Author Topic: Yunbi started voting against all workers except refund/burn workers  (Read 71269 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
The anti-dilution movement is fueled by this 'without reason' thinking.... we can try and apply all the weak reasoning ideas we can come up with.. but at the end of the day it all amounts to nothing but wishful thinking in the hopes that those perpetrating it are doing it out of some semblance of rational/reasonable/good intentions which is directly contradictory to their own words and actions.

I agree with svk...
From what I see the ANTI anti-dilution  movement declares all arguments for responsible spending  'stupid' or completely ignore them and continue claiming no such were made
The other tactic is claiming 'anti-dilutioner' somehow try to destroy BTS while the reality is ALL workers are well and voted in.
I know it will be too much to ask, having in mind the above behavior, but how about accepting for a second "dilution is generally not good right now, we have to try to prove or at least argue why this particular spending will be beneficial!" Every worker explaining in detail how his work will increase the market cap despite the dilution it will cost.
What I mean is addressing concerns upfront, instead of putting labels on groups and claiming they mean bad before their actions have prevented a single worker getting paid .

Wow, did you just suggest they're voting like this because of some far-fetched conspiracy involving Ethereum? A far more plausible answer would be that they're sick of Bitshares hard-forks and emergency hotfixes every couple of weeks and would like things to stabilize a little.

I don't think you're interpreting alt's post the right way, but as his English isn't the best it's certainly up for interpretation. In my opinion he's just saying he'll not vote for dilution workers no matter what at this point in time. Claiming that everyone anti-dilution are fueled by mindless stupidity is just ignorant, but you don't seem to want to listen to any arguments to the contrary. Everyone seems to want to frame this in terms of war terminology, "it's an attack on Bitshares" etc, perhaps that's just a product of our times, but doing so gets us nowhere.

You're putting words in alt's mouth saying he doesn't want more development for years to come and that he wants Bitshares to die, but nothing supports that theory. He simply has a different perspective on what is good for Bitshares in its current state, and since there's no direct correlation between development and market cap who knows, he might just be right. Like I said Fox's efforts had nothing to do with BTS development or worker proposals so it in no way supports your argument, in fact it supports alt's position.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2016, 08:28:06 pm by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Have any of you guys checked the yunbi "Terms Of Service" or "User Agreement" to see if there is a provision for the exchange voting on behalf of users? If there is you are pissing in the wind to blame yunbi; the fault and target of your actions should be with the people who use yunbi.

The users have responsibility either way.  But no fine print is going to let Yunbi off the hook.  Their behavior is  unethical and despicable no matter how you slice it. 

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2

Agreed. In short there would need to be a consequence that prevents Yunbi from continuing their unilateral use of customer funds (without verifiable consent) or we need to innovate and adapt the platform so that similar exploits aren't possible or we need an alternative platform that has learned from these experiences and is more resilient.  I'm not saying for a minute that any of this is easy or without cost......trouble was inevitable from the outset.

From a slightly philosophical point of view, no human being on this planet has ever lived within a corruption resistant economy for any great period of time.  Even those currently fighting for an edge or tending towards greed for whatever reason may in fact prefer to live in a world that might  be possible should a platform like BitShares succeed. The confluence of old and new partly contributes to the problems all of crypto is currently facing. How do you convince someone who can exploit an edge today, in order to make a million, to sacrifice that edge in favour of something with integrity that helps many more than just himself? 

Apathy is one of the biggest challenges so the platform needs to provide all the support it can.....but then the platform must also be compelling enough to grow and gather network effect. It's this combination of issues that make continued innovation/development and integrity absolutely critical.

Such thing would not be possible with regular stocks, because there is a name attached to stocks certificate. There is no proof of ownership in bitshares. Possession means ownership.  If you give your funds away, even temporarily, you give your voting power away. Everybody just needs to realise this.

Sure. Perhaps awareness of the issue is all that is necessary to at least ensure that exchanges are forced to gather consent for their actions transparently. Or maybe heighten awarness of the fact that the owner of the key owns the funds. Certainly any other course of action requires a lot more work and uncertainty.....though may be more robust!

Perhaps we should start by trying to create awareness so people (not just BTS holders) can altogether avoid this unethical and despicable exchange.  Let's also consider specifically incentivizing BTS holders to get their BTS out of there and onto the DEX. 

And by the way, it's one thing to vote against all workers no matter what.  Such action can perhaps be chalked up to pure, unadulterated ignorance on the part of the "anti-dilution" crowd.  But it's another thing entirely to mount an attack by attempting to steal funds from the reserve pool.  For now, I'm not going to say what I think we should do about this if it continues.  But we should all should start thinking about it.  And we should think outside of the box. 

Offline Thom

Have any of you guys checked the yunbi "Terms Of Service" or "User Agreement" to see if there is a provision for the exchange voting on behalf of users? If there is you are pissing in the wind to blame yunbi; the fault and target of your actions should be with the people who use yunbi.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo

Agreed. In short there would need to be a consequence that prevents Yunbi from continuing their unilateral use of customer funds (without verifiable consent) or we need to innovate and adapt the platform so that similar exploits aren't possible or we need an alternative platform that has learned from these experiences and is more resilient.  I'm not saying for a minute that any of this is easy or without cost......trouble was inevitable from the outset.

From a slightly philosophical point of view, no human being on this planet has ever lived within a corruption resistant economy for any great period of time.  Even those currently fighting for an edge or tending towards greed for whatever reason may in fact prefer to live in a world that might  be possible should a platform like BitShares succeed. The confluence of old and new partly contributes to the problems all of crypto is currently facing. How do you convince someone who can exploit an edge today, in order to make a million, to sacrifice that edge in favour of something with integrity that helps many more than just himself? 

Apathy is one of the biggest challenges so the platform needs to provide all the support it can.....but then the platform must also be compelling enough to grow and gather network effect. It's this combination of issues that make continued innovation/development and integrity absolutely critical.

Such thing would not be possible with regular stocks, because there is a name attached to stocks certificate. There is no proof of ownership in bitshares. Possession means ownership.  If you give your funds away, even temporarily, you give your voting power away. Everybody just needs to realise this.

Sure. Perhaps awareness of the issue is all that is necessary to at least ensure that exchanges are forced to gather consent for their actions transparently. Or maybe heighten awarness of the fact that the owner of the key owns the funds. Certainly any other course of action requires a lot more work and uncertainty.....though may be more robust!

Offline Musewhale

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • 丑,实在是太丑了 !
    • View Profile
MUSE witness:mygoodfriend     vote for me

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile

Agreed. In short there would need to be a consequence that prevents Yunbi from continuing their unilateral use of customer funds (without verifiable consent) or we need to innovate and adapt the platform so that similar exploits aren't possible or we need an alternative platform that has learned from these experiences and is more resilient.  I'm not saying for a minute that any of this is easy or without cost......trouble was inevitable from the outset.

From a slightly philosophical point of view, no human being on this planet has ever lived within a corruption resistant economy for any great period of time.  Even those currently fighting for an edge or tending towards greed for whatever reason may in fact prefer to live in a world that might  be possible should a platform like BitShares succeed. The confluence of old and new partly contributes to the problems all of crypto is currently facing. How do you convince someone who can exploit an edge today, in order to make a million, to sacrifice that edge in favour of something with integrity that helps many more than just himself? 

Apathy is one of the biggest challenges so the platform needs to provide all the support it can.....but then the platform must also be compelling enough to grow and gather network effect. It's this combination of issues that make continued innovation/development and integrity absolutely critical.

Such thing would not be possible with regular stocks, because there is a name attached to stocks certificate. There is no proof of ownership in bitshares. Possession means ownership.  If you give your funds away, even temporarily, you give your voting power away. Everybody just needs to realise this.

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
So, what is a problem? They can vote, and they vote. We agreed to vote with shares, and here it is, money democracy in practice. Accept it.

No thanks. You accept it. I'll continue to look for solutions, hopefully with other like-minded people.

I don't keep my funds at yunbi, this is my solution. If somebody does, this is their choice, which you can't change.

At best, Yunbi has made an assumption that people who hold BitShares on their exchange consent to their use of those funds. That is demonstrably untrue and is an action that reveals a weakness in BitShares which needs to be countered, not accepted. I appreciate wholeheartedly that you do not hold your BitShares with them and as such you are only a victim of this hijacking and misuse of power by default.

If people become aware, perhaps they will move their funds, great. If not, we should attempt to address this weakness in our platform.....and there are hopefully several ways we can do that which will be beneficial to BitShares holders in the medium to long term. 

Liquidity is one issue that we face. Access to, awareness, understanding and desire for our products are others. Development, distribution and the changing dynamics of the global economy will only add potential increases in the future price of BitShares.  We all want that but for different reasons and on different time-scales (well most of us  ;D). Either way, we must innovate to build resilience wherever we find weakness.  I've seen enough posts on this forum from enough people to believe that an ever growing core of this community still believe in the vision of building a corruption resistant economic platform with economic parameters to match. Unfortunately there are inevitably some hope aren't interested in that vision or have a very different idea about how to achieve it. I've seen absolutely nothing that indicates a cessation of support for the most hardworking or core development teams that would indicate future prosperity from a BitShares price point of view.

We find a problem, we innovate and grow stronger or we wither and die over time. Are we here to make some bucks for a few traders and centralised exchanges or are we here to offer a new path for humanity?

This problem is many centuries old. You measure voting power with money, you give advantage to rich guy. This guy does not necessary need to own funds, he may borrow funds like yunbi. What are you going to do about that?

Agreed. In short there would need to be a consequence that prevents Yunbi from continuing their unilateral use of customer funds (without verifiable consent) or we need to innovate and adapt the platform so that similar exploits aren't possible or we need an alternative platform that has learned from these experiences and is more resilient.  I'm not saying for a minute that any of this is easy or without cost......trouble was inevitable from the outset.

From a slightly philosophical point of view, no human being on this planet has ever lived within a corruption resistant economy for any great period of time.  Even those currently fighting for an edge or tending towards greed for whatever reason may in fact prefer to live in a world that might  be possible should a platform like BitShares succeed. The confluence of old and new partly contributes to the problems all of crypto is currently facing. How do you convince someone who can exploit an edge today, in order to make a million, to sacrifice that edge in favour of something with integrity that helps many more than just himself? 

Apathy is one of the biggest challenges so the platform needs to provide all the support it can.....but then the platform must also be compelling enough to grow and gather network effect. It's this combination of issues that make continued innovation/development and integrity absolutely critical.

Offline svk

Fox's efforts had nothing to do with BTS development or worker proposals so it in no way supports your argument, in fact it supports alt's position.

Bit off topic, but imo, Fox's efforts should have been rewarded via a worker proposal. I would even vote for a retrospective worker to pay him for the obvious value he has added to BTS. (I would love to see a situation where if people take the initiative and add value to BTS they will be retroactively rewarded and even if it only cost them $1000 we will potentially reward them much more based on the value we believe their actions helped BTS.)

Investors/Speculators loved the brand association of 'Microsoft' so if we can perhaps get him to do the same on Amazon and Google, relatively easily, that would be great. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21842.msg284947.html#msg284947

I think it also give us a possible direction in which to focus some of the current development in terms of adding value to BTS.
Which is rather than just making the isolated BTS platform more feature rich, we should perhaps focus on developing connections and utility with well known third parties/brands be they payment processors/retailers/etc.

Just send him a tip. I did, because he really deserves it.

Yep, I did too, tipped him 10k.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
Fox's efforts had nothing to do with BTS development or worker proposals so it in no way supports your argument, in fact it supports alt's position.

Bit off topic, but imo, Fox's efforts should have been rewarded via a worker proposal. I would even vote for a retrospective worker to pay him for the obvious value he has added to BTS. (I would love to see a situation where if people take the initiative and add value to BTS they will be retroactively rewarded and even if it only cost them $1000 we will potentially reward them much more based on the value we believe their actions helped BTS.)

Investors/Speculators loved the brand association of 'Microsoft' so if we can perhaps get him to do the same on Amazon and Google, relatively easily, that would be great. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21842.msg284947.html#msg284947

I think it also give us a possible direction in which to focus some of the current development in terms of adding value to BTS.
Which is rather than just making the isolated BTS platform more feature rich, we should perhaps focus on developing connections and utility with well known third parties/brands be they payment processors/retailers/etc.

Just send him a tip. I did, because he really deserves it.

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
So, what is a problem? They can vote, and they vote. We agreed to vote with shares, and here it is, money democracy in practice. Accept it.

No thanks. You accept it. I'll continue to look for solutions, hopefully with other like-minded people.

I don't keep my funds at yunbi, this is my solution. If somebody does, this is their choice, which you can't change.

At best, Yunbi has made an assumption that people who hold BitShares on their exchange consent to their use of those funds. That is demonstrably untrue and is an action that reveals a weakness in BitShares which needs to be countered, not accepted. I appreciate wholeheartedly that you do not hold your BitShares with them and as such you are only a victim of this hijacking and misuse of power by default.

If people become aware, perhaps they will move their funds, great. If not, we should attempt to address this weakness in our platform.....and there are hopefully several ways we can do that which will be beneficial to BitShares holders in the medium to long term. 

Liquidity is one issue that we face. Access to, awareness, understanding and desire for our products are others. Development, distribution and the changing dynamics of the global economy will only add potential increases in the future price of BitShares.  We all want that but for different reasons and on different time-scales (well most of us  ;D). Either way, we must innovate to build resilience wherever we find weakness.  I've seen enough posts on this forum from enough people to believe that an ever growing core of this community still believe in the vision of building a corruption resistant economic platform with economic parameters to match. Unfortunately there are inevitably some hope aren't interested in that vision or have a very different idea about how to achieve it. I've seen absolutely nothing that indicates a cessation of support for the most hardworking or core development teams that would indicate future prosperity from a BitShares price point of view.

We find a problem, we innovate and grow stronger or we wither and die over time. Are we here to make some bucks for a few traders and centralised exchanges or are we here to offer a new path for humanity?

This problem is many centuries old. You measure voting power with money, you give advantage to rich guy. This guy does not necessary need to own funds, he may borrow funds like yunbi. What are you going to do about that?

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
Fox's efforts had nothing to do with BTS development or worker proposals so it in no way supports your argument, in fact it supports alt's position.

Bit off topic, but imo, Fox's efforts should have been rewarded via a worker proposal. I would even vote for a retrospective worker to pay him for the obvious value he has added to BTS. (I would love to see a situation where if people take the initiative and add value to BTS they will be retroactively rewarded and even if it only cost them $1000 we will potentially reward them much more based on the value we believe their actions helped BTS.)

Investors/Speculators loved the brand association of 'Microsoft' so if we can perhaps get him to do the same on Amazon and Google, relatively easily, that would be great. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21842.msg284947.html#msg284947

I think it also give us a possible direction in which to focus some of the current development in terms of adding value to BTS.
Which is rather than just making the isolated BTS platform more feature rich, we should perhaps focus on developing connections and utility with well known third parties/brands be they payment processors/retailers/etc.

If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
It's unfair of Yunbi to start voting without the consent the people who use their exchange. Did they poll them, how did they determine who to vote for? This smells like determined action from a few select individuals in cooperation with the exchange management. Unless it represents the users on the exchange, it should not have been done, at the minimum they should have given advance warning to the users who held their funds there.

Even so it's not some big conspiracy. Most likely these determined individuals are doing what they think is best for their shares. But who has the best thinking? Best thinking depends on what the goal is, and what background assumptions people have. Should we increase value short term or long term? What makes the marketcap rise? Is there sufficient development without any dilution to sustain confidence in the project?

What worries me about the anti-dilution group is that I see no development or projects coming from that side of the argument. Almost everything that makes BitShares what it is now is coming from CNX and a handful of workers and partners that build on BitShares - from what I have seen their voices are nearly unanimous for at least modest dilution to fund development.

The anti-dilution campaign seem to come from a minority of large stake-holders who place all their faith in a theory that limiting a tiny percent of dilution will somehow magically raise the marketcap, even while vesting is still in action and small actions in new features or marketing can have orders of magnitude larger consequences on marketcap even short term.

Very well put...

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
So, what is a problem? They can vote, and they vote. We agreed to vote with shares, and here it is, money democracy in practice. Accept it.

No thanks. You accept it. I'll continue to look for solutions, hopefully with other like-minded people.

I don't keep my funds at yunbi, this is my solution. If somebody does, this is their choice, which you can't change.

At best, Yunbi has made an assumption that people who hold BitShares on their exchange consent to their use of those funds. That is demonstrably untrue and is an action that reveals a weakness in BitShares which needs to be countered, not accepted. I appreciate wholeheartedly that you do not hold your BitShares with them and as such you are only a victim of this hijacking and misuse of power by default.

If people become aware, perhaps they will move their funds, great. If not, we should attempt to address this weakness in our platform.....and there are hopefully several ways we can do that which will be beneficial to BitShares holders in the medium to long term. 

Liquidity is one issue that we face. Access to, awareness, understanding and desire for our products are others. Development, distribution and the changing dynamics of the global economy will only add potential increases in the future price of BitShares.  We all want that but for different reasons and on different time-scales (well most of us  ;D). Either way, we must innovate to build resilience wherever we find weakness.  I've seen enough posts on this forum from enough people to believe that an ever growing core of this community still believe in the vision of building a corruption resistant economic platform with economic parameters to match. Unfortunately there are inevitably some hope aren't interested in that vision or have a very different idea about how to achieve it. I've seen absolutely nothing that indicates a cessation of support for the most hardworking or core development teams that would indicate future prosperity from a BitShares price point of view.

We find a problem, we innovate and grow stronger or we wither and die over time. Are we here to make some bucks for a few traders and centralised exchanges or are we here to offer a new path for humanity?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2016, 05:51:18 pm by Ben Mason »

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Wow, did you just suggest they're voting like this because of some far-fetched conspiracy involving Ethereum? A far more plausible answer would be that they're sick of Bitshares hard-forks and emergency hotfixes every couple of weeks and would like things to stabilize a little.

I don't think you're interpreting alt's post the right way, but as his English isn't the best it's certainly up for interpretation. In my opinion he's just saying he'll not vote for dilution workers no matter what at this point in time. Claiming that everyone anti-dilution are fueled by mindless stupidity is just ignorant, but you don't seem to want to listen to any arguments to the contrary. Everyone seems to want to frame this in terms of war terminology, "it's an attack on Bitshares" etc, perhaps that's just a product of our times, but doing so gets us nowhere.

You're putting words in alt's mouth saying he doesn't want more development for years to come and that he wants Bitshares to die, but nothing supports that theory. He simply has a different perspective on what is good for Bitshares in its current state, and since there's no direct correlation between development and market cap who knows, he might just be right. Like I said Fox's efforts had nothing to do with BTS development or worker proposals so it in no way supports your argument, in fact it supports alt's position.

Over a month ago a forum thread attempting to get the anti-dilution believers out to make their case regarding why they are against all workers was started.. I didn't start it.. but others in the community wanted to hear what it was all about. Guess what happened.. nothing. They got no response at all despite a real consorted effort to reach out. It's not ignorant, it's based on the information we have available.. which is primarily coming from alts commentaries and a few others who talk about 2014 mostly.

As for the words I put into alts mouth as you said.. I never said that.. that was you putting words into my mouth putting words into alts mouth. Yikes.

What we know is.. alts perspective of 'what is good for bitshares' is.. 'fuck bitshares worker'.

I seem to be the only one here actually operating on what alt really says, and what little anti-dilution rational we have seen,  while a few others want to stick flowers and daisys in that steaming pile and say it smells like sunshine lollipops and rainbows everywhere.

You and @Bhuz seem to think this is just me taking some kind of position just because I don't agree. I am standing by everyone else who has made numerous attempts to get a reasoning discussion on the matter and failed.

If this is all about the 'good of bitshares'... where is Yunbi?

Shouldn't they be concerned about this thread and their reputation if they really cared?

Don't they want to share with us their reasoning so that perhaps others could be influenced and take their position as well?

Seriously lets stick to the facts of the matter.

When are we going to see a PR release from Yunbi that states clearly they have changed their policies and will start using their wallet to vote and manipulate Bitshares without their users consent? I can tell you when, never.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+