Main > Stakeholder Proposals
[Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
binggo:
--- Quote from: dannotestein on December 21, 2019, 10:59:19 am ---
--- Quote from: binggo on December 21, 2019, 08:44:24 am ---
--- Quote ---The BTS community has the power to take it back in the same way it can take back any funds: it can fork the chain. But it would be a stupid reason to fork the chain, IMO.
--- End quote ---
I think i have said very clearly, and you give this answer?
--- Quote ---We would make a report once per month on what has been done during that period.
--- End quote ---
So what is "that period"?
--- Quote ---I have no idea what you mean by "the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". What do you want to be redesigned? Do you mean that you want to be able to take back vested funds from a worker without a fork? And if so, why? Because you are unhappy that I sold my company's BTS? This has nothing to do with the funds for the worker. I would never sell off these funds except for the purpose I originally committed them to. This can easily be seen when you consider that I've held these funds even when bts was worth 0.40 USD and also that I still haven't sold them, despite selling all my company's BTS.
--- End quote ---
I didn't understand how and why you got such conclusion? and become so angry and emotional? just as i show the data of blockchain？
Serious talk: i didn't care about you sold or not sold, i just show the data, i also show the data of others big sell.
"the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". is mean:
Someone did a worker and finished, then we will pay or pay it with the milestone, the whole funds will not controled by the worker, will controled by the committee/wittness with a multi-signature account, and will have the examiner to check the result of worker.
------------------
So let's focus the topic:
if this worker has been out of date(or not) and didn't have any actives for such a long time, the rest funds should burn to the reserve pool, the worker have the obligation to do that.
We had lost many funds like this way.
--- End quote ---
I'm actually not angry, I'm only trying to understand what problem you think exists and what you want to do to fix it. I'm still not sure, but I think you think that because we haven't done anything in a long time, or spent the money, that there is some problem.
So let me explain to you what the money was for: it was money that was to be spent conditionally, only if there was a problem that needed fixing. For a long time, I saw no such problem, so I simply kept the money unspent. Later, a core dev team emerged and began to work on new things and also make some fixes. So, with them around, I didn't see any need to spend the money. Instead I decided to hold it in case they lost their funding and them some problem arose. This is still my intent.
You also say "we had lost many funds this way". I have no idea what you meant by this, you need to be more specific about such instances. I understand that English is not your first language, but you need to say more when you make such statements. Without more information, I can only guess what you talk about.
Anyways, in the case of the funds I hold, nothing has been lost: if I don't spend it, it's very similar to if it's in the reserve pool. The big difference is that if I think it needs to be spent, I can make the decision without consent of current big voters (I got the consent from old big voters). You think I have the obligation to burn the funds, but I disagree. I think I have the obligation I took on when I made the proposal: to spend the funds if necessary to save the chain if some serious problem arises and otherwise to leave the funds alone. This is a safety net for the chain, and I think it's a good one.
Maybe you don't like this. But then, I don't like many decisions of the current big voters much either. But we both must abide by the rules of the blockchain. You can certainly argue for changing them, but I find your argument, to the extent I am able to understand it, very unpersuasive. If you want to make changes to the blockchain rules, there are much more serious issues to address than this, in my opinion. I guarantee you this money you're so worried about has had no impact on the price of BitShares, unlike the voting problems that BitShares is having which has damaged the price so much.
--- End quote ---
As you wish, do what you want to do.
dannotestein:
--- Quote from: binggo on December 21, 2019, 08:44:24 am ---
--- Quote ---The BTS community has the power to take it back in the same way it can take back any funds: it can fork the chain. But it would be a stupid reason to fork the chain, IMO.
--- End quote ---
I think i have said very clearly, and you give this answer?
--- Quote ---We would make a report once per month on what has been done during that period.
--- End quote ---
So what is "that period"?
--- Quote ---I have no idea what you mean by "the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". What do you want to be redesigned? Do you mean that you want to be able to take back vested funds from a worker without a fork? And if so, why? Because you are unhappy that I sold my company's BTS? This has nothing to do with the funds for the worker. I would never sell off these funds except for the purpose I originally committed them to. This can easily be seen when you consider that I've held these funds even when bts was worth 0.40 USD and also that I still haven't sold them, despite selling all my company's BTS.
--- End quote ---
I didn't understand how and why you got such conclusion? and become so angry and emotional? just as i show the data of blockchain？
Serious talk: i didn't care about you sold or not sold, i just show the data, i also show the data of others big sell.
"the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". is mean:
Someone did a worker and finished, then we will pay or pay it with the milestone, the whole funds will not controled by the worker, will controled by the committee/wittness with a multi-signature account, and will have the examiner to check the result of worker.
------------------
So let's focus the topic:
if this worker has been out of date(or not) and didn't have any actives for such a long time, the rest funds should burn to the reserve pool, the worker have the obligation to do that.
We had lost many funds like this way.
--- End quote ---
I'm actually not angry, I'm only trying to understand what problem you think exists and what you want to do to fix it. I'm still not sure, but I think you think that because we haven't done anything in a long time, or spent the money, that there is some problem.
So let me explain to you what the money was for: it was money that was to be spent conditionally, only if there was a problem that needed fixing. For a long time, I saw no such problem, so I simply kept the money unspent. Later, a core dev team emerged and began to work on new things and also make some fixes. So, with them around, I didn't see any need to spend the money. Instead I decided to hold it in case they lost their funding and them some problem arose. This is still my intent.
You also say "we had lost many funds this way". I have no idea what you meant by this, you need to be more specific about such instances. I understand that English is not your first language, but you need to say more when you make such statements. Without more information, I can only guess what you talk about.
Anyways, in the case of the funds I hold, nothing has been lost: if I don't spend it, it's very similar to if it's in the reserve pool. The big difference is that if I think it needs to be spent, I can make the decision without consent of current big voters (I got the consent from old big voters). You think I have the obligation to burn the funds, but I disagree. I think I have the obligation I took on when I made the proposal: to spend the funds if necessary to save the chain if some serious problem arises and otherwise to leave the funds alone. This is a safety net for the chain, and I think it's a good one.
Maybe you don't like this. But then, I don't like many decisions of the current big voters much either. But we both must abide by the rules of the blockchain. You can certainly argue for changing them, but I find your argument, to the extent I am able to understand it, very unpersuasive. If you want to make changes to the blockchain rules, there are much more serious issues to address than this, in my opinion. I guarantee you this money you're so worried about has had no impact on the price of BitShares, unlike the voting problems that BitShares is having which has damaged the price so much.
binggo:
--- Quote ---The BTS community has the power to take it back in the same way it can take back any funds: it can fork the chain. But it would be a stupid reason to fork the chain, IMO.
--- End quote ---
I think i have said very clearly, and you give this answer?
--- Quote ---We would make a report once per month on what has been done during that period.
--- End quote ---
So what is "that period"?
--- Quote ---I have no idea what you mean by "the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". What do you want to be redesigned? Do you mean that you want to be able to take back vested funds from a worker without a fork? And if so, why? Because you are unhappy that I sold my company's BTS? This has nothing to do with the funds for the worker. I would never sell off these funds except for the purpose I originally committed them to. This can easily be seen when you consider that I've held these funds even when bts was worth 0.40 USD and also that I still haven't sold them, despite selling all my company's BTS.
--- End quote ---
I didn't understand how and why you got such conclusion? and become so angry and emotional? just as i show the data of blockchain？
Serious talk: i didn't care about you sold or not sold, i just show the data, i also show the data of others big sell.
"the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". is mean:
Someone did a worker and finished, then we will pay or pay it with the milestone, the whole funds will not controled by the worker, will controled by the committee/wittness with a multi-signature account, and will have the examiner to check the result of worker.
------------------
So let's focus the topic:
if this worker has been out of date(or not) and didn't have any actives for such a long time, the rest funds should burn to the reserve pool, the worker have the obligation to do that.
We had lost many funds like this way.
dannotestein:
--- Quote from: binggo on December 21, 2019, 05:09:57 am ---
--- Quote ---The funds were originally assigned for BlockTrades to perform work it considered of sufficient importance based on my judgement. As such, I consider the funds mainly should still be allocated for such usage, unless I think there's a case where I decide someone can do something of high importance cheaper/easier.
--- End quote ---
What i concern is the fouds if it still belong to BTS community?
If the BTS community have the power to take back it? as the mechanism of the worker pay will need to redesign.
--- End quote ---
The funds remain under control of BlockTrades and are still being retained for emergency use only. I have not sold them and will not sell them except I think it is required for the purpose these funds were originally allocated for. So, for now they are effectively "dead coins" unless there is a Bitshares emergency that requires them to be spent. They are certainly having no impact on the price of BTS.
The BTS community has the power to take it back in the same way it can take back any funds: it can fork the chain. But it would be a stupid reason to fork the chain, IMO.
I have no idea what you mean by "the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". What do you want to be redesigned? Do you mean that you want to be able to take back vested funds from a worker without a fork? And if so, why? Because you are unhappy that I sold my company's BTS? This has nothing to do with the funds for the worker. I would never sell off these funds except for the purpose I originally committed them to. This can easily be seen when you consider that I've held these funds even when bts was worth 0.40 USD and also that I still haven't sold them, despite selling all my company's BTS.
binggo:
--- Quote ---The funds were originally assigned for BlockTrades to perform work it considered of sufficient importance based on my judgement. As such, I consider the funds mainly should still be allocated for such usage, unless I think there's a case where I decide someone can do something of high importance cheaper/easier.
--- End quote ---
What i concern is the fouds if it still belong to BTS community?
If the BTS community have the power to take back it? as the mechanism of the worker pay will need to redesign.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version