how to judge the result of a poll worker?

[R]

Write a BSIP.

Frankly "what you think" is irrelevant.  This project is based on a consistent process to draft, define, evaluate and implement change. In the case of BSIP76 the definition phase was not completed. The fraudulent actions of an individual actor to circumvent the accepted process has undermined this project's legitimacy.

Write a BSIP.

Would you consider the fraudulent actions of said individual actor to have constituted economic terrorism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_terrorism

The term economic terrorism or financial terrorism is strictly defined to indicate an attempt at economic destabilization by a group. Economic terrorism is defined in the following terms:

Contrary to "economic warfare" which is undertaken by states against other states, "economic terrorism" would be undertaken by transnational or non-state actors. This could entail varied, coordinated and sophisticated or massive destabilizing actions in order to disrupt the economic and financial stability of a state, a group of states or a society (such as market oriented western societies or economies) or a trading exchange for ideological, monetary or religious motives.

These actions, if undertaken, may be violent or not. They could have either immediate effects or carry psychological effects which in turn have economic consequences.

Comparing the above Wikipedia definition to the fraudulent action:

• Economic destabilization? bitCNY & bitUSD are now fed fake feeds, they're no longer stablecoins (destabilized). ✔
• Transnational or non-state actors? ✔
• Varied? Multiple bitassets targeted, unknown intimidation/coercion methods. ~
• Coordinated? Intimidation/coercion of multiple targets requires coordination, especially for them to act prior to any BSIP activating. ✔
• Sophisticated? Not really ❌
• Disrupted the economic and financial stability of a trading exchange for monetary & idealogical motives? ✔
• Psychological effects? Contradicts years of marketing, most MPA documentation & even the asset details. ✔
• Economic consequences? A lack of global settlement under global settlement conditions, bitassets worth less than reference feed price, decrease in BTS value. ✔

[bitProfessor]

After price recovery, I no longer support gs, bsip76. Without  bitcny, I couldn't find any reason to support it.

[bitProfessor]

Write a BSIP.

Frankly "what you think" is irrelevant.  This project is based on a consistent process to draft, define, evaluate and implement change. In the case of BSIP76 the definition phase was not completed. The fraudulent actions of an individual actor to circumvent the accepted process has undermined this project's legitimacy.

Write a BSIP.

U are right,i am soory. I support bsip76 for bitCny，but I've given up bitcny now, too much pay for bitcny. Procedural justice is more important than outcome justice, because there is no way to judge whether the outcome is correct or not?

[R]

Regarding the use of BSIPs for changing the bitassets - Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the committee to communicate directly with their price feed publishers about their intended plan for bitasset price feeds? As a private smartcoin owner (creator) I wouldn't want a BSIP vote to change the feeds against my will.

Why not put change proposals (like BSIP76) to the committee (instead of the public via BSIPs) since they're the asset owner? If price feed publishers refused then the committee could simply switch from witness fed to private price feed publisher list, allowing them to refine the price feed publisher list to those willing to comply with committee decisions.

Voting on committee members based on bitasset BSIPs instead of on witnesses would avoid unnecessary witness/network instabilities, as it doesn't cost anything to be a committee member where as there are many servers & services to run as a witness.

[R]

Side note: Looks like the bitshares-ui and bts.ai show 0.00% funding for WP regardless of prior activation, to check if an BSIP ever achieved activation prior to implementation, look up the worker proposal object for the balance id like the following for BSIP76 indicating no network activation/consensus (0 balance, no activation):
https://btsapi.grcnode.co.uk/get_bts_object?object_id=1.14.222&api_key=123abc
https://btsapi.grcnode.co.uk/get_bts_object?object_id=1.13.26121&api_key=123abc

[Bhuz]

I am sorry if I did not tell the fact, I really had a bad memory. I am not intended to tell lies.

It's ok, I believe you. I always respected you and I still do.

in our(abit, I and also most of the China community) view, this action is a little urgent, we do not want to see it fall in the trap of low efficiency and bureaucracy.

I really feel we need a new rule on how to handle poll and their threshold, it's reluctant to request a poll to overcome refund400K. and there's no time to develop a new rule at this urgent scenario.

Since active witnesses are applying bsip76 and so there are no other urgent calls to make, I think the whole community should focus on this poll/threshold issue and get to a conclusion before another bsip76-like event occurs.

I probably went a bit off-topic and I am sorry for that.
I hope the whole community can reach an agreement on how to deal with these scenarios so that next time witnesses will know how to react based on community will.

[R]

Fair enough the purpose of refund400k promoted by its proponents is to block excessive worker payouts, however it's irrefutable that any worker proposal which fails to become activated on the network (for whatever reason) fundamentally lacks network consensus; BSIPs which lack sufficient network consensus perhaps shouldn't be acted upon.

Enforcement of recent BSIPs which were put to worker proposals have instead relied on the intimidation tactic of immediately removing votes (or the threat of) from witnesses who refuse to comply with BSIPs which lack sufficient network consensus. This disagreement on feeds threatens the integrity of the network by pulling the rug out beneath witnesses without prior communication.

[bitcrab]

I am pretty sure you were supporting me for a very long time, it's being like years I don't get complaints about my price feeds or anything related. The blockchain seems also to confirm my memory and theory:

This is your latest account update op: https://bitsharescan.com/transaction/f654d972de773118203a022170ae284b10ea46cc

From here you can see your voting slate before that last update: https://bitsharescan.com/transaction/d18bf2029f951daf26fe83737bc6f022dfb553cd

The diff shows that a vote for 1:27 was removed. Do you wanna guess who 1:27 is?

Not sure why you would cover it up or deny it...

Anyway, you are right about deciding important things by voting in the end. Thing is that "how to handle poll and their threshold" is a very important thing, and as that it should have been voted on! But no, there was no vote about changing the current rule for it, nor any discussion!

I would have started accepting and applying BSIP76 if 1) the rule about "how to handle poll and their threshold" was put to a vote and approved, or 2) if the relative poll-worker were above the current refund threshold.

I understand that 1) takes time, but why couldn't you guys go for 2)?
Obtain support from other proxies (as openledger or beos) to respect the current rule, get the worker-poll above the threshold, and ask witnesses to apply community will. Doesn't sound that difficult. If it was too much difficult, then that means there was no community agreement.

I am sorry if I did not tell the fact, I really had a bad memory. I am not intended to tell lies.
I voted your witness, anyway, one witness that focus on principles and rules worth appreciation.

in our(abit, I and also most of the China community) view, this action is a little urgent, we do not want to see it fall in the trap of low efficiency and bureaucracy.

I really feel we need a new rule on how to handle poll and their threshold, it's reluctant to request a poll to overcome refund400K. and there's no time to develop a new rule at this urgent scenario.

also in my view, most of the witnesses support the action because they know this action get big support from the community and the poll worker surely can be regarded as pass, not, or not only because cn-vote show their muscle.

[Bhuz]

either BSIP76 should be regarded as pass or not, witnesses have already made their decision.

Witnesses were basically forced to since not accepting and applying BSIP76 would lead them to be unvoted, even if the voting process was in contrast with the current rule/social contract.

I am an example of that: you and cn-vote voted me out, and you did that even if I was the only one left not applying BSIP76 (for the good reasons mentioned above) and so even if my price feeding was useless from a consensus standpoint. The only reason to vote me out was for you and cn-vote to show witnesses what would mean not following your decision and your will.

I unvoted you long time ago, irrelevant to BSIP76, IIRC should because of feed price things.
Yes, I know cn-vote just unvoted you because of BSIP76. cn-vote and bitcrab are 2 different proxies.
our basic rule/contract is that stakeholders decide some important things by voting. that is DPoS.

I am not the initiator of BSIP76, I just supported it and created the relevant poll workers.

I am pretty sure you were supporting me for a very long time, it's being like years I don't get complaints about my price feeds or anything related. The blockchain seems also to confirm my memory and theory:

This is your latest account update op: https://bitsharescan.com/transaction/f654d972de773118203a022170ae284b10ea46cc

From here you can see your voting slate before that last update: https://bitsharescan.com/transaction/d18bf2029f951daf26fe83737bc6f022dfb553cd

The diff shows that a vote for 1:27 was removed. Do you wanna guess who 1:27 is?

Not sure why you would cover it up or deny it...

Anyway, you are right about deciding important things by voting in the end. Thing is that "how to handle poll and their threshold" is a very important thing, and as that it should have been voted on! But no, there was no vote about changing the current rule for it, nor any discussion!

I would have started accepting and applying BSIP76 if 1) the rule about "how to handle poll and their threshold" was put to a vote and approved, or 2) if the relative poll-worker were above the current refund threshold.

I understand that 1) takes time, but why couldn't you guys go for 2)?
Obtain support from other proxies (as openledger or beos) to respect the current rule, get the worker-poll above the threshold, and ask witnesses to apply community will. Doesn't sound that difficult. If it was too much difficult, then that means there was no community agreement.

[bitcrab]

either BSIP76 should be regarded as pass or not, witnesses have already made their decision.

Witnesses were basically forced to since not accepting and applying BSIP76 would lead them to be unvoted, even if the voting process was in contrast with the current rule/social contract.

I am an example of that: you and cn-vote voted me out, and you did that even if I was the only one left not applying BSIP76 (for the good reasons mentioned above) and so even if my price feeding was useless from a consensus standpoint. The only reason to vote me out was for you and cn-vote to show witnesses what would mean not following your decision and your will.

I unvoted you long time ago, irrelevant to BSIP76, IIRC should because of feed price things.
Yes, I know cn-vote just unvoted you because of BSIP76. cn-vote and bitcrab are 2 different proxies.
our basic rule/contract is that stakeholders decide some important things by voting. that is DPoS.

I am not the initiator of BSIP76, I just supported it and created the relevant poll workers.

[Bhuz]

either BSIP76 should be regarded as pass or not, witnesses have already made their decision.

Witnesses were basically forced to since not accepting and applying BSIP76 would lead them to be unvoted, even if the voting process was in contrast with the current rule/social contract.

I am an example of that: you and cn-vote voted me out, and you did that even if I was the only one left not applying BSIP76 (for the good reasons mentioned above) and so even if my price feeding was useless from a consensus standpoint. The only reason to vote me out was for you and cn-vote to show witnesses what would mean not following your decision and your will.

[abit]

Fabian had an iniative for that and created the bsip-threshold worker.

To manifest that one for bsips and polls, a bsip has to be written that is then voted in through old consensus (higher that refund for x days).

What happens right now is despotism in my eyes.

any info/link about the bsip-threshold worker?

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/4 ?

[bitcrab]

Fabian had an iniative for that and created the bsip-threshold worker.

To manifest that one for bsips and polls, a bsip has to be written that is then voted in through old consensus (higher that refund for x days).

What happens right now is despotism in my eyes.

any info/link about the bsip-threshold worker?

[bitcrab]

Write a BSIP.

Frankly "what you think" is irrelevant.  This project is based on a consistent process to draft, define, evaluate and implement change. In the case of BSIP76 the definition phase was not completed. The fraudulent actions of an individual actor to circumvent the accepted process has undermined this project's legitimacy.

Write a BSIP.

I just take BSIP76 voting as an example, actually this thread would like to discuss a general problem.

either BSIP76 should be regarded as pass or not, witnesses have already made their decision.

[sschiessl]

Fabian had an iniative for that and created the bsip-threshold worker.

To manifest that one for bsips and polls, a bsip has to be written that is then voted in through old consensus (higher that refund for x days).

What happens right now is despotism in my eyes.