Author Topic: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community  (Read 29500 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
who locked this thread and why? (not visible in the admin log)

I did fav.

The proposal reached its goal, and in my last post I left the link for the new proposal to re-enable the function as stated in the OP.

It is fine lo lock it now?

Edit: I should have put a note on the last post to say that I was closing the thread. Sorry for that.

I think we should not close it, since there are some very interesting and related discussions here.

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
who locked this thread and why? (not visible in the admin log)

I did fav.

The proposal reached its goal, and in my last post I left the link for the new proposal to re-enable the function as stated in the OP.

It is fine lo lock it now?

Edit: I should have put a note on the last post to say that I was closing the thread. Sorry for that.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 11:29:09 am by Bhuz »

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
who locked this thread and why? (not visible in the admin log)

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
New proposal to re-enable the force settlement function after fixing the pricefeed script as previously stated in the OP: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20391.0.html

Offline mindphlux

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Update: The new price feed script has been finetuned and tested, and witnesses have been instructed to do an update. I expect us to create a proposal to unlock force settlement pretty soon now.
Please consider voting for my witness mindphlux.witness and my committee user mindphlux. I will not vote for changes that affect witness pay.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I think we have solved the feed price "issue" and have a more accurate CNY price produced ..
Currently testing .. but looking good

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
So do we have it back yet?...or as predicted we are dealing with 'not enough precision issue" or whatever else excuse the master manipulator has come up with now
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329

we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .

claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?

not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.

it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.

this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.

the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.

Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:

- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)

but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.
@fav if you really want, you can ask witnesses to stop publishing CNY price feed and close the CNY market. But do you really think its the solution?

temporary until the feed is fixed. too late for that now 

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329

we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .

claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?

not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.

it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.

this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.

the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.

Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:

- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)

but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.
@fav if you really want, you can ask witnesses to stop publishing CNY price feed and close the CNY market. But do you really think its the solution?
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline fav

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

the whole problem was from a 3rd party price feed, instead of fixing this problem by shutting down the feed, you just change one of the core principles. that's literally the worst thing to do in my opinion.

It's not the committees job to minimize risk for bad businesses or trading decisions nor is it up to you to decide who's allowed to profit and who is not.

Settlement requires a valid feed, if you shutdown the feed you will not be able to use the settlement at all!

We are not talking of bad businesses or trading decisions!

Plus the pricefeed is a vital function for bitasset, and it is not" really" a 3rd party thing.

well it is, else it would be implemented to the core.

I'd rather not trade an asset knowing there was a bug than to see some people change the core functionality of a trading platform in a heartbeat.

It just doesn't build confidence, and this will be a huge problem in the future imo

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
I disagree.

the whole problem was from a 3rd party price feed, instead of fixing this problem by shutting down the feed, you just change one of the core principles. that's literally the worst thing to do in my opinion.

It's not the committees job to minimize risk for bad businesses or trading decisions nor is it up to you to decide who's allowed to profit and who is not.

Settlement requires a valid feed, if you shutdown the feed you will not be able to use the settlement at all!

We are not talking of bad businesses or trading decisions!

Plus the pricefeed is a vital function for bitasset, and it is not" really" a 3rd party thing.

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:

- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)

but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.

Shutdown CNY market would have been a worst decision.

Some people are blaiming the temporary suspension of the force settle function just because they can not use it on the CNY market to gain free money at the expenses of the shorters.
Shutting down the CNY market would have had the same results for those people pov...no free money anymore. They would still blaiming the decision.

Plus:
The real "active" markets are mostly btc/bts, usd/bts, cny/bts.

Since both btc/bts and usd/bts have buy orders above the feed, using the force settlement has no sense at all, since you could sell at better price than feed price.
That means that the temporary disable of the force settlement only affect cny market.

BUT, shutting down cny market, not only would prevented the use of the function, but would also completely stopped any trade at all.
No one could have sold or bought cny anymore, and no one could have started to put some buy orders above the feed as now.

So ultimately shutdown the cny market was not a better decision at all.


Transwiser is not the only shorter in cny market. So it is not a better idea.

Pay for a professional price feed provider - I don't think it make any sense at all. There is no "professional price feed" and there is not "right" price feed.
There is "accurate" price feed *considering* external exchanges. So again, it is not a viable solution.

I am not going to reply on the "agenda" and "greed" part. Really. It insult me a bit. I have no gain on temporary disabling the function.


You guys should try to understand that we took that decision only because we think it was really the right thing to do to for the good of the community as a whole.

I disagree.

the whole problem was from a 3rd party price feed, instead of fixing this problem by shutting down the feed, you just change one of the core principles. that's literally the worst thing to do in my opinion.

It's not the committees job to minimize risk for bad businesses or trading decisions nor is it up to you to decide who's allowed to profit and who is not.

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:

- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)

but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.

Shutdown CNY market would have been a worst decision.

Some people are blaiming the temporary suspension of the force settle function just because they can not use it on the CNY market to gain free money at the expenses of the shorters.
Shutting down the CNY market would have had the same results for those people pov...no free money anymore. They would still blaiming the decision.

Plus:
The real "active" markets are mostly btc/bts, usd/bts, cny/bts.

Since both btc/bts and usd/bts have buy orders above the feed, using the force settlement has no sense at all, since you could sell at better price than feed price.
That means that the temporary disable of the force settlement only affect cny market.

BUT, shutting down cny market, not only would prevented the use of the function, but would also completely stopped any trade at all.
No one could have sold or bought cny anymore, and no one could have started to put some buy orders above the feed as now.

So ultimately shutdown the cny market was not a better decision at all.


Transwiser is not the only shorter in cny market. So it is not a better idea.

Pay for a professional price feed provider - I don't think it make any sense at all. There is no "professional price feed" and there is not "right" price feed.
There is "accurate" price feed *considering* external exchanges. So again, it is not a viable solution.

I am not going to reply on the "agenda" and "greed" part. Really. It insult me a bit. I have no gain on temporary disabling the function.


You guys should try to understand that we took that decision only because we think it was really the right thing to do to for the good of the community as a whole.

Offline monsterer

As you said it, metaexchange "had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC".  AFAIK, nobody - absolutely no businesses are pegging 1 bitBTC : 1 real BTC in the bitshares DEX.  But why?  IMHO, the risk of losses is probably too high to justify any profit.

Well, we canned it because demand was so low and costs were high - there was no way we could have priced it 1:1, because the cost of restocking our inventories was much higher than thqat. In the end it was something like 1:1.1 when we pulled support for it.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.
More than 99.9% of the people here don't use the cli and did not know how to use the force settlement and so never used it before its GUI implementation.

the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.
We saved shorters from an exploit.
We hurted nobody. We stopped some people to gain money exploiting a flaw at the expenses of shorters.