exchange preparing for voting

[fav]

Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting.  If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.

I'm withdrawing mine.  Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess.  Too bad.

yeah, exchanges can barely follow developments of coins, how do you expect them to know our politics.

[alt]

Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting.  If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.

I'm withdrawing mine.  Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess.  Too bad.

BTC38 has 500 million BTS now

so the right way is ask more people to trade in yunbi, LOL

[wallace]

Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting.  If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.

I'm withdrawing mine.  Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess.  Too bad.

BTC38 has 500 million BTS now

I'm glad to see the BTS is no more a toy of a few people on this forum.

[btswildpig]

Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting.  If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.

I'm withdrawing mine.  Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess.  Too bad.

BTC38 has 500 million BTS now

[alt]

good job, laomao@yunbi
hope more exchanges begin to vote
it's more better than no exchange vote, but suddenly one of them begin to vote and destroy the network.

[Xeldal]

Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting.  If you have bts at yunbi, be aware.

I'm withdrawing mine.  Can't use Yunbi anymore, i guess.  Too bad.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't. 

at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.

yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.

as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.

I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.

don't worry.

The committee members (primarily puppies) have been working on measures through the weekend to protect Bitshares against scenarios of bad proposals being passed. We finally did a test today that at the time did not have clayop voted in (congrates btw!)... it got support from every committee member except one.

http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.58

This is just one measure. More needs to be done now to protect BTS against real exploit.

[puppies]

Seeing 60m bts voting for zero witnesses does not inspire me with confidence in the knowledge or commitment of those voting.  If you have bts at yunbi, be aware. 

[bitcrab]

@BunkerChain Labs

exchanges(here I only talk about yunbi and btc38)  do not think they can control Bitshares, and they understand that they need a stable Bitshares, not a Bitshares in trouble, and they do not think DEX is their competitors, and, please believe, BTS trading is not so important for them now, they even do not want to pay more resource on BTS.

all the scenarios are imagined by you, I can also imagine that BM and you conspire to exploit all the shareholders, but I wouldn't. 

at least half of the committee members support me to do so, don't think you can represent the interest of BTS community, even BM said he will just give help.

yes, BM and exchange are different, BM are so good at the design of the system infrastructure, but he may be not so good at understanding some business, and his own interest can also conflict with the interest of the whole shareholders. Giving any entity too much power will be bad, including BM.

as a committee member, my idea is to make a balance on the committee, so need to introduce more voting powers, maybe also need to refine the rule. all these is to avoid the committee be under any single entity's control.

I haven't began asking big dogs, I just invited a little dog to come out to let everyone know him, otherwise no changes are possible, I'll help the system to grow for the coming of big dogs.

don't worry.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Scenario #1 - Gee it looks like that Bitshares DEX is really starting to take off... we have seen a decline in our total volume trading by X% because of it.. we better do something. Oh look.. we can just take over their committee and make changes as we please. Well lets just jack up all the trading fees in there to get everyone back here. While we are at it lets adjust a few other parameters so they make the cover of Coindesk and nobody ever trusts moving their trades their again.. that should get everyone back here in good form.

Scenario #2 - I am a good exchange and want to do what is best for my users. Looks like I can assign someone to make sure that this Bitshares DEX doesn't ever take any of my business. Fantastic.. let me just assign my voting power to troll#1 here and I will be completely blameless for the havok he causes.

Scenario #3 - Hey fellow exchanges.. this bitcrab guy contacted me about how we can take over bitshares committee and control all their fees. Let's all work together on a great pump and dump and make some money.

Scenario #4 - We are going to assign our votes to proxies who will work in the interests of Bitshares only because it's good for our business even though we are heavily vested in Bitcoin. Sunshine lollipops and rainbows everywhere.

Sooooo out of these scenarios, which do you see being most likely? Is there ANOTHER scenario that is believable where exchange participation doesn't turn out anything like these? I again question what good comes of this other than possibly forcing users to move away from the exchanges into the DEX.

At the moment other committee members have had to work through the weekend to try and take some kind of measures that could help protect Bitshares because of what this has started. We are still puppies though without defense against the dogs you just asked us to go up against.

Regarding your last message.. trying to compare this to some counter against BM  voting power is just plain false. BM is HEAVILY invested in ensuring the protection and growth of Bitshares while other exchanges have no interests aligned at all. As a matter of fact, they are smart to destroy their competition given the opportunity.

Having a discussion about this to prepare for such things is one thing, but going out and actively attempting to bring bigger dogs in to eat puppies is another. That's what you did.

[bitcrab]

not same, it's easy for exchange to understand what they are doing, and to judge whether voting conflict with their interest.

Yes, and they could easily decide that it's in their best interests to vote out all the delegates and vote in their own unique set. Giving one entity so much power is a very bad idea.

yes, that's why I propose to restrict the maximum committee members one account can vote.

and the another question is, BM has so much power now, don't you think this is also bad?

[monsterer]

not same, it's easy for exchange to understand what they are doing, and to judge whether voting conflict with their interest.

Yes, and they could easily decide that it's in their best interests to vote out all the delegates and vote in their own unique set. Giving one entity so much power is a very bad idea.

[bitcrab]

Sending a new born puppy out to fight dogs.. or throwing a new born bird out of the nest before it has feathers.. that's not in the interest of the new born. In both instances they have not had time to grow and develop. In this instance it's the same.

not same, it's easy for exchange to understand what they are doing, and to judge whether voting conflict with their interest.

You may have just caused more businesses to run from using Bitshares.. for what exactly?

no new business, however I may propose to lower the transfer fee in recent future.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

there's no social contract/consensus that exchange should not vote, the problem is only how exchange should communicate with their users on this issue.
from committee perspective, the problem is how to define the rule to prevent one big account from controlling the whole network, maybe one option is to restrict the committee number one account can at most vote.
no proff to tell that exchanges are more likely to abuse power, they do not spend capital for the stake, but they are responsible for their users.

Once you let the genie out of the box, you won't be able to put it back in.

either I let or not, they will finally come out, the point is to be ready to defend the system, not to expect them to stay in the box for ever.
and, I'd rather to let them out earlier, then the system can be ready earlier also.

Sending a new born puppy out to fight dogs.. or throwing a new born bird out of the nest before it has feathers.. that's not in the interest of the new born. In both instances they have not had time to grow and develop. In this instance it's the same.

You may have just caused more businesses to run from using Bitshares.. for what exactly?

[bitcrab]

there's no social contract/consensus that exchange should not vote, the problem is only how exchange should communicate with their users on this issue.
from committee perspective, the problem is how to define the rule to prevent one big account from controlling the whole network, maybe one option is to restrict the committee number one account can at most vote.
no proff to tell that exchanges are more likely to abuse power, they do not spend capital for the stake, but they are responsible for their users.

Once you let the genie out of the box, you won't be able to put it back in.

either I let or not, they will finally come out, the point is to be ready to defend the system, not to expect them to stay in the box for ever.
and, I'd rather to let them out earlier, then the system can be ready earlier also.