Yunbi started voting against all workers except refund/burn workers

[thereverseflash]

The merger gave stake to those who donated after feb 2014.  100% of the money they gave went to build bts.  Ending the merger because the extra ags was not enough to last 2 years is not steeling from bytemaster and devs, it is steeling from those who lost dns, vote, and other chains and got bts instead.  Bts got 100% the benefit of their funds and now some want to back out on these people for 20% savings. 

Do what you must. I cannot stop the voters. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Empirical1.2]

To those in favour of low dilution, there are some initial signs of support for ending the merger early.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22237.0.html

What are your thoughts about supporting that?

This would save BTS 700k BTS per day/5 million BTS per week.

By saving money there we can spend more on development and still be saving a huge amount overall.

[lil_jay890]

Interesting to see that Nikolai is now voting for baozi and all the burn/refund workers... granted he doesn't have much BTS

http://cryptofresh.com/u/nikolai

[noflyzoe]

sounds like you have a communication problem. developers seem willy nilly with features and people holding are getting nervous. "stop with the willy nilly features or else."

[donkeypong]

With stock exchanges it is not a matter of ethics. They are heavily regulated. When you hold funds in trust, it is all written on paper, what they can do with these funds, and what they can't. No such contract exists between yunbi and their users. Which means that they can do whatever they want with funds kept on their exchange. I don't like what they do, that's why I don't keep my funds there. But complaining about what they do is wrong and pointless.

I said unethical, not illegal. There's a difference. Everything you wrote is true, but none of it excuses their behavior. I was likening their role to that of a stock exchange in terms of their ethical obligations to their fellow human beings and the communities with whom they interact. The fact that stock exchanges are regulated has no bearing at all on my example. But perhaps one could find a better analogy than I used.

The whole point of this technology is to replace centralized regulation with consensus driven code.  If yunbi truly is a major problem (and I'm not convinced that it is), then the rules of the system need to change.

I agree the rules probably could change and that this may not pose a major problem for BitShares anyway. I'm simply disappointed they went for the lowest common denominator, making the kind of dumb business decision a 12-year-old kid would make.

As to your point about technology replacing regulation, fine, but it doesn't apply here. I'm not imposing regulation on anyone. I'm simply expecting better things from my fellow human beings. Even if you live in some libertarian utopia where there's no regulation and no enforcement, then if someone robs you blind while you're carrying your bag of gold to the supermarket (or someone hacks and drains your account), then there's some expectation of human behavior there that's been broken. If you don't want to use the system, then you don't have to put them in jail or shoot them dead or sue them, but wouldn't you at least put out the word that they're not trustworthy and use any existing reputation system to explain to others what they have done with your trust?

I would suggest that we have duties to respect our fellow human beings and that these expectations transcend any written law. If you don't believe this, then we're no better than animals. The same is true for good practices in business. If you shit on your customers, employees, other stakeholders, or those in your community, then you've sacrificed your good will. When you lose your reputation in business, there isn't much left.

[arhag]

Just think if Polo pulled a Yunbi but with their own workers.  It isn't going to happen, but I wonder whose opinions would change.

If I'm not mistaken, based on the current actively voting stake, Poloniex alone has enough stake under their control that they could replace the majority of active witnesses with their own accounts if they wanted to. Taking over the committee and workers would be even easier. Same goes for BTC38.

[morpheus]

Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network?  If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.

It's perfectly ethical for this group of dissenting BitShares users to take it over and do what they want with it -- go for it (if only they had the numbers). But it is very much UNethical for an exchange, which essentially is holding funds in trust, to participate in such a vote. It's like a stock exchange voting as a shareholder in a corporation's election -- that would be such a chickenshit thing to do that no one in their right mind would patronize such a business.

With stock exchanges it is not a matter of ethics. They are heavily regulated. When you hold funds in trust, it is all written on paper, what they can do with these funds, and what they can't. No such contract exists between yunbi and their users. Which means that they can do whatever they want with funds kept on their exchange. I don't like what they do, that's why I don't keep my funds there. But complaining about what they do is wrong and pointless.

 

The whole point of this technology is to replace centralized regulation with consensus driven code.  If yunbi truly is a major problem (and I'm not convinced that it is), then the rules of the system need to change.

[yvv]

Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network?  If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.

It's perfectly ethical for this group of dissenting BitShares users to take it over and do what they want with it -- go for it (if only they had the numbers). But it is very much UNethical for an exchange, which essentially is holding funds in trust, to participate in such a vote. It's like a stock exchange voting as a shareholder in a corporation's election -- that would be such a chickenshit thing to do that no one in their right mind would patronize such a business.

With stock exchanges it is not a matter of ethics. They are heavily regulated. When you hold funds in trust, it is all written on paper, what they can do with these funds, and what they can't. No such contract exists between yunbi and their users. Which means that they can do whatever they want with funds kept on their exchange. I don't like what they do, that's why I don't keep my funds there. But complaining about what they do is wrong and pointless.

[Pheonike]

Its very simple, "He who holds the private key holds the vote". They gave their right to vote away when they gave their shares to POLO. Therefore it's more valuable to them to use the POLO exchange than it is to hold BTS. The only way to change this is to make our DEX a more valuable place to trade on than any other exchange when it comes to BTS. Anything outside of that is a waste of time an energy.

Just think if Polo pulled a Yunbi but with their own workers.  It isn't going to happen, but I wonder whose opinions would change.

If it did happen, who fault would it be? It's our fault for not thinking through a proper solution for it. Besides this is all based on non-binding social contracts rights?

[gamey]

Its very simple, "He who holds the private key holds the vote". They gave their right to vote away when they gave their shares to POLO. Therefore it's more valuable to them to use the POLO exchange than it is to hold BTS. The only way to change this is to make our DEX a more valuable place to trade on than any other exchange when it comes to BTS. Anything outside of that is a waste of time an energy.

Just think if Polo pulled a Yunbi but with their own workers.  It isn't going to happen, but I wonder whose opinions would change.

[Pheonike]

Its very simple, "He who holds the private key holds the vote". They gave their right to vote away when they gave their shares to POLO. Therefore it's more valuable to them to use the POLO exchange than it is to hold BTS. The only way to change this is to make our DEX a more valuable place to trade on than any other exchange when it comes to BTS. Anything outside of that is a waste of time an energy.

[donkeypong]

Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network?  If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.

It's perfectly ethical for this group of dissenting BitShares users to take it over and do what they want with it -- go for it (if only they had the numbers). But it is very much UNethical for an exchange, which essentially is holding funds in trust, to participate in such a vote. It's like a stock exchange voting as a shareholder in a corporation's election -- that would be such a chickenshit thing to do that no one in their right mind would patronize such a business.

[Moon]

What criteria determines if a worker is voted in or not?  Looking at the voting report on cryptofresh I see that only one worker has > 50% approval, which is svk.  However several others are green.

I "think" it works like this, but someone may need to correct me: There's a fixed amount of funds available to be distributed each day. The top voted worker gets its funds first, then so on down the list, until there's no more to give out (so the last worker funded may only be partially funded). The way you vote against any real person being funded (or at least to set a threshold for how many votes they need in order to be funded) is to vote for the "refund" or "burn" workers. Funds accumulated by the refund worker go back into the "reserve pool" from which the worker funds are paid. Funds collected by the "burn" workers are destroyed (the overall supply of BTS decreases). There's sufficient refund workers to eat up all the available funds to be paid out per day, in which case no real workers get funded.

So voting for a refund worker is making a statement like "I don't want to pay for the current workers at current prices, but it may make sense to pay workers in the future". Voting for a burn worker is more like saying "I think there's too many funds allocated for workers to be paid in the future, let's reduce the supply".

According to http://www.cryptofresh.com/workers, the current daily budget that can be paid to workers is ~315K BTS. Of this, about 87K is being paid to workers, and the rest is being transferred back to the reserve pool by the refund400k worker.

That's correct, it's basically a first come first serve until there are no funds left of the budget, which is around 315k BTS per day right now. If the 400k worker were in 1st place, it would take the whole budget and no one else would get paid.

I hope the top 4 workers at active,So that we can keep development 

[morpheus]

@dannotestein @svk got it thank you

[inertia]

As someone new to BitShares, I'm not all that worried about people using the existing protocol (as-is) to try to yank the steering wheel.  Seems like all crypto currencies have that situation from time-to-time.

Instead, things that make me apprehensive is the notion that some people think a hard fork is the solution.