Yunbi started voting against all workers except refund/burn workers

[bitcrab]

If people can't tell I find this whole thing pretty obnoxious.

I think the Chinese have a point.  Looks at the scape's video.  How many BTS did they get for that?  1600 views?  I thought it was a waste to begin with, but a real video that would be effective would have been work and not fun. Those guys milked that for a looong time. The non-technical scape was part of the reason I left. The other one was ended up being extremely valuable to the BTS ecosystem.

In the current form, I would never wish to work for the blockchain.  At one point I thought it was a cool idea.  Very sci-fi.  Neat stuff.  Now, I realize that the more you put your own well being in the hands of others, the more likely you are to just get screwed.  This is even more true, the more talented you are. I would not touch working for the BTS blockchain unless I absolutely had to do it. Far too many unknowns and whims of people controlling things.

The reason I was pulled into this thread is because someone suggested that a developer should just buy their stake, implement a feature and Allah willing they'd end up selling their stake for more. I'd love to see someone actually come up with numbers on how that is to work. It means the developer has enough money to gamble on BTS and then have enough to live off until they can cash back out. This only works assuming the gamble has a good chance of paying off.  What happens if BTS drops 40% during that time but then goes up 30% after the developers work is released?  How much money vs % of increase is required for this to be reasonable given what an average person would be willing to invest. To suggest this is an alternative model for development is stupid.  It assumes future developers must already be wealthy. Unlikely. 

I have never been against people judging the proposals on their individual merits.  I have never been against people being against dilution in general. I have been against this blind marching forward with nothing more than hope, while other projects are actually implementing new features.  I personally learned it was a big mistake putting much faith in Bytemaster's decision making. That doesn't impact my views on this.  To the contrary - I WANT to see BTS grow up and not be dependent on him. Shutting down all dilution/payment is not the way to do this.  It is just a recipe to not be competitive.

there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community, however, it is not right to say that China stakeholders want to stop development.

anyway, we built the worker proposal mechanism means stakeholders are not supposed to support any development, they will vote based on their judgment. so developers need to explain the necessity and fair price of their work.

yes, as you had said, talented developers do not like to explain, anyway, maybe other people can explain instead of them? under the worker proposal system voters definitely need to understand they are paying for useful and effective job.

for example, AFAIK, most of China stakeholders do not think they need the BSIP10 feature, how they feel when they are aware they need to pay 50k/day for this?

I was also told by one Chinese programmer, "in my view ***'s work make sense, however the quality need to be improved."

please do not be scared by what yunbi did, 4 worker are still there and I think it's not easy to vote them out. and new workers still have chance to be voted in if enough voters are convinced.

[Pheonike]

hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS

If somebody thinks that situation where we are now is bad, then wouldn't it be better to sell everything and wait. After a while BTS price will crash because customers are abandoning Bitshares. Then BTS can be bought back with better price – if the project has any credibility left.

I can't see from blockchain that there are customers using BTS that is responsible for holding the current marketcap(tansaction record,fee income) . Can you ?

If you can't show me why bts has value now then why should I consider your opinion on how to increase it?

[freedom]

hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS

+10000*

[btswildpig]

hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS

If somebody thinks that situation where we are now is bad, then wouldn't it be better to sell everything and wait. After a while BTS price will crash because customers are abandoning Bitshares. Then BTS can be bought back with better price – if the project has any credibility left.

I can't see from blockchain that there are customers using BTS that is responsible for holding the current marketcap(tansaction record,fee income) . Can you ? 

[Samupaha]

hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS

If somebody thinks that situation where we are now is bad, then wouldn't it be better to sell everything and wait. After a while BTS price will crash because customers are abandoning Bitshares. Then BTS can be bought back with better price – if the project has any credibility left.

[chryspano]

hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS

Really baldrick? that was part of the cunning plan of the anti-dilutionists? to try to take hostage BTS and hope for "ransom"?

The ones that should buy TONS of BTS is you guys, the anti-dilution group!

Why?

Because... if you really think that the price will rise just by reducing the tiny development costs to zero, then acording to your "reasoning" at 5th of November when the merger and inflation multiple times greater than the development costs ends at once, price will have to skyrocket multiple times! If you don't believe that the end of the merger will move the price, then wtf do you bother and take the GREAT risk to reduce the much smaller DEVELOPMENT funds to zero?

hic Rhodus, hic salta

[Moon]

hey man,If you think that is not fair, you can buy more BTS

[gamey]

All I'm hearing is the same people reinforcing their opinion. While it's certainly popcorn worthy reading watch each side holding strong on their position, is there a compromise? I liked what BM talked about in the mumble, moving toward cleaning up core features and challenging individuals to come up with funding models on the side chains. At the same time, doesn't it make sense to keep our maintenance workers healthy?

Before this turns into 50 pages of more chest thumping, what's the compromise look like?

THe compromise is to monitor proposals in a way that makes sense and not just blindly support no dilution. You're wrong thinking that this is a black/white issue.  Some of us are as middle as one can be on the issue.  *NO ONE* is saying blindly support all proposals or anything close.

wtf are you talking about? I never said this is a black/white issue.  I was simply asking if there's some middle ground for both camps.  Geez. With all the asshole, idiot comments flying back and forth, I didn't feel like that was the way to go.

Well I wasn't clear.  The middle ground is to not blindly be against all network paid development and to consider each individually.  There is no other middle ground from my viewpoint.  There is no consensus to be reached outside of that solution.  When you talk of middle ground, you seem to imply there are 2 very different sides opposing each other. From my view there is rational (consider each on a case by case basis, let the system work as it was designed..  pay developers to keep the project moving forward) and irrational (No network pay).  I don't see any middle ground to be had?  If there were guys saying "VOTE IN EVERY DEVELOPER WITH A PROPOSAL" then there would be a middle ground..If they don't want to pay Bytemaster, then I can even understand that.  It is the other developers though that will just leave.

Actually a middle ground is for people to talk others to pay them individually.  Like issuing a token or some such. That won't work for things like cleaning up the codebase (which helps bring in other free developers in the future).  I'm not sure how well it'd work on a lot of features that can't be taxed in some manner.  Not only that, the collection of the tax just adds a lot of unneeded complexity to the codebase. 

If you break this stuff down into the numbers.. I don't think the dilution is even that significant. The whole thing is crazy.  I don't think anyone here is stupid, just ignorant and full of biases they don't understand.  If they say something stupid, I will say 'thats a stupid thing to say'.  Maybe thats not a good approach, but... it is truthful to me and these people aren't exactly rational to begin with.  If this anti-dilution stuff keeps going, BTS will just die from lack of innovation.  Even though I don't own BTS outside vesting, I'd still like to see it succeed.

BTW, removing all network paid workers makes me even happier to have sold my BTS.

[TravelsAsia]

All I'm hearing is the same people reinforcing their opinion. While it's certainly popcorn worthy reading watch each side holding strong on their position, is there a compromise? I liked what BM talked about in the mumble, moving toward cleaning up core features and challenging individuals to come up with funding models on the side chains. At the same time, doesn't it make sense to keep our maintenance workers healthy?

Before this turns into 50 pages of more chest thumping, what's the compromise look like?

THe compromise is to monitor proposals in a way that makes sense and not just blindly support no dilution. You're wrong thinking that this is a black/white issue.  Some of us are as middle as one can be on the issue.  *NO ONE* is saying blindly support all proposals or anything close.

wtf are you talking about? I never said this is a black/white issue.  I was simply asking if there's some middle ground for both camps.  Geez. With all the asshole, idiot comments flying back and forth, I didn't feel like that was the way to go.

[gamey]

There are a lot of issues being confused.

There seems to be some belief that if you cut out all funding, then the same people will do it for free or perhaps others will step in. Could this be true?

Is it the belief that the proposal funding method actually keeps people from working for free?  Psychologically I could actually see this being true in some strange way.  I haven't seen anyone explicitly SAY this, but I'm starting to get the feeling with wildpig's  responding. (Thank you wildpig, even if I am an asshole, you are at least helping people understand what is going on and I appreciate that)

So if you assume the above is true, I'd like to see the plan to get people working for free?

The problem is there are just too many projects out there where people can have more direct control over the results.  If you want your coding to pay off, you'd be better choosing a coin with a smaller market cap so the increase is 200% or something.  Outside of the hope I mentioned above, there has been no discussion of how or why people would work for free.  Just that it is preferable.  Well that is so obvious there is no value in stating it.

Lots of things are preferable.  You don't kill the working plan in a pure hope that these preferable things will happen. This is not logical.

Previously we had the toolkit plan etc, and that could have brought in developers.  That plan was killed .. and the source was made closed source.  (Is that still the case? ) I only halfway follow this forum.. Development is only done for free when the project is inspiring.  When the learning curve to get started is minimized.  The older people get, the less they enjoy programming.  (This is almost always the case! ) BTS uses C++.  I don't mind C++, but a lot of developers won't like it.  Younger types are moving to other languages.  All these are reasons why you won't get free development.

The other thing is to look at our community. 

We previously have been criticized for being anti-other projects.  A lot of this was pushed by certain people who want it to be true, and a good deal of it was true.  IMO being anti-other projects is NOT going to prevent others from supporting us.

What i see now is we are fighting our own project. No one has offered plans on getting free developers, just their dreams and examples of people working for free. People coming into this project are not going to work on a project with so many unknowns and so many irrational people. So good luck with that.

The further from the front BTS is, the less likely it is to bring on any free-work developers.

Good luck with the dreams, guys. I've never tried to claim my vesting balance.  I probably should....

[gamey]

All I'm hearing is the same people reinforcing their opinion. While it's certainly popcorn worthy reading watch each side holding strong on their position, is there a compromise? I liked what BM talked about in the mumble, moving toward cleaning up core features and challenging individuals to come up with funding models on the side chains. At the same time, doesn't it make sense to keep our maintenance workers healthy?

Before this turns into 50 pages of more chest thumping, what's the compromise look like?

THe compromise is to monitor proposals in a way that makes sense and not just blindly support no dilution. You're wrong thinking that this is a black/white issue.  Some of us are as middle as one can be on the issue.  *NO ONE* is saying blindly support all proposals or anything close.

[liondani]

Since we're on the subject of an Exchange abusing its voting powers... why can we not create specialized "Exchange Wallets".  I've always thought Bitshares should have a "modular" approach when it comes to users. 
Not ALL users are the same.  Not ALL users have the same goals for using BitShares. 
With the complexity that BitShares offers (the points mentioned above) along with the current Yunbi debacle, we really, really, really should look at providing specialized wallets that are tailored to fit the needs of each unique user.

For example,

A registered wallet for “Exchanges” --- would allow them to vote but, at a reduced weight ( 1:20 ratio?).  This way the voting system isn’t being abused as we’re seeing now, while still allowing them to voice their position, like the rest of us.  The wallet could also allow them to create sub accounts to fit any needs for interfacing with their front/back end functions (maybe allow up to 50 sub accounts (to keep blockchain RAM/bloat in check)).  In some manor, we should also incentivize the exchange wallet so there’s no incentive/reason to game the system by creating “fictitious” non-exchange wallets to circumvent the voting restriction.  Maybe no DeX Tx fees and charge a little higher wallet-to-wallet Tx fee? Maybe we could incentivize their registered wallet with some “dividends” from the fee pool also??

A registered wallet for “Point-of-Sale” --- would allow them to vote at full 1:1 ratio since these wallets will more than likely not have a “large” quantity of user’s funds in them as activity of this wallet would really only take advantage of our quick 3sec user-to-user transfer time and not necessarily holding customer funds for long periods of time.  This wallet could also include sub account creation (up to 50?) to fit their business needs for BitShares integration, like the exchange wallet. The incentive of this registered wallet would be to have NO wallet-to-wallet Tx fees and below normal DeX Tx fees.  There really should be no need to incentivize this style wallet other than no Tx transfer fees.

A registered wallet for “Standard Users”--- this wallet would stay the same as what we have available today in our current wallet (obviously 1:1 voting).  I personally would like to see a “Lite” and “Advanced” option within the BitShares default wallet and have it default to open in “Lite” view (or an option to choose default).   Obviously this is GUI related but, would like to see this ability in our main wallet none the less.
I feel having this discussion regarding different wallet structures is very important and needed. We, as a community cannot keep going through these major conundrums. It not only hurts community moral but also businesses looking to adopt Bitshares technology.
BitShares is not structured as a One-Size-Fits all, so please let’s make some sensible changes that won’t financially hurt each other and beneficial to all.

My 2BTS 

 

I like the big picture of your idea. The details and the exact futures for each wallet is something that can be discussed ...

[emailtooaj]

Have you looked at coinmarketcap recently ?
It doesn't take a company with funding to compete with BTS . A coin with a silly Doge face is doing it already .
Dogecoin is already doing it with zero features/zero funding .

Figure out how to beat Dogecoin , and I'll have a serious conversation with you . 

Of course, you will say ..."Dogecoin is pump and dump, market cap doesn't count”. But how can you talk about beating all the innovation projects by increasing dilution when you can't even beat a silly project called Doge ?

Oh come on, Doge is obviously an anomaly in the crypto-world -- it's purely for "fun" and speculation on how much others will find it "fun". That's not BTS. BTS won't magically become fun and community-driven if everyone just stops developing for it.

The name's not even funny -- BitShares.

So .... you mean to set a bar for beating Dogecoin is unfair for a light speed blockchain ?

Seriously?  We're comparing BitShares to Doge?
Doge is a copy coin with some (if any) tweaking to the protocol.  A vanilla currency... passed between two parties... that has nothing more than network effect,  only because they started at the right time and right place... the peak of the crypto hype!

Do they have...
A function Decentralized Exchange on their block chain?
A way to create UIA's?
Any Market Pegged Assets?
A complex GUI/Front end?
Any work being done for STEALTH?
Any voting capabilities?
A network with 3 sec TX times?
Any business that have built off their protocol?

So in other words, we have a SHIT TON of upkeep which BitShares requires to stay running and functional.  BitShares IS NOT a "set and forget" coin/token/crypto. 

That being said.  I'm not 100% for dilution either but, we must have some common sense realizing BitShares is not a vanilla coin.  It's literally a living and breathing eco-system which needs fostered and cared for by the community and devs alike.  And yes, devs/workers need some form of compensation to help maintain and grow our system!! 

Since we're on the subject of an Exchange abusing its voting powers... why can we not create specialized "Exchange Wallets".  I've always thought Bitshares should have a "modular" approach when it comes to users. 
Not ALL users are the same.  Not ALL users have the same goals for using BitShares. 
With the complexity that BitShares offers (the points mentioned above) along with the current Yunbi debacle, we really, really, really should look at providing specialized wallets that are tailored to fit the needs of each unique user.

For example,

A registered wallet for “Exchanges” --- would allow them to vote but, at a reduced weight ( 1:20 ratio?).  This way the voting system isn’t being abused as we’re seeing now, while still allowing them to voice their position, like the rest of us.  The wallet could also allow them to create sub accounts to fit any needs for interfacing with their front/back end functions (maybe allow up to 50 sub accounts (to keep blockchain RAM/bloat in check)).  In some manor, we should also incentivize the exchange wallet so there’s no incentive/reason to game the system by creating “fictitious” non-exchange wallets to circumvent the voting restriction.  Maybe no DeX Tx fees and charge a little higher wallet-to-wallet Tx fee? Maybe we could incentivize their registered wallet with some “dividends” from the fee pool also??

A registered wallet for “Point-of-Sale” --- would allow them to vote at full 1:1 ratio since these wallets will more than likely not have a “large” quantity of user’s funds in them as activity of this wallet would really only take advantage of our quick 3sec user-to-user transfer time and not necessarily holding customer funds for long periods of time.  This wallet could also include sub account creation (up to 50?) to fit their business needs for BitShares integration, like the exchange wallet. The incentive of this registered wallet would be to have NO wallet-to-wallet Tx fees and below normal DeX Tx fees.  There really should be no need to incentivize this style wallet other than no Tx transfer fees.

A registered wallet for “Standard Users”--- this wallet would stay the same as what we have available today in our current wallet (obviously 1:1 voting).  I personally would like to see a “Lite” and “Advanced” option within the BitShares default wallet and have it default to open in “Lite” view (or an option to choose default).   Obviously this is GUI related but, would like to see this ability in our main wallet none the less.
I feel having this discussion regarding different wallet structures is very important and needed. We, as a community cannot keep going through these major conundrums. It not only hurts community moral but also businesses looking to adopt Bitshares technology.
BitShares is not structured as a One-Size-Fits all, so please let’s make some sensible changes that won’t financially hurt each other and beneficial to all.

My 2BTS 

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

All I'm hearing is the same people reinforcing their opinion. While it's certainly popcorn worthy reading watch each side holding strong on their position, is there a compromise? I liked what BM talked about in the mumble, moving toward cleaning up core features and challenging individuals to come up with funding models on the side chains. At the same time, doesn't it make sense to keep our maintenance workers healthy?

Before this turns into 50 pages of more chest thumping, what's the compromise look like?

If you scroll back a few pages I attempted to formulate a compromise based on the suggests provided from the anti-dilutioners

I got no response in return.

The message seems to be no compromise.

At this point it's only about saving face for those cultures that value such.

[TravelsAsia]

All I'm hearing is the same people reinforcing their opinion. While it's certainly popcorn worthy reading watch each side holding strong on their position, is there a compromise? I liked what BM talked about in the mumble, moving toward cleaning up core features and challenging individuals to come up with funding models on the side chains. At the same time, doesn't it make sense to keep our maintenance workers healthy?

Before this turns into 50 pages of more chest thumping, what's the compromise look like?