Author Topic: Proxy: fav - Journal  (Read 44013 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4276
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #135 on: December 02, 2015, 09:32:21 pm »


temporary voting for 3 inits until the proposal went through. looks like some committees won't support this essential proposal
Do not over-interpret the fact. Some of committees are merely sleeping now.

yeah, but I won't be able to react in a timely manner since I will be sleeping/working by the time the vote takes place :)

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #136 on: December 02, 2015, 09:34:44 pm »


temporary voting for 3 inits until the proposal went through. looks like some committees won't support this essential proposal
Do not over-interpret the fact. Some of committees are merely sleeping now.

yeah, but I won't be able to react in a timely manner since I will be sleeping/working by the time the vote takes place :)
That can be a prejudice. Please keep your reputation with statement based on facts.
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4276
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #137 on: December 02, 2015, 10:21:30 pm »
Committee Vote:

bunkerchainlabs-com - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20108.0.html

Offline lzr1900

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
    • View Profile
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #138 on: December 03, 2015, 12:09:41 am »
傻逼才投你

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4276
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #139 on: December 03, 2015, 06:12:30 am »
傻逼才投你

consider this your first and last warning from me.

in more important news:

The committee voted for the force settlement 100% (without inits) - finally there seems to be some progress.

I will withdraw my temporary init votes as soon as I get my hands on a computer :)

Offline fuzzy

Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #140 on: December 07, 2015, 09:52:01 am »
it is late for me and I am about to pass out at my keyboard, but was informed of something quite interesting and would like to delve in a bit further in hopes of someone giving me the cliffs notes version so I don't have to read through the entire thread right now and can save it for a bit further into the future.

Here is a link to a thread I think is worth talking about.  Espcially interested in what fav was talking about with committee members using their positions to help themselves as opposed to bitshares.  I am listening and hoping someone can update me and potentially provide me with some detailed evidence (if possible). 
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline onceuponatime

Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #141 on: December 07, 2015, 10:05:42 am »
it is late for me and I am about to pass out at my keyboard, but was informed of something quite interesting and would like to delve in a bit further in hopes of someone giving me the cliffs notes version so I don't have to read through the entire thread right now and can save it for a bit further into the future.

Here is a link to a thread I think is worth talking about.  Espcially interested in what fav was talking about with committee members using their positions to help themselves as opposed to bitshares.  I am listening and hoping someone can update me and potentially provide me with some detailed evidence (if possible).

My guess is that Fav was talking about this thread:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.0.html

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4276
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #142 on: December 07, 2015, 10:15:55 am »
it is late for me and I am about to pass out at my keyboard, but was informed of something quite interesting and would like to delve in a bit further in hopes of someone giving me the cliffs notes version so I don't have to read through the entire thread right now and can save it for a bit further into the future.

Here is a link to a thread I think is worth talking about.  Espcially interested in what fav was talking about with committee members using their positions to help themselves as opposed to bitshares.  I am listening and hoping someone can update me and potentially provide me with some detailed evidence (if possible).

My guess is that Fav was talking about this thread:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.0.html

correct.

here is what I wrote earlier in this thread:

in light of the current power abuse of the current committee due to  a non-issue I left the private committee group and told them they lost my support.

bhuz, mindphlux and bitcube are the only people representing us stakeholders in the committee in my opinion.

(puppy don't know, he did not participate in the current fiasco at alll)

further actions to be discussed.

Settlement was disabled on a rushed decision by the committtee because Transwiser (bitcrab) stated, that transwiser is facing monetary losses.

We learned later, that they never lost a single cent prior to the disabling, and it was communicated as a "miscommunication" (some call it lying).

further, there were some people aggressively trying to push their own agenda, probably to please their whale voters.

that's the short version, and why I told the former committee they lost my support.

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #143 on: December 07, 2015, 10:48:56 am »
The only people aggressively trying to push their own agenda were the ones that was pretty upset only because they could not expoit the bitCNY market meanwhile the settle was temporary disabled.
(eg. JonnyBitcoin posts are pretty clear about this)

I really embolden [member=602]fuzzy[/member] to take the time to read the whole post and make his mind out of it.
I am pretty confident that he will more than able to see the Committee decision as a way to protect Bitshares DAC and its community as a whole.

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4276
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #144 on: December 07, 2015, 10:54:19 am »

I really embolden [member=602]fuzzy[/member] to take the time to read the whole post and make his mind out of it.
I am pretty confident that he will more than able to see the Committee decision as a way to protect Bitshares DAC and its community as a whole.

that's what I told fuzzy too in another thread, however, he wanted to hear my opinon

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #145 on: December 07, 2015, 01:24:42 pm »
The only people aggressively trying to push their own agenda were the ones that was pretty upset only because they could not expoit the bitCNY market meanwhile the settle was temporary disabled.
(eg. JonnyBitcoin posts are pretty clear about this)

I really embolden [member=602]fuzzy[/member] to take the time to read the whole post and make his mind out of it.
I am pretty confident that he will more than able to see the Committee decision as a way to protect Bitshares DAC and its community as a whole.

I actually interpreted the situation in the opposite way. By changing the rules, people exploited JonnyBitcoin because he was the only one that was correctly following the rules. When some didn't like that he was following the well publicized rules to which everyone agreed, they changed the rules to favor themselves. It sounds like those that changed the rules exploited the system.

[Even if that is not true, that is how it appears interpreted to an outsider]

Exchanges should never do that. In this case, it is relatively minor and early on, but a lesson that must be learned by the system. You set the rules, you enforce the rules, and rules do not change unless there is significant advanced warning. Especially in cases like this, where there actually was nothing wrong with the market/settle/blockchain system.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 01:28:19 pm by maqifrnswa »
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #146 on: December 07, 2015, 01:39:05 pm »


I actually interpreted the situation in the opposite way. By changing the rules, people exploited JonnyBitcoin because he was the only one that was correctly following the rules. When some didn't like that he was following the well publicized rules to which everyone agreed, they changed the rules to favor themselves. It sounds like those that changed the rules exploited the system.

Absolutely not.

The committee's posts are pretty clear about what the situation and the reasons for temp disabling the function were.

Your interpretation does not really make sense. People exploited JohnnyBitcoin, really!? How so? Did JohnnyBitcoin lose anything?

Please do not turn around facts.

You are free to not believe in what the committee have done, for whatever strange reason you could have. But twist facts like this is really unbelievable.




Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #147 on: December 07, 2015, 01:51:53 pm »


Especially in cases like this, where there actually was nothing wrong with the market/settle/blockchain system.

The market was working with an inaccurate feed.
The settlement function relies on an accurate feed to determine the price of the settle.

So, there was indeed something not working as it should.


Offline fuzzy

Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #148 on: December 07, 2015, 03:00:40 pm »
it is late for me and I am about to pass out at my keyboard, but was informed of something quite interesting and would like to delve in a bit further in hopes of someone giving me the cliffs notes version so I don't have to read through the entire thread right now and can save it for a bit further into the future.

Here is a link to a thread I think is worth talking about.  Espcially interested in what fav was talking about with committee members using their positions to help themselves as opposed to bitshares.  I am listening and hoping someone can update me and potentially provide me with some detailed evidence (if possible).

My guess is that Fav was talking about this thread:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.0.html

correct.

here is what I wrote earlier in this thread:

in light of the current power abuse of the current committee due to  a non-issue I left the private committee group and told them they lost my support.

bhuz, mindphlux and bitcube are the only people representing us stakeholders in the committee in my opinion.

(puppy don't know, he did not participate in the current fiasco at alll)

further actions to be discussed.

Settlement was disabled on a rushed decision by the committtee because Transwiser (bitcrab) stated, that transwiser is facing monetary losses.

We learned later, that they never lost a single cent prior to the disabling, and it was communicated as a "miscommunication" (some call it lying).

further, there were some people aggressively trying to push their own agenda, probably to please their whale voters.

that's the short version, and why I told the former committee they lost my support.

So this could be why none of the committee members have gotten back to me about our committee townhalls...
Perhaps they dont want real transparency, or for the community to give them realtime feedback. 

can you tell me off the top of your head who are the current committee members? 
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 03:02:34 pm by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline Thom

Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #149 on: December 07, 2015, 04:31:50 pm »
it is late for me and I am about to pass out at my keyboard, but was informed of something quite interesting and would like to delve in a bit further in hopes of someone giving me the cliffs notes version so I don't have to read through the entire thread right now and can save it for a bit further into the future.

Here is a link to a thread I think is worth talking about.  Espcially interested in what fav was talking about with committee members using their positions to help themselves as opposed to bitshares.  I am listening and hoping someone can update me and potentially provide me with some detailed evidence (if possible).

My guess is that Fav was talking about this thread:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.0.html

correct.

here is what I wrote earlier in this thread:

in light of the current power abuse of the current committee due to  a non-issue I left the private committee group and told them they lost my support.

bhuz, mindphlux and bitcube are the only people representing us stakeholders in the committee in my opinion.

(puppy don't know, he did not participate in the current fiasco at alll)

further actions to be discussed.

Settlement was disabled on a rushed decision by the committtee because Transwiser (bitcrab) stated, that transwiser is facing monetary losses.

We learned later, that they never lost a single cent prior to the disabling, and it was communicated as a "miscommunication" (some call it lying).

further, there were some people aggressively trying to push their own agenda, probably to please their whale voters.

that's the short version, and why I told the former committee they lost my support.

This issue is very confusing, and the quoted post above is a good example of why.

In a nutshell, fav withdrew his support of the committee, yet says bhuz et al are the only ones on the committee doing right by shareholders, and bhuz is the most vocal here in his defense of this committee decision. That is contradictory, or at the very least confusing.

Bhuz chastised maqifrnswa who was basically trying to say "stick to the rules, and stop changing them without advance notice", which sentiment I strongly agree with. Moreover, no evidence to ANY of the claims summarized in this thread have been presented here, either the evidence of the original "emergency" bitcrab et al was raising OR why changing the settlement rules without notice was the only reasonable course of action by the committee.

It sounds like the root of the emergency is inaccurate CNY price feeds. Most of that discussion was held on the private Telegram witness channel NOT this forum as it should have been. I responded to an alert complaining my price feed was "way off". Upon investigation it came to light that "way off" was only 2.5%, so I decided to continue with my existing feed delivery method for now.

I have suggested before that feeds be handled separately from witness operations. This controversy is a good reason why.

Witnesses primary role is securing the network. Feeds have little to do with security. Witnesses need to have a high level of technical knowledge, feed producers do not. Feed producers need to have a good understanding of economics and statistical analysis, witnesses do not.

Unless I'm mistaken, there are only 2 feed scripts in use among the 27 witnesses: xeroc's and wackou's. This "emergency" issue would never have risen to the involvement of the committee if dedicated feed producers were in place, as they would have had an incentive to make sure their feeds are accurate or loose that incentive. That incentive would also stimulate the creative freedom to provide far more variety in feed sources and algorithms aimed at delivering the most accurate feeds, and making adjustments when necessary. Look how long it took for the CNY feeds to become an issue after launch. If this was an issue on October nobody noticed it or brought attention to it.

IMO this represents an epic fail concerning community governance, which was not helped by the manor of communication  (timeliness, chosen media, clarity of thought and disorganized).

« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 04:36:03 pm by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html