Author Topic: About workers: 1.14.35/36Fund to pay dividend  (Read 14355 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
This idea of changing the voting mechanics is only another overreact against a currently non-issue, since all workers are still active.

Instead of focusing on attacking yunbi and whoever support the anti-dilution ideas, why don't you guys try to bring more knowledge and awareness to those who
1) don't vote, directly or indirectly
2) trade on centralized exchange instead of using the dex
3) leave their bts on centralized exchange for a very long time, way more than the time needed for "just" buy and sell
4) ask some proxies to review their current vote (jakub(21M) is voting only for 2 of 6 development-worker; fav(12M) could remove his support to refund-1 plus is voting only for 1 development-worker; clayop (5M) could remove his support to refund-3; mindphlux(5M) could remove support from refund-1; and so on)

You guys are always so ready to attack these "anti-dilution gang" and name them "irrational" "stupid" "nonsense" "bts destroyer" and so on... The reality is just that they are normal people as all fo you, that only thinks differently then you are. They have different views on what is best for bitshares. That's all.

So please, focus on the real problem and on real solution, without overreacting all the time.

About this coind/days vothing thing. Just look here:
http://cryptofresh.com/u/poloniexcoldstorage
http://cryptofresh.com/u/btc38-public-for-bts-cold

poloniex cold wallet (420M) last movement  --> more than 2 months ago!
btc38 cold wallet (360M) last movement       --> never moved funds! almosth 5 months!

So your idea of coin days would only really increase the central exchanges voting power!

100% agree bhuz.

For the record I disagree with the anti-dilution crowd.  I think that we should fund development with worker proposals.  Some of the anti anti dilution crowd are acting like the anti dilution crowd just killed their dog.  I would understand if any of the workers were voted out, or if we couldn't get something funded that was absolutely essential.  All I see the anti dilution crowd actually doing though is increasing the security of bitshares by raising the refund workers to a healthy level.  If we can't get a valid worker proposal past what clearly appears to be the minority then we probably don't need that funding after all. 

Remember guys this is bitshares.  We have a lot of the same problems as the bitcoin community.  We get mad at each other and call each other names.  Put words in each others mouths, and assume the worst intentions.  We fight and bicker.  But when we are done with all that negative shit we vote.  We vote and we move on.  That is one of the things that makes us so much better than bitcoin.  Lets celebrate what makes us better than bitcoin, and accept that none of us is going to get their way 100% of the time. 
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
So your idea of coin days would only really increase the central exchanges voting power!

Actually I think not, because in that case I assume many "shareholders" would move their coins from centralized exchanges to their own accounts so their cold wallets amounts would significant decrease... perhaps slowly but they would (depended on how fast shareholders get "educated" and... convinced)
Why would they move their bts if they are not doing it now? If they really care about voting they would already move their funds back. It is clear that most users don't really care about voting, no matter the increased power the coin days could bring them.

Edit: the point is "educating" them, as you said; not change the rules and voting mechanics

These are true points. Voting with money is a nice and easy to implement concept, which is flawed, but works fairly well in many situations. The problem with bitshares is that people who posses voting tokens do not care to give them away.  They don't care, they lose their votes. Those who care, pick up their votes, and do whatever they think is good to do. This is very natural and democratic. Is it good or bad for network, time will tell.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Why would they move their bts if they are not doing it now? If they really care about voting they would already move their funds back. It is clear that most users don't really care about voting, no matter the increased power the coin days could bring them.

They don't care for voting but for dividends(that's why the will move their funds)... they will for sure not transfer funds to vote,  but it is still better than exchanges to vote for them... Voting power of centralized exchanges will a least have less impact.... no?  VOTING POWER DECENTRALIZATION  :P

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
So your idea of coin days would only really increase the central exchanges voting power!

Actually I think not, because in that case I assume many "shareholders" would move their coins from centralized exchanges to their own accounts so their cold wallets amounts would significant decrease... perhaps slowly but they would (depended on how fast shareholders get "educated" and... convinced)
Why would they move their bts if they are not doing it now? If they really care about voting they would already move their funds back. It is clear that most users don't really care about voting, no matter the increased power the coin days could bring them.

Edit: the point is "educating" them, as you said; not change the rules and voting mechanics
« Last Edit: March 30, 2016, 12:13:41 am by Bhuz »

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
So your idea of coin days would only really increase the central exchanges voting power!

Actually I think not, because in that case I assume many "shareholders" would move their coins from centralized exchanges to their own accounts so their cold wallets amounts would significant decrease... perhaps slowly but they would (depended on how fast shareholders get "educated" and... convinced)
« Last Edit: March 30, 2016, 12:06:50 am by liondani »

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
This idea of changing the voting mechanics is only another overreact against a currently non-issue, since all workers are still active.

Instead of focusing on attacking yunbi and whoever support the anti-dilution ideas, why don't you guys try to bring more knowledge and awareness to those who
1) don't vote, directly or indirectly
2) trade on centralized exchange instead of using the dex
3) leave their bts on centralized exchange for a very long time, way more than the time needed for "just" buy and sell
4) ask some proxies to review their current vote (jakub(21M) is voting only for 2 of 6 development-worker; fav(12M) could remove his support to refund-1 plus is voting only for 1 development-worker; clayop (5M) could remove his support to refund-3; mindphlux(5M) could remove support from refund-1; and so on)
Pinging @jakub @fav @clayop @mindphlux

Quote
You guys are always so ready to attack these "anti-dilution gang" and name them "irrational" "stupid" "nonsense" "bts destroyer" and so on... The reality is just that they are normal people as all fo you, that only thinks differently then you are. They have different views on what is best for bitshares. That's all.

So please, focus on the real problem and on real solution, without overreacting all the time.

About this coind/days vothing thing. Just look here:
http://cryptofresh.com/u/poloniexcoldstorage
http://cryptofresh.com/u/btc38-public-for-bts-cold

poloniex cold wallet (420M) last movement  --> more than 2 months ago!
btc38 cold wallet (360M) last movement       --> never moved funds! almosth 5 months!

So your idea of coin days would only really increase the central exchanges voting power!
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
This idea of changing the voting mechanics is only another overreact against a currently non-issue, since all workers are still active.

Instead of focusing on attacking yunbi and whoever support the anti-dilution ideas, why don't you guys try to bring more knowledge and awareness to those who
1) don't vote, directly or indirectly
2) trade on centralized exchange instead of using the dex
3) leave their bts on centralized exchange for a very long time, way more than the time needed for "just" buy and sell
4) ask some proxies to review their current vote (jakub(21M) is voting only for 2 of 6 development-worker; fav(12M) could remove his support to refund-1 plus is voting only for 1 development-worker; clayop (5M) could remove his support to refund-3; mindphlux(5M) could remove support from refund-1; and so on)

You guys are always so ready to attack these "anti-dilution gang" and name them "irrational" "stupid" "nonsense" "bts destroyer" and so on... The reality is just that they are normal people as all fo you, that only thinks differently then you are. They have different views on what is best for bitshares. That's all.

So please, focus on the real problem and on real solution, without overreacting all the time.

About this coind/days vothing thing. Just look here:
http://cryptofresh.com/u/poloniexcoldstorage
http://cryptofresh.com/u/btc38-public-for-bts-cold

poloniex cold wallet (420M) last movement  --> more than 2 months ago!
btc38 cold wallet (360M) last movement       --> never moved funds! almosth 5 months!

So your idea of coin days would only really increase the central exchanges voting power!

Offline Pheonike

They are moving big amounts funds between their wallets, even their cold storage which is destroying coin-days. At those amounts they don't need to move often to destroy a lot of days when they do.

http://cryptofresh.com/u/poloniexcoldstorage
« Last Edit: March 29, 2016, 10:21:35 pm by Pheonike »

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
People who keep there BTS on exchanges are constantly buying and selling which means the coin-days total will not grow as fast of those who hold. Therefore the people who hold will gradually gain more voting power because their coin-days are not constantly getting destroyed.

They are buying and selling, but BTS stay in same aggregated wallet. Only numbers in centralized exchange database are changing.

exactly, their cold-wallets (with huge amount of BTS) don't change so often... only BTS on their hot-wallets get transfered all the time and only because of withdrawals and deposits of their customers and NOT because of trading as @yvv mentioned....


Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
People who keep there BTS on exchanges are constantly buying and selling which means the coin-days total will not grow as fast of those who hold. Therefore the people who hold will gradually gain more voting power because their coin-days are not constantly getting destroyed.

They are buying and selling, but BTS stay in same aggregated wallet. Only numbers in centralized exchange database are changing.

Offline Pheonike

It will reward those who care about voting by making their vote count more. People who keep there BTS on exchanges are constantly buying and selling which means the exchanges coin-days total will not grow as fast of those who hold. Therefore the people who hold will gradually gain more voting power because their coin-days are not constantly getting destroyed. 
« Last Edit: March 29, 2016, 09:44:34 pm by Pheonike »

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
It's rewarding those who hold and keep their BTS in their account. It's those people who more than likely care about the long-term value of BTS. Short-term people are ones most likely to sell or keep their BTS on other exchanges. Therefore they should not have as much sway in decisions. At minimum they maintain the votes they currently have.

It will not reward those who hold and keep their BTS in their account, it will give more voting power to them. For example, if a bunch of occasional crypto traders, who don't give a shit about bitshares and about voting, keep their funds on centralized exchange, you will give even more voting power to that exchange, than they have now.

Offline Thom

woah, bad idea. why discourage new prospective shareholders?

Would you kindly elaborate? How does this idea discourage prospective shareholders?
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
This kind of attack was inevitable. And the more bitshares gets popular more attacks will come. Measuring voting power with BTS stake is good and simple way, but it evidently has weaknesses which can be exploited. This network needs some way of building reputation and storing it into blockchain in such way, that it does not violates the rights of newcomers too much.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2016, 09:42:27 pm by yvv »

Offline Pheonike

It's rewarding those who hold and keep their BTS in their account. It's those people who more than likely care about the long-term value of BTS. Short-term people are ones most likely to sell or keep their BTS on other exchanges. Therefore they should not have as much sway in decisions. At minimum they maintain the votes they currently have.

Offline Erlich Bachman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
  • I'm a pro
    • View Profile
woah, bad idea. why discourage new prospective shareholders?
You own the network, but who pays for development?

Offline Pheonike

Could just do it by percentage of coin-days.  Whatever percentage of the total coin-days you have on particular day, your stake vote is increase by that percentage. So if you have say 0.25% of the coin-day total for that day and you account has 100,000 BTS, your new voting stake will be 100,002.5 BTS.

« Last Edit: March 29, 2016, 06:07:17 pm by Pheonike »

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
In many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.

That seems to make a lot of sense if there is a practical way to accomplish it.

This is an interesting idea that might be worth exploring more.   +5%

I agree this is an interesting idea.  Perhaps we should also consider the idea of having voting weight diminish over time so people need to renew their votes/proxies.  I don't see any reason why these 2 ideas would be mutually exclusive. 

Offline Thom

In many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.

That seems to make a lot of sense if there is a practical way to accomplish it.

I agree with BCL, this is an interesting idea. Voting strength is based on stake and amplified based on coin days which are based on? Refresh my memory, I thought it was stake used over a finite time period?

Quote
<Off Topic> So I tried to use the forum search to find a definition of "coin days" but as usual lots of mentions but time consuming to weed thru them to discover an answer. This gives me an idea to create a "BitShares Glossary" where terminology like this can have a definition. Ideally this would be a sticky post at the top of the "General Discussion" board. I'll see if I can make that happen and start working on it, but it won't happen this week.
<On Topic>

If this were implemented as an extension to abit's implementation of free transactions the impact on existing code would be minimized. In practice it would amount to changing the vote processing code to factor in a new committee parameter ("voteMagnify") that adds more votes. I don't think proxies are really impacted. They should be voting with the aggregate of the voting power of the each account the proxy represents, whatever that is.

As I think about this I can well imagine it might be tricky to get right, recalling BM saying how "expensive" it is to process votes, which is why it is only done once per maintenance window as opposed to each witness cycle as it was in version 0.9.x.

However, if this were done it would be an ideal time to think about how some sort of certification / audit / report could be done to add credibility to our voting algorithm.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

In many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.

That seems to make a lot of sense if there is a practical way to accomplish it.

This is an interesting idea that might be worth exploring more.   +5%
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline onceuponatime

In many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.

That seems to make a lot of sense if there is a practical way to accomplish it.

Offline Pheonike

In many places there is a minimum age requirement to vote. What if voting stake was based on coin days? Those that care about bts for the long term will get their vote and voice amplified. Those that want to make a quick buck will have less sway on decisions.

Offline -banano-

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
negative voting is redundant feature

keep BTS streamlined and efficient to survive

Offline sasashui

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
  • BTS ID : sasashui
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: sasashui
This is actually a pretty clever way to manipulate votes to get the end you desire using the proxy system. Promote your proxy by appealing to people's greed (get paid money to vote for me), then vote for this dividend proposal which you know will never get passed, and later vote for your real objective (vote for refund worker to cut off funds to workers). You get voting power from all these people who will likely never pay attention to your full voting slate after their initial proxy to you.

I've never been a particular fan of the proxy idea (I don't like representative government in general), and I guess this shows one problem with a proxy system where you don't have to renew your proxy occasionally.
vote for refund worker to cut off funds to workers?  right ! If the work is unvaluable,vote for vote that worker is dividend for himself ,vote for refund is dividend for everybody. and that worker is the crab whitch tries to crawl up the side of the Crab bucket.

Offline dannotestein

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
    • View Profile
    • BlockTrades International
  • BitShares: btsnow
This is actually a pretty clever way to manipulate votes to get the end you desire using the proxy system. Promote your proxy by appealing to people's greed (get paid money to vote for me), then vote for this dividend proposal which you know will never get passed, and later vote for your real objective (vote for refund worker to cut off funds to workers). You get voting power from all these people who will likely never pay attention to your full voting slate after their initial proxy to you.

I've never been a particular fan of the proxy idea (I don't like representative government in general), and I guess this shows one problem with a proxy system where you don't have to renew your proxy occasionally.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2016, 01:12:49 pm by dannotestein »
http://blocktrades.us Fast/Safe/High-Liquidity Crypto Coin Converter

Offline sasashui

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
  • BTS ID : sasashui
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: sasashui
why don't you consider believers will come and buy BTS for dividend ?  this is a good way to get "POS"
Good idea  +5%
Those are another group of believers.
You can joint in this group of believers ,and joint in the original worker at the same time, nobady knows. When the ecosystem need  the works, we vote it  , but if the work is unvaluable, we get dividend, right ? 
Maybe it  can get rid of "Voter Apathy" , attract the potential believers buy in at once.   @cube
« Last Edit: March 28, 2016, 12:46:16 pm by sasashui »

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
why don't you consider believers will come and buy BTS for dividend ?  this is a good way to get "POS"
Good idea  +5%
Those are another group of believers.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline sasashui

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
  • BTS ID : sasashui
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: sasashui
why don't you consider believers will come and buy BTS for dividend ?  this is a good way to get "POS" 
« Last Edit: March 28, 2016, 11:55:18 am by sasashui »

Offline sasashui

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
  • BTS ID : sasashui
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: sasashui
Sorry .. but I don't get it ..
Why should the shareholders agree for being paid out of the reserves?
IMHO that is just stupid .. it kills the networks ability to fund future profit at the benefits fo some stupid/greedy people ?!?
What am I missing here?

You are missing the fact that sociopaths and psychopaths make up a certain (~3%) part of any population.
That‘s no doubt about that poloniex、btc38 had make a contribution to the BTS,I think they can creat a worker and vote himself ,
Maybe you will say they are crazy ,but The capital market is always crazy.
assuming that some has many BTS, or he can get many votes like this ,creat a worker and vote hinself , but he doesn't work ,so what?
Rely on the moral ? or rely on the rule ?
If this will come sooner or later, better sooner than later. Let them do it, drive the price down, so real believers can buy in cheaper.
I had heard for several times , "you don't like bts , you can sell it out , and you leave , let that believers buy in cheaper.....".  Unfortunatly , I saw many  people left , real believer buy in cheaper ,cheaper than cheaper... 
BM has concluded that certain kinds of proof-of-work are actually incredibly valuable and useful to an ecosystem’s development.  Maybe we    should reflect on ourself, reflect on the rule ,  rather than buy in cheaper . Love well, whip well

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube
After being taken the ability to actively vote against ideas like this... I find myself pretty much agreeing with the approach...

Let distribute all available fund to stake holders and then finance any development we find appropriate on a case by case bases.


what?
This will be "voting 'for' only" brought to its purest form...

haha , I'm pretty sure this proposal is for morking the "vote against function being taken out"

So this is more a protest vote against the change which makes it easier to vote in bad workers?

Looks like it.  This person has paid approx USD20 for his two 'distribute-fund-back-to-shareholder' workers and he has voted for the refund workers too. I think he knows he would not succeed.  Now, USD20 for a protest...
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Sorry .. but I don't get it ..
Why should the shareholders agree for being paid out of the reserves?
IMHO that is just stupid .. it kills the networks ability to fund future profit at the benefits fo some stupid/greedy people ?!?
What am I missing here?

You are missing the fact that sociopaths and psychopaths make up a certain (~3%) part of any population.
That‘s no doubt about that poloniex、btc38 had make a contribution to the BTS,I think they can creat a worker and vote himself ,
Maybe you will say they are crazy ,but The capital market is always crazy.
assuming that some has many BTS, or he can get many votes like this ,creat a worker and vote hinself , but he doesn't work ,so what?
Rely on the moral ? or rely on the rule ?
If this will come sooner or later, better sooner than later. Let them do it, drive the price down, so real believers can buy in cheaper.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline sasashui

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
  • BTS ID : sasashui
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: sasashui
Sorry .. but I don't get it ..
Why should the shareholders agree for being paid out of the reserves?
IMHO that is just stupid .. it kills the networks ability to fund future profit at the benefits fo some stupid/greedy people ?!?
What am I missing here?

You are missing the fact that sociopaths and psychopaths make up a certain (~3%) part of any population.
That‘s no doubt about that poloniex、btc38 had make a contribution to the BTS,I think they can creat a worker and vote himself ,
Maybe you will say they are crazy ,but The capital market is always crazy.
assuming that some has many BTS, or he can get many votes like this ,creat a worker and vote hinself , but he doesn't work ,so what?
Rely on the moral ? or rely on the rule ?

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies

We discussed this briefly in the last mumble. If this starts to gain more traction those against it must become more proactive in countering it with a wave of opposition. Now that negative votes are off the table that is more difficult as there is no longer a direct way to negate the votes in favor of this communistic welfare scheme.

OK so it is more difficult to stop a bad worker with negative votes removed?

In which case this could be seen as a protest against that change. Which perhaps also makes it easier for others to vote in bad workers that previously the active majority of shareholders/proxies had been able to vote against?

It would have been much easier when there were negative votes to get a bad worker in a paid position.  Not least of all because you could just create a thousand workers and the gui would not allow us to vote them all down.

Downvoting bad workers requires effort from the community.  Just not voting for bad workers requires no effort.  We just need to make sure that the refund worker get enough votes.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile

We discussed this briefly in the last mumble. If this starts to gain more traction those against it must become more proactive in countering it with a wave of opposition. Now that negative votes are off the table that is more difficult as there is no longer a direct way to negate the votes in favor of this communistic welfare scheme.

OK so it is more difficult to stop a bad worker with negative votes removed?

In which case this could be seen as a protest against that change. Which perhaps also makes it easier for others to vote in bad workers that previously the active majority of shareholders/proxies had been able to vote against?



« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 01:25:48 am by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I'm thinking about this from a DAC and community point of view.

This is totally shitty move and our community should decide some guidelines how we will deal with stuff like this.

Forum should be reserved only for productive efforts. We really shouldn't have to deal with shit like this here. Just remove the cancer before it gets too big. I've seen too many times that communities start to suffer when they don't get rid of bullies and antiproductive persons soon enough.

I can understand the desire to squash... its been expressed already though that it would not be good.

However I think there is something to be said for having some kind unified message that clearly conveys disapproval of such tactics if not for the community itself at least for new-comers so that there isn't confusion over what is going on.. and perhaps demonstrate the unified front and those in the fringes.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Samupaha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: samupaha
I'm thinking about this from a DAC and community point of view.

This is totally shitty move and our community should decide some guidelines how we will deal with stuff like this.

Forum should be reserved only for productive efforts. We really shouldn't have to deal with shit like this here. Just remove the cancer before it gets too big. I've seen too many times that communities start to suffer when they don't get rid of bullies and antiproductive persons soon enough.

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
So this is basically a direct attack against Bitshares. While some of us are trying to build a world changing financial platform, these guys go totally "fuck everything, we just want to us Bitshares to get money for ourselves" and ruin the development.

I suggest that anybody who votes for those workers will get lifetime ban on this forum. That's the least we can do, our community doesn't need to tolerate behavior like that.

you're right, this proposal is borderline retarded - however, if it gets voted in it means we're the minority... after all it's an idea, and we must not censor them

Offline Thom

So this is basically a direct attack against Bitshares. While some of us are trying to build a world changing financial platform, these guys go totally "fuck everything, we just want to us Bitshares to get money for ourselves" and ruin the development.

I suggest that anybody who votes for those workers will get lifetime ban on this forum. That's the least we can do, our community doesn't need to tolerate behavior like that.

Although I am extremely opposed to the idea of this "dividend worker" proposal, it would be wrong to ban it or quash it by changing the rules. If this proposal gains enough traction to be voted in perhaps this community should die, for the lack of collective "wisdom" that would represent.

We discussed this briefly in the last mumble. If this starts to gain more traction those against it must become more proactive in countering it with a wave of opposition. Now that negative votes are off the table that is more difficult as there is no longer a direct way to negate the votes in favor of this communistic welfare scheme.

If this proposal should reach the minimum threshold to be voted in (in the last mumble BM gave a well reasoned perspective on why he doesn't think it will happen) it will not reflect well on DPoS or this community.

@CryptoPrometheus voiced concern that if more voting power is focused on immediate gains than long term gains there may be a snowball effect. I think we can see by watching the votes in favor of this proposal just where the overall perspective of the voting stake in this community falls on that scale. Time will tell.

@Samupaha - as BM stated, unless there is a violation of the rules it can't be considered an attack, which is a valid argument. However, if this proposal gains popularity which results in the slow death of BitShares, how could it not be considered an attack?  The similarity of this proposal to what is happening in the USA through it's self destructive welfare state, with voters voting to keep the welfare spickets flowing in disregard to the health of the society or culture is plain to see (disregarding the fact that voting in the US political system is highly corrupt and manipulated by the incumbent politicians and money powers. Nevertheless the illusion believed by most voters have them voting themselves more welfare benefits from the public trough [their neighbors] driving the nation further and further into debt while overlooking the root of the problem).
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 03:53:50 pm by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Samupaha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: samupaha
So this is basically a direct attack against Bitshares. While some of us are trying to build a world changing financial platform, these guys go totally "fuck everything, we just want to us Bitshares to get money for ourselves" and ruin the development.

I suggest that anybody who votes for those workers will get lifetime ban on this forum. That's the least we can do, our community doesn't need to tolerate behavior like that.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

This could be done for numerous reasons.

The poster keeps telling everyone he is a supporter of @alt . It would be great if alt came here and told us why this supporter of his is trying to liquidate the worker pool for personal gain. Why he keeps mentioning him as his supporter and what that means if anything. Might just be BS,.

It was attempted months ago to try and get discussion from alt and other anti-dilutionists... the whole community is still waiting for any kind of response... so far all we have seen are the 'your fired' votes and now this.

He has told the blockchain though something recently..

4 days ago here is what alt posted: http://cryptofresh.com/tx/b1e14d2e818a8f9c2070cbad17a013a700d75f4a

Quote
puzzle of motivation: https://youtu.be/CTSO0SDtPaw
wikipedia will never success because of the fuck bitshares worker.

fuck bitshares worker seems pretty clear regarding his position.

I watched the video.. I think something got lost in translation because the video makes the point that for specific work like what is suppose to be completed in the worker proposal of Bitshares the pay reward system is effective. He seemed to think it helps his position regarding 'fuck bitshares worker'

This proposal certainly would do that if we start seeing this and other getting traction.

@btswildpig seems to think this is some kind of response to the negative voter being taken out but the loose translation of the rest shows this seems to be more of the same anti-dilution rhetoric, and a move to turn the worker pool into dividends instead.

Either way.. it seems decentralized growth of Bitshares is not going to happen tomorrow with multiple attention being put towards 'fuck bishares worker'.

I want answers... but I am doubtful we will see any... just have to keep going forward.

Disclaimer: This isn't attacking alt.. this is asking for answers yet again.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Thom

Sorry .. but I don't get it ..
Why should the shareholders agree for being paid out of the reserves?
IMHO that is just stupid .. it kills the networks ability to fund future profit at the benefits fo some stupid/greedy people ?!?
What am I missing here?

+5% - my sentiments exactly xeroc.

Not saying I'm for or against the change to remove negative voting, but I fail to see how the removal of that functionality can do anything BUT make it easier to get anything approved, even crap like this.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
After being taken the ability to actively vote against ideas like this... I find myself pretty much agreeing with the approach...

Let distribute all available fund to stake holders and then finance any development we find appropriate on a case by case bases.


what?
This will be "voting 'for' only" brought to its purest form...

haha , I'm pretty sure this proposal is for morking the "vote against function being taken out"

So this is more a protest vote against the change which makes it easier to vote in bad workers?
I won't admit that it will be easier to vote in bad workers. On the opposite, it's harder.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
After being taken the ability to actively vote against ideas like this... I find myself pretty much agreeing with the approach...

Let distribute all available fund to stake holders and then finance any development we find appropriate on a case by case bases.


what?
This will be "voting 'for' only" brought to its purest form...

haha , I'm pretty sure this proposal is for morking the "vote against function being taken out"

So this is more a protest vote against the change which makes it easier to vote in bad workers?
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
    • View Profile
After being taken the ability to actively vote against ideas like this... I find myself pretty much agreeing with the approach...

Let distribute all available fund to stake holders and then finance any development we find appropriate on a case by case bases.


what?
This will be "voting 'for' only" brought to its purest form...

haha , I'm pretty sure this proposal is for morking the "vote against function being taken out"
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
After being taken the ability to actively vote against ideas like this... I find myself pretty much agreeing with the approach...

Let distribute all available fund to stake holders and then finance any development we find appropriate on a case by case bases.


what?
This will be "voting 'for' only" brought to its purest form...

Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
While this worker is fairly small, the other negative is that shareholders would not be delegating their vote to the best/most trusted proxies, but to the one's paying dividends which opens up the risk of a dividend/yield attack.

Small BTS shareholders may be willing to proxy their vote for an annual  +5%...even ultimately to the detriment of their investment, especially if they thought the pools/proxies intentions were good.

« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 08:37:50 pm by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Sorry .. but I don't get it ..
Why should the shareholders agree for being paid out of the reserves?
IMHO that is just stupid .. it kills the networks ability to fund future profit at the benefits fo some stupid/greedy people ?!?
What am I missing here?

I agree with you, but you can't really be surprised.  This is pretty much the basis for the modern welfare state.  Robbing the productive to buy votes to attain power.  I don't believe that Bitsharians will fall victim to this.  I have far more faith in my fellow Bitsharians than I do in my fellow Americans.  Its pretty sad that such an ugly political ploy has infected Bitshares, but I guess we had to expect it.  Like Onceuponatime said 3% of people are sociopaths.  To take it a step further and paraphrase George Carlin.  Think about how stupid the average person is.  Then remember that half of people are even dumber than that.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline onceuponatime

Sorry .. but I don't get it ..
Why should the shareholders agree for being paid out of the reserves?
IMHO that is just stupid .. it kills the networks ability to fund future profit at the benefits fo some stupid/greedy people ?!?
What am I missing here?

You are missing the fact that sociopaths and psychopaths make up a certain (~3%) part of any population.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Sorry .. but I don't get it ..
Why should the shareholders agree for being paid out of the reserves?
IMHO that is just stupid .. it kills the networks ability to fund future profit at the benefits fo some stupid/greedy people ?!?
What am I missing here?

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Original post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22041.msg287004.html#msg287004

Some translation here:

After this worker is voted in, the ones who set dacs(https://cryptofresh.com/u/dacs) as proxy will get dividends.
Dividends come from worker pay.
Distribution of worker pay will be done everyday:
* A manager will get 8000 2000 BTS
* every supporter will get (total_pay_today - 8000)/total_voting_power_of_dacs*voting_power_of_supporter

//Update: according to the original post, manager pay reduced to 2000 BTS.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 06:22:37 pm by abit »
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit