Author Topic: 4.0 投票机制变化  (Read 3897 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1881
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #45 on: August 02, 2020, 04:52:19 am »
据我所知,由于公会认为abit的改动侵害了公会的利益,也违背了公链的共识,目前正在准备开发patch,将投票机制变化这部分先以patch的方式关掉。

公会的计划是,先去除掉不在开发计划内的功能,然后再按正常流程投票对这几项功能进行取舍,再进行升级。

在我看来,票权衰减,一票一投这两项应该通过概率很大,锁仓也不小,抵押和挂单无票权这两项应该通不过。

既然如此,何不当下就把4项功能分开投票,以作取舍? @abit

as I know, cn-vote is preparing a patch to remove the unplanned 4 features which are added to 4.0 release, and force witnesses to install.

and then, they will submit vote for the 4 features for the one new release again.

in my view, vote decay, 1 power 1 vote are in high possibility to be passed, deposit lock is also not low, "collateral and order no power" should not be approved.

so why submit the voting for these 4 features immediately?

Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #46 on: August 02, 2020, 05:33:15 am »
所谓的共识早就消亡。

票权衰减,一票一投,锁仓都是细枝末节无关紧要的东西。

而抵押与挂单必须无票权,这是最重要的的东西,让交易行为去决定治理行为本身就是一个区块链上最为傻叉的行为,就好比证监会的工作人员一边炒股一边管理股市一样,顺便还玩杠杆借贷,一个公司的股东股票质押完再去回购股票然后再质押再回购,然后还要给全额投票权,最后公司怕是怎么死的都不知道。

人身上长了一颗毒瘤,要切的时候还要问一下毒瘤的意见与感受,跟与狐谋皮何异?!

要么各自分叉单过,反正分叉在将来是不可避免的事件,想留抵押与挂单票权简直做梦!

为什么会发生这种事情,有些人还没有回过味来,那是因为bts离心离德到根本没有开发care,公会可以继续秀!
« Last Edit: August 02, 2020, 06:38:41 am by binggo »

Online Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #47 on: August 02, 2020, 06:27:51 am »
Quote
so why submit the voting for these 4 features immediately?


Because the voting results would be diffrent with the new voting system and the main reason
bitshares protocol has been completly broken.

Today the voting system and what will come tomorrow if you accept something like that ?

Who is going to hold money in a system where a single person can decide about everything and make your investment worthless with no information,voting or announcement ?

Also what has been done so something like that can't happen again ?

The new voting system is totaly immature and has some features which are dangerous.



Also in my opinion witnesses are not being forced but its basicly their duty to be the keeper that cheats in code can't be added into bitshares.They gurantee the security of bitshares.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2020, 06:34:49 am by Thul3 »

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1881
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #48 on: August 02, 2020, 07:02:30 am »
Also in my opinion witnesses are not being forced but its basicly their duty to be the keeper that cheats in code can't be added into bitshares.They gurantee the security of bitshares.
right, this is the more political correct statement.
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #49 on: August 02, 2020, 07:09:59 am »
Quote
so why submit the voting for these 4 features immediately?


Because the voting results would be diffrent with the new voting system and the main reason
bitshares protocol has been completly broken.

Today the voting system and what will come tomorrow if you accept something like that ?

Who is going to hold money in a system where a single person can decide about everything and make your investment worthless with no information,voting or announcement ?

Also what has been done so something like that can't happen again ?

The new voting system is totaly immature and has some features which are dangerous.



Also in my opinion witnesses are not being forced but its basicly their duty to be the keeper that cheats in code can't be added into bitshares.They gurantee the security of bitshares.

Why this happened i think you should  know that very clearly, most of developer had leave away BTS as they very disappointed the whole design of management, the whole system was controlled by a group people and cheating the system, especially the vote of collateral, when the vote power of collateral become more and more bigger as the price rising, who can stop them? who can stop them don't cheate the system again and again?

A shareholder made a pledge of stocks to the company, then he used the money to buy the stocks again, make this cycle again and again, so you want give this guy the power to manage this company?

Yes the wittness maintain the security of bitshares, but they should clearly know which is the best for the system, when the the shareholder of bts make a cheating decision like freeze the feed price, they should say no, but they didn't, when the cheating vote like VP of collateral and BAIP voting happend they should say no, the committee should say no, but they didn't.

Why no body ask how many collateral votes were real under the freezed feed price? is this not a cheating for the system? is it not dangerous for the system?

The danger of the fake and leverage VP of collateral is more dangerous than the new voting system.

I think some ideas may come from BM:
https://medium.com/@bytemaster/blockchain-governance-proposal-470478e42686

Quote
To ensure a long-term outlook and “skin in the game”, only tokens locked in a long-term staking contract qualify for voting.

Quote
Few people will want to give up liquidity for 10 years so they will earn a higher relative yield and more power over the network. More people will be willing to give up liquidity for 3 months, so they will get a lower yield and less power.

« Last Edit: August 02, 2020, 08:44:55 am by binggo »

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2020, 07:23:04 am »
现在有人来质疑公链的共识了,当初MM支出的时候怎么没有人质疑共识,当用毫无效力的BAIP-threshold作弊投票的时候怎么没有人质疑共识?

当锁喂价之下,庞大的虚假投票权出现的时候怎么没有人来质疑共识?!这种虚假票权也是共识?

当随着价格上升抵押票权无限放大的时候,你们扪心自问谁能阻挡这种指数型放大的抵押票权?当他们想再次做作弊喂价的时候谁来维护那些真正bts持有者的利益?谁来维护bitasset持有者的利益?!

一个公司的股东把股票质押给自家公司,然后拿从公司质押来的钱继续买公司股票,然后再把股票质押给公司贷钱,以此循环做无限杠杆,你们还要给这个人无限票权来管理公司,你们扪心自问一下,这是不是嫌这个公司爆的不快?

贾跃亭怎么掏空乐视的都没点数吗?


新投票机制有潜在的风险吗?有,但是这个风险远远没有无限膨胀与虚假的抵押票权大。


说句实话,改不改对我们韭菜的影响不大,改了还是大票仓之间的游戏,无非没有抵押来搅局,屁股还都能做的正一些,而不改,还是大票仓之间的游戏,等抵押膨胀之后,大概也就抵押说啥就是啥,屁股全部坐在抵押上,无非我们到时候去投其它的分叉链。

另外,我个人对这种锁仓倍数持怀疑态度,这给了大户更大的话语权,他们可以把筹码分出几部分去锁获得更多的话语权,剩下的筹码做流动风险对冲,而小户根本没有这种流动对冲的空间。

抵押票权与挂单必须没有票权,不能再让交易行为绑架管理行为。

至于程序是否合乎共识,把抵押投票权去了再谈共识,不然所谓的共识不过是建立在虚假票权与杠杆票权上的虚假共识。


-------------------------


像公会这样的自私自利的小算盘打的叭叭响,以为锁仓的都是傻子吗?

投票衰减,一票一投,锁仓支持,去除抵押及挂单票权不支持,让锁仓的给抵押的减少流动性,然后抵押获得票权倍数还远高于锁仓票权,有风险的时候抵押跑路还能跑的飞快,公会这个算盘打的真是好,秒啊,真是智多星再世呢,灵感都这么好,怎么不建一个新链来玩呢?!!!!!



« Last Edit: August 02, 2020, 09:49:33 am by binggo »

Online btstodamoon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #51 on: August 02, 2020, 09:43:33 am »
支持abit,巨蟹,你去草婷吧

Online btstodamoon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #52 on: August 02, 2020, 10:38:07 am »
据我所知,由于公会认为abit的改动侵害了公会的利益,也违背了公链的共识,目前正在准备开发patch,将投票机制变化这部分先以patch的方式关掉。

公会的计划是,先去除掉不在开发计划内的功能,然后再按正常流程投票对这几项功能进行取舍,再进行升级。

在我看来,票权衰减,一票一投这两项应该通过概率很大,锁仓也不小,抵押和挂单无票权这两项应该通不过。

既然如此,何不当下就把4项功能分开投票,以作取舍? @abit

as I know, cn-vote is preparing a patch to remove the unplanned 4 features which are added to 4.0 release, and force witnesses to install.

and then, they will submit vote for the 4 features for the one new release again.

in my view, vote decay, 1 power 1 vote are in high possibility to be passed, deposit lock is also not low, "collateral and order no power" should not be approved.

so why submit the voting for these 4 features immediately?
求分叉,草泥马的,分出去你和工会自己玩去。

Online Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #53 on: August 02, 2020, 11:46:45 am »
Forgat to add as i already promoted DPOS1 for several months that i personly will support
vote decay and DPOS1  (one vote for one person only) both for witness and committee

But i don't support that non active members get a reward across from active members on bitshares dex as this is a clear paradox since we want active members on bitshares dex.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2020, 12:01:26 pm by Thul3 »

Offline matle85

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #54 on: August 02, 2020, 07:23:54 pm »
I don't like changes against consensus but I support Abit here - consensus was broken, the debt holders forcing witnesses to feed fake prices is completely unacceptable and demonstrates broken DPOS.

The changes made are necessary.

If we had voted I would not have supported stake voting at the levels proposed because I think this will cause some unforeseen issues, but overall I think Abit has stepped forward (bravely) to try and save Bitshares.

Ideally I do not think debt holders should be punished really - let's promote these changes and the upgrades to Bitshares so that the price rises and then the false price feeds can be removed without people losing their debt.

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #55 on: August 02, 2020, 11:20:36 pm »
Forgat to add as i already promoted DPOS1 for several months that i personly will support
vote decay and DPOS1  (one vote for one person only) both for witness and committee

But i don't support that non active members get a reward across from active members on bitshares dex as this is a clear paradox since we want active members on bitshares dex.

There didn't have non active members and active members.

The active members which you mean just a group of people want to get profit every moment, you think they love bts but they only love profit, they want the management right just as they want to squeeze more profit from bts, if they can't get any profit from bts, they will run away very quickly. They didn't care about the further development of bts is good or bad, they just care about how to get the more profit from it as soon as possible, this is the reality.

As the new rule, if a account has any amount bts locked in "permanently locked state", then the rest bts in this account will have normal VP, the most account VP will exist like this, so it didn't affect the most account which want to participate the management but didn't want to lock bts.

Quote
You just need to lock 1 bts in a  "permanently locked state", then you will have a "permanently locked state" :)

The no active member which you mean, they just only can get reward from the further development of bts, not come from the immediate profit.

For the debtor, they were gambler, anything can't change that(even i have margin position, i still need to define it like that), no company and system want to be managed by gambler, they just try to gain more and more profit from the collateral, the management what they want,just as they can get profit from the margin as soon as possible,when the price dropped,when they can‘t bear the risk,then they will use the VP of big collateral to make a cheating decision to save their position! So they must not have the VP.

No defi and stablecoin project will be allowed to give the management right to a debtor, as when give the management right to a debtor, that mean the player and the referee become one person, this project will fail fast.

If you have a margin position and was in margin call, can you keep the impartiality in the voting?I can't and i believe the most of the person can't, it is human nature, when i have a position in margin call,then i will becom blinded and crazy,i will vote anything to keep my position,yes,i have voted the BSIP76 once,even i didn't have a position in margin call,but i‘m afraid,so i do it subconsciously.

A gambler is crazy, nothing can stop them!


这句话也讲给所有的债仓持有者:

如果你有债仓且在强平排队中,你们能够保证你们在投票中保持公平公正吗?我做不到,我相信绝大多数人都做不到,人性使然,当我有一个债仓且在强平排队时,我必然会变的盲目与疯狂,我会投给任何可以保护我的债仓不被强平的提案,即使是作弊提案,不错,我也曾经投过BSIP76, 即使我的债仓离强平还有相当一段距离而且基本不可能被爆,但是恐惧感使我下意识的去做了投票。

没有什么事情可以阻止赌徒的疯狂!


即便是抵押的bts没有投票权,抵押者依然可以通过调仓的方式临时获得大量的临时投票权重,就跟现在锁喂价这种情况,全部贴着线把bts调仓调出来,你们会发现冒出海量的调仓票权。
« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 01:01:02 am by binggo »

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1881
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #56 on: August 03, 2020, 03:37:48 am »
当锁喂价之下,庞大的虚假投票权出现的时候怎么没有人来质疑共识?!这种虚假票权也是共识?

当随着价格上升抵押票权无限放大的时候,你们扪心自问谁能阻挡这种指数型放大的抵押票权?当他们想再次做作弊喂价的时候谁来维护那些真正bts持有者的利益?谁来维护bitasset持有者的利益?!

反正你喜欢啥就是啥,抵押的票权成了虚假票权,锁一下翻几倍倒是真实票权?

我承认抵押的票权会在态度上有偏见,我也不是不能接受取消抵押票权,但不齿的这种喜欢啥就是啥的态度。

Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline xixi002020

Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #57 on: August 03, 2020, 04:35:32 am »
当锁喂价之下,庞大的虚假投票权出现的时候怎么没有人来质疑共识?!这种虚假票权也是共识?

当随着价格上升抵押票权无限放大的时候,你们扪心自问谁能阻挡这种指数型放大的抵押票权?当他们想再次做作弊喂价的时候谁来维护那些真正bts持有者的利益?谁来维护bitasset持有者的利益?!

反正你喜欢啥就是啥,抵押的票权成了虚假票权,锁一下翻几倍倒是真实票权?

我承认抵押的票权会在态度上有偏见,我也不是不能接受取消抵押票权,但不齿的这种喜欢啥就是啥的态度。

抵押没票权,这个其实大多数人并不是一定不能接受。 韭菜对票权这个东西 其实不太在乎,在乎的是价格,和利用随意修改规则的割韭菜行为。     
但是abit偷偷添加代码 改投票机制这个 ,不论出于什么目的  都是不能接受的,  改投票机制可能本身没有问题,但是以隐瞒 欺骗的方式偷改  就是个大问题。

所以 将投票机制变化这部分先以patch的方式关掉 然后再进行投票 ,至少流程上是正确的。
abit至今仍不露面,           至少要给出解释,解释其 苦衷 原因, 大家也好理解  支持  不是吗?       
« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 04:44:14 am by xixi002020 »

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1881
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #58 on: August 03, 2020, 05:55:44 am »
抵押没票权,这个其实大多数人并不是一定不能接受。 韭菜对票权这个东西 其实不太在乎,在乎的是价格,和利用随意修改规则的割韭菜行为。     
但是abit偷偷添加代码 改投票机制这个 ,不论出于什么目的  都是不能接受的,  改投票机制可能本身没有问题,但是以隐瞒 欺骗的方式偷改  就是个大问题。

所以 将投票机制变化这部分先以patch的方式关掉 然后再进行投票 ,至少流程上是正确的。
abit至今仍不露面,           至少要给出解释,解释其 苦衷 原因, 大家也好理解  支持  不是吗?       

苦衷?至少苦衷之一应该是许多人认为的公会的“充满偏见的态度”。

公会的仓位是高抵押仓位,因此公会对各种解锁喂价的方案都持消极乃至抵制的态度。

走正常流程得不出最“有利”的结果。
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #59 on: August 03, 2020, 07:46:23 am »
当锁喂价之下,庞大的虚假投票权出现的时候怎么没有人来质疑共识?!这种虚假票权也是共识?

当随着价格上升抵押票权无限放大的时候,你们扪心自问谁能阻挡这种指数型放大的抵押票权?当他们想再次做作弊喂价的时候谁来维护那些真正bts持有者的利益?谁来维护bitasset持有者的利益?!

反正你喜欢啥就是啥,抵押的票权成了虚假票权,锁一下翻几倍倒是真实票权?

我承认抵押的票权会在态度上有偏见,我也不是不能接受取消抵押票权,但不齿的这种喜欢啥就是啥的态度。

锁喂价之下庞大的抵押票权不是虚假票权是什么?跌到6分的时候实际价值计算有几个票权是真的?某些人喊着一路锁上去的时候,到时候有多少票权是真的?

长时间锁仓放弃的是流动性与机会成本,中间还有大量的时间成本,做适当的票权补偿不应该吗?!虽然我不是很赞成这种高倍票权,但是做适当补偿有什么可非议的吗?!这就跟一个股东承诺几年不出售公司股票以换取更多的表决权,有什么很大的可质疑性吗?这跟抵押票权的性质能一样?!逼着bts持有者到时候只能选择同流合污?

我喜欢不喜欢,自然有逻辑分析做支撑,总不能你不齿我的态度,我就要高喊: 巨蟹大佬,你好靓仔!