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

[abit]

Shareholders are not paying for anything else first.  Bid up the MAKER asset and create a maker worker to see where that goes.  Both can be done at the same time because they require different skills.

Those who want to "secretly" support MAKER or other FBAs would disappoint since current implement of STEALTH only supports transfer but not support bid/ask or anything else.

[abit]

Why don't let us vote for a worker to implement the FBA *first, and only *after that, make *real FBAs tokens for STEALTH, prediction market, bond market ect etc?
In this way we could see what is the actualy demand for stealth vs other core features...and only in this way the shareholders have real power to decide.

Good point.
By the way @Bhuz looks like you are not voting for or against this proposal either.

You know that "just take it and develop" means that for like 2 months cnx will work basically only on stealth putting in pause all the others things that shareholders would prefer to have first?

Not that bad as we still have svk who is working for UI, and most of this work is in UI. The C++ developers in CNX can still do other things.
//Edit: just saw sittingduck's post after yours.

[fav]

(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)

I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.

 

I don't understand this poll to be honest. someone is ready to throw money at CNX - they should just take it and develop. there's no way that people won't vote FOR the hardfork once it's ready

You know that "just take it and develop" means that for like 2 months cnx will work basically only on stealth putting in pause all the others things that shareholders would prefer to have first?

I'm aware of that and not too happy about it. but talking for 2 months about stuff won't get anything done, and unfortunately that's one of our weaknesses. we talk too much

[sittingduck]

Shareholders are not paying for anything else first.  Bid up the MAKER asset and create a maker worker to see where that goes.  Both can be done at the same time because they require different skills.

[Bhuz]

(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)

I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.

 

I don't understand this poll to be honest. someone is ready to throw money at CNX - they should just take it and develop. there's no way that people won't vote FOR the hardfork once it's ready

You know that "just take it and develop" means that for like 2 months cnx will work basically only on stealth putting in pause all the others things that shareholders would prefer to have first?

[Bhuz]

(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)

I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.

The point is: some shareholders would like to have an FBA to contribute in this funding, and doing so have a future revenue from the FBA's tokens
Some shareholders potentially could vote for this proposal thinking that onceuponatime will sell his shares back in the market, or will pass all his shares to the private investor who seems to be willing to seel those shares back to the BTS shareholders.

The fact is that all the above is totally unclear and made up by "maybe", "probably", "could", and so on...so you are not going to care of that even?

Plus, why don't give the shareholders a fair way to contribute?
Why don't let us vote for a worker to implement the FBA *first, and only *after that, make *real FBAs tokens for STEALTH, prediction market, bond market ect etc?
In this way we could see what is the actualy demand for stealth vs other core features...and only in this way the shareholders have real power to decide.

[fav]

(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)

I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.

 

I don't understand this poll to be honest. someone is ready to throw money at CNX - they should just take it and develop. there's no way that people won't vote FOR the hardfork once it's ready

[abit]

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.

Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?

The fact is, hard code the 80%/20% split in block-chain level is efficiently discouraging other UI developers (E.G. Moonstone) to produce a better UI, thus CNX could be the only developer for the system. Is it really good for the ecosystem @Stan?

[tonyk]

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.

And you are hiding the fact that the net revenue for the blockchain will most probably increase as a result.
So what you are advocating is effectively preventing the blockchain from having higher revenues.

How much revenue is STEALTH generating now, i.e. without the GUI support?
Personally I prefer 20% of a much bigger amount than 100% of a negligible amount.
Somebody has to pay for the STEALTH UI - it has to be either a private investor or the blockchain itself.

No I am not... I already shared my take on it...I do think onceUp is the biggest looser (moneywise) in the whole ordeal. Not only he will lose on his bts investment (no I idea how big it is as of now but I am guessing AT LEAST 1/3 to 1/2 of his current 45K bid, and I will not be surprised if it is much more than that), but he must be ready to kiss his 45K one last time on January second, before a long and painful wait to see just some of them back one day...maybe.

[jakub]

(plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do with his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)

I could not care less who he is and what his plans are. He is paying for the FBA shares and can do whatever he likes with them.
All I care about if it's a good deal for the blockchain.

[abit]

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.

Tony, BM is as humane as just voted via the "angel" account, he is not abusing his voting power.

[jakub]

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.

And you are hiding the fact that the net revenue for the blockchain will most probably increase as a result.
So what you are advocating is effectively preventing the blockchain from having higher revenues.

How much revenue is STEALTH generating now, i.e. without the GUI support?
Personally I prefer 20% of a much bigger amount than 100% of a negligible amount.
Somebody has to pay for the STEALTH UI - it has to be either a private investor or the blockchain itself.

[Bhuz]

@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.

You can accept that eventually the feature will be implemented because the majority of the stakeholders want it...ok

But why don't you want to express your point in this strange "poll", now, voting for or against it?!

And this is a general question to all the main proxies like @fav @clayop @bitcrab and all the others proxies we have.

If you feel this is the right time to implement STEALTH as it is (lacking of untraceability),
If you feel right with the way it is going to happen (no real FBA, plus total unclarity about what onceuponatime is going to do whit his shares, plus pitch black on who is and what the "private investor" is going to do in the future etc etc)
THEN vote for it!

If instead you don't feel so good about the above, or have others cons, THEN vote against it!

This worker was made for us to vote and express our point of view! Let's use this poll and let's vote now!
Why should we stay neutral and wait for the "real" one?!

[lil_jay890]

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.

I think most people here have realized bts has been a terrible investment and just want their money back.  They are hoping bm can catch lightning in a bottle and somehow raise the market cap to a level where it's satisfactory to get out.  That's why you see every proposal he makes voted in. People are just hoping one of them sticks and works out.

[abit]

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.

Make a decision (develop the hard fork or not) based on the result of a one-day poll makes much sense?