[Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer

[dannotestein]

Didn't you posted before that you are going to send back to reserve pool when the amount gets to big ?

I guess 7 million bts could be considered as to big

As if he wasn't going to do that, he thought he had a right to the money.

To Thul3:
No, I didn't ever make such a statement.  You seem to be confused. The amount is not currently accumulating, it hit the total amount of 7 million BTS long ago (years ago). In the last discussion where it was talked abou a while ago, I made it clear: I'm only holding the accumulated funds for possible use to help the chain if necessary.

To finn-bts: If I thought I had a right to spend the BTS for my own use, I would have sold it when I sold my own funds. Please use some common sense.

It was always my plan to refund unused pay from the worker

If the amount builds up to an amount I consider excessive, I'll simply send some back to the reserve account.

At this moment, I've allocated $1000 USD equivalent of BTS (actual amount paid will depend on BTS price at time of payment) from the fund for BlockTrade's work on the memo key bug. I'm also planning to spend some from this account to partially pay for work being done on adding the ability to distribute dividends to UIA holders. Beyond that, we'll just be on the lookout for other problems that arise or a compelling feature that seems to have community support that can be added at relatively low cost.

So a few months back the 7 million bts were worth arround $500k
Before that it was even worth more than a million USD .

The price of BTS has been incredibly volatile, as I would guess you should know. If I had been certain the price would have stayed so high, it would have made sense to send it back to the reserve pool. But as time has shown, the current value is about $110K, which I don't consider a lot if serious problems arose, but enough.

[Thul3]

Didn't you posted before that you are going to send back to reserve pool when the amount gets to big ?

I guess 7 million bts could be considered as to big

As if he wasn't going to do that, he thought he had a right to the money.

To Thul3:
No, I didn't ever make such a statement.  You seem to be confused. The amount is not currently accumulating, it hit the total amount of 7 million BTS long ago (years ago). In the last discussion where it was talked abou a while ago, I made it clear: I'm only holding the accumulated funds for possible use to help the chain if necessary.

To finn-bts: If I thought I had a right to spend the BTS for my own use, I would have sold it when I sold my own funds. Please use some common sense.

It was always my plan to refund unused pay from the worker

If the amount builds up to an amount I consider excessive, I'll simply send some back to the reserve account.

At this moment, I've allocated $1000 USD equivalent of BTS (actual amount paid will depend on BTS price at time of payment) from the fund for BlockTrade's work on the memo key bug. I'm also planning to spend some from this account to partially pay for work being done on adding the ability to distribute dividends to UIA holders. Beyond that, we'll just be on the lookout for other problems that arise or a compelling feature that seems to have community support that can be added at relatively low cost.

So a few months back the 7 million bts were worth arround $500k
Before that it was even worth more than a million USD .

I'm only holding the accumulated funds for possible use to help the chain if necessary.

So there should be no problem to push the BTS to the new core team?


http://archive.ph/T7TEw

[dannotestein]

Didn't you posted before that you are going to send back to reserve pool when the amount gets to big ?

I guess 7 million bts could be considered as to big

As if he wasn't going to do that, he thought he had a right to the money.

To Thul3:
No, I didn't ever make such a statement.  You seem to be confused. The amount is not currently accumulating, it hit the total amount of 7 million BTS long ago (years ago). In the last discussion where it was talked abou a while ago, I made it clear: I'm only holding the accumulated funds for possible use to help the chain if necessary.

To finn-bts: If I thought I had a right to spend the BTS for my own use, I would have sold it when I sold my own funds. Please use some common sense.

[finn-bts]

Didn't you posted before that you are going to send back to reserve pool when the amount gets to big ?

I guess 7 million bts could be considered as to big

As if he wasn't going to do that, he thought he had a right to the money.

[Thul3]

Didn't you posted before that you are going to send back to reserve pool when the amount gets to big ?

I guess 7 million bts could be considered as to big

[binggo]

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 think i have said very clearly, and you give this answer?

We would make a report once per month on what has been done during that period.

So what is "that period"?

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.

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.

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.

As you wish, do what you want to do.

[dannotestein]

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 think i have said very clearly, and you give this answer?

We would make a report once per month on what has been done during that period.

So what is "that period"?

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.

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.

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]

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 think i have said very clearly, and you give this answer?

We would make a report once per month on what has been done during that period.

So what is "that period"?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

[Digital Lucifer]

It is ready for grading, but later additions that are less integral to the lore correctness of this proposal are planned.

I don't understand what you are saying here, could you please elaborate?

It's a spam bot. I've been sending Fav PM's on Telegram but he has not removed it yet.

use the report link please

Hahaha, ok i'll raise blind

Done.

[fav]

It is ready for grading, but later additions that are less integral to the lore correctness of this proposal are planned.

I don't understand what you are saying here, could you please elaborate?

It's a spam bot. I've been sending Fav PM's on Telegram but he has not removed it yet.

use the report link please

[Digital Lucifer]

It is ready for grading, but later additions that are less integral to the lore correctness of this proposal are planned.

I don't understand what you are saying here, could you please elaborate?

It's a spam bot. I've been sending Fav PM's on Telegram but he has not removed it yet.

[sschiessl]

It is ready for grading, but later additions that are less integral to the lore correctness of this proposal are planned.

I don't understand what you are saying here, could you please elaborate?

[dannotestein]

Back to the topic, 7 million BTS seems a bit too huge in comparison to such small bounties. Now we already have a core dev worker to cover the maintenance job which was intention of this worker. Since we haven't yet decided how to use this fund, given the fact that most workers on chain now are being paid via escrows, I propose that we move the remaining funds of this worker to be controlled by an escrow service (for example BBF) or merge it with the core dev worker, if we still want to use it to fund core development / maintenance. We do want experienced project manager and developers to help and contribute, not only funds. On the other hand, if we're going to use it to fund other things, which would be out of this worker's scope, IMHO it's best to re-vote.

It's not my intent to use it for small bounties. I only mentioned that particular issue as I considered it of enough significance that I would be willing to fund it as I don't yet have time to assign someone to work on it.

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.

I will not abuse the trust the original voters placed in my judgement by mis-using the funds. But IMO the funds should not be placed in someone else's control unless I make that decision without external pressure. And I would generally feel uncomfortable doing even that, because if I made the wrong decision, the funds could be abused and I would no longer be able to prevent it, so it would have to be someone I trusted at a level that I trust only a few people in this world. I hope you can understand my position on this.

If you feel that more funds need to be allocated to development at the current time, I suggest you create additional worker proposals and seek approval for the same. The great thing about BitShares is we do have an awesome system for polling the will of the holders, even if it has some flaws.