[Poll] BAIP2:Reform of loopholes in feed price mechanism

[R]

I see nothing to be jealous of here. What 'responsibility' will I have to pay? What do you think you deserve an apology for? Can't you take criticism? Please be more coherent when threatening legal action.

If the lie is a criticism, then I want to say: ******.
this is okay?

No facts, words can't be said

Obviously using explicit words is a breach of the forum rules, many have received temp bans for it. Pointing out blatant flaws in BAIP2 isn't ban worthy.

What lies though? You've admitted to failing to reply to review comments before the PR was forced merged due to being too busy with work - processes were entirely skipped.

How come you can't handle constructive criticism? Even basic grammar correction is completely out of the question - should we not correct you on translation failures next?

So what? This is about the BAIP not the BSIP, irrelevant.

Is it a proper attitude to refuse to answer questions?

Again, the BSIP is irrelevant to the BAIP. None of the contents of the BAIP had any improvments from the BSIP comments, nevermind the BAIP review comments.

So why when there are many PR review commends outstanding & awaiting any response (regardless of quality) would you proceed directly to voting? Doing so disregards the review process - are you above this?
You just admitted here that the PR review process is not complete given that you've been too busy with work to answer comments.

I have answered the questions in the issue area. The problem in the pr area, I have not had time to reply has been closed.

Answering questions in the issues section does not justify skipping the pull request peer review process, it's a secondary process. You outright did not reply to the comments in the PR review before it was merged - this is not the correct course of action.

18 days simply isn't a long time in terms of improvement proposals - many have been dormant for well over a year. Further there is no need for urgency given this BAIP will not be implemented until BSIP76 is dead - this could be months away.

If questions were seriously answered, how come no changes have been made to the BAIP? Even basic grammar suggestions were seemingly disregarded.

Can't you figure out the difference between BSIP and BAIP? We are BAIP2, which is the first BAIP proposal, OK?

Also, please respect the previous community consensus.

I'm fully aware of the difference, however that doesn't discredit the fact that historically improvement proposals of any format have not been a rushed process until BSIP76 & BAIP2.

I am not disputing BSIP76 here, I'm merely pointing out that because BAIP2 proposes to have zero influence on price feeds until the BSIP76 threshold price is exceeded, your BAIP will have no relevancy until that event passes (could be months away), thus there is no need for urgency nor justification for skipping the pull request peer review process. If comments hold no validity/credibility then surely it'd be a walk in the park to address them?

So where is the explanation for this on github? You (the PR author) can reopen a PR without creating a new one (see: https://github.community/t5/How-to-use-Git-and-GitHub/Updating-a-closed-pull-request/td-p/9457)

I don't have to answer the question of the closed state.

Then I don't have to believe your explanation for closing the old PR to invalidate the PR comments.

The PR may have been merged by another cnvote member (author approving their own PR?!), however the PR review process was not properly followed (given the disregard of review process).

Who is the top manager of the library?？！
Who is responsible for BAIP management issues?

So you don't dispute that the author merged it themselves & did not properly follow the PR review process? Good to know we're on the same page.

Steps in the BAIP process were skipped, abit (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551024416) and clockworkmgr (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551029088) who are both committee members agree this should not have been merged in its current state nor proceeded to a poll. Do you plan to proceed with legal action against them too?

The problem of BAIP management is beyond my responsibility.

Not true when you're the author. Do you see yourself above the whole committee?

[cn-vote]

I see nothing to be jealous of here. What 'responsibility' will I have to pay? What do you think you deserve an apology for? Can't you take criticism? Please be more coherent when threatening legal action.

If the lie is a criticism, then I want to say: ******.
this is okay?

No facts, words can't be said

So what? This is about the BAIP not the BSIP, irrelevant.

@abitmore @wenhuadream This specific draft is out of scope for the BSIP repository based on:

The BCSSCIP (BitShares Committee's SmartCoins Improvement Proposal) was recently introduced for all informational topics related to Committee-owned BitAssets.
SCSSCIP1 https://github.com/bitshares/committee-tools/issues/11 defines the repsoitory sepatation
All protocol changes will continue to be proposed, reviewed and approved within the scope of the established BSIP process.
@wenhuadream Please connect with Committee members @bangzi1001 @abitmore @jademont @bitcrab @xeroc @OpenLedgerApp @clockworkgr and others to raise your proposal according to their process. I suggest your new draft include a summary of the discussions herein and continue further discussions there.

Closing.

This is a non-existent committee, an unestablished standard. One person used this reason to close our bsip. Some people use their powers to make our community unfairly treated.

Is it a proper attitude to refuse to answer questions?



、

So why when there are many PR review commends outstanding & awaiting any response (regardless of quality) would you proceed directly to voting? Doing so disregards the review process - are you above this?
You just admitted here that the PR review process is not complete given that you've been too busy with work to answer comments.

I have answered the questions in the issue area. The problem in the pr area, I have not had time to reply has been closed.

18 days simply isn't a long time in terms of improvement proposals - many have been dormant for well over a year. Further there is no need for urgency given this BAIP will not be implemented until BSIP76 is dead - this could be months away.

If questions were seriously answered, how come no changes have been made to the BAIP? Even basic grammar suggestions were seemingly disregarded.

Can't you figure out the difference between BSIP and BAIP? We are BAIP2, which is the first BAIP proposal, OK?

Also, please respect the previous community consensus.

So where is the explanation for this on github? You (the PR author) can reopen a PR without creating a new one (see: https://github.community/t5/How-to-use-Git-and-GitHub/Updating-a-closed-pull-request/td-p/9457)

I don't have to answer the question of the closed state.
Everyone has the power to decide whether to open a new PR

The PR may have been merged by another cnvote member (author approving their own PR?!), however the PR review process was not properly followed (given the disregard of review process).

Who is the top manager of the library?？！
Who is responsible for BAIP management issues?

Steps in the BAIP process were skipped, abit (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551024416) and clockworkmgr (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551029088) who are both committee members agree this should not have been merged in its current state nor proceeded to a poll. Do you plan to proceed with legal action against them too?

The problem of BAIP management is beyond my responsibility.

For the new standard,  will encounter new problems, which I think can be forgiven.

The non-existent committee, the non-existent standard to close other people's BSIP, is such a major problem.

[cn-vote]

Code: [Select]

If (current price >  two-day moving average price) {
  feed price = current price;
}
Else{
  feed price = two-day moving average price;
}
this logic is not applicable to the situation at hand

there is no price on bitshares dex; there is only:

Code: [Select]

amount_asset1/amount_asset2or

Code: [Select]

amount_asset2/amount_asset1
so for this reason you cannot use a "greater than" operator on price vs a moving average of price to initiate action; because what then is the desired effect if we swap the market?   say BTS:CNY vs how do we handle CNY:BTS market?

what is "price greater than moving average"?

It does not work.

What you are looking to do is normalize outliers in the dataset to prevent extremes.

What I would suggest in such a case:

Code: [Select]

price = qty_A[-1]/qty_B[-1]
inverse = qty_B[-1]/qty_A[-1]

if price > (2*qty_A[-2])/qty_B[-2]:
   
    B_scale = qty_B[-1]/qty_B[-2]
    qty_A[-1] = B_scale*2*qty_A[-2]

elif inverse > (2*qty_B[-2])/qty_A[-2]

    A_scale = qty_A[-1]/qty_A[-2]
    qty_B[-1] = A_scale*2*qty_B[-2]

this would be a balanced solution to the issue which did not favor either currency.

It would also allow for price exploration; but not beyond two times the previous price in either direction; up or down.

I use this same mechanism to normalize my candle data when I want to optimize parameters for a finite state machine with machine learning techniques.   Less than 2X previous or greater than 1/2 previous has always served me well to filter otherwise unrealistic pricing from crypto markets.

If you think your solution is more effective, I suggest you open a new BAIP.

[bench]

It does not work.

It would work, if he defines base and quote and check the value before price feed script.

What I would suggest in such a case:

Code: [Select]

price = qty_A[-1]/qty_B[-1]
inverse = qty_B[-1]/qty_A[-1]

if price > (2*qty_A[-2])/qty_B[-2]:
   
    B_scale = qty_B[-1]/qty_B[-2]
    qty_A[-1] = B_scale*2*qty_A[-2]

elif inverse > (2*qty_B[-2])/qty_A[-2]

    A_scale = qty_A[-1]/qty_A[-2]
    qty_B[-1] = A_scale*2*qty_B[-2]

this would be a balanced solution to the issue which did not favor either currency.

This is a good approach to filter the raw input, before starting further calculations. To determine a certain market state, the time frame and number of inputs are too short.

[litepresence]

Code: [Select]

If (current price >  two-day moving average price) {
  feed price = current price;
}
Else{
  feed price = two-day moving average price;
}
this logic is not applicable to the situation at hand

there is no price on bitshares dex; there is only:

Code: [Select]

amount_asset1/amount_asset2or

Code: [Select]

amount_asset2/amount_asset1
so for this reason you cannot use a "greater than" operator on price vs a moving average of price to initiate action; because what then is the desired effect if we swap the market?   say BTS:CNY vs how do we handle CNY:BTS market?

what is "price greater than moving average"?

It does not work.

What you are looking to do is normalize outliers in the dataset to prevent extremes.

What I would suggest in such a case:

Code: [Select]

price = qty_A[-1]/qty_B[-1]
inverse = qty_B[-1]/qty_A[-1]

if price > (2*qty_A[-2])/qty_B[-2]:
   
    B_scale = qty_B[-1]/qty_B[-2]
    qty_A[-1] = B_scale*2*qty_A[-2]

elif inverse > (2*qty_B[-2])/qty_A[-2]

    A_scale = qty_A[-1]/qty_A[-2]
    qty_B[-1] = A_scale*2*qty_B[-2]

this would be a balanced solution to the issue which did not favor either currency.

It would also allow for price exploration; but not beyond two times the previous price in either direction; up or down.

I use this same mechanism to normalize my candle data when I want to optimize parameters for a finite state machine with machine learning techniques.   Less than 2X previous or greater than 1/2 previous has always served me well to filter otherwise unrealistic pricing from crypto markets.

[R]

If you are jealous of others, you don't have to pay responsibility, then I will be disappointed with the administrator.

I see nothing to be jealous of here. What 'responsibility' will I have to pay? What do you think you deserve an apology for? Can't you take criticism? Please be more coherent when threatening legal action.

1：Initially we strictly followed the standard BSIP process

So what? This is about the BAIP not the BSIP, irrelevant.

6:After PR, I noticed that there were too many comments, because the work was too busy, and one person commented too much. I hope that when I have time, I will answer it seriously (even if the comments don’t seem to be good at all)

So why when there are many PR review commends outstanding & awaiting any response (regardless of quality) would you proceed directly to voting? Doing so disregards the review process - are you above this?

You just admitted here that the PR review process is not complete given that you've been too busy with work to answer comments.

In fact, this baip was in the issue for a long time, and I seriously answered any questions.

18 days simply isn't a long time in terms of improvement proposals - many have been dormant for well over a year. Further there is no need for urgency given this BAIP will not be implemented until BSIP76 is dead - this could be months away.

If questions were seriously answered, how come no changes have been made to the BAIP? Even basic grammar suggestions were seemingly disregarded.

7：A few hours later, zhouxiaobao-2010 informed me that due to his negligence (he was not familiar with github), he accidentally deleted my pr and asked me to re-pr. I did it.

So where is the explanation for this on github? You (the PR author) can reopen a PR without creating a new one (see: https://github.community/t5/How-to-use-Git-and-GitHub/Updating-a-closed-pull-request/td-p/9457)

8： After the success of pr, I asked the members of our union to created 2 poll worker proposals.

The PR may have been merged by another cnvote member (author approving their own PR?!), however the PR review process was not properly followed (given the disregard of review process).

This is the whole process. If you don't apologize for this, I will take legal action. If the administrator does not preside over this behavior, I will be disappointed by the forum administrator.

Steps in the BAIP process were skipped, abit (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551024416) and clockworkmgr (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#issuecomment-551029088) who are both committee members agree this should not have been merged in its current state nor proceeded to a poll. Do you plan to proceed with legal action against them too?

[cn-vote]

What a complete farce & another demonstration of bad faith.

BAIP2 attempted to erase comments during review: https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/8#event-2776076244

BAIP2 was then force merged into the BAIP repo without addressing any reviews by the community, completely disregarding BAIP processes: https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#pullrequestreview-313090815

This poll has zero credibility, cease manipulating Bitshares like this & adhere to BAIP processes than defraud the process.

If you are jealous of others, you don't have to pay responsibility, then I will be disappointed with the administrator.

1：Initially we strictly followed the standard BSIP process, and fox closed our BSIP with a non-existent committee and non-existent standards (of course not assigning bsip numbers)
@abitmore @wenhuadream This specific draft is out of scope for the BSIP repository based on:

The BCSSCIP (BitShares Committee's SmartCoins Improvement Proposal) was recently introduced for all informational topics related to Committee-owned BitAssets.
SCSSCIP1 https://github.com/bitshares/committee-tools/issues/11 defines the repsoitory sepatation
All protocol changes will continue to be proposed, reviewed and approved within the scope of the established BSIP process.
@wenhuadream Please connect with Committee members @bangzi1001 @abitmore @jademont @bitcrab @xeroc @OpenLedgerApp @clockworkgr and others to raise your proposal according to their process. I suggest your new draft include a summary of the discussions herein and continue further discussions there.

Closing.

This is a non-existent committee, an unestablished standard. One person used this reason to close our bsip. Some people use their powers to make our community unfairly treated.

2：Following the fox proposal and bangzi's advice, we turned to the baip process. We have been waiting for the establishment of the baip standard and have been waiting for a long time. When I saw the establishment of the baip1 standard, I immediately established a new baip and patiently responded to comments in the baip issue area.

3：I have been waiting for Abit More, Jerry Liu, Fabian Schuh to assign me a baip number, or give me any advice I deserve (in fact, I don't know why the three of them are administrators, is the community authorized?? ?)

4：I have been trying to contact abit to assign me a baip number, I contacted him many times on WeChat. Abit replies to me. He thinks that the management of baip should be on the committee.We are willing to wait。

5：On 2019.11.7, abit and bangzi informed me that zhouxiaobao-2010 (member of the committee) has become a new administrator, I contacted zhouxiaobao-2010, he assigned my baip2 and let me PR.

6:After PR, I noticed that there were too many comments, because the work was too busy, and one person commented too much. I hope that when I have time, I will answer it seriously (even if the comments don’t seem to be good at all)
In fact, this baip was in the issue for a long time, and I seriously answered any questions.

7：A few hours later, zhouxiaobao-2010 informed me that due to his negligence (he was not familiar with github), he accidentally deleted my pr and asked me to re-pr. I did it.

8： After the success of pr, I asked the members of our union to created 2 poll worker proposals.


This is the whole process. If you don't apologize for this, I will take legal action. If the administrator does not preside over this behavior, I will be disappointed by the forum administrator.

[R]

What a complete farce & another demonstration of bad faith.

BAIP2 attempted to erase comments during review: https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/8#event-2776076244

BAIP2 was then force merged into the BAIP repo without addressing any reviews by the community, completely disregarding BAIP processes: https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9#pullrequestreview-313090815

This poll has zero credibility, cease manipulating Bitshares like this & adhere to BAIP processes than defraud the process.

[cn-vote]

Based on BAIP2, https://github.com/bitshares/baips/blob/master/baip-0002.md, now 2 poll worker proposals have been created:

1.14.237   Poll-BAIP2- Reform of loopholes in feed price mechanism.
1.14.238   Poll-BAIP2-Not reform of loopholes in feed price mechanism.

The purpose of this BAIP is to fix the loopholes in the feed price mechanism, to prevent instantaneous malicious shorting, or to increase the cost of malicious short selling.

Please vote according to your opinion.