Author Topic: Proxy: jakub - better execution / implementation / communication of BM's ideas  (Read 16331 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jakub

  • Guest
I support xeroc's worker proposal (1.14.17) aimed at much needed documentation efforts:
https://github.com/xeroc/worker-proposals/blob/master/2016-01.md

Also, I've added my support for two witnesses
- delegated-proof-of-steak
- delegate.btsnow
as I've learned that they are run by our core developers: modprobe (Nathan Hourt) & dannotestein.

jakub

  • Guest
Committee members like @mindphlux making decisions not based on merit will be losing my support.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261692.html#msg261692

I've restated my support for mindphlux.
We still learn our roles (me included) so I thought it's a good thing to be more forgiving.


jakub

  • Guest
I've decided to support the STEALTH worker proposal (1.14.18)
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0008.md

If there was a similar LIQUIDITY worker proposal I'd support that over STEALTH but given the choice we currently have (STEALTH or nothing) I prefer STEALTH.

jakub

  • Guest
@jakub How about the STEALTH work proposal (1.14.18)? It seems to have already been approved.
I think STEALTH is important. I have my doubts whether it should be prioritized like that but anyway I think that we need it sooner or later.

I'll give you a marketing perspective - when I demo the GUI to non-crypto people, this question ALWAYS pops up: how come everyone see my balance?
Then I try to explain to them that you can always create another account without telling about it to anyone - but this does not sound very convincing to them.

And then I mention the stealth mode to be introduced soon. And only this seems to do the trick - people look forward to it.
They are used to the fact (or illusion?) that their finances are kept private.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
@jakub How about the STEALTH work proposal (1.14.18)? It seems to have already been approved.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

jakub

  • Guest

Offline Thom

A very simple but effective website to concisely provide essential info about the BitShares ecosystem.

Thanks for putting this together jakub. It's a stripped down version of what DPOS HUB was to hoping to provide (crypto-prometheus / dataSecurityNode): https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15832.msg225373.html#msg225373

Your site may not be interactive or flashy but you have provided real value by collecting a wide range of info in one place. I'll bet it will serve many quite well and be a starting point for others to embellish or improve upon.
 
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

jakub

  • Guest
+5%

I support your proxy initiative @jakub!  Your overall focus is great and you have a good grasp of many of the core issues we are dealing including protocol design.

Thanks, @merivercap

I'm attempting to launch a new website dedicated do BitShares. It's still work-in-progress but here is a quick preview:
http://neura-sx.github.io/

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash
 +5%

I support your proxy initiative @jakub!  Your overall focus is great and you have a good grasp of many of the core issues we are dealing including protocol design. 
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav

jakub

  • Guest
Regarding this worker proposal:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19351.0.html
I'll be voting against as I agree with @fav that it is way too expensive in comparison to the benefits offered.

jakub

  • Guest
This is my stance on the forced settlement issue:
The committee can either stay as an observer and watch the bitshares flaw exploiters eat him up OR it can stop the flaw exploiters from taking advantage of the flaw and level the playing field.
I get your point and kind of agree with it but not for the reasons you provide.
You treat this situation as if a system flaw has been unexpectedly discovered and thus an emergency action was required.

This is my interpretation of the current situation: CNX delivered the 2.0 code but failed to deliver proper documentation and as a result businesses like transwiser have been operating under false assumptions. Therefore it is justified to give those business some leeway to be able adjust to the newly discovered circumstances.

In the near future, when (hopefully) proper documentation is finally released, there will be no excuse to give any businesses a special treatment and bend the rules for them, even if they are the only ones supplying a given service. The consistency of the rules is much more important than the fate of any single business in the ecosystem.

Committee members like @mindphlux making decisions not based on merit will be losing my support.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261692.html#msg261692

Instead I'll support @BunkerChain Labs .
I'd also support @Xeldal - if he decides to become a Committee member.

jakub

  • Guest
u r now PROXYFIED..

your¨statements are spot on. As far as i can gather
Keep up the good work

Thanks  :)
This is a roadmap that I've recently created. Just take a look to see how long this list has become:
http://neura-sx.github.io/roadmap
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 07:35:10 am by jakub »

Offline tumorshield

u r now PROXYFIED..

your¨statements are spot on. As far as i can gather
Keep up the good work