About workers: 1.14.35/36Fund to pay dividend

[abit]

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.

[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 ?

[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.

[Empirical1.2]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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).

[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.

[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

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.

[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?

- 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.

[abit]

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.

[Empirical1.2]

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?

[btswildpig]

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"

[tonyk]

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...