Quote from: Buck Fankers on December 31, 2015, 03:12:16 AM

Quote from: abit on December 31, 2015, 01:51:03 AM
Why are you still voting for STEALTH

because i want STEALTH so i can import the rest of my monies without tonyk and those like him spying on muh financials and i want all of the features that are waiting for STEALTH to be implemented.

Yes sure me too, but not like this, please take a look at this

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20751.msg268539.html#msg268539

Quote from: Riverhead on December 31, 2015, 02:28:33 PM



To turn my broken record player back on: This isn't a short game. It's not Stealth or nothing or MAS or nothing. It's a linear implementation of features. Until another software house gets up to speed on Graphene we'll just have to live with a serialized development path. This isn't ideal but it's not devastating. People have been saying since the start that we need feature x, y, or z next week or we'll lose first mover advantage. In my humble opinion as long as development keeps moving forward we'll eventually get everything we want. I don't see any "or" options here just "which order".

No one wants another software house to step up more than CNX. There is a lot of work they could be doing for a lot more money but, and again this is my uninformed opinion, they are held back by their desire to see BTS succeed and the lack of anyone else willing and/or able to work on the protocol.

+5%

Quote from: jakub on December 31, 2015, 08:52:52 AM

Quote from: abit on December 31, 2015, 01:51:03 AM
@jakub BM/CNX has already showed that they wouldn't bring anything else for you to vote, why not present your opinion by voting against current choice?

(1) I vote for STEALTH instead of NOTHING because I prefer STEALTH to NOTHING.
Thus my vote is not meant to be a political manifestation but the actual choice for the best option out of the two available.

(2) I am being realistic here: at this stage we need CNX to be strong and CNX needs cash to pay their developers and grow. CNX is our strategic partner. One might argue that CNX being weak or non-existent would attract another company to fill the space, but even if this is true (which I doubt) we would end up replacing one CNX with another CNX.

(3) And last but not least: STEALTH does not matter to me personally but more people than I expected have declared that STEALTH is important to them.
So there seems to be actual market demand for this. Additionally, this is enforced by the feedback I get from people outside the crypto-world: whenever I demo the GUI to them, they are really surprised that their account and all transfers are publicly visible. They are not used to that as the legacy systems don't allow it.

For all .... happy year 2016.

I wish bm will be a shining star in the new year and bts price  to the moon[emoji12]

Quote from: xeroc on December 31, 2015, 08:52:28 AM
Stealth has been approved by now .. removing your votes will not change anything wrt hard fork approval

Quote from: Riverhead on December 31, 2015, 02:28:33 PM



To turn my broken record player back on: This isn't a short game. It's not Stealth or nothing or MAS or nothing. It's a linear implementation of features. Until another software house gets up to speed on Graphene we'll just have to live with a serialized development path. This isn't ideal but it's not devastating. People have been saying since the start that we need feature x, y, or z next week or we'll lose first mover advantage. In my humble opinion as long as development keeps moving forward we'll eventually get everything we want. I don't see any "or" options here just "which order".

No one wants another software house to step up more than CNX. There is a lot of work they could be doing for a lot more money but, and again this is my uninformed opinion, they are held back by their desire to see BTS succeed and the lack of anyone else willing and/or able to work on the protocol.

+5%

Quote from: Riverhead on December 31, 2015, 02:28:33 PM



To turn my broken record player back on: This isn't a short game. It's not Stealth or nothing or MAS or nothing. It's a linear implementation of features. Until another software house gets up to speed on Graphene we'll just have to live with a serialized development path. This isn't ideal but it's not devastating. People have been saying since the start that we need feature x, y, or z next week or we'll lose first mover advantage. In my humble opinion as long as development keeps moving forward we'll eventually get everything we want. I don't see any "or" options here just "which order".

No one wants another software house to step up more than CNX. There is a lot of work they could be doing for a lot more money but, and again this is my uninformed opinion, they are held back by their desire to see BTS succeed and the lack of anyone else willing and/or able to work on the protocol.

+5%

Quote from: Riverhead on December 31, 2015, 02:28:33 PM



To turn my broken record player back on: This isn't a short game. It's not Stealth or nothing or MAS or nothing. It's a linear implementation of features. Until another software house gets up to speed on Graphene we'll just have to live with a serialized development path. This isn't ideal but it's not devastating. People have been saying since the start that we need feature x, y, or z next week or we'll lose first mover advantage. In my humble opinion as long as development keeps moving forward we'll eventually get everything we want. I don't see any "or" options here just "which order".

No one wants another software house to step up more than CNX. There is a lot of work they could be doing for a lot more money but, and again this is my uninformed opinion, they are held back by their desire to see BTS succeed and the lack of anyone else willing and/or able to work on the protocol.

+5%

To turn my broken record player back on: This isn't a short game. It's not Stealth or nothing or MAS or nothing. It's a linear implementation of features. Until another software house gets up to speed on Graphene we'll just have to live with a serialized development path. This isn't ideal but it's not devastating. People have been saying since the start that we need feature x, y, or z next week or we'll lose first mover advantage. In my humble opinion as long as development keeps moving forward we'll eventually get everything we want. I don't see any "or" options here just "which order".

No one wants another software house to step up more than CNX. There is a lot of work they could be doing for a lot more money but, and again this is my uninformed opinion, they are held back by their desire to see BTS succeed and the lack of anyone else willing and/or able to work on the protocol.

Quote from: abit on December 31, 2015, 12:13:22 PM
Thanks for you reply. I'll shut up. Mods please lock this thread.

It's good that you've asked this question.
I don't feel too comfortable with this situation so having a chance to explain my motives is very appreciated.

Thanks for you reply. I'll shut up. Mods please lock this thread.

Same as jakub, I vote for STEALTH because I think many stakeholders need it. But I basically agree with you. MAS or nothing  option is really disappointing.

Quote from: abit on December 31, 2015, 01:51:03 AM
@jakub BM/CNX has already showed that they wouldn't bring anything else for you to vote, why not present your opinion by voting against current choice?

(1) I vote for STEALTH instead of NOTHING because I prefer STEALTH to NOTHING.
Thus my vote is not meant to be a political manifestation but the actual choice for the best option out of the two available.

(2) I am being realistic here: at this stage we need CNX to be strong and CNX needs cash to pay their developers and grow. CNX is our strategic partner. One might argue that CNX being weak or non-existent would attract another company to fill the space, but even if this is true (which I doubt) we would end up replacing one CNX with another CNX.

(3) And last but not least: STEALTH does not matter to me personally but more people than I expected have declared that STEALTH is important to them.
So there seems to be actual market demand for this. Additionally, this is enforced by the feedback I get from people outside the crypto-world: whenever I demo the GUI to them, they are really surprised that their account and all transfers are publicly visible. They are not used to that as the legacy systems don't allow it.

Stealth has been approved by now .. removing your votes will not change anything wrt hard fork approval

STEALTH is really important feature and it needs to be implemented ASAP.

Because what he says makes sense, thats why.

Quote from: abit on December 31, 2015, 01:51:03 AM
Why are you still voting for STEALTH

because i want STEALTH so i can import the rest of my monies without tonyk and those like him spying on muh financials and i want all of the features that are waiting for STEALTH to be implemented.