Quote from: ozvic on September 29, 2014, 12:35:28 PM

They own the stake and that's how the game works. I'm cool with that.

Check! Good to see we're on the same page.

Quote from: ozvic on September 29, 2014, 12:35:28 PM

Quote from: emski on September 29, 2014, 11:04:11 AM

If inits were publishing feeds that might cause significant centralisation. Inits were voted in because there were not enough delegates updated to current version.
Unless there are enough serious delegates willing to do their job - inits cannot be removed (without hurting the network).
Even now there are people (including me) running multiple delegates and still there aren't enough people willing and able to be decent delegates.

Yes and no. I've only noticed the 're-rise' of the init's to the top 101 in the last day or three. I can see a good number of standby delegates below the 101 threshold that are advertising 0.4.18.

If whoever's responsible wants to make more btsx, that's fine. They own the stake and that's how the game works. I'm cool with that.

No need to make version excuses though. Active delegates have to upgrade or they'll be on a fork before they know it.

I find the truth ... cool. ;)

prob due to timezones, I was (one of) the first to make it to 0.4.18 RC1 according to bitsharesblocks.com.

Init delegates were voted in just before v0.4.17 hardfork started. There weren't enough delegates that upgraded to 0.4.17 on time. Perhaps some of the delegates updated to 0.4.18 were slow/unreliable previously and that is why they weren't voted in. Its a free system - anyone can vote.

Quote from: emski on September 29, 2014, 11:04:11 AM

If inits were publishing feeds that might cause significant centralisation. Inits were voted in because there were not enough delegates updated to current version.
Unless there are enough serious delegates willing to do their job - inits cannot be removed (without hurting the network).
Even now there are people (including me) running multiple delegates and still there aren't enough people willing and able to be decent delegates.

Yes and no. I've only noticed the 're-rise' of the init's to the top 101 in the last day or three. I can see a good number of standby delegates below the 101 threshold that are advertising 0.4.18.

If whoever's responsible wants to make more btsx, that's fine. They own the stake and that's how the game works. I'm cool with that.

No need to make version excuses though. Active delegates have to upgrade or they'll be on a fork before they know it.

I find the truth ... cool. ;)

prob due to timezones, I was (one of) the first to make it to 0.4.18 RC1 according to bitsharesblocks.com.

Quote from: xeroc on September 29, 2014, 10:43:03 AM

Quote from: ozvic on September 29, 2014, 10:35:41 AM
They not publishing.. I assumed they were in control of i3 or dacsun. Not a good example... :O

*agreed*

If inits were publishing feeds that might cause significant centralisation. Inits were voted in because there were not enough delegates updated to current version.
Unless there are enough serious delegates willing to do their job - inits cannot be removed (without hurting the network).
Even now there are people (including me) running multiple delegates and still there aren't enough people willing and able to be decent delegates.

Quote from: ozvic on September 29, 2014, 10:35:41 AM
They not publishing.. I assumed they were in control of i3 or dacsun. Not a good example... :O

*agreed*

They not publishing.. I assumed they were in control of i3 or dacsun. Not a good example... :O

some stakeholders :) ... who knows

So who's voting for all the init's?

Quote from: MeTHoDx on September 29, 2014, 12:15:10 AM
I thought you couldn't downvote due to the "emski attack"?

you still cannot downvote .. it's a feature that comes with slate voting .. If you were to vote as recommended by a delegate you can exclude some of his recommendations

http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/ApprovalVoting

I thought you couldn't downvote due to the "emski attack"? I went through all my votes and "unvoted" delegates who were not publishing BitGLD feeds. I no longer care about the pay rate, I just vote for delegates who maintain their feeds.

Quote from: skyscraperfarms on September 28, 2014, 06:34:41 PM
Tell me what is the difference from just hard coding the feed into the program?

the difference is that some delegates (like me) are publishing feeds manually.



Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

Any delegates not publishing a feed will be voted out when I get back from Vegas. 

Quote from: xeroc on September 28, 2014, 05:56:53 PM
I think we should first start down voting delegates that don't do there job properly

I mentioned already that some delegates seem to be too lazy while standby delegates most certainly are not.

As a standby delegate, I tried to put in a feed but encountered error.  So no go.  Standby delegate cannot publish feeds.

I believe there are other standby delegates like me who are eager and capable to perform this role, and are waiting for the opportunity to be given.  :)

I'm going to start downvoting all delegates that dont maintain a feed by the end of the week.. giving them a bit more time to get their shit together

Quote from: ripplexiaoshan on September 28, 2014, 07:03:07 PM

Quote from: xeroc on September 28, 2014, 06:54:36 PM
we already have TWO different scripts which take DIFFERENT sources and do different operations on them ..
plus .. they are "simple" python scripts that can be modified to your needs/policies

If all delegates employ the same scripts, there will be no difference from the case that wallet embeds the price feed internally.

Exactly.