Quote from: paliboy on March 22, 2018, 01:58:21 pm

Quote from: Ravid on March 22, 2018, 01:41:24 pm

They could agree to use the public bitshares chain if they'd have a spot or two as the comittee members and/or witnesses so that they have some control over the development and general direction.

I'm not saying it's good for us to have a company in the comittee, but the benefits could outweight the cons.

Right now it looks like a very bad idea to me, but it's worth discussing anyway.

There are already companies (directly or indirectly) in the committee. How is it different this time?

The difference is the familiarity with the community and the ecosystem. The fact that they were voted in, not forcibly pushed.


Anyway we might not have a choice. Binance will find some blockchain to migrate to. Then other exchanges will follow.
Every exchange will remain a separate business from us. And we will lose our edge.
At least if we apply and win we can benefit from new features they may develop.
If we don't we get nothing and only lose.


The other issue is that we are so confident we'll win, no one considers the bad publicity if we apply and lose.

Agreed, and I would have no problem with them  being part of the committee if they got voted in. The only way to guarantee they get voted in though is through purchasing enough stake.

At current BTS prices, that would cost them 50-60m USD. Which is why I can't see it happening.

They could agree to use the public bitshares chain if they'd have a spot or two as the comittee members and/or witnesses so that they have some control over the development and general direction.

I'm not saying it's good for us to have a company in the comittee, but the benefits could outweight the cons.

Right now it looks like a very bad idea to me, but it's worth discussing anyway.

Noone would agree to a hf to allow this ( and none of us I think wants that)...so they'd have to manage it on their own stake..which means buying approx 400m BTS...so using the platform doesnt end up quite free after all

They couldnt do it with consumer funds cause that would open a whole can of worms of allowing exchanges to vote with user funds (which would include competitors such as poloniex etc.)

Next Permissions  disabled

Require holders to be white-listed:
Issuer may transfer asset back to himself:
Issuer must approve all transfers:

Good to see

First API node deployed in Asia region (Load-balanced AWS instances)

wss://bts-seoul.clockwork.gr

Please report performance/latency results and your base location here

Already votable. There's a bug in the GUI causing last few workers to not show in the list. Should be fixed in the next GUI release which I believe is tomorrow

Quote from: tbone on March 16, 2018, 08:39:29 am

I don't think fee adjustments need to be done according to an arbitrary schedule.  I think it should depend on price fluctuation, e.g. if BTS:USD changes by 10-15%.  Of course, ultimately such fee adjustments should be automated.  Speaking of which, here is some discussion on github:

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/48

... or combine both approaches, e.g. review every 2 weeks if the price moved by more than 10%

I was really hoping more people would take part in this discussion.

Right now, this seems to be the best plan. A combination of both.

Personally I think weekly checks for more than 10% change since last update sound reasonable.

After popular request and comments from people on telegram, apart from web push notifications we have also launched an announcements telegram channel here:

https://t.me/BitSharesCommitteeNews

As far as 1. is concerned, it currently leaves about 40000 bts /daily available. That is almost 200k USD/month at current prices...

Considering the workers already voted in, it seems more than enough for any upcoming worker.

In any case, the idea is for this worker to function similarly to the refund400k one and have variable payment after all other workers have been paid.
So we expect the community to vote responsibly.