Proxy: fav - Journal

[mindphlux]

There's only 321k BTS available daily so it's actually more than 100% of the budget. I'll also vote against it as it seems outragious. We need core features, not this.

[fav]

the timing is really bad for this 6 worker proposal https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19351.0.html

rejecting all of them.

we need core development, there's no way to pay 360k (72% of our daily budget) into this. especially when there's no escrow

[twitter]

     fully support

[fav]

Took some time to think about open worker proposals, came to a conclusion today.

1. I will vote for https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20144.0.html (github coordinator)

We can talk all we want, but at the end of the day CNX needs external help. 1.5k over 3months is still a hit to our budget at the moment, I agree.

In the end, I think we all profit from a coordinated github which leads to faster bugfixes, and less stress for our codemonkeys.

2. I won't vote for https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20104.0.html (Stealth TX)

I think privacy is valuable and very much needed, but there are more important things to get bitshares rolling in my opinion. eg. bond market

[fav]

I am going to vote for https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20089.0.html proposal.

This is something most of the people want who I talked to.

[fav]

removed the vote on init2. there's a running committee now, I just hope they slow down a bit in the future

[robertford]

Sounds Good! I like it very much.

[fav]

to block this proposal http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.13 (lower tx fees to nirvana)

I'm voting for bitcube http://cryptofresh.com/u/bitcube

and http://cryptofresh.com/u/init2 init2 until the end of the voting time.

edit: other commitee's against it - fav (1.5.13)  mindphlux (1.5.11)

[fav]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19890.msg255606.html#msg255606

Proposal #1 (the one I was unsure of) has been retracted, so I will vote for this worker.

[fav]

1 question answered:

The proposal reads specifically:

Because this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.

This would indicate the sender pays nothing and the receiver pays the fee. The discount is for RECEIVING transactions then, not SENDING transactions, if I may interpret that.

This is PURELY a cosmetic change.  The minimum transfer would be fee + 1 satoshi and the merchant would only see a gain of 1 satoshi.  From the user's perspective they paid the merchant $0.20, but the merchant only pocketed $0.01.  In no case can one user drain funds from another by spamming.

1 still open.

[fav]

currently evaluating this proposal: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19890.0.html

I will most likely vote against it, if I there's no satisfying answer to:

ecause this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.

so someone can flood some 0.1 BTS txs and I have to pay whatever fee is currently setup? how can I refuse transactions as a receiver?

and

and what is the incentive for a regular user to go lifetime?

[twitter]

muse  still need lots of witness . We can direct new joiner to run a witness node for muse

[fav]

Clarification from telegram discussion.

1) Fav's maximum number of witness support is 17.
2) Fav adds when witnesses ask him to add on his slate.

Is it correct @fav  ?

as mentioned in OP (/17 / 17)

and yes. correct

[clayop]

Clarification from telegram discussion.

1) Fav's maximum number of witness support is 17.
2) Fav adds when witnesses ask him to add on his slate.

Is it correct @fav  ?

[fav]

I still support the initial witnesses until one drops off perfomance wise. then I'll vote for the next in the standby list.

I don't care what BM or others vote, mostly BM at this point

You meant other witnesses you didn't vote for have lower performance than inits?

no, initial witnesses are the ones I vote vor. the starters.