Author Topic: consideration on buybacks and other hot issues  (Read 60685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tonyniu352

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
BTS system which is an already degraded and failed cryptocurrency system.

If you think that, why are you still here?
Failure is always the night before dawn,by which success follows.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
BTS system which is an already degraded and failed cryptocurrency system.

If you think that, why are you still here?
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1004
    • View Profile
Quote from: R

Why do you believe it's a bad idea? Please elaborate rather than mock/besmirch the idea; without elaboration it's difficult to lend credibility to your claims.
Cn-vote now has nearly 700 agents, at least 700 people believe  this is an ass idea.

Why? Please direct them to the github pull request for them to voice their individual views - the more the merrier. Just calling it an "ass idea" lends little credibility to your disapproval.

Quote from: R
BSIP83 isn't about refund400k, it's about the actions leading up to the premature implementation of BSIP76 AFAIK (see: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29659.msg336083#msg336083 ).

BSIP83 doesn't propose to change refund400k nor existing dev worker proposals, so you've misunderstood the BSIP.
Everyone understands what the actual purpose of this BSIP is, and you don’t have to cover it up.

I'm not the author nor any form of BSIP83 conspirator; what do you believe its' actual purpose is & what do you feel is being covered up? Please do elaborate & comment in github too 👍
« Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 12:53:22 pm by R »

Offline tonyniu352

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Quote from: R

Why do you believe it's a bad idea? Please elaborate rather than mock/besmirch the idea; without elaboration it's difficult to lend credibility to your claims.
Cn-vote now has nearly 700 agents, at least 700 people believe  this is an ass idea.


Quote from: R
BSIP83 isn't about refund400k, it's about the actions leading up to the premature implementation of BSIP76 AFAIK (see: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29659.msg336083#msg336083 ).

BSIP83 doesn't propose to change refund400k nor existing dev worker proposals, so you've misunderstood the BSIP.
Everyone understands what the actual purpose of this BSIP is, and you don’t have to cover it up.

Quote from: R
The spirit of many is being broken by refund400k, BSIP76 and the totalitarian attitude of cn-vote members. Frankly I'm surprised more aren't up in arms against such behaviour which continues to degrade Bitshares.

I understand your position as many people do not own BTS or have only a small amount of BTS and will not easily get a large amount of founded money from a BTS system which is an already degraded and failed cryptocurrency system.

« Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 08:30:09 am by tonyniu352 »

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1004
    • View Profile
Bsip83 should not exist
Well it does, you can't will BSIPs out of existence - comment on the PR and/or vote when the time comes.

I have checked bsip83. Does anyone really think it will be approved?

Sure, many support voting to approve it. Whether or not it'll be approved shouldn't be a factor in whether a BSIP is merged into the BSIP repo.

transfering bts voting right to another token? it is ass idea.

Why do you believe it's a bad idea? Please elaborate rather than mock/besmirch the idea; without elaboration it's difficult to lend credibility to your claims.

Frankly, BTS has been runned for five or six years, and some people are trying to change voting rights now,just because BTS holders are complaining more and more about expenses of workers?

BSIP83 isn't about refund400k, it's about the actions leading up to the premature implementation of BSIP76 AFAIK (see: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29659.msg336083#msg336083 ).

BSIP83 doesn't propose to change refund400k nor existing dev worker proposals, so you've misunderstood the BSIP.

i worry about the professional spirit of these guys.
The spirit of many is being broken by refund400k, BSIP76 and the totalitarian attitude of cn-vote members. Frankly I'm surprised more aren't up in arms against such behaviour which continues to degrade Bitshares.

I think you are right. Some people want to deprive bts holders of their voting rights.It’s really shameful.

Except by getting an airdrop of an equal amount of voting tokens they have an equal amount of voting rights, so nobody will be deprived of their voting rights.

Bsip83 is trying to rape bts holders.

What a grotesque statement, you degrade your standing in the community speaking so ugly.

Yes, i forgot that I could get an  airdrop of ass.management tokens.

Very witty 🙄

Offline tonyniu352

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
sorry for the wrong cost number of last year, correction done

Offline tonyniu352

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile



The PR had seen much discussion over a period of two weeks. Many comments from various parties were addressed. No further comments were received for two days before the merge.

Compare this with BSIP-76, which was created, approved and merged within 17 hours. Community comments were completely ignored.

The worker's work includes writing bsip,review bsip has been paid,but it is not paid for BTS holder to review these bsip. the BTS holder should review every bsip, but in practice, the BTS holders always trust the development team, therefore ,in the past, not every bsip was reviewed carefully by most bts holders. How could bts holders believe  such a significant voting change would be quietly merged into a BSIP as a minor correction? And this is happened not once recently. This reminds us, maybe, it is good to set up a review worker(or regulatory worker), This will allow some professional people to do these things.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2019, 03:21:54 pm by tonyniu352 »

Offline tonyniu352

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Observation1: The administrative authority is fully decentralized and in the hands of the users (BTS token holders) by voting method, the voting is to reflect the will of the majority and make decisions according to the majority.

That's the way it *should* be. However, the truth is that a single person is refusing others the right to propose changes and have the community vote for it. https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/249

tl;dr: Some members of the Core Team have (on their own time) discussed the recently observed governance problems, and have come up with a proposal that tries to rectify the situation. After some discussion and various amendments, the proposal was merged last friday. Shortly thereafter, the proposal was reverted single-handedly by an individual. Furthermore, said individual has removed write access to the BSIPs repository for most members of the Core Team.

It is noteworthy that the management of the BSIP process is explicitly listed as a task in the Core Worker Proposal, which was voted on and accepted by the community.

It is also noteworthy that the same individual who is now complaining about said BSIP pushed through a different proposal without any discussion just a couple of weeks ago.

Decentralization my ass.


Observation2: Any attempts to modify the BTS voting mechanism e.g. removing debt voting are illegal, and shall be stop.

This is not an observation, it's an opinion. Others may disagree.

It's a argument in your core team, not about centralization or decentralization. From my point of view, your story could be described as another way, someone of the Core Team strongly disagreed with this BSIP (or disagreed with some idea in this BSIP), but other members of the team  ignored his opinion and try to enforce merge.  "someone’ considered that the BSIP was so ridiculous , then he decided to interrupt the process of the BSIP, in order to avoid the whole team being a laughing stock.

Offline tonyniu352

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile

Bsip83 is trying to rape bts holders.

No, BSIP83 tries to separate the BitShares core management from the bitAssets management, to improve governance and reduce shit show.
The value of BTS is not reduced, but new value is generated with bitAsset.management (e.g. MAKER).
Nobody has a disadvantage, because every BTS holder gets the same amount of bitAsset.management tokens.

Your arguments?

in short , it is "TRANSFERING BTS VOTING RIGHT TO OTHER TOKEN".  Is there anything I missed? Yes, i forgot that I could get an  airdrop of ass.management tokens.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2019, 02:00:38 pm by tonyniu352 »

Offline bench

Observation4: It is necessary to introduce some enhanced feed price algorithm in bitshares, so as to resist price manipulation due to shorting and improve the price recovery ability of BTS.
I agree here, a new concept for price feeds is needed.

Price feeds based on different EMAs and smartcoin market metrics showed the best performance so far.  A new baips is in the work for this.
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Wasn't it merged to early ?

No. The reason for reverting it was https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/238#issuecomment-546452565

Quote
Transferring voting rights from BTS to another token is not acceptable and should never be an option. PR reverted.

The PR had seen much discussion over a period of two weeks. Many comments from various parties were addressed. No further comments were received for two days before the merge.

Compare this with BSIP-76, which was created, approved and merged within 17 hours. Community comments were completely ignored.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2019, 04:27:40 pm by pc »
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline ljk424

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 347
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: ljk424
Observation1: The administrative authority is fully decentralized and in the hands of the users (BTS token holders) by voting method, the voting is to reflect the will of the majority and make decisions according to the majority.

That's the way it *should* be. However, the truth is that a single person is refusing others the right to propose changes and have the community vote for it. https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/249

tl;dr: Some members of the Core Team have (on their own time) discussed the recently observed governance problems, and have come up with a proposal that tries to rectify the situation. After some discussion and various amendments, the proposal was merged last friday. Shortly thereafter, the proposal was reverted single-handedly by an individual. Furthermore, said individual has removed write access to the BSIPs repository for most members of the Core Team.

It is noteworthy that the management of the BSIP process is explicitly listed as a task in the Core Worker Proposal, which was voted on and accepted by the community.

It is also noteworthy that the same individual who is now complaining about said BSIP pushed through a different proposal without any discussion just a couple of weeks ago.

Decentralization my ass.


Observation2: Any attempts to modify the BTS voting mechanism e.g. removing debt voting are illegal, and shall be stop.

This is not an observation, it's an opinion. Others may disagree.


I have checked bsip83. Does anyone really think it will be approved? transfering bts voting right to another token? it is ass idea. Frankly, BTS has been runned for five or six years, and some people are trying to change voting rights now,just because BTS holders are complaining more and more about expenses of workers?  i worry about the professional spirit of these guys.
I think you are right. Some people want to deprive bts holders of their voting rights.It’s really shameful.

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Bsip83 should not exist

I have checked bsip83. it is ass idea.

Bsip83 is trying to rape bts holders. 

Regardless of what you think about BSIP-83, an organization that calls itself "decentralized" cannot allow a single person to control the voting.

Wasn't it merged to early ?

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Bsip83 should not exist

I have checked bsip83. it is ass idea.

Bsip83 is trying to rape bts holders. 

Regardless of what you think about BSIP-83, an organization that calls itself "decentralized" cannot allow a single person to control the voting.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline bench

Frankly, BTS has been runned for five or six years, and some people are trying to change voting rights now,just because BTS holders are complaining more and more about expenses of workers?

We change only voteing rights for bitAssets, because BTS is now abused for this. Because we know now better, than 5 years ago, changes are needed for governance.


Bsip83 is trying to rape bts holders.

No, BSIP83 tries to separate the BitShares core management from the bitAssets management, to improve governance and reduce shit show.
The value of BTS is not reduced, but new value is generated with bitAsset.management (e.g. MAKER).
Nobody has a disadvantage, because every BTS holder gets the same amount of bitAsset.management tokens.

Your arguments?

« Last Edit: October 30, 2019, 11:16:30 pm by bench »
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!