Bitshares at the cross roads

[Digital Lucifer]

Should Bitshares community allow vote buying and concentration of voting power and are we fine with the consequences?

because Bitshares is already light years behind other projects out there in terms of development and infrastructure.

I believe that this is 100% inaccurate.

For the rest, ill not comment.

Chee®s

[yvv]

Should Bitshares community allow vote buying and concentration of voting power and are we fine with the consequences?

It does not really matter anymore, because Bitshares is already light years behind other projects out there in terms of development and infrastructure. Of course, BTS whales have no choice but to continue to simulate vigorous activity to keep it alive, because it is a pain in the a$$ to withdraw millions BTS without crashing the price to zero, but this is all going to no where.
 

[abit]

What's the next rainfalls on staked BTS?

There is a skyfall.

[R]

What's the next rainfalls on staked BTS?

[Stan]

We're just past the half way point of rainfall.  Still as much to be given away as has been given away to date!

[Stan]

Participating BTS shareholders are voluntarily giving their voting power to BEOS so that BEOS is enabled to integrate with bitshares.

Erm, no. They voluntarily lock up their BTS to receive shares from the raindrop.

If you join the BEOS telegram room you will find a room full of people who support the BEOS team and look forward to them using their voting power to vote in BSIPs for trustless gateways. Claiming that people are only interested in the rainfall is simply not true.

Claiming that every rainfall participant supports the BEOS voting chaos, or whatever other plans the BEOS team might have, is equally untrue.

You shouldn't be collecting rainfall if you don't support our efforts.

[pc]

Participating BTS shareholders are voluntarily giving their voting power to BEOS so that BEOS is enabled to integrate with bitshares.

Erm, no. They voluntarily lock up their BTS to receive shares from the raindrop.

If you join the BEOS telegram room you will find a room full of people who support the BEOS team and look forward to them using their voting power to vote in BSIPs for trustless gateways. Claiming that people are only interested in the rainfall is simply not true.

Claiming that every rainfall participant supports the BEOS voting chaos, or whatever other plans the BEOS team might have, is equally untrue.

[Crypto Kong]

Participating BTS shareholders are voluntarily giving their voting power to BEOS so that BEOS is enabled to integrate with bitshares.

Erm, no. They voluntarily lock up their BTS to receive shares from the raindrop.

If you join the BEOS telegram room you will find a room full of people who support the BEOS team and look forward to them using their voting power to vote in BSIPs for trustless gateways. Claiming that people are only interested in the rainfall is simply not true.

[matle85]

Basically to put in a WP to integrate BEOS with BTS. Yes it will have to be approved by the BTS community.

Is this the WP for the trustless bridge and if so is there a timeline for it?

[Stan]

I still have reservations about BEOS, primarily due to the favorable attitudes I've read concerning regulatory compliance by members of the BEOS team. I have much respect for Stan, OnceUponaTime , MichaelX and Dan Notestein, but I also see their track record of mistakes. We' all have one, we're all only human, and mistakes can't be eliminated. However, when mistakes become a pattern and ignored, aren't seen as a lesson to learn from, something must be done to raise awareness to a higher level, to stop the cycle.

For the record I have not participated in the BEOS rainfall. I am on the fence about it and I would hate to succumb to manipulation or bribery. It is very difficult to know the actual agenda of all the players, especially those behind the scenes, so abstaining is the best way I know to avoid that.

The main question is, is the BEOS voting power being used to restore the original disruptive, decentralized vision that BitShares was created for, or to dominate and control stakeholders towards a legally regulated, personal freedom limiting ecosystem the uninformed masses will accept? Is this a slippery slope towards incremental control, or the restoration of Austrian / free market economic principles that provide an ecosystem with integrity, accountability and promote personal financial freedom?

One question you need to ask yourself, if you don't want to see kyc and increasing regulator influence on BitShares, is whether the BTS held by those in control of BEOS deposits was intended from the start to be used to do more than facilitate the integration of BitShares and EOS, or, whether such integration requires kyc and fundamental regulatory changes to BitShares. If you don't care about that, feel free to put your head back in the sand and pay no attention to this question. If you do care I urge you to choose your course of action wisely.

I have observed the centralization of control through voting proxies, which was established to address the problem of voter apathy. It did solve the problem of apathy that paralyzed development and growth, but at the expense as time went on of centralizing control. I was not happy with the changes  imposed on BPs wrt price feeds. BSIP42 was a disaster in my mind, particularly in how it was thrust into production, and without any type of report or written conclusion to summarize the results of those "experiments". We now see a downward pressure on MCR from 175% down to 160%, rather than holding individuals personally responsible for their own collateral management. The global MCR value for an asset should be set with investor's safety, not profit as it's primary criteria. I see the influence of Keynesian economic advocates and if those are allowed to prevail we will end up with the same "brink of disaster" situation as mainstream financial markets are experiencing right now.

Perhaps we need more centralized planning to restore the vision and replace the Keynesian perspective with the superior Austrian approach. Ofc if that is to be done the centralized control must be trustworthy and be committed to doing that. I myself have more trust in those I specifically mentioned above, than I do with bitcrab and those who defer to his proxy.That's not to say I totally trust them, b/c of the regulatory attitudes they have expressed, especially wrt kyc policies. 

Whichever way you decide, the choice is currently yours to make. Choose wisely.

I can assure you that we have NO intention to change or centralize BitShares in any way.  Never KYC on BitShares.  That's its key strength.  We don't even have KYC to hold BEOS, although we do plan to have some assets that are compliant with the jurisdictions in which they need to operate. We are much more likely to put BEOS into international jurisdictions where users are free from regulatory overreach.  That's our biggest added value and its highly complementary to BitShares. BEOS is designed to layer on top of BitShares and add value to it while allowing folks who don't want that value to continue using BitShares as it is. 

So come over and get some BEOS while you still can, we've only given half of them away so far.

BEOS RAINDROP

- Powered by Blocktivity.info -

BEOS.COLD = 353,461,502 BTS
BEOS.GATEWAY = 8,751,761 BTS
TOTAL = 362,213,263 BTS

Which is 13.33 % of the total BTS supply

The raindrop would give you 7.5 BEOS/BTS

The average since beginning is 8.62 BEOS/BTS

Raindrop time consumed : 43/89 days
Raindrop time consumed : 48.31 %

[Stan]

us upgrading BitShares to a sidechain in the EOS universe

Is that your goal? Why didn't you say so in the rainfall terms?

How about asking people if they actually want that *before* you lure them out of their voting power?

We made this very clear from Day One in dozens of Steemit Posts and the White Paper and the beos.world website.

[pc]

Participating BTS shareholders are voluntarily giving their voting power to BEOS so that BEOS is enabled to integrate with bitshares.

Erm, no. They voluntarily lock up their BTS to receive shares from the raindrop.

[alt]

BEOS is not "robbing" anything or anyone. Participating BTS shareholders are voluntarily giving their voting power to BEOS so that BEOS is enabled to integrate with bitshares. This will open up bitshares to the larger EOS community and bring value to both bitshares and BEOS.

what's your meanning about "they need voting power to enabled to integrate with bitshares"?
will this not be approved by other bitshares holders?
did this include vote in dead witness?
did this include vote in nobody known's commiittee?
did this include vote out others who didn't show loyal to stan?
All bull shit.
and this is why BEOS and the peoples who supportted BEOS's bull shit will lost my support.

Basically to put in a WP to integrate BEOS with BTS. Yes it will have to be approved by the BTS community.

We are voting in many witnesses that have shown interest or previous community witnesses that may be interested in coming back to BTS. We have had several good discussions with BP's as of late and hope to use our votes to further decentralize the witness structure.

What nobody knowns? We all know that the evangelist account is my committee account and godfather is stans. Other members of the community have different accounts for witness/bp/committee versus their personal accounts. No secret and not unknown.

Last - many people being voted for are not loyal to stan, some are eben outright HOSTILE to Stan, myself and BEOS - yet we continue to vote for them. So that negates that premise.

could you point out who said stan is the godfather of bts?
could you point out where is the commiittee application thread of godfather and evangelist?
and yes, I know many people being voted for are not loyal to stan, we known many dead witness be voted in by stan, sure dead account can't loyal to stan.
and can you tell me who is delegate.freedom, could you point out even one post of this account? could you explain why this nobody by supported instead of some guys from like openleger, bts.ai, bts++?
and can you point out any input from beos about the poll, for example: why they didn't support reduce mssr to 1.01, and after one day they change to support?
As I know, stan said anybody didn't give him BTS means didn't support beos, and didn't worth his support. this diffinitely means beos is agains the main bitshares community.

[michaelx]

BEOS is not "robbing" anything or anyone. Participating BTS shareholders are voluntarily giving their voting power to BEOS so that BEOS is enabled to integrate with bitshares. This will open up bitshares to the larger EOS community and bring value to both bitshares and BEOS.

what's your meanning about "they need voting power to enabled to integrate with bitshares"?
will this not be approved by other bitshares holders?
did this include vote in dead witness?
did this include vote in nobody known's commiittee?
did this include vote out others who didn't show loyal to stan?
All bull shit.
and this is why BEOS and the peoples who supportted BEOS's bull shit will lost my support.

Basically to put in a WP to integrate BEOS with BTS. Yes it will have to be approved by the BTS community.

We are voting in many witnesses that have shown interest or previous community witnesses that may be interested in coming back to BTS. We have had several good discussions with BP's as of late and hope to use our votes to further decentralize the witness structure.

What nobody knowns? We all know that the evangelist account is my committee account and godfather is stans. Other members of the community have different accounts for witness/bp/committee versus their personal accounts. No secret and not unknown.

Last - many people being voted for are not loyal to stan, some are eben outright HOSTILE to Stan, myself and BEOS - yet we continue to vote for them. So that negates that premise.

[alt]

BEOS is not "robbing" anything or anyone. Participating BTS shareholders are voluntarily giving their voting power to BEOS so that BEOS is enabled to integrate with bitshares. This will open up bitshares to the larger EOS community and bring value to both bitshares and BEOS.

what's your meanning about "they need voting power to enabled to integrate with bitshares"?
will this not be approved by other bitshares holders?
did this include vote in dead witness?
did this include vote in nobody known's commiittee?
did this include vote out others who didn't show loyal to stan?
All bull shit.
and this is why BEOS and the peoples who supportted BEOS's bull shit will lost my support.

[onceuponatime]

There is big different between CEX gateway and BEOS.
people have to deposit shares to CEX if they want to trade.
but I can't find any accepatable reason why people need to deposit shares to beos.
for the purpose of raindrop, you don't need to rob peoples shares ownership, you don't need to rob people's vote power,
but these people just do it without doubt, they deposit shares to beos for only 1 reason, kneel and show loyalty to stan the godfather of beos.

Does that go for anyone who has ever put any of their bitshares on a CEX? Or anyone who has ever bought bitshares on a CEX and kept them there for a while before bringing them to the DEX?

BEOS is not "robbing" anything or anyone. Participating BTS shareholders are voluntarily giving their voting power to BEOS so that BEOS is enabled to integrate with bitshares. This will open up bitshares to the larger EOS community and bring value to both bitshares and BEOS.

[bitProfessor]

somebody maybe have interest, here is the list of transfer which donated to beos more than 1M BTS.

Code: [Select]

25227646.7152, blocktrades
22279422.0373, angel3
21114050, cadord-ozois7
14600000, invictus3
10207991, enkibeos1
10000000, stan3
9868885.9805, btsnow
8673452.5392, ibilitian-scoltock6
7990211.5226, cievia-waugaman3
7593039, rain2beos
7430923.9399, haeassa-granovsky5
6550000, abina.rivard3
keebler-kahn7, 6500256.2339
5422667.53589, cadord-ozois7
5172186.6832, jeraud-kanze2
4777689.69869, geravia-mackinnon8
4338906.2565, qqq1qqq1
4086728.3216, quonael-lievesley1
4064940, beos-bunker
3920520.4724, wesley-waugaman3
3816315.2519, stratolaunch
3647937, wb18919800929
gugugu33, 3539300
3189864, bafohald.degeorge3
3044242, austintexas11
3029462.5877, qqq1qqq1
3000099, iamfrom70s
gugugu33, 3000000
3000000, qqq1qqq1
2999999, newlandbeos2
2998499, billion-hero-prize3
2952927.2604, bts2beos
2859200, rvrtsbts
2500049.0373, thread2
2209480.0536, nana-roseannadana3
2191926.6782, kedaliwin-tefft4
2139791.954, qqq1qqq1
2117555.3873, rsbitshares666666
2004559.656, dadossi-chandra1
1999999.5187, goodc0re2
1800100, x-man
1673005, medabeos1
1561566, jabb3rwocky
1500000.3736, stan3
1498960.8691, hirendra-nakamoto6
1450000, tbone2
1428000, teiva
1415726.0071, michael22
1378395.2358, ralibaen-hagman2
1300001.6149, invictus3
1300000, yvg1900beos
1268583.9373, beos-gurjieff
gugugu33, 1258820
1200000, beos-lzr1900
1200000, beos-lzr1900
1141587.4705, zetaliron-frayser1
gugugu33, 1122992
1106661, kaizen305beos
1079000.5226, beos-lzr1900
beos-lzr1900, 1019999.5679
1006421, lisa86
1000499.5186, hlmbj4r5


X-man??

My mistick  x-main!=xman

[onceuponatime]

There is big different between CEX gateway and BEOS.
people have to deposit shares to CEX if they want to trade.
but I can't find any accepatable reason why people need to deposit shares to beos.
for the purpose of raindrop, you don't need to rob peoples shares ownership, you don't need to rob people's vote power,
but these people just do it without doubt, they deposit shares to beos for only 1 reason, kneel and show loyalty to stan the godfather of beos.

Does that go for anyone who has ever put any of their bitshares on a CEX? Or anyone who has ever bought bitshares on a CEX and kept them there for a while before bringing them to the DEX?

他们的钱他们自己负责，有些宗教是要信徒捐出他们全副身家的，只要信徒心甘情愿就行了，一个愿打一个愿挨，干嘛替别人担心

那是正确的

[bitProfessor]

somebody maybe have interest, here is the list of transfer which donated to beos more than 1M BTS.

Code: [Select]

25227646.7152, blocktrades
22279422.0373, angel3
21114050, cadord-ozois7
14600000, invictus3
10207991, enkibeos1
10000000, stan3
9868885.9805, btsnow
8673452.5392, ibilitian-scoltock6
7990211.5226, cievia-waugaman3
7593039, rain2beos
7430923.9399, haeassa-granovsky5
6550000, abina.rivard3
keebler-kahn7, 6500256.2339
5422667.53589, cadord-ozois7
5172186.6832, jeraud-kanze2
4777689.69869, geravia-mackinnon8
4338906.2565, qqq1qqq1
4086728.3216, quonael-lievesley1
4064940, beos-bunker
3920520.4724, wesley-waugaman3
3816315.2519, stratolaunch
3647937, wb18919800929
gugugu33, 3539300
3189864, bafohald.degeorge3
3044242, austintexas11
3029462.5877, qqq1qqq1
3000099, iamfrom70s
gugugu33, 3000000
3000000, qqq1qqq1
2999999, newlandbeos2
2998499, billion-hero-prize3
2952927.2604, bts2beos
2859200, rvrtsbts
2500049.0373, thread2
2209480.0536, nana-roseannadana3
2191926.6782, kedaliwin-tefft4
2139791.954, qqq1qqq1
2117555.3873, rsbitshares666666
2004559.656, dadossi-chandra1
1999999.5187, goodc0re2
1800100, x-man
1673005, medabeos1
1561566, jabb3rwocky
1500000.3736, stan3
1498960.8691, hirendra-nakamoto6
1450000, tbone2
1428000, teiva
1415726.0071, michael22
1378395.2358, ralibaen-hagman2
1300001.6149, invictus3
1300000, yvg1900beos
1268583.9373, beos-gurjieff
gugugu33, 1258820
1200000, beos-lzr1900
1200000, beos-lzr1900
1141587.4705, zetaliron-frayser1
gugugu33, 1122992
1106661, kaizen305beos
1079000.5226, beos-lzr1900
beos-lzr1900, 1019999.5679
1006421, lisa86
1000499.5186, hlmbj4r5


X-man??

[BTSMoon]

There is big different between CEX gateway and BEOS.
people have to deposit shares to CEX if they want to trade.
but I can't find any accepatable reason why people need to deposit shares to beos.
for the purpose of raindrop, you don't need to rob peoples shares ownership, you don't need to rob people's vote power,
but these people just do it without doubt, they deposit shares to beos for only 1 reason, kneel and show loyalty to stan the godfather of beos.

Does that go for anyone who has ever put any of their bitshares on a CEX? Or anyone who has ever bought bitshares on a CEX and kept them there for a while before bringing them to the DEX?

他们的钱他们自己负责，有些宗教是要信徒捐出他们全副身家的，只要信徒心甘情愿就行了，一个愿打一个愿挨，干嘛替别人担心

[alt]

There is big different between CEX gateway and BEOS.
people have to deposit shares to CEX if they want to trade.
but I can't find any accepatable reason why people need to deposit shares to beos.
for the purpose of raindrop, you don't need to rob peoples shares ownership, you don't need to rob people's vote power,
but these people just do it without doubt, they deposit shares to beos for only 1 reason, kneel and show loyalty to stan the godfather of beos.

Does that go for anyone who has ever put any of their bitshares on a CEX? Or anyone who has ever bought bitshares on a CEX and kept them there for a while before bringing them to the DEX?

[onceuponatime]

any account appeared in this list will never get my support for witness or committee or worker.
this means they gave up the ownership of their share, the word sockpuppet fit them very much, they are unreliable.

somebody maybe have interest, here is the list of transfer which donated to beos more than 1M BTS.

Code: [Select]

25227646.7152, blocktrades
22279422.0373, angel3
21114050, cadord-ozois7
14600000, invictus3
10207991, enkibeos1
10000000, stan3
9868885.9805, btsnow
8673452.5392, ibilitian-scoltock6
7990211.5226, cievia-waugaman3
7593039, rain2beos
7430923.9399, haeassa-granovsky5
6550000, abina.rivard3
keebler-kahn7, 6500256.2339
5422667.53589, cadord-ozois7
5172186.6832, jeraud-kanze2
4777689.69869, geravia-mackinnon8
4338906.2565, qqq1qqq1
4086728.3216, quonael-lievesley1
4064940, beos-bunker
3920520.4724, wesley-waugaman3
3816315.2519, stratolaunch
3647937, wb18919800929
gugugu33, 3539300
3189864, bafohald.degeorge3
3044242, austintexas11
3029462.5877, qqq1qqq1
3000099, iamfrom70s
gugugu33, 3000000
3000000, qqq1qqq1
2999999, newlandbeos2
2998499, billion-hero-prize3
2952927.2604, bts2beos
2859200, rvrtsbts
2500049.0373, thread2
2209480.0536, nana-roseannadana3
2191926.6782, kedaliwin-tefft4
2139791.954, qqq1qqq1
2117555.3873, rsbitshares666666
2004559.656, dadossi-chandra1
1999999.5187, goodc0re2
1800100, x-man
1673005, medabeos1
1561566, jabb3rwocky
1500000.3736, stan3
1498960.8691, hirendra-nakamoto6
1450000, tbone2
1428000, teiva
1415726.0071, michael22
1378395.2358, ralibaen-hagman2
1300001.6149, invictus3
1300000, yvg1900beos
1268583.9373, beos-gurjieff
gugugu33, 1258820
1200000, beos-lzr1900
1200000, beos-lzr1900
1141587.4705, zetaliron-frayser1
gugugu33, 1122992
1106661, kaizen305beos
1079000.5226, beos-lzr1900
beos-lzr1900, 1019999.5679
1006421, lisa86
1000499.5186, hlmbj4r5


Does that go for anyone who has ever put any of their bitshares on a CEX? Or anyone who has ever bought bitshares on a CEX and kept them there for a while before bringing them to the DEX?

[alt]

any account appeared in this list will never get my support for witness or committee or worker.
this means they gave up the ownership of their share, the word sockpuppet fit them very much, they are unreliable.

somebody maybe have interest, here is the list of transfer which donated to beos more than 1M BTS.

Code: [Select]

25227646.7152, blocktrades
22279422.0373, angel3
21114050, cadord-ozois7
14600000, invictus3
10207991, enkibeos1
10000000, stan3
9868885.9805, btsnow
8673452.5392, ibilitian-scoltock6
7990211.5226, cievia-waugaman3
7593039, rain2beos
7430923.9399, haeassa-granovsky5
6550000, abina.rivard3
keebler-kahn7, 6500256.2339
5422667.53589, cadord-ozois7
5172186.6832, jeraud-kanze2
4777689.69869, geravia-mackinnon8
4338906.2565, qqq1qqq1
4086728.3216, quonael-lievesley1
4064940, beos-bunker
3920520.4724, wesley-waugaman3
3816315.2519, stratolaunch
3647937, wb18919800929
gugugu33, 3539300
3189864, bafohald.degeorge3
3044242, austintexas11
3029462.5877, qqq1qqq1
3000099, iamfrom70s
gugugu33, 3000000
3000000, qqq1qqq1
2999999, newlandbeos2
2998499, billion-hero-prize3
2952927.2604, bts2beos
2859200, rvrtsbts
2500049.0373, thread2
2209480.0536, nana-roseannadana3
2191926.6782, kedaliwin-tefft4
2139791.954, qqq1qqq1
2117555.3873, rsbitshares666666
2004559.656, dadossi-chandra1
1999999.5187, goodc0re2
1800100, x-man
1673005, medabeos1
1561566, jabb3rwocky
1500000.3736, stan3
1498960.8691, hirendra-nakamoto6
1450000, tbone2
1428000, teiva
1415726.0071, michael22
1378395.2358, ralibaen-hagman2
1300001.6149, invictus3
1300000, yvg1900beos
1268583.9373, beos-gurjieff
gugugu33, 1258820
1200000, beos-lzr1900
1200000, beos-lzr1900
1141587.4705, zetaliron-frayser1
gugugu33, 1122992
1106661, kaizen305beos
1079000.5226, beos-lzr1900
beos-lzr1900, 1019999.5679
1006421, lisa86
1000499.5186, hlmbj4r5


[abit]

The account histories are interesting.

Apparently quite some genesis funds are claimed, just for BEOS.

HUGE.

Is it I3's hidden treasury? The AGS fund?

[alt]

somebody maybe have interest, here is the list of transfer which donated to beos more than 1M BTS.

Code: [Select]

25227646.7152, blocktrades
22279422.0373, angel3
21114050, cadord-ozois7
14600000, invictus3
10207991, enkibeos1
10000000, stan3
9868885.9805, btsnow
8673452.5392, ibilitian-scoltock6
7990211.5226, cievia-waugaman3
7593039, rain2beos
7430923.9399, haeassa-granovsky5
6550000, abina.rivard3
keebler-kahn7, 6500256.2339
5422667.53589, cadord-ozois7
5172186.6832, jeraud-kanze2
4777689.69869, geravia-mackinnon8
4338906.2565, qqq1qqq1
4086728.3216, quonael-lievesley1
4064940, beos-bunker
3920520.4724, wesley-waugaman3
3816315.2519, stratolaunch
3647937, wb18919800929
gugugu33, 3539300
3189864, bafohald.degeorge3
3044242, austintexas11
3029462.5877, qqq1qqq1
3000099, iamfrom70s
gugugu33, 3000000
3000000, qqq1qqq1
2999999, newlandbeos2
2998499, billion-hero-prize3
2952927.2604, bts2beos
2859200, rvrtsbts
2500049.0373, thread2
2209480.0536, nana-roseannadana3
2191926.6782, kedaliwin-tefft4
2139791.954, qqq1qqq1
2117555.3873, rsbitshares666666
2004559.656, dadossi-chandra1
1999999.5187, goodc0re2
1800100, x-man
1673005, medabeos1
1561566, jabb3rwocky
1500000.3736, stan3
1498960.8691, hirendra-nakamoto6
1450000, tbone2
1428000, teiva
1415726.0071, michael22
1378395.2358, ralibaen-hagman2
1300001.6149, invictus3
1300000, yvg1900beos
1268583.9373, beos-gurjieff
gugugu33, 1258820
1200000, beos-lzr1900
1200000, beos-lzr1900
1141587.4705, zetaliron-frayser1
gugugu33, 1122992
1106661, kaizen305beos
1079000.5226, beos-lzr1900
beos-lzr1900, 1019999.5679
1006421, lisa86
1000499.5186, hlmbj4r5


[abit]

"Sockpuppet" is clearly "the artist formerly known as funkit" . Its obvious from style and all the points he has made on the telegram channel.  Funny that he needs a fake id account when "funkit" is as fake a name as they come.  What reputation could he possibly be protecting?

...

Methinks funkit's sockpuppet doth protest too much.

Witch hunting?

[pc]

us upgrading BitShares to a sidechain in the EOS universe

Is that your goal? Why didn't you say so in the rainfall terms?

How about asking people if they actually want that *before* you lure them out of their voting power?

[Thom]

I still have reservations about BEOS, primarily due to the favorable attitudes I've read concerning regulatory compliance by members of the BEOS team. I have much respect for Stan, OnceUponaTime , MichaelX and Dan Notestein, but I also see their track record of mistakes. We' all have one, we're all only human, and mistakes can't be eliminated. However, when mistakes become a pattern and ignored, aren't seen as a lesson to learn from, something must be done to raise awareness to a higher level, to stop the cycle.

For the record I have not participated in the BEOS rainfall. I am on the fence about it and I would hate to succumb to manipulation or bribery. It is very difficult to know the actual agenda of all the players, especially those behind the scenes, so abstaining is the best way I know to avoid that.

The main question is, is the BEOS voting power being used to restore the original disruptive, decentralized vision that BitShares was created for, or to dominate and control stakeholders towards a legally regulated, personal freedom limiting ecosystem the uninformed masses will accept? Is this a slippery slope towards incremental control, or the restoration of Austrian / free market economic principles that provide an ecosystem with integrity, accountability and promote personal financial freedom?

One question you need to ask yourself, if you don't want to see kyc and increasing regulator influence on BitShares, is whether the BTS held by those in control of BEOS deposits was intended from the start to be used to do more than facilitate the integration of BitShares and EOS, or, whether such integration requires kyc and fundamental regulatory changes to BitShares. If you don't care about that, feel free to put your head back in the sand and pay no attention to this question. If you do care I urge you to choose your course of action wisely.

I have observed the centralization of control through voting proxies, which was established to address the problem of voter apathy. It did solve the problem of apathy that paralyzed development and growth, but at the expense as time went on of centralizing control. I was not happy with the changes  imposed on BPs wrt price feeds. BSIP42 was a disaster in my mind, particularly in how it was thrust into production, and without any type of report or written conclusion to summarize the results of those "experiments". We now see a downward pressure on MCR from 175% down to 160%, rather than holding individuals personally responsible for their own collateral management. The global MCR value for an asset should be set with investor's safety, not profit as it's primary criteria. I see the influence of Keynesian economic advocates and if those are allowed to prevail we will end up with the same "brink of disaster" situation as mainstream financial markets are experiencing right now.

Perhaps we need more centralized planning to restore the vision and replace the Keynesian perspective with the superior Austrian approach. Ofc if that is to be done the centralized control must be trustworthy and be committed to doing that. I myself have more trust in those I specifically mentioned above, than I do with bitcrab and those who defer to his proxy.That's not to say I totally trust them, b/c of the regulatory attitudes they have expressed, especially wrt kyc policies. 

Whichever way you decide, the choice is currently yours to make. Choose wisely. 

[Stan]

"Sockpuppet" is clearly "the artist formerly known as funkit" . Its obvious from style and all the points he has made on the telegram channel.  Funny that he needs a fake id account when "funkit" is as fake a name as they come.  What reputation could he possibly be protecting?

It breaks my heart to have such malicious slander directed against what should be celebrated as a boon to the whole BitShares ecosystem.  I'm one of the original founders of that ecosystem and always have its best interests in heart.  We have created BEOS with our own cash (700K and counting) and are giving it away to holders of BitShares, every one of which is eligible to move some of their BTS over to the new chain and collect months of rainfall.

People who do that obviously want to see BitShares integrated to take advantage of EOS technology.  That's what we will be voting for with their loaned voting power.  We are trying not to perturb the existing system too much but do feel we represent enough of the bitshareholders to claim a few committee slots and run a few nodes.  Is that too much to ask?

In the end, funkit is arguing that the existing alliances that control bitshares have the best interests of the ecosystem at heart and should not be perturbed.  Perhaps they do.  But there's a new alliance of voters who have every right to influence the future of BitShares and who are doing it by the book by pooling their voting power.

I honestly can't understand why anyone would object to us upgrading BitShares to a sidechain in the EOS universe where  all our assets can become useful to a much wider audience and all the smart contract features of EOS made able to use BitShares assets.  Think of the billions of EOS R&D and marketing that will make available to BitShares.

Methinks funkit's sockpuppet doth protest too much.

[michaelx]

Ok , I don’t know the agreement is stated in advance,I apologize for my mistakes.

No problem, pm me on telegram when your node is running smooth and tested on testnet. If you need help with Price feeds I can point you in the right direction.

We look forward to supporting a lot more decentralization in governance and bp's.

Sometimes you need some centralization in order to implement decentralized agenda's.

[Crypto Kong]

Ok , I don’t know the agreement is stated in advance,I apologize for my mistakes.

Very good of you to own up to your mistakes, much respect

[ioex]

Ok , I don’t know the agreement is stated in advance,I apologize for my mistakes.

[Crypto Kong]

I have quite a bit to say in response, but I will let Daniel Larimer answer for me.


EOS - Dan Msg Only, [16.05.19 07:44]
No. The issue is any post launch decisions made by any means other than chain splits like bitcoin cash violates token some buyers expectations. So a network must be committed to immutability or it is fundamentally governed by minority of influencers. Governance isn’t bad, it has a place.  The problem is those who want every solution to solve every problem

Replying to:
 >  Voting buying is the biggest issue

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1186778)


EOS - Dan Msg Only, [16.05.19 18:17]
The purpose of bp is to decentralize decisions on protocol updates and censorship resistance and generally scaling trx processing.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1187700)


Regarding the BEOS model of semi centralization/governance (BEOS holders still vote with their stake):


EOS - Dan Msg Only, [16.05.19 18:17]
The purpose of bp is to decentralize decisions on protocol updates and censorship resistance and generally scaling trx processing.

Chains can be centralized and have value. Especially in a multichain world.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156174)

Centralized chains in good hands can grow faster and carry on creators vision.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156181)

Decentralized chains slow to a crawl.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156182)

My point is don’t hate on centralized systems unless they become monopoly scale.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156186)

Everything is decentralized in a competitive market

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156187)

Remember you are centralized

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156189)

Decentralization is a tool not a goal in itself

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156190)

This. Plus with public accountability .

Replying to:
 >  we trust companies to run databases but the thought of one running a private blockchain makes people go nuts. who cares if someone wants to fork EOS and run all the BP's themselves? average users wont give a shit about that. they'll care about the dapps and services.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156195)


If you want real companies doing mass adoption scale things with real investors under government regulation then they need control over the platform that they build.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156199)

You might kill it too young.

Replying to:
 >  Is it necessary for us to hate so it doesn't become monopoly scale?

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156200)

Basically people don’t want to go to jail

So hating them for creating something is misguided

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156203)

I think we need systems that are more decentralized than bitcoin, eos, and eth. I also think we need more centralized solutions too.  I’m working toward enabling both sides to scale.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156214)

Nicely done, shows that OP has cherry picked a couple of messages to suit his agenda that doesn't represent bytemasters full opinion.

[michaelx]

Are you talking about BEOS?
I think the boes account shouldn’t vote, it just hold others’ BTS, and holders don’t give vote rights to beos!

Actually, they agree to it in the member agreement.

You didn't have a problem asking for BEOS to vote for you here:

https://steemit.com/beos/@steem-samiam/beos-at-sea-7

Hi, could you vote witness ioex ?

And we actually did look and put in a vote but it appears you were missing blocks. Fix it and we might vote again and give you a chance to prove yourself as a witness.

[Crypto Kong]

Are you talking about BEOS?
I think the boes account shouldn’t vote, it just hold others’ BTS, and holders don’t give vote rights to beos!

You don't speak for me or the others who have sent BTS to the BEOS gateway. I understand I am giving BEOS team the right to vote with my BTS and am happy for them to do so, I'm sure the others can speak for themselves too.

[onceuponatime]

Are you talking about BEOS?
I think the boes account shouldn’t vote, it just hold others’ BTS, and holders don’t give vote rights to beos!

They certainly do give voting rights to the BLCA to vote their stake while they are receiving the rainfall. It is quite explicity stated in the agreement that the BLCA votes to further the integration of BEOs with bitshares.

[ioex]

Are you talking about BEOS?
I think the boes account shouldn’t vote, it just hold others’ BTS, and holders don’t give vote rights to beos!

[michaelx]

I have quite a bit to say in response, but I will let Daniel Larimer answer for me.


EOS - Dan Msg Only, [16.05.19 07:44]
No. The issue is any post launch decisions made by any means other than chain splits like bitcoin cash violates token some buyers expectations. So a network must be committed to immutability or it is fundamentally governed by minority of influencers. Governance isn’t bad, it has a place.  The problem is those who want every solution to solve every problem

Replying to:
 >  Voting buying is the biggest issue

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1186778)


EOS - Dan Msg Only, [16.05.19 18:17]
The purpose of bp is to decentralize decisions on protocol updates and censorship resistance and generally scaling trx processing.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1187700)


Regarding the BEOS model of semi centralization/governance (BEOS holders still vote with their stake):


EOS - Dan Msg Only, [16.05.19 18:17]
The purpose of bp is to decentralize decisions on protocol updates and censorship resistance and generally scaling trx processing.

Chains can be centralized and have value. Especially in a multichain world.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156174)

Centralized chains in good hands can grow faster and carry on creators vision.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156181)

Decentralized chains slow to a crawl.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156182)

My point is don’t hate on centralized systems unless they become monopoly scale.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156186)

Everything is decentralized in a competitive market

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156187)

Remember you are centralized

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156189)

Decentralization is a tool not a goal in itself

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156190)

This. Plus with public accountability .

Replying to:
 >  we trust companies to run databases but the thought of one running a private blockchain makes people go nuts. who cares if someone wants to fork EOS and run all the BP's themselves? average users wont give a shit about that. they'll care about the dapps and services.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156195)


If you want real companies doing mass adoption scale things with real investors under government regulation then they need control over the platform that they build.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156199)

You might kill it too young.

Replying to:
 >  Is it necessary for us to hate so it doesn't become monopoly scale?

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156200)

Basically people don’t want to go to jail

So hating them for creating something is misguided

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156203)

I think we need systems that are more decentralized than bitcoin, eos, and eth. I also think we need more centralized solutions too.  I’m working toward enabling both sides to scale.

🔗 Context 🔗 (http://t.me/EOSproject/1156214)

[onceuponatime]

"making empty promises to greedy retards"

I'd guess that the best place for you to look for a retard is in a mirror.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"So we pretty much demonstrated that at most latitudes we've got satellite connectivity to the BEOS network.

Currently a BEOS node with 5 peers consumes about 2.6 kbps down and less than 1 kbps up. This is easily handled by Royal Caribbean's high speed 10 mbps network.

Stay tuned when I check it out in the Atlantic Bermuda Triangle on my cruise with Bytemaster and family next month."
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@stan/beos-completes-its-first-trans-pacific-journey

[Crypto Kong]

This is a throw-away account to protect us from defamation from Stan Larimer. You can call me Don.

It is our opinion that the Bitshares community has to make a hard decision sooner than later: How to deal with bribery and vote-buying that is currently taking place.
The question this community needs to answer is:

Should Bitshares community allow vote buying and concentration of voting power and are we fine with the consequences?

If we let the current situation go on, we (yes, the entire community) set a dangerous precedence for subsequent "projects" to repeat the same scheme - and they may be even more convincing and successful then what is currently taking place. Greed can be dangerous to Bitshares.

Now, answer these questions:

• Are you willing to risk the entire reserve fund be taken by some random/new player making empty promises to greedy retards?
• Are you willing to risk our developers to move on because their workers are at stake?
• Do you want to hand over control over the Blockchain to someone unfamiliar with the technology?
• Do you honor the work done by 3rd parties that delivered without even claiming to be a partner of Bitshare
• Do you realize a hostile takeover can end in the blockchain being crippled by hostile committee?

Good for you, we have options and are discussing them with key players in the space already.

Finally, some random quotes from Daniel Larimer:

I suspect that it would be trivial for any of the previously elected delegates to black-list transactions that vote for the attacker.  They could then easily hard fork out the transactions that voted in the attacking delegates and block any future transactions that would vote for them.
(bytemaster, bitsharestalk.org)

If attacker is a collusion by the largest whales, then either the whales think the "attack" is a feature that will enhance the protocol or the "community" will fork the whales out. Bitcoin and Ethereum have both seen what happens when those with large influence use it to change the rules against the minority interests (ETC and BCC).
(Daniel Larimer, https://steemit.com/eos/@dan/reponse-to-vitalik-s-written-remarks)

@Admins: I request this account being deleted (with this post staying, if possible).

Nice way to be taken seriously by starting off your thread with ad hominem calling a significant portion of the community, holders of 360 million BTS, "retards". Your argument is so bad you choose to open it this way, making your first point to insult the community... Well done.

[sockpuppet]

This is a throw-away account to protect us from defamation from Stan Larimer. You can call me Don.

It is our opinion that the Bitshares community has to make a hard decision sooner than later: How to deal with bribery and vote-buying that is currently taking place.
The question this community needs to answer is:

Should Bitshares community allow vote buying and concentration of voting power and are we fine with the consequences?

If we let the current situation go on, we (yes, the entire community) set a dangerous precedence for subsequent "projects" to repeat the same scheme - and they may be even more convincing and successful then what is currently taking place. Greed can be dangerous to Bitshares.

Now, answer these questions:

• Are you willing to risk the entire reserve fund be taken by some random/new player making empty promises to greedy retards?
• Are you willing to risk our developers to move on because their workers are at stake?
• Do you want to hand over control over the Blockchain to someone unfamiliar with the technology?
• Do you honor the work done by 3rd parties that delivered without even claiming to be a partner of Bitshare
• Do you realize a hostile takeover can end in the blockchain being crippled by hostile committee?

Good for you, we have options and are discussing them with key players in the space already.

Finally, some random quotes from Daniel Larimer:

I suspect that it would be trivial for any of the previously elected delegates to black-list transactions that vote for the attacker.  They could then easily hard fork out the transactions that voted in the attacking delegates and block any future transactions that would vote for them.
(bytemaster, bitsharestalk.org)

If attacker is a collusion by the largest whales, then either the whales think the "attack" is a feature that will enhance the protocol or the "community" will fork the whales out. Bitcoin and Ethereum have both seen what happens when those with large influence use it to change the rules against the minority interests (ETC and BCC).
(Daniel Larimer, https://steemit.com/eos/@dan/reponse-to-vitalik-s-written-remarks)

@Admins: I request this account being deleted (with this post staying, if possible).