so disappoint for this community

[Harvey]

it is good to have independent minds and different opinions among the committee members. So I will vote to alt.

[abit]

- you promise to vote for reversal, and  yet instead for doing just that and voting for the (20% to 2% change) at the same time, both taking place in the same time you chose to say this "What will you do if I do not vote for reversal? Cry like a baby?"

I think alt meant "What will you do if I do not vote for reversal? Cry like a baby?"

[bitcrab]

I ask witness to change SQP from 1500 to 1100,
all people object at the first, then several witness agree with me, but they all change back to 1500 only because of BM said 1500 is right
finally when we change it back to 1100, many user have lost their money

I ask community pause force settlement to avoid a possible unfair robbing
almost all people object me, they say I do it for Chinese commilitee, they focus on who's fault but not the problem itself,
they said this is not a problem because it's always there from the beginning.
we are lucky the committee have agree this proposal, although many seems not happy for this
people think I'm overthought, but do I? trader is not kids's game, do you really want do a serial business based this toy system?

I ask correct the settlement's volume limit from 20% to 2%
many people unsatisified me again,  and other people nobody can make sure if I am right, they just want to wait BM's advice.
no any Judgement again.
I ask committee correct it before reenable settlement,
but they said they must keep their promise to reenable force settlement, even don't care about if this is a security problem.
because user's security is not their responsibility to consider

after all these, I got disapoint only
I will continue my noise, just vote me out if I am not satisfied you.

I do not agree with the title, but what alt elaborated is really a big problem we have to face honestly and seriously.

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.

I appreciate BM's talent very much, but BM can also make mistake, including big mistake, in my view, one of committee''s tasks is to prevent BM from making big mistake.

I am open to any ideas, but while necessary, it's not a problem for me to say no to everyone.



 
   

[sudo]

I ask witness to change SQP from 1500 to 1100,
all people object at the first, then several witness agree with me, but they all change back to 1500 only because of BM said 1500 is right
finally when we change it back to 1100, many user have lost their money

I ask community pause force settlement to avoid a possible unfair robbing
almost all people object me, they say I do it for Chinese commilitee, they focus on who's fault but not the problem itself,
they said this is not a problem because it's always there from the beginning.
we are lucky the committee have agree this proposal, although many seems not happy for this
people think I'm overthought, but do I? trader is not kids's game, do you really want do a serial business based this toy system?

I ask correct the settlement's volume limit from 20% to 2%
many people unsatisified me again,  and other people nobody can make sure if I am right, they just want to wait BM's advice.
no any Judgement again.
I ask committee correct it before reenable settlement,
but they said they must keep their promise to reenable force settlement, even don't care about if this is a security problem.
because user's security is not their responsibility to consider

after all these, I got disapoint only
I will continue my noise, just vote me out if I am not satisfied you.

    well said

[fuzzy]

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19948.0.html

I have put up a poll that gives me all the info I need.  We need to start committee town halls...it has been up for quite some time now.  why are we not doing them?  Bytemaster does them and it seems pretty effective at getting his points across while also enabling the community to give their own input (whether it be the baaaaaaing of sheep or the growling of wolves...)

I am actively trying to get our community's leadership the tools to help bring ourselves to consensus.  The use of forums and text is great but until we actively produce interactive sessions for the evolution (and the struggles) of achieving relative consensus that is real time and efficient, you will see these disbutes continue resolving themselves in a way that makes our ecosystem more volatile. 

The more efficient our communication...the more effectively we can self govern. 

@fav @baozi @bitcube @mindphlux @puppies please consider this.  75% of the sample set tells us the community backs it. 

[hybridd]

Not particularly related to your issue, but people don't like thinking what to do, they like being told what to do. People are sheep, and thus is the world we live in.

Who are you calling sheep?  Bytemaster shouldn't make our decisions, but we should understand the intended design and rationale behind a setting we're considering to change, and then have a discussion about it.  Such changes should NOT be rushed or slipped in under the cover of darkness. 

P.S.  Blindly following someone requires little thinking.  So too does blindly disregarding them.

You're reading a lot into what I said. It seems you have your own assumptions about who you think are sheep already, what I said was much broader, I'm talking about the world itself. "Not particularly related to your issue."

[fav]

you can say and ask as much as you want, this is a free community after all. whether or not anyone follows your words is a whole other story.

Starting to wonder if anyone got some group project/management experience in the current committee

[Empirical1.2]

I ask community pause force settlement to avoid a possible unfair robbing
trader is not kids's game, do you really want do a serial business based this toy system?

This is not the first time you tried to interrupt the markets.

This is not fair to the short.
so I suggest to stop market engine emergency

Unfortunately 'unfair' is usually subjective and BTS is not a game. So stopping markets/features is VERY serious. This is why people have strong opinions.

[tbone]

Not particularly related to your issue, but people don't like thinking what to do, they like being told what to do. People are sheep, and thus is the world we live in.

Who are you calling sheep?  Bytemaster shouldn't make our decisions, but we should understand the intended design and rationale behind a setting we're considering to change, and then have a discussion about it.  Such changes should NOT be rushed or slipped in under the cover of darkness. 

P.S.  Blindly following someone requires little thinking.  So too does blindly disregarding them.

[yvv]

I don't see any reason to be disappointed. What OP describes is a normal working flow. If you are disappointed with this, it is probably time to take a vacation. Just give yourself some fun.

 

[Moon]

Maintain their own judgment, I support you

[clayop]

There were some minor miscommunication between alt and other members. The fact is all committee members cared about settlement limit bug(?) (20% instead of 2%), approached it prudently, and made a decision with devs help.

[tonyk]

all is good alt except for a few things...

 - you claim you think for yourself and oppose BM's wrong moves , yet you chose to defend even more clueless master - the one that did not read the rules so he wants to change the existing system in order protect his business. The one who can have objected SQP or the 20% instead of the 2% issue, but chose to a non issue even before losing a penny.

- you promise to vote for reversal, and  yet instead for doing just that and voting for the (20% to 2% change) at the same time, both taking place in the same time you chose to say this "What will you do if I do not vote for reversal? Cry like a baby?"

- and after all that you decided to do what, in this thread?...Cry like a ...what?

Needles to say I am so disappointed with you.

[rgcrypto]

I don't have enough knowledge to give my opinion on what the committee members do. Hopefully the incentives are aligned and we have knowledgeable  people doing the job.

So you won't see me tilting on one side or the other and we can't expect normal users to either. (or care)

[Pheonike]

If everyone agreed with every decision then the system would truly be broken.