Anyone else noticed that the STEALTH worker proposal is already "approved"?

[tonyk]

But maybe it is OK and all around here are just sheep that does not deserve better than pure dictatorship...

bitcrab is not voting on it because it is not directly related to his business interests, fav managed to came up with technical excuse why not to vote at least for the refund worker [so to effectively rise the barrier to entry above bm single vote deciding the fate of any worker proposal]

Maybe it is exactly what bts deserves, just maybe.

[tonyk]

I may be as dumb as Toast (which admittedly is not all that dumb), and I admit I haven't been paying that much attention after helping OnceUp's team figure out an approach, but I'm having a hard time seeing a dictatorship in here:

This shows the current status of voting on a tiny fee for xeroc's effort in setting up a poll, which in turn informs the witnesses about the opinion of the community concerning whether a proposed software patch should be installed.

It would appear that the presumed "dictator" is the six accounts that have bothered to vote wielding about 6% of the community's potential voting power.  How dare they do that!  What blatant unmitigated tyranny!  Off with their heads! 

It also informs the proposers about whether they have enough support to risk spending their own money on developing a product.

Two weeks notice has always been the standard for advance notice in this community.  Few corporations are required give more notice than that for a shareholder's vote.  To take longer than that is to hamstring the corporation's ability to maneuver and compete.

At the end of that time, an investor's real money is going to be spent based on the status of that vote at that time.  As more voters get around to voting before then, that could swing either way - but enough have already agreed to pay Xeroc for setting up the vote, which is all that being "voted in" means at this point.

Then, when the project is complete, the new software will be presented to the witnesses as an opportunity to hard fork by switching to running the new package.

At that time they will face a choice:

1.  Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2.  Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).

Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.

Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.

That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.

This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.

Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.

For starters every attempt is made this to be presented as GUI feature, and to hide the fact it is change on the blockchain level, effectively relocating fees from the BTS holders to a private investors.

The only people supposing it is BM and his employees (xeroc).

Those 2 weeks to vote on deliberately hidden facts, conveniently fall in the 2 weeks most people will be on vacation/on holiday.


After all why don't you (if not BM) himself come and answer straight this question - Am I going to have to pay the stealth fee if I use the CLI for my stealth transfers or not?-

[Stan]

I may be as dumb as Toast (which admittedly is not all that dumb), and I admit I haven't been paying that much attention after helping OnceUp's team figure out an approach, but I'm having a hard time seeing a dictatorship in here:

This shows the current status of voting on a tiny fee for xeroc's effort in setting up a poll, which in turn informs the witnesses about the opinion of the community concerning whether a proposed software patch should be installed.

It would appear that the presumed "dictator" is the six accounts that have bothered to vote wielding about 6% of the community's potential voting power.  How dare they do that!  What blatant unmitigated tyranny!  Off with their heads! 

It also informs the proposers about whether they have enough support to risk spending their own money on developing a product.

Two weeks notice has always been the standard for advance notice in this community.  Few corporations are required give more notice than that for a shareholder's vote.  To take longer than that is to hamstring the corporation's ability to maneuver and compete.

At the end of that time, an investor's real money is going to be spent based on the status of that vote at that time.  As more voters get around to voting before then, that could swing either way - but enough have already agreed to pay Xeroc for setting up the vote, which is all that being "voted in" means at this point.

Then, when the project is complete, the new software will be presented to the witnesses as an opportunity to hard fork by switching to running the new package.

At that time they will face a choice:

1.  Honor the vote at the time the decision to spend money was made, or
2.  Honor the vote at the time the product is delivered (if it has changed in the mean time).

Acting against the wishes of Vote 2 could get them fired if enough people disagree with them keeping the implied commitment of Vote 1.

Acting against the wishes of Vote 1 means that BitShares gets a reputation for reneging on a prior vote upon which an entrepreneur has relied.

That could have a chilling effect on BitShares ability to attract more entrepreneurs.

This means that even if some voters have changed their minds about STEALTH by installation time, they might NOT decide to fire otherwise faithful witnesses for deciding to obey Vote 1 in order to preserve BitShares' reputation in future deals.

Please explain where your think the above process could be improved, given the tools available at this time.

[jakub]

How you gonna vote after those 2 weeks?  The only option you will have left is by voting with your feet, my friend.

No, during those 2 weeks (or probably much longer) you can vote against the worker proposal.
If CNX deploys STEALTH at a time when this worker proposal is effectively downvoted - I'll agree with you that this would amount to "dictatorship".

[jakub]

@tonyk , just to make it clear.
I am not delighted about this STEALTH feature taking so much priority.
I think it could wait till Q2 2016. But I accept this situation as part of the DPOS game we play.

[tonyk]

152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593  = 6.01%

In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.

That's how DPOS works - those who do not care enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process.
This is exactly how it is supposed to be.

Absolutely NOT - When  changing the blockchain rules are concerned.

Stakeholder are supposed to be given enough time to get informed and react!

[Some decent min amount of required support is a great idea, but who cares about principles when money are on the table ]
Hell even the benign changes done to only the parameters [and not the protocol itself] should take 2 weeks before taking an effect.

But the actual vote will take place after more than 2 weeks - when the code is ready to be deployed and a hard-fork is needed.
The worker proposal created by xeroc is only meant to give CNX an indication if STEALTH has a chance of being accepted.

So stakeholders are given enough time to get informed and react.
So what's your point?

Stop being delusional. The vote is now!

How you gonna vote after those 2 weeks?  The only option you will have left is by voting with your feet, my friend.

PS
I know he did not explained that part either, so that's why you are under this false assumption...it all comingles in this swift action 'plan' over the stakeholders heads.

[jakub]

152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593  = 6.01%

In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.

That's how DPOS works - those who do not care enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process.
This is exactly how it is supposed to be.

Absolutely NOT - When  changing the blockchain rules are concerned.

Stakeholder are supposed to be given enough time to get informed and react!

[Some decent min amount of required support is a great idea, but who cares about principles when money are on the table ]
Hell even the benign changes done to only the parameters [and not the protocol itself] should take 2 weeks before taking an effect.

But the actual vote will take place after more than 2 weeks - when the code is ready to be deployed and a hard-fork is needed.
The worker proposal created by xeroc is only meant to give CNX an indication if STEALTH has a chance of being accepted.

So stakeholders are given enough time to get informed and react.
So what's your point?

[tonyk]

152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593  = 6.01%

In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.

That's how DPOS works - those who do not care enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process.
This is exactly how it is supposed to be.

Absolutely NOT - When  changing the blockchain rules are concerned.

Stakeholder are supposed to be given enough time to get informed and react!

[Some decent min amount of required support is a great idea, but who cares about principles when money are on the table ]
Hell even the benign changes done to only the parameters [and not the protocol itself] should take 2 weeks before taking an effect.

[jakub]

152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593  = 6.01%

In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.

That's how DPOS works - those who do not care enough to vote are ignored in the decision making process.
This is exactly how it is supposed to be.

[tonyk]

Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things?

You are abusing words, @tonyk

onceuponatime offered 45k for a feature he believes in, CNX accepted the offer and additionally the whole thing went through the worker proposal process.
If you believe BitShares should have other priorities, just raise the funds, find developers and get your worker proposal accepted.

I agree with you that maybe STEALTH is not the thing needed the most at this stage (I'd prioritize liquidity over STEALTH) but I would never call it "dictatorship".
This is how DPOS works. People vote with their money here and it just happened that STEALTH got more support at this moment so it will go first.

No I am not!

Can you tell me the total % of BTS voting for this hard fork , which changes the fees from  allocated to BTS and allocated to a private party?

152,393,436 / 2,535,646,846.32593  = 6.01%

In my world BM is forcing [very very swiftly] his decision on 94% of the stakeholders before they even have the time to read, realize or react on what is going on.

[jakub]

Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things?

You are abusing words, @tonyk

onceuponatime offered 45k for a feature he believes in, CNX accepted the offer and additionally the whole thing went through the worker proposal process.
If you believe BitShares should have other priorities, just raise the funds, find developers and get your worker proposal accepted.

I agree with you that maybe STEALTH is not the thing needed the most at this stage (I'd prioritize liquidity over STEALTH) but I would never call it "dictatorship".
This is how DPOS works. People vote with their money here and it just happened that STEALTH got more support at this moment so it will go first.

[tonyk]

.
@onceuponatime you said you share BM's philosophy. Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things? well I should not ask you that, throwing 45K in the  money sucking hole of BTS, should be enough [although too harsh for my taste] punishment for blindly following the words and not paying attention to the actual actions of the people you trust.

as far as I know he's going to pay with fiat. shouldn't slam a hole in BTS

I know - the statement was supposed to mean "throwing 45,000 USD of your life-savings into the money sucking - never-producing-finished-products Bitshares system".

[fav]

.
@onceuponatime you said you share BM's philosophy. Does this include dictatorship as a way to do things? well I should not ask you that, throwing 45K in the  money sucking hole of BTS, should be enough [although too harsh for my taste] punishment for blindly following the words and not paying attention to the actual actions of the people you trust.

as far as I know he's going to pay with fiat. shouldn't slam a hole in BTS

[tonyk]

This stealthy thingy has a good chance to be the second worst BM's invention.

What is the first one?

Encouraging brown-nosing as a highly desirable treat in the new better world... although when you connect one and 2, dictatorship and brown-nosing, they fit together pretty nicely actually.

[yvv]

This stealthy thingy has a good chance to be the second worst BM's invention.

What is the first one?