106
General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 13, 2018, 03:36:56 pm »
One positive is nobody voted 'Don't care' so at least we are all engaged 
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.
107
General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 13, 2018, 03:35:43 pm »I'm assuming the vote above is just informative - I guess the Committee have the authority make the decision and if they decide they want to put it to a worker vote on chain they do?
Sure informative, like CNN or fake news.
Rather than admit the sentiment is against this change, those pushing for it will keep trying to spin inputs until they get what they want, damned be the shareholders and contrary opinions.
Well the first vote was No and after it was reset and the new option was set the vote was still No.
Some people I would have expected to be against the change aren't though so Ill spend sometime this weekend doing some background reading to see what I'm missing.
My feeling is that we are still in the midst of a pretty serious stress test for BTS stablecoins as the price of BTS has dropped by 90%. That has meant a lot of us have been hurt pretty badly with our margins (I actually had to largely exit mine on the way down with quite a big loss of my BTS).
We need to take this as an opportunity to fix on something that works - the price will go up again during the next bull run but there will be more hard drops and margin holders exposed. The mechanism we figure out over the coming months should maintain the peg / underlying basis for it being a stablecoin above anything else.
108
General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 13, 2018, 02:14:22 pm »
I'm assuming the vote above is just informative - I guess the Committee have the authority make the decision and if they decide they want to put it to a worker vote on chain they do?
109
General Discussion / Re: Breaking Bitshares: The Wargame
« on: November 11, 2018, 10:23:33 pm »As a bitshares supporter I do not like the constant trail of uncertainty and paranoia strewn about.
Open ledger's DNS was hacked, for a while, and no one cared about security. But here now you post as if security is a major concern.
What is the procedure to resolve a breach, beyond calling BM? That info would be beneficial to the community.
And no one named Kristen works with me on Spark. Yo must be talking about bitspark.
Yep sorry Bitspark, SparkDex, Zeph etc - I hadn't realised there is another Spark project. Any link so I can educate myself?
110
General Discussion / Re: Breaking Bitshares: The Wargame
« on: November 11, 2018, 09:35:09 pm »Although I was concerned about seeing this topic in public, and introduced by a total newbie to the forum, I commented. Not adding ideas to how to break the system as much as what we should be weary of.
Nevertheless, I don't believe such vulnerabilities should be discussed in public. I have thus suggested that this thread / topic be removed.
Although significant improvements can and should be made to provide a trusted way to discuss these things, it should not be public for obvious reasons, and should not allow anonymous newbies, no matter how well intentioned, to participate. Trust must be earned, and that come from being known, and that takes observation of person's actions and words over a period of time. Instantaneous trust is worthless.
I suggested keybase as a secure app we could use for secure, private comminications. Most of the devs are already on keybase, as are some witnessses, includning myself.
No objection to it being removed from my side - suggest it would be good to continue in another channel though.
And for info I thought the same but it's Kristen from Spark who posted originally, he's just not on the forum much.
111
General Discussion / Re: Breaking Bitshares: The Wargame
« on: November 11, 2018, 07:17:32 am »
7) Seize control through purchase / seizure of BTS or manipulation / bullying of holders to proxy.
I've added the above following Thom's point. This is an interesting one as it wouldnt have to be an individual / group of individuals. If we have more adoption and more CEX's holding significant BTS then conceivably they could be compelled to act. Just look at how big a voter Binance are on their own.
I've added the above following Thom's point. This is an interesting one as it wouldnt have to be an individual / group of individuals. If we have more adoption and more CEX's holding significant BTS then conceivably they could be compelled to act. Just look at how big a voter Binance are on their own.
112
General Discussion / Re: Breaking Bitshares: The Wargame
« on: November 10, 2018, 08:39:40 am »
Great idea Kristen.
I'll have a proper think but initially:
1) Spread fear and FUD about decentralised exchanges (underway) to throttle interest, the price etc.
2) Block access by taking down the website or restricting access to it.
3) Go after committee members or witnesses (charges, court orders, seizures).
4) Go after users (as above).
5) Try and clog up the network (seems doomed to fail).
6) Launch spam/scam versions of it to undermine confidence and create general feeling it's a scam.
7) Seize control through purchase / seizure of BTS or manipulation / bullying of holders to proxy (added following Thom's post)
I think 1) with some high profile 3) or 4) is most likely.
I'll have a proper think but initially:
1) Spread fear and FUD about decentralised exchanges (underway) to throttle interest, the price etc.
2) Block access by taking down the website or restricting access to it.
3) Go after committee members or witnesses (charges, court orders, seizures).
4) Go after users (as above).
5) Try and clog up the network (seems doomed to fail).
6) Launch spam/scam versions of it to undermine confidence and create general feeling it's a scam.
7) Seize control through purchase / seizure of BTS or manipulation / bullying of holders to proxy (added following Thom's post)
I think 1) with some high profile 3) or 4) is most likely.
113
Bitspark [closed] / Re: Spark announces new roadmap with token buyback date
« on: November 09, 2018, 10:47:46 am »
Great job with the buy back last month. If anyone is thjnkngkt is a bit quiet here I suggest to join their telegram group as Spark are very active at providing updates.
114
Graveyard / Re: [Board Removal] Gravity.io - Abandoned project
« on: November 09, 2018, 08:00:40 am »The forum has a "graveyard" .. i'd recommend move it there instead of "deleting" it
I like this idea. It is good to look into the past every once in a while
Agree with Red and Xerox if that's an option
115
General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 09, 2018, 06:55:13 am »
I'm going to read up more today as I feel like I'm a bit poorly informed / haven't quite got my head around the interaction of the different mechanisms and how these are most fairly adjusted to achieve the best possible stablecoin.
My preference would be for calculating the feed price in a far way that recognises the liquidity and market for bitCNY. We want more bitCNY not less so I agree seeing liquidations on a token which is seeing good use and wider adoption is not desirable. That said it is also important that there remains a clear decentralised basis backing the value of the coin with sufficient BTS.
Let's see if I can get my head around it a bit more today.
We should all bear in mind BTS fell 90% and bitUSD / bitCNY survived, that's a pretty impressive stress test but it does mean a lot of people are hurting a bit / are close to the line now.
Basically the price of BTS needs to go up and all this just goes away...
My preference would be for calculating the feed price in a far way that recognises the liquidity and market for bitCNY. We want more bitCNY not less so I agree seeing liquidations on a token which is seeing good use and wider adoption is not desirable. That said it is also important that there remains a clear decentralised basis backing the value of the coin with sufficient BTS.
Let's see if I can get my head around it a bit more today.
We should all bear in mind BTS fell 90% and bitUSD / bitCNY survived, that's a pretty impressive stress test but it does mean a lot of people are hurting a bit / are close to the line now.
Basically the price of BTS needs to go up and all this just goes away...
116
Graveyard / Re: [Board Removal] Gravity.io - Abandoned project
« on: November 08, 2018, 08:56:24 pm »Confirmed. I voted to remove Gravity.io from bitsharestalk.org.Well, gravity *IS* a graphene fork. They do stuff and even presented @ GrapheneDev Conference in Shanghai.
Not sure if they use the forums still, but gravity seems legit
Gravity.io moved on to another project called UCommunity, earlier in August. Confirmed personally in their TG that website, project and open-source github - FINISHED.
Their ex Community Manager - Brendan (@iamredbar) can confirm.
Chee®s
While I still have control of the Twitter account and am an admin on the old Telegram chat, the project is done. They did not let me know they were joined with Ucommunity until I started asking questions.
I've voted yes on this basis.
117
General Discussion / Re: BitAssets statistics - a start
« on: November 08, 2018, 08:32:47 pm »
Similar to Redbar I'm no use on this but think it's a great idea and looks really good - if the graphs tiled vertically they'd fit better for mobile viewing 
118
General Discussion / Re: Remove "asset owner can transfer asset back to himself" on stablecoins?
« on: November 08, 2018, 06:26:47 pm »I'm for holding that option open however i don't agree its being decided by a small group which CryptoKong already mentioned if somebodies asset can be seized or not.
Thats a risk i personly don't like since it has nothing to do with community consense but something similar with banks where a few holds the majority of voting rights
Who can do it at the minute? Is it a multi-sig account between all committee members or just a single account?
119
General Discussion / Re: Remove "asset owner can transfer asset back to himself" on stablecoins?
« on: November 08, 2018, 09:35:12 am »Tough one... I'm actually quite unsure where I stand on this one... How many people is 50%+1 for commitee majority? Less than 10 I presume. Its a very small number of people that governments can put pressure on to seize assets. I dont like that at all. On the other side of things... its good to have options to be able to stay compliant. I lean towards my first point than my second but i am in the middle.
Thanks Kong, not dissimilar to my view really...I could be sold on a considered basis for leaving it turned on but would like it to be a conscious decision because of x, y and z so that we can have a clear defence to the inevitable FUD around it.
In my gut I don't like it and think it should be truly decentralised but I don't want to be the idealogue that blindly pushed it through if it's the thing that stops Amazon adopting bitUSD down the line
120
General Discussion / Re: Remove "asset owner can transfer asset back to himself" on stablecoins?
« on: November 08, 2018, 08:57:07 am »
Thanks guys - I agree we would never choose to use this function and shouldn't rush into doing anything that might cause us issues down the line (compliance? I think this needs some discussion in itself because having the ability to do something opens us up to being compelled to do it through legal channels).
I remain of the view that this feature leaves us open to significant criticism - if we get traction for our stablecoins it's an easy attack line and I think the 'we would never use it' defense would get lost in the noise, particularly as we are attacking other stablecoins for having this exact feature.
https://twitter.com/bitshares/status/1055064272722710528?s=19
(I'm not sure who controls @bitshares and recognise it's not committee controlled but I mean the royal 'we', the decentralised bitshares community)
I remain of the view that this feature leaves us open to significant criticism - if we get traction for our stablecoins it's an easy attack line and I think the 'we would never use it' defense would get lost in the noise, particularly as we are attacking other stablecoins for having this exact feature.
https://twitter.com/bitshares/status/1055064272722710528?s=19
(I'm not sure who controls @bitshares and recognise it's not committee controlled but I mean the royal 'we', the decentralised bitshares community)
