Yunbi started voting against all workers except refund/burn workers

[EstefanTT]

Yunbi is an exchange. This is unethical and backhanded. If someone has a dissenting view, then they should fork it.

i don't like it neither, but this is the weakness of voting, when you give away your vote. Yunbi made a clear statement ( i am not so sure
if this is clear for the average user on their exchange). It make sense to attract this faction to their exchange, because, now
they can trade BTS and not have the funds in their own wallet. So it is a clear marketing move, to make them different to polo etc.

i see nothing unethical in this behavior. we where aware of this major problem from the beginning. So to make it clear, the exchanges have
enough votingpower to make everything what they want, but this move will destroy their business  basis.

Instead of flaming the antidilultion fraction you should look for none voting accounts and persuade to vote. If you just click randomly
on account names on cryptofresh you will see, that many account are not voting at all. This makes the community weak, because we have
members who has not said what they want.

That's great idea !!!

I'm gonna throw another idea !

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 ?

[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.

[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.

[Moon]

i like yunbi
We should increase worker threshold

[gamey]

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.

[Shentist]

Instead of flaming the antidilultion fraction you should look for none voting accounts and persuade to vote. If you just click randomly
on account names on cryptofresh you will see, that many account are not voting at all. This makes the community weak, because we have
members who has not said what they want.

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?

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.

[liondani]

If price goes down because lack of development, they are going to get hurt also.

except they are margin short on BTS?

[Samupaha]

Instead of flaming the antidilultion fraction you should look for none voting accounts and persuade to vote. If you just click randomly
on account names on cryptofresh you will see, that many account are not voting at all. This makes the community weak, because we have
members who has not said what they want.

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.

[Shentist]

Yunbi is an exchange. This is unethical and backhanded. If someone has a dissenting view, then they should fork it.

i don't like it neither, but this is the weakness of voting, when you give away your vote. Yunbi made a clear statement ( i am not so sure
if this is clear for the average user on their exchange). It make sense to attract this faction to their exchange, because, now
they can trade BTS and not have the funds in their own wallet. So it is a clear marketing move, to make them different to polo etc.

i see nothing unethical in this behavior. we where aware of this major problem from the beginning. So to make it clear, the exchanges have
enough votingpower to make everything what they want, but this move will destroy their business  basis.

Instead of flaming the antidilultion fraction you should look for none voting accounts and persuade to vote. If you just click randomly
on account names on cryptofresh you will see, that many account are not voting at all. This makes the community weak, because we have
members who has not said what they want.

[donkeypong]

Yunbi is an exchange. This is unethical and backhanded. If someone has a dissenting view, then they should fork it.

[Samupaha]

It's like antidilution gang doesn't even understand how DAC is supposed to work. There are also other ways to decrease current supply, like I tried to propose in other thread earlier. But nobody from antidilution gang didn't even bother to answer. It's like this whole thing is just made up reason – but I don't know what they are trying to achieve.  If price goes down because lack of development, they are going to get hurt also. They have quite a lot of BTS, otherwise they couldn't be able to vote so powerfully.

Maybe this is a coup? First they are trying to get people so frustrated that most of the developers leave, and when the price goes down because of this, they will buy more BTS so they can fully control Bitshares. I just don't know how they could get anybody to trust Bitshares after something like that.

[yvv]

So, let's show the power of democracy and vote them out. Don't we have enough power or what?

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Well, let's not get carry away with this anti dilution thing.

Better to look to solve this situation in a smart a peaceful way

I offered one several posts ago based on what the anti-dilutionst thought would be better.

It would require them to contribute based on their own ideas.

I got no response in return thus far.

Meanwhile we appear to have been infiltrated by a now voted in committee member who apparently is attempting to fork bitshares for whatever copycat chinashares they can come up with to compete against Bitshares.

Attempt to stop Bitshares from attracting more developers and stop development, claim to love bitshares and want it to grow.. while secretly building a fork to compete against it. Seems legit.

[EstefanTT]

Well, let's not get carry away with this anti dilution thing.

Better to look to solve this situation in a smart a peaceful way

[chryspano]

I'll let others to judge your stupidity .
Read again dumb ass .
I was translating stuff from the Chinese site which also on the Chinese sub-forum .

Go see for yourself . Ass hole .

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21989.0.html

I'm done with you .

shitcoin buyers and makers 

Is there a Bitcointalk ANN thread or is it too early? 


[EDIT]

I'll let others to judge your stupidity .