Author Topic: Proxy: fav - Journal  (Read 27786 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #150 on: December 07, 2015, 05:35:38 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.

I have no problems with the committee stepping in to slow things down until they are better understood in this case. I just want you to be aware of how this is perceived by non-bitshares experts (outsiders). The committee can post all they want, and have noble goals, but in the end they have to realize they are weighing pros and cons. Very few decisions don't benefit one group and hurt another. I'd like to see the committee acknowledge that they were aware of the consequences but thought they were justified.

The facts point to JonnyBitcoin being exploited. In the end, exploiting him is probably worth it as his loss was minimal to ensure everyone was on the same page and feeds were made more accurate, but nonetheless something that should be taken seriously.

Facts:
1) The BitShares blockchain was working perfectly as designed. There was no flaw in the blockchain/DEX.
2) JonnyBitcoin was using the system perfectly as designed and profiting from performing an important network roll (supply control arbitrage)
3) Due to a misunderstanding of how the system works, what price feeds do, and how price feeds should be reported, some thought there was a flaw in the system.
4) The system was changed temporarily so people could figure out how they should have been behaving all along, but weren't because of a misunderstanding.

How JonnyBitcoin got hurt:
He was going long on assets he thought were overvalued so that he could settle them for a profit. By turning off forced settling, he and other settlers were stuck with things they already knew were overvalued. In the time it took for settling to be turned back on, the market had already corrected itself and Jonny lost the profit he would have made along with losing value in assets he didn't want to begin with.

Companies have gotten sued for less.

The committee made the decision to hurt one person (or a few people) in exchange for slowing down that system so larger, more important, organizations could readjust and feed scripts could be fixed. As we're starting off, that's probably the right decision - but it should not be taken lightly.


EDIT:
Quote
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.

Feeds are absolute, there is no such thing as an inaccurate feed. All business models and decisions must be based on the feed. Some community members did not like the source of data for the feeds, or how they were calculated. The "accuracy" of the feed must be priced into the value of bitshares. Inaccurate feeds do not mean the system is not working, it just means you need more tolerance for error and thus decreases the value of the system. Increasing accuracy was great, and increased the value of the feeds themselves, but does not mean the system was not working when the feeds were inacuate.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 07:39:32 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 mindphlux

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #151 on: December 14, 2015, 10:07:17 pm »
I've just seen this thread with this debate in progress, so I'd figure I should write down my side regarding this fiasco

1) We, the committee members at the time, were approached by transwiser (led by bitcrab) that the new settle button in the frontend is causing transwiser to loose money, people are actively exploiting it and have already suffered losses
2) The suggestion from bitcrab at the time was to disable the feature permanently
3) After further discussion, a compromise was reached - turn if off for one week, and allow the witnesses to adjust the price feeds for the CNY market, there was really a 2% gap there.

So far so good.

Before casting my vote, I specifically asked if transwiser is indeed ALREADY loosing money on this issue, and I was told that this was the case. This was the sole reason why I was voting for this proposal in the first place.

After the vote has passed, I asked bitcrab again in the committee channel if money was indeed lost or not - answer was that transwiser lost no money, and the action was needed to protect CNY shorters from the 'evil' settlers

Later on, this was blamed on miscommunication between chinese language and english language, but personally I felt misled and also feel like I was fed wrong information and this whole episode feels cheated, one could also call it power abuse. The fact alone that bitcrab is acting as committee member and submitted a proposal that deals with his company has a bad aftertaste.

As a result, I came up with the idea to create a common set of committee guidelines how a proposal is submitted, to make sure such misleading cannot happen again.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 10:09:49 pm by mindphlux »
Please consider voting for my witness mindphlux.witness and my committee user mindphlux. I will not vote for changes that affect witness pay.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #152 on: December 14, 2015, 10:12:54 pm »
I've just seen this thread with this debate in progress, so I'd figure I should write down my side regarding this fiasco

1) We, the committee members at the time, were approached by transwiser (led by bitcrab) that the new settle button in the frontend is causing transwiser to loose money, people are actively exploiting it and have already suffered losses
2) The suggestion from bitcrab at the time was to disable the feature permanently
3) After further discussion, a compromise was reached - turn if off for one week, and allow the witnesses to adjust the price feeds for the CNY market, there was really a 2% gap there.

So far so good.

Before casting my vote, I specifically asked if transwiser is indeed ALREADY loosing money on this issue, and I was told that this was the case. This was the sole reason why I was voting for this proposal in the first place.

After the vote has passed, I asked bitcrab again in the committee channel if money was indeed lost or not - answer was that transwiser lost no money, and the action was needed to protect CNY shorters from the 'evil' settlers

Later on, this was blamed on miscommunication between chinese language and english language, but personally I felt misled and also feel like I was fed wrong information and this whole episode feels cheated, one could also call it power abuse. The fact alone that bitcrab is acting as committee member and submitted a proposal that deals with his company has a bad aftertaste.

As a result, I came up with the idea to create a common set of committee guidelines how a proposal is submitted, to make sure such misleading cannot happen again.

well listing to the forum idiot singing would have helped as well...

PS
sorry fav for posting in your thread, feel free to delete the post if you find it inappropriate/in the wrong thread.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline mindphlux

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #153 on: December 14, 2015, 10:17:20 pm »
Trust me, tonyk - I learned my thing what it means to believe someone to what he/she is saying regarding bitshares. I always presumed that committee members are trusted community members and have no desire to manipulate - I've proven wrong, and the committee guidelines attempt to fix that so it cannot happen again.
Please consider voting for my witness mindphlux.witness and my committee user mindphlux. I will not vote for changes that affect witness pay.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1413
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #154 on: December 15, 2015, 05:03:38 am »
I have explained the whole process as quoted below.

the point is, ATM the system is not ready enough to welcome the force settlement feature, what the committee did is to delay the time for the force settlement going public and at the same time make the system ready.


the "SQP1500" event is really a big shame for Bitshares. it has very bad influence to Bitshares' reputation, it put a big doubt on how bitshares can do good change management and protect user's benefits from being hurt. every developer, committee member,  witness  should remember this event and try to prevent similar things from happening in the future.

in the past several days, committee did some change to the blockchain parameters, the route is disable force settlement ->upgrade price feed scripts->change max settle volume of from 20% to 2% ->enable force settlement. the former 2 are finished, the latter 2 will take affect in several hours.

actually it's not easy to do all this, many debates happened in the process, but finally the result is satisfactory, I am proud that the committee can finish this as a whole.

now let's review what happened and why they should happen.

force settlement is a new feature of bts2.0, it is announced in the documents several months ago,  however many users, including me, recognize what this feature bring only after the settle button appear in latest light wallet.

force settlement is a powerful tool, it can bring price floor to smartcoin, it can also be used by speculators to manipulate the market, so while introducing this feature, it is very important to config the environment carefully to try to prevent it from being abused, and protect the user's benefits.

but even 2 days ago, 2 things are not ready to welcome the force settlement.

1. for BitCNY, the settlement price provided by witness is always obvious lower than the actual price.
2.the max settle volume parameter is wrongly set to 20%, according to the design it should be set to 2%.

these 2 factors give speculators big chance to manipulate the market, and expose the shorters to big risks. when several days ago I tried my best to persuade committee members to disable the force settlement temporarily I am only aware of factor 1, not aware of factor 2.

committee finally agree to disable the force settlement temporarily with unwillingness from some members, and then the work to upgrade the feed price script began, I'd like to say thanks for all the members that participated the new script coding and test, yesterday  the new script work well.

and then the 20% max settle volume problem come to committee's vision, after some debate and response from BM, 2 proposals are created to change the 20% to 2% and enable the force settlement at almost the same time.

in the whole process I behaved rude and tough now and then, I apologize here if I had hurt someone's feeling,  but I don't regret to what I have done, In many cases the only thing I focus is to ensure what should be done really be done, nothing else.

many said all I did is for my own benefits, sure, if the system introduce risk features without well prepared environment and put all shorters to big risk, shouldn't I fight for them, including myself?

someone tell me that I over evaluate the risk, but, from a perspective of a financial system, the key point is to kill the possibility of easy market manipulation at design, this is relevant to many users' assets, not kids' game.

someone said I help shorters but hurt longers, surely shorters need more care, because in Bitshares only shorters face the risk of being margin called or force settled, and have big possibility to be exploited. there's no leverage tradings designed for longers and longers have no such risks to bear. I really helped shorters, but I haven't hurt longers, at most I removed their chance to exploit shorters.

I am glad to see a user wrote this after knowing what had happened:

I missed that post from bytemaster.  And cryptofresh doesn't seem to indicate who created the proposal.  It would have been nice for committee members to be explicit about this as their rationale for quickly voting the 20%-->2% change, otherwise it looks to stakeholders like you're not being deliberate enough, especially after the previous controversial proposal that was voted through.  Anyway, it looks like things are falling into place.  Thanks.


Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #155 on: December 16, 2015, 05:35:15 am »
I will vote for [member=11456]svk[/member] asap.

GUI development worker - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20655

He's one of the active guys working on our GUI
► How-to Buy BitShares: https://goo.gl/i9j2YZ

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #156 on: December 18, 2015, 10:08:58 am »
Breaking down on [member=120]xeroc[/member] 's worker proposal https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20681.0.html

Quote
Lots of Documentation (e.g. docs.bitshares.eu), Whitepapers, BSIPs,
General Technical Support for BitShares (e.g. in the forums), and
Some improvements in the Graphene-UI (by far not as many as [member=11456]svk[/member] though)

Very valuable work. If there's a decent ticket/support system implemented to Bitshares.org/OL and other "official" websites, I'd consider $1k per month as reasonable. Bitshares is rather small, so support hours should not go up the roof anytime soon.

Quote
Development of a Python library

answer:

could you please elaborate on "Development of a Python library," ?
https://github.com/xeroc/python-grapehenlib
I plan to add transaction construction and signing to it as I had it already in the previous network.
But as the underlying wire format changed, I need to rewrite alot of code and add alot of different transaction types (i.e. operations).
Then we could have a simple python tool for instance for offline-signing of transactions .. not just the Javascript and C++ implementation

Also the development of price feed scripts and other tools for witnesses take their time.
Another idea I have is to do some statistical analysis over block chain parameters .. e.g. for committee members ..

ignoring the price feed here, as I consider it very valuable until we got a professional provider.

as for TX signing (offline TX mentioned earlier in the thread) - I'm not sure what to think of it. Offline Signing is probably a 2 out of 10 on the priority list in my opinion.
Waiting for more information on that one, since it stands for, according to my calculation, $2.2k.

Until this is clarified, I will stay neutral on the proposal.
► How-to Buy BitShares: https://goo.gl/i9j2YZ

Online abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3590
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #157 on: December 19, 2015, 11:22:21 am »
[member=31]fav[/member] I wonder why you vote against worker refund400k (1.4.0)?
And [member=20914]mindphlux[/member] ?
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #158 on: December 19, 2015, 12:13:40 pm »
[member=31]fav[/member] I wonder why you vote against worker refund400k (1.4.0)?
And [member=20914]mindphlux[/member] ?

refund400k - intentional. there's no official written proposal or explanation on it - the bare minimum in my opinion.

mindphlux - thanks for pointing that out, clearly not intentional

edti: seems like [member=20914]mindphlux[/member] has no active worker
► How-to Buy BitShares: https://goo.gl/i9j2YZ

Online abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3590
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #159 on: December 19, 2015, 12:50:52 pm »
[member=31]fav[/member] I wonder why you vote against worker refund400k (1.4.0)?
And [member=20914]mindphlux[/member] ?

refund400k - intentional. there's no official written proposal or explanation on it - the bare minimum in my opinion.

mindphlux - thanks for pointing that out, clearly not intentional

edti: seems like [member=20914]mindphlux[/member] has no active worker
I meant [member=20914]mindphlux[/member] is also voting against that refund400K proposal.

[member=120]xeroc[/member] would you please draft a document for the refund400k proposal? Or better help committee-account to create a refund proposal to replace the current one? OK let's move this discussion to worker proposal board.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Online abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3590
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #160 on: December 19, 2015, 01:13:22 pm »
[member=31]fav[/member] How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #161 on: December 19, 2015, 01:23:34 pm »
[member=31]fav[/member] How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".

how I understand it:

the current worker is a "poll" that's used to see if we want this feature.
the $300 go to xeroc for maintining the proposal.

now don't ask me why CNX wants us to pay someone to maintain a proposal, no idea. won't vote for this as it's overly complicated in my opinion.
► How-to Buy BitShares: https://goo.gl/i9j2YZ

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #162 on: December 19, 2015, 02:14:16 pm »
[member=31]fav[/member] How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".

how I understand it:

the current worker is a "poll" that's used to see if we want this feature.
the $300 go to xeroc for maintining the proposal.

now don't ask me why CNX wants us to pay someone to maintain a proposal, no idea. won't vote for this as it's overly complicated in my opinion.

So you are voting AGAINST having the Stealth GUI implemented?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: fav
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #163 on: December 19, 2015, 02:25:42 pm »
[member=31]fav[/member] How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".

how I understand it:

the current worker is a "poll" that's used to see if we want this feature.
the $300 go to xeroc for maintining the proposal.

now don't ask me why CNX wants us to pay someone to maintain a proposal, no idea. won't vote for this as it's overly complicated in my opinion.

So you are voting AGAINST having the Stealth GUI implemented?

I'm not voting in this poll as I'm not okay with the fine print.

as for stealth in general - I don't see it as a priority right now, however, if we get it for free thanks to onceuponatime, they can go for it.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2015, 02:41:37 pm by fav »
► How-to Buy BitShares: https://goo.gl/i9j2YZ

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« Reply #164 on: December 19, 2015, 04:49:25 pm »
[member=31]fav[/member] How about the STEALTH proposal (1.14.18)? All you proxies have no opinion but it's already "approved".

how I understand it:

the current worker is a "poll" that's used to see if we want this feature.
the $300 go to xeroc for maintining the proposal.

now don't ask me why CNX wants us to pay someone to maintain a proposal, no idea. won't vote for this as it's overly complicated in my opinion.

So you are voting AGAINST having the Stealth GUI implemented?

I'm not voting in this poll as I'm not okay with the fine print.

as for stealth in general - I don't see it as a priority right now, however, if we get it for free thanks to onceuponatime, they can go for it.

I would suggest not withholding your vote for the refund worker  based on technicality... if you cast your vote for it now, the stealth will be out at least temporarily.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.