Author Topic: Yunbi started voting against all workers except refund/burn workers  (Read 71293 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.

 +5% +5% +5%

Talented developers won't be trying too hard to convince anyone, they'll just go get a job being paid more. lol.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Moon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
    • View Profile
yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.

 +5% +5%

Offline helloworld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.

 +5% +5% +5%
BTS:bts-hero

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
yunbi just vote all the refund/burn workers , the purpose is to raise the threshold to be workers.
the game rule is there, if you want to make money as a worker, you need to face the possibility to be voted out. surely you can try to convince the stake holders that your job is useful and effective. and then maybe you can be voted in.
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

3. remove any worker
free developer maybe come. because if they don't contribute for Bitshares, they holded bts will become nothing.
If they work for it for Free. Maybe one day, they will get paid more than they ever paid Worker salary.
that is the motive.

Wow this is stupid. The obvious play is just to sell your Bitshares.

Maybe irrational Chinese gambling fever will take hold though once dilution goes to 0 and BTS will land on the moon.   Maybe.

i agree he is stupid . One should not work to raise the value of other people's stake .

The correct motive for working for free should be : 
If you believe there is a future with this technology , by contributing in this technology and learning all its components and helping it build a solid base , you're essentially making your own money cow/business model in the future.

That's why with no development budget , companies still build business model around Bitcoin , donate funding to Bitcoin developers .

Of course , some still want to paid by the hour . It's ok . It's one's right to earn hourly pay . However it's not feasible that even the founder of this project rely on a unstainable way of funding instead of building a open community which brings more capital in and then achieves more development by actual incoming capital .

What you can dilute on the blockchain is petty cash . It will fail eventually because it was constructed to support a small team (namely the I3)  working full time without a business model nor future growth plan .

Bitcoin was started on a more crappy base than what BTS is now . What you need is not development , but a eco-system and a culture that will support development naturally in a sustainable way  . If you can not find those support outside with supposely by far the most advanced technology , then I'm afraid you can not grow even with more coding , function and documentation , and its work product will just be taken by those who could do it and all the dilution would be spent for nothing . Lisk is already starting the trend if you've been watch their forum .

By the way , I3 threaten to leave BTS for dead even when AGS fund was left with 1 million USD worth of BTS , and that was more value than they've diluted since the merger , and yet they still claimed that they don't have incentive . The issue with BTS is not really with funding . It hasn't been from the start . No amount of dilution budget could fix that issue .

Any way . Whatever .....  maybe I should spend more time on the things that actually pays me either instead .

One thing I have learned is to not pay attention to those who reference 1 time phenomena whose biggest advantage was being in the right place at the right time in history.

Linux.
Apple.
Bitcoin.

You know what these have in common?  There is only one of each.  Yet you'll hear people making analogies over and over. Bitcoin has barely changed from the beginning.  If you think thats what BTS needs, then you are entitled to that opinion, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Companies and products in heavily competitive areas do not get ahead by stopping all innovation and waiting for people to do work for free.

 I see the rest of the blockchain world moving forward at a fast rate.

I could go on and on, but this is all so much insanity.  BM screwed up in a lot of ways (did some things well). So now a certain group of people want to make more mistakes because of it!  Insanity !

BTW, what is the ratio of Chinese dilution complainers to Chinese free development providers?  Anyone know? 

BTW - I agree that we should not blindly trust I3.  I don't keep up with it but my understanding that "transparency" was abandoned.  However, the dilution issue goes far beyond I3 and you can't hold them up as a reason to cut out *ALL* payment.

BTW2 - WIldpig, you didn't seem to get my original point.  It doesn't really make economic sense for a person to put all their future payment into BTS,then go develop on it for free in hopes that they'll be paid out.  I could write up a page why this is a *stupid* belief, but I'll spare everyone.  Needless to say, you'd be better off just writing your own fork and giving yourself equity instead of paying for equity, then developing, then hoping things work out with all the various actors that are outside your power.  A lot of these actors acting in a seemingly irrational manner at that.

 +5%
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
3. remove any worker
free developer maybe come. because if they don't contribute for Bitshares, they holded bts will become nothing.
If they work for it for Free. Maybe one day, they will get paid more than they ever paid Worker salary.
that is the motive.

Wow this is stupid. The obvious play is just to sell your Bitshares.

Maybe irrational Chinese gambling fever will take hold though once dilution goes to 0 and BTS will land on the moon.   Maybe.

i agree he is stupid . One should not work to raise the value of other people's stake .

The correct motive for working for free should be : 
If you believe there is a future with this technology , by contributing in this technology and learning all its components and helping it build a solid base , you're essentially making your own money cow/business model in the future.

That's why with no development budget , companies still build business model around Bitcoin , donate funding to Bitcoin developers .

Of course , some still want to paid by the hour . It's ok . It's one's right to earn hourly pay . However it's not feasible that even the founder of this project rely on a unstainable way of funding instead of building a open community which brings more capital in and then achieves more development by actual incoming capital .

What you can dilute on the blockchain is petty cash . It will fail eventually because it was constructed to support a small team (namely the I3)  working full time without a business model nor future growth plan .

Bitcoin was started on a more crappy base than what BTS is now . What you need is not development , but a eco-system and a culture that will support development naturally in a sustainable way  . If you can not find those support outside with supposely by far the most advanced technology , then I'm afraid you can not grow even with more coding , function and documentation , and its work product will just be taken by those who could do it and all the dilution would be spent for nothing . Lisk is already starting the trend if you've been watch their forum .

By the way , I3 threaten to leave BTS for dead even when AGS fund was left with 1 million USD worth of BTS , and that was more value than they've diluted since the merger , and yet they still claimed that they don't have incentive . The issue with BTS is not really with funding . It hasn't been from the start . No amount of dilution budget could fix that issue .

Any way . Whatever .....  maybe I should spend more time on the things that actually pays me either instead .

One thing I have learned is to not pay attention to those who reference 1 time phenomena whose biggest advantage was being in the right place at the right time in history.

Linux.
Apple.
Bitcoin.

You know what these have in common?  There is only one of each.  Yet you'll hear people making analogies over and over. Bitcoin has barely changed from the beginning.  If you think thats what BTS needs, then you are entitled to that opinion, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Companies and products in heavily competitive areas do not get ahead by stopping all innovation and waiting for people to do work for free.

 I see the rest of the blockchain world moving forward at a fast rate.

I could go on and on, but this is all so much insanity.  BM screwed up in a lot of ways (did some things well). So now a certain group of people want to make more mistakes because of it!  Insanity !

BTW, what is the ratio of Chinese dilution complainers to Chinese free development providers?  Anyone know? 

BTW - I agree that we should not blindly trust I3.  I don't keep up with it but my understanding that "transparency" was abandoned.  However, the dilution issue goes far beyond I3 and you can't hold them up as a reason to cut out *ALL* payment.

BTW2 - WIldpig, you didn't seem to get my original point.  It doesn't really make economic sense for a person to put all their future payment into BTS,then go develop on it for free in hopes that they'll be paid out.  I could write up a page why this is a *stupid* belief, but I'll spare everyone.  Needless to say, you'd be better off just writing your own fork and giving yourself equity instead of paying for equity, then developing, then hoping things work out with all the various actors that are outside your power.  A lot of these actors acting in a seemingly irrational manner at that.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 07:59:38 pm by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
For all the bitshares people here that talk about how freedom is so important, we sure do like to put out a lot of restrictions, social contracts, and unwritten rules on bts.

Restrictions that we only "think" may be detrimental... we have no proof, just a hunch.

Offline Samupaha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: samupaha
Let's not resort to changing the rules because we don't like that an exchange is voting, or we don't like how an exchange is voting.

Why? I see that this situation is very dangerous to Bitshares. It's dividing people, quite possibly driving some away, creates confusion how to continue, makes marketing very difficult... We should take this seriously. There is clearly a weakness in the system that has to be fixed. Otherwise we will suffer from it many times more in the future. Better to remove the risk sooner than later.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Let me preface this by saying I disagree with the anti dilution crowd.  I think that paying to keep up the chain is a good idea.

We as a community have a choice to make.  Do we use the market, or do we use force.  Even though I disagree with the anti dilution crowd, I think we should focus on market approaches to resolve this.  Estefans  idea is a good start.  If you would like to go further than that.  Boycott yunbi.  Boycott the anti dilution crowd.  Boycott anyone that uses yunbi.  Let's not resort to changing the rules because we don't like that an exchange is voting, or we don't like how an exchange is voting.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline EstefanTT

Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient.

what does "nontransferable" BTS solve?

It forces exchanges and their customers to use BitBTS instead of BTS. It will also help with voter apathy, because more voting power will go to hands of those who are interested in voting. Those who just want to speculate on BTS price are able to do it with BitBTS.

i assume we can trade them? as poloniex i just need then to trade BTS against POLO.BTS and they have them again on their accounts. For me this
is not the right direction. we are here to get more "financial freedom" but want to restrict it in parts who are not welcomed. We need other solutions.

But why would Poloniex do that? It just makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. From their point of view, it's just much easier to convert everything to BitBTS and use that. Customers can move BitBTS into and out from Poloniex, so they will prefer it to BTS that can't be moved.

When this was discussed a while back, biggest reason for rejection of idea was that it was too difficult to implement. With my proposal it should be possible, because it's broken into several steps that are feasible and practical.

It's a great idea for starting a new network.. but for the existing one.. attempting to make the migration will be just as painful as attempting to get everyone to vote.. so in the end.. we will benefit more if people started voting vs. changing/confusing our core asset model.

If it is good for a new chain, it is also good for an old chain. We should be thinking how to be the best chain in the market, not just apathetically accept that we are in a situation where we can't change anything anymore.

I agree that we shouldn't be planning new features anymore, but this is not a feature for our customers. It's a security feature. It's essential. We have to show to the world that we are capable to fight against threats like badly voting exchanges. The threat isn't only that good workers are downvoted, but this kind of attack can be also committee attack, where somebody changes blockchain parameters in a harmful way. By making BTS nontransferable we effectively disable all possibilities to these kind of attacks.

we could make a list of the biggest account not voting and send to them a lot of 1 UIA transaction with a memo to recall them to vote so we get their attention.

The UIA could be named "voting", I create it, distribute it and every time someone sees a not-voting-account we send to him/her some "voting" UIA.

The memo could be a reminder of the importance of voting and a link to a youtube video explaining how important is to keep bts in the wallet and how to easily vote for proxies.

Good, bad, stupid, interesting idea ?

Not bad, but not necessarily very effective. Our system has a weakness: it doesn't incentivize good voting behavior. We should be thinking how we can change the system to work better, not only think how to act in a bad system so that it wouldn't be so bad. In the long run bad system will always give bad results, even when it's run by good people.

During the hangout today it occurred to me that this could be accomplished if when we launch the sidechain and we can come to an agreement with exchanges, we can have voting power brought back to shareholders while still using their exchanges.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline EstefanTT

This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient.

what does "nontransferable" BTS solve?

It forces exchanges and their customers to use BitBTS instead of BTS. It will also help with voter apathy, because more voting power will go to hands of those who are interested in voting. Those who just want to speculate on BTS price are able to do it with BitBTS.

i assume we can trade them? as poloniex i just need then to trade BTS against POLO.BTS and they have them again on their accounts. For me this
is not the right direction. we are here to get more "financial freedom" but want to restrict it in parts who are not welcomed. We need other solutions.

But why would Poloniex do that? It just makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. From their point of view, it's just much easier to convert everything to BitBTS and use that. Customers can move BitBTS into and out from Poloniex, so they will prefer it to BTS that can't be moved.

When this was discussed a while back, biggest reason for rejection of idea was that it was too difficult to implement. With my proposal it should be possible, because it's broken into several steps that are feasible and practical.

It's a great idea for starting a new network.. but for the existing one.. attempting to make the migration will be just as painful as attempting to get everyone to vote.. so in the end.. we will benefit more if people started voting vs. changing/confusing our core asset model.

If it is good for a new chain, it is also good for an old chain. We should be thinking how to be the best chain in the market, not just apathetically accept that we are in a situation where we can't change anything anymore.

I agree that we shouldn't be planning new features anymore, but this is not a feature for our customers. It's a security feature. It's essential. We have to show to the world that we are capable to fight against threats like badly voting exchanges. The threat isn't only that good workers are downvoted, but this kind of attack can be also committee attack, where somebody changes blockchain parameters in a harmful way. By making BTS nontransferable we effectively disable all possibilities to these kind of attacks.

we could make a list of the biggest account not voting and send to them a lot of 1 UIA transaction with a memo to recall them to vote so we get their attention.

The UIA could be named "voting", I create it, distribute it and every time someone sees a not-voting-account we send to him/her some "voting" UIA.

The memo could be a reminder of the importance of voting and a link to a youtube video explaining how important is to keep bts in the wallet and how to easily vote for proxies.

Good, bad, stupid, interesting idea ?

Not bad, but not necessarily very effective. Our system has a weakness: it doesn't incentivize good voting behavior. We should be thinking how we can change the system to work better, not only think how to act in a bad system so that it wouldn't be so bad. In the long run bad system will always give bad results, even when it's run by good people.
I've just create a thread an explain the idea better :

http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=22122.0
Bit20, the cryptocurrency index fund http://www.bittwenty.com
(BitShares French ConneXion - www.bitsharesfcx.com)

Offline Samupaha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: samupaha
This is a weakness in the system that we really should fix. Here is my proposal how to do it: Non-transferable BTS & BitBTS – We need to make Bitshares more resilient.

what does "nontransferable" BTS solve?

It forces exchanges and their customers to use BitBTS instead of BTS. It will also help with voter apathy, because more voting power will go to hands of those who are interested in voting. Those who just want to speculate on BTS price are able to do it with BitBTS.

i assume we can trade them? as poloniex i just need then to trade BTS against POLO.BTS and they have them again on their accounts. For me this
is not the right direction. we are here to get more "financial freedom" but want to restrict it in parts who are not welcomed. We need other solutions.

But why would Poloniex do that? It just makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. From their point of view, it's just much easier to convert everything to BitBTS and use that. Customers can move BitBTS into and out from Poloniex, so they will prefer it to BTS that can't be moved.

When this was discussed a while back, biggest reason for rejection of idea was that it was too difficult to implement. With my proposal it should be possible, because it's broken into several steps that are feasible and practical.

It's a great idea for starting a new network.. but for the existing one.. attempting to make the migration will be just as painful as attempting to get everyone to vote.. so in the end.. we will benefit more if people started voting vs. changing/confusing our core asset model.

If it is good for a new chain, it is also good for an old chain. We should be thinking how to be the best chain in the market, not just apathetically accept that we are in a situation where we can't change anything anymore.

I agree that we shouldn't be planning new features anymore, but this is not a feature for our customers. It's a security feature. It's essential. We have to show to the world that we are capable to fight against threats like badly voting exchanges. The threat isn't only that good workers are downvoted, but this kind of attack can be also committee attack, where somebody changes blockchain parameters in a harmful way. By making BTS nontransferable we effectively disable all possibilities to these kind of attacks.

we could make a list of the biggest account not voting and send to them a lot of 1 UIA transaction with a memo to recall them to vote so we get their attention.

The UIA could be named "voting", I create it, distribute it and every time someone sees a not-voting-account we send to him/her some "voting" UIA.

The memo could be a reminder of the importance of voting and a link to a youtube video explaining how important is to keep bts in the wallet and how to easily vote for proxies.

Good, bad, stupid, interesting idea ?

Not bad, but not necessarily very effective. Our system has a weakness: it doesn't incentivize good voting behavior. We should be thinking how we can change the system to work better, not only think how to act in a bad system so that it wouldn't be so bad. In the long run bad system will always give bad results, even when it's run by good people.

Offline BTSdac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: K1
Well, it could be nice if this Sr. 极乐净土币 would introduce himself and the forking project he is working on ;)
This guy: https://cryptofresh.com/u/k1
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=5815
it is me ,
I recently is busy on developing , and less spare time to read post on there,
I had finished a small function ---dividend last years
I have lunched a new chain for testing 
it is self-platform
self-platform is different with BTS, there are two main things selfer and strategy
selfer can create features.
strategy is a abstract from function , user can use strategy to create many function .
and now I have finished a strategy (distribution by input condition ) that selfer can create many games using this strategy
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 03:47:46 pm by BTSdac »
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
    • View Profile
3. remove any worker
free developer maybe come. because if they don't contribute for Bitshares, they holded bts will become nothing.
If they work for it for Free. Maybe one day, they will get paid more than they ever paid Worker salary.
that is the motive.

Wow this is stupid. The obvious play is just to sell your Bitshares.

Maybe irrational Chinese gambling fever will take hold though once dilution goes to 0 and BTS will land on the moon.   Maybe.

i agree he is stupid . One should not work to raise the value of other people's stake .

The correct motive for working for free should be : 
If you believe there is a future with this technology , by contributing in this technology and learning all its components and helping it build a solid base , you're essentially making your own money cow/business model in the future.

That's why with no development budget , companies still build business model around Bitcoin , donate funding to Bitcoin developers .

Of course , some still want to paid by the hour . It's ok . It's one's right to earn hourly pay . However it's not feasible that even the founder of this project rely on a unstainable way of funding instead of building a open community which brings more capital in and then achieves more development by actual incoming capital .

What you can dilute on the blockchain is petty cash . It will fail eventually because it was constructed to support a small team (namely the I3)  working full time without a business model nor future growth plan .

Bitcoin was started on a more crappy base than what BTS is now . What you need is not development , but a eco-system and a culture that will support development naturally in a sustainable way  . If you can not find those support outside with supposely by far the most advanced technology , then I'm afraid you can not grow even with more coding , function and documentation , and its work product will just be taken by those who could do it and all the dilution would be spent for nothing . Lisk is already starting the trend if you've been watch their forum .

By the way , I3 threaten to leave BTS for dead even when AGS fund was left with 1 million USD worth of BTS , and that was more value than they've diluted since the merger , and yet they still claimed that they don't have incentive . The issue with BTS is not really with funding . It hasn't been from the start . No amount of dilution budget could fix that issue .

Any way . Whatever .....  maybe I should spend more time on the things that actually pays me either instead .
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.