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

[carpet ride]

I may be wrong, but the main issue here is that this asset compromises the integrity of the refer program.

This idea feels ike a shot in the dark but maybe it will inspire someone smarter than I to complete the idea.

• If applications could set their own fees (blockchain + application fee), then the FBAs would be less of a divisive issue.

EG Moonstone charges $1.50 for the blockchain fee and $1.50 for their own profits.  = $3.00 fee.    This way we could still make room for the referrer to get involved and keep the integrity of the program.  The application (e.g. moonstone or openledger) can increase their transaction fee to make margin available for referrers. 

[Buck Fankers]

There are features that Cryptonomex wants to implement where privacy is extremely important and there are lots of people that have avoided importing their balances from BitShares 1.0 because of the lack of privacy. Anyone who's got millions of BitShares cares about privacy. So the privacy feature is something that I think is very important and it's actually a barrier to adoption by a lot of people, particularly people with money. It's something we need and it's something that Cryptonomex has already invested the time in to implement at the blockchain level. This proposal helps fund Cryptonomex and it keeps all the guys employed with the revenue they need to do things. So it's a critical proposal in several different ways.

=)

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

I just think some people are blind... Someone ready to invest a sum of money to integrate a new feature to BitShares, is a bad thing?
How could it be wrong? Do someone actually think that onceup will throw this money out of its window without working his *** out to promote and do something of it which will benefit all the community?

onceuponatime's intentions, although a mystery, aren't really the question in my mind. Of course he's well intentioned enough he's been a bitshares supporter for ages.

it's about throwing the baby out with the bathwater out of desperation to get a new feature developed. Splitting up the value incentive takes away from BTS. Both directly and as a result of causing people (who thought they'd already invested in this feature) to have to buy a new asset, if it get's made available, eventually, and I'm sure it will as onceup has hinted at that-- but that means I'm still trusting somebody in this trustless system.  this is about the precedent it will set.

I'm willing to be patient, and wait until Graphene has proven itself reliable long term and people start to buy into it for what it already is. It will happen even with just maintenance and no real features. features are just gravy. they're a luxury that we can't afford. not socializing the costs robs BTS holders imo.

Really??? We are talking about it? I am lost here... "New feature"+ "someone who will work hard for bts" is a great combo IMO...

because issues get discussed in an ecosystem where voting takes place.


Could somebody explain to me the separation between BitShares the Blockchain, BitShares wallets, and Graphene?

If it's just a wallet feature, and other people are free to develop their own stealth wallets which burn fees, I could live with this arrangement. Kind of a bootstrap until the ecosystem becomes self supporting. But it's not just one wallet, it's a fee being written into the blockchain, just so it can be used by one wallet. or does OpenLedger, constitute the blockchain, powered by Graphene, as it currently exists? Can third party wallets charge fees from the blockchain independently  of openledger, as payment for features openledger doesn't have? If somebody wants to implement their own stealth, can they just write up their own wallet for it? I guess I'm not clear on what it is exactly we're doing, but a hard fork for a fee change does not bode well.

[mangou007]

I just think some people are blind... Someone ready to invest a sum of money to integrate a new feature to BitShares, is a bad thing?
How could it be wrong? Do someone actually think that onceup will throw this money out of its window without working his *** out to promote and do something of it which will benefit all the community?

Really??? We are talking about it? I am lost here... "New feature"+ "someone who will work hard for bts" is a great combo IMO...

[Empirical1.2]

As I said I'm not too against Stealth given the money is on the table and I'm not overly exposed to BTS currently, but without incentives for voting or keeping BTS off the exchanges it's likely voting turnout may always be fairly low, allowing bad decisions to be pushed through with fairly little stake even if the majority don't agree.

Non sequitur.

Lack of easy Stealth is probably one of the biggest reasons people aren't willing to vote.
Adding new FBAs  is adding reasons to keep BTS off the exchanges as is OpenLedger.
Total participation being low means serious resistance is easy to mount.
And if you don't have enough BTS off outside exchanges right now to vote 'no' with, why should your opinion count?

BTS is still reliant on Dan & CNX so opposition to Dan's preffered action is often futile & your and Dan's response is usually along the lines of 'sell if you're not happy' as a result you see opposition and opinions expressed in either falling/rising share price than active voting.

Those people's opinions, who have BTS off-exchange & don't vote,  still count because their decision to support major decisions with increased buying or oppose them with selling has a major impact on BTS's ability to grow and in the case of the dilution model, fund itself.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

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 stand with you on this one tony. I said that the instant talk of all this started.

I pretty much just gave up on arguing though. I can see that my opinion is out-BTS'd.

[Stan]

As I said I'm not too against Stealth given the money is on the table and I'm not overly exposed to BTS currently, but without incentives for voting or keeping BTS off the exchanges it's likely voting turnout may always be fairly low, allowing bad decisions to be pushed through with fairly little stake even if the majority don't agree.

Non sequitur.

Lack of easy Stealth is probably one of the biggest reasons people aren't willing to vote.
Adding new FBAs  is adding reasons to keep BTS off the exchanges as is OpenLedger.
Total participation being low means serious resistance is easy to mount.
And if you don't have enough BTS off outside exchanges right now to vote 'no' with, why should your opinion count?

[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.

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?-

If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.

One might argue that the holidays are the best time - because things slow down at work and you have time to do a little reading.

If it was a pure GUI feature, there would be no hard fork needed and we wouldn't have to take a vote.  BM explained all this for over 30 minutes in yesterday's Mumble to make sure it was clear.

The entire concept was discussed in several threads for the past several weeks.

Further, this led to the concept of FBAs which are the Flux Capacitor of BitShares.   It is a major new way to enable the funding of new features needed to make moon travel possible.

We will continue to look for ways to add new features to BitShares - That way leads to the Bright Side.

As for the CLI, I don't know.  Good question.

 

it did lead to FBA, didn't it? Really? Interesting...

I am increasingly sure it will not lead the next time...

btw I will be fully supporting stealth real soon... I mean, I see money on the table and  a whole community of idiots, so "why not" I asked myself???

It's amusing I'm personally not too concerned with STEALTH but then again I'm not overly invested in BTS atm either...

You are receiving the same response I got to my dictatorship concerns when dilution was being forced through...

Let us have intelligent debate where every voice is equally heard   

I think BTS is still a benevolent dictatorship at this stage.

Does anyone have a different POV?

What we've got is an ideal case of "silence means consent".  If there is ever a case when apathy turns to anger, then the majority has the ability to remove the benevolent dictator by raising as little as 5% or 10% worth of opposition.  That is less power than the captain of a ship has.  And captains are given such authority for good reasons.

I would never set sail on a ship commanded by its passengers.
I would never bet on a ball team coached by its fans.
I would not invest in a company directed by its shareholders.

All is swell. 
If not, sell.

 

Apparently Shareholders selling BTSX & halving it's value from the time dilution was proposed, was a perfect example of silence means consent    But that worked out alright didn't it?

Just relax...

Relax and enjoy the chance to spend one more paycheck at these prices.   

haha good one

you were either good or lucky, idk for sure, but good for you whatever the cause.

but at least it is better later than never...

PS
I do not consider myself the smartest cookie in the room...it took me just about 10 times shooting myself in the foot.

Good luck for the more persevering one though...

[Empirical1.2]

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?-

If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.

One might argue that the holidays are the best time - because things slow down at work and you have time to do a little reading.

If it was a pure GUI feature, there would be no hard fork needed and we wouldn't have to take a vote.  BM explained all this for over 30 minutes in yesterday's Mumble to make sure it was clear.

The entire concept was discussed in several threads for the past several weeks.

Further, this led to the concept of FBAs which are the Flux Capacitor of BitShares.   It is a major new way to enable the funding of new features needed to make moon travel possible.

We will continue to look for ways to add new features to BitShares - That way leads to the Bright Side.

As for the CLI, I don't know.  Good question.

 

it did lead to FBA, didn't it? Really? Interesting...

I am increasingly sure it will not lead the next time...

btw I will be fully supporting stealth real soon... I mean, I see money on the table and  a whole community of idiots, so "why not" I asked myself???

It's amusing I'm personally not too concerned with STEALTH but then again I'm not overly invested in BTS atm either...

You are receiving the same response I got to my dictatorship concerns when dilution was being forced through...

Let us have intelligent debate where every voice is equally heard   

I think BTS is still a benevolent dictatorship at this stage.

Does anyone have a different POV?

What we've got is an ideal case of "silence means consent".  If there is ever a case when apathy turns to anger, then the majority has the ability to remove the benevolent dictator by raising as little as 5% or 10% worth of opposition.  That is less power than the captain of a ship has.  And captains are given such authority for good reasons.

I would never set sail on a ship commanded by its passengers.
I would never bet on a ball team coached by its fans.
I would not invest in a company directed by its shareholders.

All is swell. 
If not, sell.

 

Apparently Shareholders selling BTSX & halving it's value from the time dilution was proposed, was a perfect example of silence means consent    But that worked out alright didn't it?

Just relax...

Relax and enjoy the chance to spend one more paycheck at these prices.   

As I said I'm not too against Stealth given the money is on the table and I'm not overly exposed to BTS currently, but without incentives for voting or keeping BTS off the exchanges it's likely voting turnout may always be fairly low, allowing bad decisions to be pushed through with fairly little stake even if the majority don't agree.

[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.

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?-

If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.

One might argue that the holidays are the best time - because things slow down at work and you have time to do a little reading.

If it was a pure GUI feature, there would be no hard fork needed and we wouldn't have to take a vote.  BM explained all this for over 30 minutes in yesterday's Mumble to make sure it was clear.

The entire concept was discussed in several threads for the past several weeks.

Further, this led to the concept of FBAs which are the Flux Capacitor of BitShares.   It is a major new way to enable the funding of new features needed to make moon travel possible.

We will continue to look for ways to add new features to BitShares - That way leads to the Bright Side.

As for the CLI, I don't know.  Good question.

 

it did lead to FBA, didn't it? Really? Interesting...

I am increasingly sure it will not lead the next time...

btw I will be fully supporting stealth real soon... I mean, I see money on the table and  a whole community of idiots, so "why not" I asked myself???

[Stan]

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?-

If there are enough votes for and everyone else abstains - silence means consent.
If there are not enough votes and everyone else abstains - silence means dissent.

One might argue that the holidays are the best time - because things slow down at work and you have time to do a little reading.

If it was a pure GUI feature, there would be no hard fork needed and we wouldn't have to take a vote.  BM explained all this for over 30 minutes in yesterday's Mumble to make sure it was clear.

The entire concept was discussed in several threads for the past several weeks.

Further, this led to the concept of FBAs which are the Flux Capacitor of BitShares.   It is a major new way to enable the funding of new features needed to make moon travel possible.

We will continue to look for ways to add new features to BitShares - That way leads to the Bright Side.

As for the CLI, I don't know.  Good question.

 

[puppies]

Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble

[Stan]

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?

Where did you get the one day poll?  Voting continues until Jan 1 as I understand the plan.  No?

Roadmap

Feedback and discussion of this thread: December 8 to December 10, 2015
Presentation of an amended Cryptonomex Worker Proposal: Dec 11, 2015 This worker proposal should include Milestones of what is intended to be accomplished by the end of week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4 and week 5 so that the Community can follow progress in the github.
Voting for Worker Proposal: Dec 11 to January 1, 2016
onceuponatime forwards $45,000 to Cryptonomex: Jan.2, 2016
Cryptonomex does the development and testing of the feature: (4 to 6 weeks)
Hard fork for implementation of the feature: Monday Feb, 15th

[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.

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.

lol, interesting take.

only problem with this plan - "catch lightning in a bottle" seems a lot more like "shooting oneself in the foot"....repeatedly... with each attempt.

[jakub]

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.

I understand your point about other shareholders wanting a fair way to contribute.

But from the blockchain's point of view, these two are the only things that matter:
- is the blockchain's 20% participation in the STEALTH revenue stream good enough?
- will this STEALTH project delay other important features?

Fair distribution of this FBAs is not my concern (for me as a shareholder and a proxy).
(Or at least it is not important enough to have an impact on my vote)