the hardfork with all the changes described above has come into effect. A curious fix was also added, that corrected the displayed maximum supply of Bitshares. The actual supply was higher by 250 million coins higher, than any of the blockchain explorers showed, including what was displayed on Coinmarketcap.

CNVOTE reaction -> New Bitshares

On 31st of July first people who noticed the non standard behavior of the voting page, and some committee members started asking questions about the changes to the voting model to the developers. As a result it was discovered who was behind those non consensus changes, and votes were removed from Abit.
On 2nd of August the CNVOTE team started developing a fix that would affirm the existing consensus from before the hardfork. During the fix development a heated debate was happening, with defenders of abit’s changes arguing that there is some value to the changes, and since it happened it would be better not to change anything.
By 10th of August the fix was ready, but to deploy it CNVOTE needed to convince the witnesses to apply it, which encountered some difficulties.
On 16th of August Abit was approached with a request to relinquish the control over the official Github repository to committee, but he declined
On 17th of August after deciding that further effort in applying the patch is hopeless the CNVOTE team decided to create a new blockchain BTS4.0 upgrade tampering code incident | NewBitshares [CN]
Announcement on Implementation of BTS CNVOTE Patch | BitsharesTalk [CN, EN]
On 30th of August 2020 the chinese community unhappy with the changes and coming transition to a harsher voting model announces a new blockchain based on BTS 4.0 code, but without changes to the voting model added by Abit. Many call this a fork, but only the codebase was forked with the blockchain formed from a new genesis.
On 10th of September the network was launched named NewBitshares, and the token with NBS ticker.
Next Hardfork — Splash (5.x)

On 22nd of September a new Bitshares core was released, with the hardfork planned for 28th of September.

This hardfork included two main changes — the support for AMM liquidity pools, and another change to the governance model — now unstaked BTS do not have any voting weight at all.

On the next day everything came tumbling down. Abit consolidates the control over the network by staking his funds. Due to effectively sole control over the network he elects loyal witnesses and committee members. The committee (aka Abit) disables MPA borrowing (block 51860407) for bitCNY and bitUSD, the blockreward for witnesses is lowered to 0.1 BTS, and order placement fee is raised 20 times, MSSR for bitUSD is raised to 1.1, which results in the global settlement for bitUSD (block 51889804). Here we need to remind you, that fake oracle feeds were in effect which were against the borrowers of bitUSD. As a result bitUSD holders could get less than 70% of the tokens used as a collateral going by the spot prices at that time. bitCNY situation was similar, but Abit decided against doing the same there.

In addition now the committee decides who can provide bitasset feeds. Witnesses can not provide feeds without committee approval.

As a result of those news XCHNG announces closing of their Tre-Fund (market ticker XCHNG.FUND).


On the same day a batch of new bitassets is created by committee — bitassets 1.0. By the announcement of the committee the MSSR, MCR, delay and force settlement price offset will not be changed in the future [BitsharesTalk][News Bitshares].

RuDEX/BLCKCHND reaction -> Graphene


Blckchnd witness has publicly denounced Abit’s actions everywhere they could, and as a result was banned in the main english BitsharesDAC chat.
Team RuDEX supported CNVOTE fix patch
On 16th of September RuDEX launched an NBS gateway on bitshares, as well as a public access point for the new network.
On 29th of September in the RUDEX Trollbox chat Dima BLCKCHND (@blockchained) announced a fork based on BTS 3.0 codebase named Graphene
On 12th of November 2020 team RuDEX announced an all win lottery to get the initial distribution and form a genesis block for the new chain
On 23rd of December the results of the lottery were published, and all participants were given a stake and their funds were returned, possibly as a result of my critical comments on the lottery mechanics

On 12th of April 2021 a new chain was launched with GPH token ticker, and the maximum supply of 100 million tokens.
UPD
- On 27th of May 2021 RuDEX have migrated to Graphene from Bitshares.

And now you are here...

On 19th of May the private Honest.USD smartcoin honestly went into global settlement state. In the next 24 hours ⅔ of all coins in circulation during the black swan event were settled. Such a significant reduction in debt, small volume and price bounce allowed @Chibchombia (BTS: imm-ortal) to revive the asset on the very next day.

On 22th of May during the price safety margin of bitUSD was not enough, which resulted in a global settlement (“black swan event”). Selected witnesses abruptly stopped providing feeds for this assets, and despite the fact that the declared life time of the price feed is 24 hours, the mechanisms depending on the price feed stopped. After some time 2 feeds appeared, but the minimum required number is 3. Without feeds a manual asset revival is impossible, even if enough people want to bid on collateral for required amount. Abit announced that the collateral bids will be ignored, and he will revive the asset himself. Apparently he disabled witnesses feeds from being accepted, so they would not interfere with his plans.

It is worth noting that once bitUSD encountered a black swan, hourly feeds for HERO private MPA were also stopped by terradacs-bp and liondani witnesses. It is not clear yet if that was manipulation, or reliance on bitUSD feeds.


Authors position
If you try to become a committee member, you will get a message that the position is unpaid.


Abits actions resulted in a creation of a funding stream towards committee account fueled by new fees. On one hand only BSIP-86 directly creates revenues for the committee, and is probably not in effect right now, however most of the trading happens in committee bitassets, so the fees paid to MPA owners go to committee in most cases.

Despite the lack of paid workers for development, updates of the core software are being developed, yet the display of the new fees in the UI are being delayed with responses in the vein of “we are not paid for it”.

In essence under the pretense of increasing the revenue of Bitshares as a DAC (Decentralized Autonomous Company) via the fee burn that would result in deflatory pressure, which is similar to the shares buyback by a company, that would result in the appreciation of BTS holders assets, the value flows were reformed in such a way, that most of the share (Market Fee) comes under control of the committee, that can be spent as they see fit. Where is the guarantee that the committee doesn’t block and unvote current members, to keep the status quo? Previous track record shows that on bitcrab’s suggestion under pretense of bitasset liquidity they have lost a lot of money by participating in margin trading. What will happen this time we are yet to see.

If we view Bitshares as a company, the committee as a Board of Directors, and BTS holders as stakeholders, then the stakeholders stock as unilaterally converted to preferred equity shares (non voting), and the Board of Directors is milking the company, leaving miniscule remainder of the market and transfer fees that go into reserve pool. The revenue of those “directors” is based on the hidden fees, that most users are not aware of yet.

Such a situation in a real company is nonsense and such activity is illegal in most countries. Abit and his team got scot free so far.

That is one side of the situation.

On another hand shareholders themselves (lets call them majority holders) before all this mess were methodically scamming the users (mainly bitasset holders) by not having enough collateral against their debt obligations (bitassets) effectively stealing from them. To stop this fraud shareholders themselves would have to accept losses and lose their voting assets. If we take into the account that most users did not understand the intricacies of the platform the HODLers weren’t paying enough attention to the situation, such an abuse from major debt holders did not result in BTS price decline that was adequate to the outrageousness of the situation. The status quo with fake asset feeds (BSIP-42) and milking the reserve through the workers were a gainful strategy for them.

But as they say there is more. The author of BSIP-42 is not bitcrab, but Abit. Everything he could reply when that was pointed out was “That is in the past”.

My opinion on the NewBitshares is only that the new blockchain received mainly the cunning chinese as its community, which were fine with feed manipulation on Bitshares, and I was and still am against such methods, I did not have the inclination to follow them there.

In closing
Since the new chain parameters are still not displayed in BitsharesUI, I decided to create a table with current parameters of main committee MPA’s including the new 1.0 ones.

Current bitasset parameters with “hidden” fees

2
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: November 13, 2020, 10:33:16 am »
All further RuDEX announcements will be published in our official channels:

https://steemit.com/@rudex
https://golos.id/@rudex
https://twitter.com/team_rudex
https://t.me/RU_DEX


---

Those of you who are following the Bitshares platform certainly know about the recent event, that caused a lot of debate. During the BTS4.0 protocol upgrade, one of the hired core devs (abitmore) added a community unapproved backdoor to the code, which led to the change of the voting rights, and a major change of the consensus procedure. As a result multiple conflicts ensued with a significant portion of chinese community leaving Bitshares.

After thoroughly analysing the consensus changes, that were made without voting or any discussion by community members, we verified that the resulting system is unscalable and doomed to stagnate. As a result our team decided to launch a fork of stable and time tested Bitshares3.0 consensus code using Graphene — the original name of the technology.


---

3
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: November 12, 2020, 09:30:33 pm »
After abit trojan took place yesterday we've stopped our witness infrastructure for bitshares.

We have a capable team of core and UI devs, so we're preparing a fork of bitshares code base, back to the consensus rules that was before the abit abuse on github.
It will be a new distribution, a new chain, and a new genesis.
 
News will come latter with announcements.

Hello everyone!

Those of you who are following the Bitshares platform certainly know about the recent event, that caused a lot of debate. During the BTS4.0 protocol upgrade, one of the hired core devs (abitmore) added a community unapproved backdoor to the code, which led to the change of the voting rights, and a major change of the consensus procedure. As a result multiple conflicts ensued with a significant portion of chinese community leaving Bitshares.

After thoroughly analysing the consensus changes, that were made without voting or any discussion by community members, we verified that the resulting system is unscalable and doomed to stagnate. As a result our team decided to launch a fork of stable and time tested Bitshares3.0 consensus code using Graphene — the original name of the technology.

Graphene is the industrial grade technology, adapted both for private and company use. For years it was a foundation for the unique ecosystem and market economy. Its open source code and MIT license allow for creation and maintenance of different decentralized blockchain applications with workers system, that allows core token holders to elect which development to support.

To avoid the mistakes that resulted in the current status quo in Bitshares, we’ve reduced the maximum supply of GPH tokens, and decided to hold the initial distribution of Graphene tokens via all win and provably fair lottery.
The lottery would distribute 40 out of 100 million tokens, with further 60 million used in the reserve fund. The distributed tokens will form the genesis block of the Graphene blockchain, and all undistributed tokens from the 40 million will be burned.
Final supply will be formed out of the resulting sum (reserve fund + distributed tokens); 6% of that supply will be vested to the launch team with the following ratio: 1% will become available to the team within the first week of the launch, and the remaining 5% will be vested over the next 10 years.


GPH token has a limited supply, which differs from the liquid circulating supply. 60 million tokens are set aside for financing projects and block producer rewards. These funds will be available to the worker system only from GPH token holders approval. This working budget is known as “reserve pool”.
It is worth mentioning that transaction fees are not distributed among the GPH token holders, but are returned to the worker budget to pay for further development. There is no reward for holding the GPH core token in your wallet.

## About lottery

The lottery starts on the RuDEX platform concurrently with the publication of this announcement and will last for 40 days. Every days only 100,000 lottery tickets will be available, and with the end of the lottery period all undistributed tokens will be burned, with the final supply and genesis block of the new blockchain being formed as the result.

To participate in the lottery, you will have to buy a lotto ticket and register it.

Every registered ticket will allow you to win from 1 to 30 GPH tokens. For ease and transparency the lottery will be held on the Bitshares blockchain.

There are only 5 possible winning combinations with a fixed amount of tokens for each combination, as follows:

0 - 1
1 - 3
2 - 6
3 - 10
4 - 30

The combination number (0-4) will be calculated from the transaction hash on the ticket registration.

To demonstrate how the lottery works we will use RUDEX.LOTTERY token as an example.
As you can see in this block https://bts.ai/block/53159405 bot-11 account “registered” 1 RUDEX.LOTTERY and got a transaction number TXID of d60c7ce9467043cf81acd5fdb1c5bc851d20faed.
If this value is divided by modulo 5 (number of combinations), then the remainder of the division will be the combination number of this ticket. You can verify the division remainder using, for example, the following service: https://defuse.ca/big-number-calculator.htm
In our case you need to insert the following line into the calculator 0xd60c7ce9467043cf81acd5fdb1c5bc851d20faed  % 5, which is equal to the value of 4, which is a combination for 30 GPH token win.

It is possible to register any number of tickets concurrently, which results in cycles of combinations (0-4) are counted from the division reminder value of the transaction hash until all tickets are given the result.

For your ease and convenience the lottery page display the transaction hashes and results for all of your registered tickets. Every lottery result is available for a public review.

So if you are as tired of the unfair games and underhanded intrigues as we are, we are inviting you to start anew and open the Graphene technology in its original balanced and transparent nature

https://market.rudex.org/#/lottery


4
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Blockchain Foundation
« on: October 09, 2020, 11:01:48 am »
Where is the "new" white paper that your organization was paid to write by community in 2018?
Because it is nothing there: https://github.com/bitshares-foundation/bitshares.foundation/blob/master/download/articles/BitSharesBlockchain.pdf


Where is your website? Why are you going out so silently? Community paid your organization quite a lot through the years, and now you even didn't mention that you closed



5
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: October 04, 2020, 12:22:31 pm »
All further RuDEX announcements will be published in our official channels:

https://steemit.com/@rudex
https://golos.id/@rudex
https://twitter.com/team_rudex
https://t.me/RU_DEX



6
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: October 04, 2020, 10:06:48 am »
I agree all these things are ridiculous.
I think it's not a big deal to change to another official github address if we have enough vote power.

I tend to agree it is the only way to save this project is to change official github. To protect existing and future businesses from one man dictatorship that happens now.
Also, it would be good move to change "official" dns to bitshares.exchange from bitshares.org.
We have at least 2 reason to support this
1) .org dns belongs to Milos that numerous times threat our gateway, and he has plan to filter it,



also he was manager of the core that brought trojan in the 4.0 release, and he publicly supported broke of consensus



2) bitshares.exchange the dns name that was bought by the community and belong to the community, so the community already spent money to obtain it, and now the correct time to use it

7
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: October 04, 2020, 09:57:47 am »
It's not gossip but public info.

It's just your FUD abit, your started it first in a chat to discredit Thule, you have no proof besides your rotten word

And btw if you attack our anonymity open your face first, do it please, I really want to know who you are. How dare you attack anyone anonymity meanwhile destroying this project from anonymous nickname by yourself?

8
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: October 04, 2020, 09:51:08 am »
All further RuDEX announcements will be published in our official channels:

https://steemit.com/@rudex
https://golos.id/@rudex
https://twitter.com/team_rudex
https://t.me/RU_DEX



9
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: October 03, 2020, 07:09:07 pm »
We haven't seen

Who are we?
You are banker from the barn, with a law liquidity gateway, fanboy of Milos and Abit, go work on your liquidity 

Because RuDEX still here and even without shithole registration in Estonia our liquidity higher

There is no we, you represent just your big mouth
Don't bla bla bla, banker from the barn better work on your liquidity

I had witnessed myself
Words from the mouth of the dev with low ethics is worthless

10
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: October 03, 2020, 06:24:34 pm »
不得不说 RuDEX 表面功夫做的还是不错的。所有的官宣里,没什么负面字眼。
进了群才知道实际是什么样。

至于 Thule ,转发一个群里的朋友的话,总结的很到位。

рынок решает, наша ликвидность и наш сервис как шлюза, это с чем мы работаем, а чат он для троллинга коррумпированных мудаков типа тебя abit, это не "поддержка шлюза"

11
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: October 03, 2020, 06:22:31 pm »
至于 Dima / blockchained / RuDEX , 其所作所为,下面老帖子你可以先围观一下。
如果要新的证据,我随时可以提供。


А еще дима перебегал дорогу на красный свет.

Ты забыл добавить, что перед этим ты забанил своим ботом всех независимых админов и удалил все наши сообщения в чате

12
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: October 03, 2020, 09:20:47 am »
支持网关业务是没错,我也知道。
但要网关自己也要努力,不能只想着从系统拿补贴,等人送到嘴里。
这方面 XBTS.io 做的相当不错,自己发展同时也宣传 BTS ,只是他们也还需要时间发展。
反观 RuDEX ,一边从 BTS 拿资源自己赚钱,一边回头踩 BTS 一脚。和 CryptoBridge 有的一比。

至于OL,你说你不清楚,你不会去问、去听、去看?连足额给用户提币都做不到,底线都没有,谈何发展?在群里的公开言论,说 BTS 只是一个免费试验场,要走私链路线。我只能说,道不同不相为谋。

Рудекс на данный момент через арбитражных ботов делает ликвидность этому полумертвому чейну. Все остальные шлюзы с около нулевой ликвидностью, но они в отличие от нас лижут тебе жопу, а мы вертем тебя мудака на хую, поэтому тебя и бомбит еблан



RuDEX за четыре года своей работы не имел никаких проблем, даже при поддержке анонимной команды, в отличие от шлюзов со всеми бумажками, которые уже закрылись и ушли в закат со средствами пользователей.

Мы ЕДИНСТВЕННЫЙ шлюз Bitshares с полным аудитом: https://audit.rudex.org/

Этот аудит у нас достаточно давно, а все остальные шлюзы закрыли аудит, как только твой мошеннический MM конкурс закончился. Где аудит твоих шлюзов с бумажками?

Кстати по поводу ликвидности, просто для сравнения пошел, сделал несколько скринов минуту назад.

RuDEX


GDEX


XBTSX


IObanker (honest_mpa)


Даже сейчас при полумертвой ликвидности на DEX, ликвидность RuDEX самая высокая

Мы как шлюз приносим этой платформе пользователей и комиссии, а ты abit только высасываешь эти комиссии через работников из общего пула. Совсем недавно ты обворовал сообщество получив деньги за аудит кода, в котором ты всех обманул и сломал консенсус. Ты вернул деньги за невыполненную работу обратно в пул?

abit ты лжец, вор и мошенник

13
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: October 03, 2020, 09:12:36 am »
我代理给thule是因为社区里他思想比较开放,能听进各方的意见,也有自己的主见,即使他很多观念跟我不同我也从没威胁他迎合我。
他能听得进各方意见才见鬼了。
什么东西在他那里都成了阴谋论。
支持我的时候我做什么都是对的,不支持我的时候,什么错事都是我做的。
天天满口自己代表 majority community ,真不知道他怎么得出的结论。

他自己去年申请的worker说是到媒体发几篇宣传BTS的文章,钱拿了,到现在一篇都没发。

我本来也猜他不在乎一点小钱。
结果怎么?
公会上了一批自己的见证人,明摆着从系统搞钱,他和Dima巴巴的跟着上,把别人投下去,喂价也不喂,API节点也没跑,天天在群里、论坛上怼人。

公会搞新链时说好给他 500 万新币。当然,后来给没给、他要没要我不清楚。

Quote
解不解锁喂价都有道理,问题在于怎么执行。
市价跌破0.22,很多人爆仓单一直不主动调仓,在内盘规则为锁喂价的情况下,包括我在内的一些人,借出CNY,按0.22价格把爆仓单清了,你隔天马上解锁,号称要恢复锚定,反把这些仓位给爆了,这算什么事?
有人说不解锁对CNY持有人不公平。问题是CNY持有人在明知有锁喂价的情况下,在BTS市价高于0.22,有足够时间换人民币的情况下,仍然选择持有CNY,这难道不该自担风险?按规则0.22借CNY 的反而成老赖了?

解锁喂价没问题,但一定是在市价高于0.22的时候做,把影响降到最低,这点你能不清楚?
谁都知道我搞 4.0 是为了打破原有规则的。
你既然决定 0.22 救市,有什么风险你不清楚?
你现在选择止损不加抵押,我也理解。自担风险就是了。

锁喂价是我提的不假,我承认。但是,实际执行是因为你们的投票。
一开始可能还有点正面效果,有人津津乐道。
但看看后来执行成什么样子了?
从开始锁到现在,上过两次0.22了吧?持续时间也不短吧?解锁了吗?
内盘强清潮,曾经把所有抵押仓清到爆仓价 0.11 以下,即使解锁也没有爆仓风险,解锁了吗?

零和市场,规则变化,肯定有人受益有人受损。影响怎么算低怎么算高怎么判断?

more lies from a scammer abit

but because you banned Thule on these forum he can't answer to your false accusations,
he asked me to forward this on his behalf

Quote from: Thule

Abit you and Milos are manipulators notorious liars and fudders.


First of all the fud i received 5 million nbs for supporting came
from your mouth on bitsharesdac based on an article which cn-vote
posted.

I never asked for a single nbs from cn-vote.
I supported their witnesses before they even had a plan to fork out
of bitshares so your argument is just simple fud trying to discredit me
like you try everywhere but it seems not to be working.

Secondly i never received a single nbs other than airdrop on huobi.
So your attempt to make me look corrupt is just simple fud to make
your bad actions look better.


Even if cn-vote decided to give me 5 million nbs where i had no
interaction with it or even ever mentioned to get anything how could
you blame me for that ?


Other than you i never received a single token even you fudded it everywhere.
You on the other hand take money from the known scammer yip.



The next point about the articles.
I posted in feb i will use the the paid articles to promote the new
defi from bitshares which was in the core worker plan which was
delted thanks to you and milos.

You want me now to promote your dictatorship on bitshares and how
you destroy the whole ecosystem and reputation ?

I offered cn-vote after hearing that they have issues with cex'es
to update to the fork to restore old consensus to publish articles
describing the situation on bitshares to force cex'es to react.
Milos started to fud everywhere that cn-vote is making a hostile takeover
for which he even banned me officaly on this forum.
So you know exectly why cn-vote had issues on cex because you guys
told them lies that you made the changes based on consensus and cn-vote and me
are trying a hostile takeover.

CN-Vote stopped fighting for bitshares and decided to fork away
saying noone cares so they declined the offer.


About feed price threshold.
Abit like i said before you are a notorious liar.
Now you blame alt for it?
You know exectly you implemented the threshold
on your witness as first with no info,no bsip nothing.
Showed it to me and told it would be temporarly.
Since i wanted to safe big part of community beliving you it would be
only temporary i supported it which me and Dima disagreed heavily on telegram.
Today i can say it was a mistake because your word means nothing.
The temporarly changed to permanent even there was many times where
we could have fixed it without nearly any damage.
Remember my worker proposal to reduce feed price from 0.22 to 0.15
which would have caused no damage as lowest CR was 2.31 ?


You voted against it.
bitassets price was also higher than threshold.Where were you there?


old longterm bitsharians know your fud and know who created the mess and abused
his position for a long time.

How come you blame me only for not supporting you?

Was old core upset about your totalitarian behavior on github before ?
Was cn-vote and some other committee upset about your dictatorship in committee and MM before?
Was foreign community upset about your abuse in telegram ?
Was foreign community upset about the scammer workers you supported and defended before?
Was the community upset about your low ethics before?
I could make the list very long.
So claiming its just me seems you lost reality.

How did the foreign community called you abit before you even started mainnet 4.0 ?

A scammer and thief ?
Or is this conspiracy and fud from me ?


The next lie Abit wanting to protect users from abusers is just a
point to centralize bitshares.
OL,Sparkdex,CB were all registered companies.
How did it protected the users ?

On the other hand abits big supporters are

xbts
digital lucifer
beos
ammar


Someone just needs to listen to community what they think about them.

Is it a lie that digital lucifer tried activly to kick out gateways like
Rudex from bitshares ?
Calling them diffrent names ?
Is it a lie that Digital Lucifer tried to control all social media
accounts threatening to sue and acting like the owner of bitshares?
Is it a lie that Digital Lucifer acts like bitshares needs protection
as its been attacked everywhere and that he is going to provide protection
by being legal represantative and registering bitshares in thailand to have full control?


Sorry Abit i don't and won't support it.


Btw it's always a shady tactic to ban me and after that flood fuds about me where i can't even reply.
Like you guys did before

14
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: October 03, 2020, 09:11:43 am »
RuDEX 怎么赚钱的,我和你举个例子。
RuDEX 是上线了 STEEM 网关的。 STEEM 分叉空投 HIVE 的第一天,RuDEX 就把分到的 HIVE 转到交易所砸了。

more lies from the abit

Read our user agreements.
For 4 years that we're operating on Bitshares, we never supported the forks.
So you trying now to make us look bad, but just shows how rotten you are

15
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] blckchnd
« on: October 03, 2020, 09:08:26 am »


社区出钱开发的btspp手机钱包,他换个皮就是自己的了    这个不假吧!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    还能不承认?都知道的事情


It's just one more lie from scammer abit. We never said that it is our app, we localized for rudex users and gave the credits to their creators, this is an open source app, so I could do with the code as I please



https://steemit.com/rudex/@rudex/rudex-mobile-app-announcement

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 17