Author Topic: 4.0 投票机制变化  (Read 6184 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #60 on: August 03, 2020, 08:35:32 am »
Quote from Digital Lucifer

Quote
Here a quote from Digital Lucifer

You need to lock 1BTS to keep voting power x1
No collateral voting - at all.

They can. Make a patch, rename BTS and BitShares and move on
They can't make a patch on BitShares for BitShares. Especially not a patch which is saying "I want to have 1.7x more power than I have money"
This change, when it comes to BitShares is irreversible and there is no coming back to corruption regardless what everyone said
Second of all fixed price and collateral just means dead markets - and even margin holders are aware of that because they have no way to close positions
If you take a look at the debts of first top 5 holders in BitUSD - none of them has that BTS or BitUSD left to close the debt
Instead of arbitrage BTS/BitUSD and BTS/USDT we have no arbitrage, no markets and no liquidity
And having in mind all that BTS collateralized, held by cexes and no ability to get new one in some serious amount - no new MPA has sense (like honest assets) until we have enough BTS to spin it properly.
So only real solution to any MPA having sense here is removal of bad debts and restoration of price feeds
Mm contest and liquidity mining as proven did nothing in terms of activity or bringing new users - and costed us more than core prelude worker or UI and infra that are much needed for long time
Now if we look back 2019, workers were stopped as useless cost to the blockchain but milking contest are ok.
Wait for votes to get locked and voting slate to be formed. Workers are useless without anyone to vote on them and we changed consensus not things voted or available for voting on it. There is a limit of how much this push can do, now it's up to the new holders
I'll have worker up by end of the week for BitUSD
No, clear worker poll to remove fixed feeds, 30 days to close their margins and terms and conditions on witnesses when to apply.






You can see that guy has completly no knowledge about trading.Debt holders in bitusd will get rekkt with his actions.
And something like him is being promoted as legal for bitshares.
Anyone supporting this idiot will kill bitshares even more.People with funds will keep leaving.

If he is unhappy he could make a fork.But who with money is going to follow such an idiot ?
Instead he pushed for a hostile takeover to keep getting paid from these people funds he destroyes.

I won't support this hostile takeover and damage of big part of the community.

Best part of him claiming they changed consensus.Does he really think some people with no BTS forcing others their point of view has anything to do with a consensus ?

The reputation damage i won't even mention



Quote
They can. Make a patch, rename BTS and BitShares and move on

DL will be hold liable as he as core prelude manager knew that the mainnet 4 will include this unaproofed code.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 09:13:00 am by Thul3 »

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1895
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #61 on: August 03, 2020, 08:42:20 am »
锁喂价造成的是bitCNY的贬值,和抵押的BTS有毛关系。

你好狗狗。

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #62 on: August 03, 2020, 09:52:13 am »
锁喂价造成的是bitCNY的贬值,和抵押的BTS有毛关系。

你好狗狗。

嘴上再不干净,我就要喊你傻*了。

你自己看看你说得这句话,你脑子有坑吗?!锁喂价跟抵押的bts没有关系,你还锁个毛的喂价?!
« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 10:46:18 am by binggo »

Offline lochaling

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #63 on: August 03, 2020, 10:01:31 am »
某些人就是大盗,专偷公共资金的。

小人出走,才是BTS的最大利好。

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #64 on: August 03, 2020, 10:40:16 am »
I don't like DL too,but

Quote
Debt holders in bitusd will get rekkt with his actions.

These were just a part of CN-VOTE debtor in bitusd.
 
1   1.2.458268   fangli0755   1.94
2   1.2.698   map   1.67
3   1.2.544003   chinaking888   1.5
4   1.2.166673   facem   1.88
5   1.2.1688430   dqt812   1.7
6   1.2.415588   hangjun-btss   1.73
7   1.2.18114   cny123   5.58
8   1.2.878397   zb170352718   2.99
9   1.2.5420   ptschina   2.87
10   1.2.186512   jinlicheng1   1.7
11   1.2.712461   waterkawaye509   1.78
12   1.2.187916   hongcaibao111   1.72
13   1.2.169701   yinghuilong   1.69
14   1.2.900314   guotiger1206   1.71
15   1.2.1037129   suny5392   1.73
16   1.2.1750391   shlzbts2020   1.93
17   1.2.1620696   get-richy   1.69
18   1.2.20197   xiaoshan   1.85
19   1.2.155713   hwbts   2.7
20   1.2.998   spring   1.7
21   1.2.480517   sunshine991019   1.73
22   1.2.403666   gold-star   1.68
23   1.2.129515   jinjue082016   1.84

Want to solve the problem of bitusd, i will give some thoughts later...Devaluation is too big...very hard...


Quote
They can't make a patch on BitShares for BitShares

Maybe he said is right,seems he own the trademark of “BitShares” and "BTS", if this is true, anyone can't change it.


About consensus, i want to say when we support a consensus like BSIP 76 in such a long time and didn't want to resovle these problems quickly, we only have a false consensus, when we use a BAIP-threthold not be approved by the community as a voting standards,we didn't have consensus any more.

« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 10:44:49 am by binggo »

Offline sschiessl

Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #65 on: August 03, 2020, 11:30:53 am »
Quote
They can't make a patch on BitShares for BitShares
Maybe he said is right,seems he own the trademark of “BitShares” and "BTS", if this is true, anyone can't change it.

The blockchain consensus is ultimately decided by the witnesses and what version they are running, and the voters have the indirect power over that by voting in witnesses that support whatever version they deem the correct one. It boils down to similar situation like Steem does it's consensus upgrades now, I don't see yet how the trademark affects that.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 12:08:47 pm by sschiessl »

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #66 on: August 03, 2020, 11:42:34 am »
Quote
They can't make a patch on BitShares for BitShares
Maybe he said is right,seems he own the trademark of “BitShares” and "BTS", if this is true, anyone can't change it.

The blockchain consensus is ultimately decided by the witnesses and what version they are running, and the voters have the indirect power over that by voting in witnesses that support whatever version they deem the correct one. It boils down to similar situation like the Steem does it's consensus upgrades now, I don't see yet how the trademark affects that.

That is right, this the choice of wittnesses.

What i mean is he has the right to call the patch Bitshares is not Bitshares, this is the affects of trademark, this is also a problem of other coins.

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #67 on: August 03, 2020, 11:49:08 am »
I don't like DL too,but

Quote
Debt holders in bitusd will get rekkt with his actions.

These were just a part of CN-VOTE debtor in bitusd.
 
1   1.2.458268   fangli0755   1.94
2   1.2.698   map   1.67
3   1.2.544003   chinaking888   1.5
4   1.2.166673   facem   1.88
5   1.2.1688430   dqt812   1.7
6   1.2.415588   hangjun-btss   1.73
7   1.2.18114   cny123   5.58
8   1.2.878397   zb170352718   2.99
9   1.2.5420   ptschina   2.87
10   1.2.186512   jinlicheng1   1.7
11   1.2.712461   waterkawaye509   1.78
12   1.2.187916   hongcaibao111   1.72
13   1.2.169701   yinghuilong   1.69
14   1.2.900314   guotiger1206   1.71
15   1.2.1037129   suny5392   1.73
16   1.2.1750391   shlzbts2020   1.93
17   1.2.1620696   get-richy   1.69
18   1.2.20197   xiaoshan   1.85
19   1.2.155713   hwbts   2.7
20   1.2.998   spring   1.7
21   1.2.480517   sunshine991019   1.73
22   1.2.403666   gold-star   1.68
23   1.2.129515   jinjue082016   1.84

Want to solve the problem of bitusd, i will give some thoughts later...Devaluation is too big...very hard...


Quote
They can't make a patch on BitShares for BitShares

Maybe he said is right,seems he own the trademark of “BitShares” and "BTS", if this is true, anyone can't change it.


About consensus, i want to say when we support a consensus like BSIP 76 in such a long time and didn't want to resovle these problems quickly, we only have a false consensus, when we use a BAIP-threthold not be approved by the community as a voting standards,we didn't have consensus any more.

I was monitoring bitusd debtors before bsip76 and after.
Majority of the current debt positions had no bad debt being in margin call before BSIP76.
They increased their debt some time after the announcement of BSIP76.
So blaming them to create or increase debt in BitUSD after BSIP76 is just wrong and making them responsible or hurting for this even more.

Quote
Maybe he said is right,seems he own the trademark of “BitShares” and "BTS", if this is true, anyone can't change it.
He has no authority at all.He would love to control bitshares with legal and trademarks but his EU trademark is worth horseshit.
His threaths to gateways or all social media account users showed that he completly lost reality and looks to centralize bitshares arround him.
Calling gateway owners animals or telling gateways like rudex that he is going to kick them out of bitshares calling chinese in general dumb scammers and many other points are not acceptable .His ethics are also totaly fucked up.You should have read what he supported everything in the past and how he already planned with george a hostile takeover using witnesses even they may be held liable for their actions in their jurisdiction and fork out chinese.
His comment was "its their issue."
He has only trademark for EU so he basicly has nothing as long as he won't get world wide trademark.Also even when getting
world wide he can keep only the name community will take the chain.

Noone is going to invest a dime into his shit


George:
The main thing is we maintain the BTS ticker on exchanges during a fork.

Then China can fork off and their chain will die and if they have some new ticker on some random China exchanges who cares

xeroc: Uff
that's gonna cause a lot of drama if you think about it


George:
Also any fork will cause drama

xeroc:
not if you start 'fresh' .. different name .. learn from the past mistakes ..

George:
Yes but the mountain to climb for liquidity and impact on existing businesses is very large with a fresh chain

Building BTS traction and liquidity with exchanges in 2019 literally requires millions of dollars upfront

Therefore imho a fork of existing chain and maintaining existing liquidity and tickers is preferable as there is no upfront costs for listings and small switching costs for existing users. If stakeholders want to change name at that point too then I’m sure that get support and it may look more ‘fresh’

xeroc:
to do that 'morally' right, you'd need consensus on chain. you wont get that imho

also, whoever would do that 'forking' could be liable for fraud

George:
If people want to follow the fork then they can, if they don’t they won’t. Won’t get everyone agreeing and that’s ok


DL:
and its morally ok

compared to situation blockchain has after being too fair (moral) to some players

George:
It’s up to witnesses to move to a new fork

Xeroc:
liability!

George:
So? It’s up to witnesses who are random accounts on the internet. If you’re talking about someone who lives in some jurisdiction who may have a problem with that then that’s their problem. Not BTS or the new chain

DL:
thumbs up for (So? It’s up to witnesses who are random accounts on the internet. If you’re talking about someone who lives in some jurisdiction who may have a problem with that then that’s their problem. Not BTS or the new chain)
giving a choice is fair enough
picking one is not concern of fork


Only one who kept ethics up during that conversation was xeroc
« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 12:23:12 pm by Thul3 »

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #68 on: August 03, 2020, 01:08:26 pm »
Quote
They increased their debt some time after the announcement of BSIP76.
So blaming them to create or increase debt in BitUSD after BSIP76 is just wrong and making them responsible or hurting for this even more.

This is their choice, no one has made a promise for BSIP76 will keep forever,but the cn-vote used the vote power of margin to give them this promise and this encourage them to do that, more debt in Bitusd more vote power, a disaster cycle,maybe you know or not,they even want to lock more higher feed price if the price rise in the future,this is a certain event.

No one blaming them, but they chose the danger themself, if want to recover the bitusd, the hurt can't be avoided.



What the DL and George said and planned is not the important thing, no one can control the chain, just as sschiessl said.

Even without this event, the fork still will happen in the future, the cn-vote and the big proxy has the opportunity and time to repair the consensus and rebuild the reputation in the past, but they chose to to nothing, now everyone face a choice...

And these were not the most important things, the most important thing is recover the feed price of bitasset, even use BAIP2, set BSIP74 and BSIP77, higher the settlement offset to 5%, redesign the black swan,P2P lending,Cross-Chain let more coins like BTC,EHT as collateral.


另外,我感觉有必要再絮叨一遍关于强清补偿:
适当高的强清补偿对于尤其是 bitcny/bts这种锚定资产/抵押品的市场而言,有百益而无一害,bitcny在正常喂价形态下的适当贬值一般体现为内盘价格高于喂价,这个价格差提供的买单深度对于债仓能够及时平仓是极为有利的,类似于MSSR的一样的效果,却没有MSSR的副作用,也不会带来滚仓效应,而过低的强清补偿带来的强清循环不仅压制内盘买单市场的深度与活跃度,对于债仓的平仓也极为不利。正常喂价情况下,像bitcny是很难维持5%的贬值,承兑商不仅面临入金套利,内盘市场也面临外盘搬砖带来的套利压力,所以适当提高强清补偿的天花板到5%以上,也不需要太高,对于整个市场而言是极为有利的。
而一个强清补偿为2%, 外部资金根本不想做入金套利,外盘搬砖也不愿意进入内盘套利,因为承兑等还要有承兑费率风险费用等等费用,已经基本把这个2%的补偿消解到零,形同与补偿为零的效果。
很简单的一个市场交易套利行为分析...

而对于强清可以化解风险bulabulabula之类的说辞,你既然设置了MCR,就必要是考虑到抵押品的价格波动,市场接受度,流动性等等风险因素,从而设置的这个MCR值是可以抵御以上综合风险的,再讲强清可以化解风险之类的说辞,不感觉脸疼吗?!

像biteur市场,补偿为1%, 任何位置的债仓都有被清的可能,就好比头上立着一把尖刀,长一点就削一点,怎么可能长高?!

而像honest市场,25%的MSSR,稍微带点脑子都不会设置这样的MSSR,不仅会迅速摧毁市场深度也会彻底把市场买单搞嗝屁,对于承兑而言,这种高MSSR简直是一个灾难,对于吃单者而言,还要寄希望于市场深度不要被击垮,从而有套利的机会,然而这可能吗?除了去砸外盘市场,别无他选,一旦这种市场带量的话,连续的滚仓效应要多美就有多美,17年以来的教训这些人是一点都没有吸取,国外的各种经济学理论多如牛毛,这点市场道理总应该清楚吧。

« Last Edit: August 04, 2020, 07:43:36 am by binggo »

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1895
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #69 on: August 04, 2020, 10:10:54 am »
求分叉,草泥马的,分出去你和工会自己玩去。
别激动,我只是把了解到的事情公开一下,希望引起社区的关注而已。

我不清楚公会发布代码的能力怎样,但他们目前的票权还是够多的,是有可能通过使用他们的票权让支持他们的见证人上位的。社区应该对此有所准备。



Offline litepresence

Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #70 on: August 10, 2020, 04:47:24 pm »
 工会凉不凉没关系了,因为像abit这样私自决定修改的,投票已经失去了意义。都可以私自添加修改了,还要投票啥的?
私自添加修改这种事,坚决不妥协。投票已经失去了意义。
去中心化共识已经破坏。绕过理事会,绕过投票,自己一个人骗了整个社区,自己一个人说了算,abit一个人即是社区天下,BTS是他的?以后投票有什么意义吗?直接改就行了。
虽然木已成舟,我虽然无力改变,我也要喷他几个月,虽然人家BM也直接改,但人家BM是创始人,人家权力大,不过BM也照样被喷了不久,所以abit准备好被喷几个月了没有啊?
实在不行,支持巨蟹硬分叉BTS。
我虽然不反对abit这添加的规则,永久锁仓这不是让人家的BTS废了?锁仓不应该有回报的么?没回报的锁仓简直。。。。但我反对的是他的做法,程序不按规定走,这以后的再多的投票又显得有什么意义?就算你有30亿票权,也敌不过一个abit。这共识,没意义了。

translation attempt:

Quote
It doesn't matter if his merged hotfix is cool or not:  If the outcome can be decided privately by abit, voting thereafter has lost all meaning.  If one can make changes without consensus, what else is left to be voted on? In making changes privately without compromise, the vote has lost its meaning.

The decentralized consensus has been broken.   Bypassing the committee and voters, one man deceived the entire community alone; seizing the final say.   So is abit the the community overlord; BitShares is his?   What is the point of anyone voting thereafter?  He will just change it again.

Although it is already done and I cannot change it, I will disparage him for a few months.   Although Bytemaster (BM) is also directly affected, he is the founder and has great power and insomuch he's been ridiculed for a long time.  Is abit ready to be disrespected for a few months?  I doubt it.

Supporting this cancerous hard fork just does not work.

Although I don't object to the changes abit made, isn't it effectively burning BTS for permanent lockup?   Shouldn't there be some additional reward? Instead the permanent lock ticket simply has no return. 

What I really oppose is the approach:  The voting rules were not followed in the upgrade procedure.  Why vote again in the future?   Even if you have 3 billion votes you cannot outvote abit; therefore any consensus is meaningless.

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #71 on: August 10, 2020, 04:56:47 pm »
You can also add that abit destroyed the main bitshares telegram channel by adding his bot and indirectly and directly banning people who
argued about his bad actions.He banned very active admins there who where nicely invested in BTS and made majority of people going silent there.Another part is now moving to digital lucifers chat where he is owner and these cheaters admins.

They are conditioning people there for their own agenda and doesn't allow any other opinion than theirs.


People myself included had been fighting abits one men show quite long.
He is definetly a good dev and very active however he should not be in committee because of his lack of ethics and economic understanding.His sole power in github already upset the old core team showing he thinks he have sole power over bitshares which haven't changed till today which is why cn-vote had to fork it.

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #72 on: August 10, 2020, 08:22:10 pm »
You can also add that abit destroyed the main bitshares telegram channel by adding his bot and indirectly and directly banning people who
argued about his bad actions.He banned very active admins there who where nicely invested in BTS and made majority of people going silent there.Another part is now moving to digital lucifers chat where he is owner and these cheaters admins.

They are conditioning people there for their own agenda and doesn't allow any other opinion than theirs.


People myself included had been fighting abits one men show quite long.
He is definetly a good dev and very active however he should not be in committee because of his lack of ethics and economic understanding.His sole power in github already upset the old core team showing he thinks he have sole power over bitshares which haven't changed till today which is why cn-vote had to fork it.

I don't like and don't believe cn-vote more, in the future who will kill bts, that must be cn-vote, this time, i support abit, when the debtor have the power to control the lending system, then there didn't have lending system any more.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2020, 03:16:22 am by binggo »

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #73 on: August 11, 2020, 05:54:00 am »
You can also add that abit destroyed the main bitshares telegram channel by adding his bot and indirectly and directly banning people who
argued about his bad actions.He banned very active admins there who where nicely invested in BTS and made majority of people going silent there.Another part is now moving to digital lucifers chat where he is owner and these cheaters admins.

They are conditioning people there for their own agenda and doesn't allow any other opinion than theirs.


People myself included had been fighting abits one men show quite long.
He is definetly a good dev and very active however he should not be in committee because of his lack of ethics and economic understanding.His sole power in github already upset the old core team showing he thinks he have sole power over bitshares which haven't changed till today which is why cn-vote had to fork it.

I don't like and don't believe cn-vote more, in the future who will kill bts, that must be cn-vote, this time, i support abit, when the debtor have the power to control the lending system, then there didn't have lending system any more.

Accepting such a break in protocol that one persons decides about the chain is going only to lead that noone is going to put any money
into BTS anymore.It's far worse than BSIP76.
Today its about the voting system tomorrow he decides to change something else.

I also don't like many decissions of cn-vote as everyone could read it on the forum but breaking protocol in this way is far worse in my opinion.

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
Re: 4.0 投票机制变化
« Reply #74 on: August 11, 2020, 06:57:46 am »
Accepting such a break in protocol that one persons decides about the chain is going only to lead that noone is going to put any money
into BTS anymore.It's far worse than BSIP76.
Today its about the voting system tomorrow he decides to change something else.

I also don't like many decissions of cn-vote as everyone could read it on the forum but breaking protocol in this way is far worse in my opinion.

I think you should clearly know what caused these happened, if have enough dev to check the code, did this will happen? Why most of dev left BTS, just because of abit ? no, the unfair voting system is the main reason, that threaten the safe of the system and development, threaten the real bts holder.

If this time didn't remove the VP of leveraged collateral and you want to remove it through voting, that will be never passed, when the VP of leveraged collateral begin to swell, you think you can control it? no, you can't stop it in the past, you still can't stop it in the future, what left will just is a dead chain, no development, no dev, no future, no trader, just a gruop of gambler.

And you think you know more about cn-vote than us, you are wrong, we are one of cn-vote in the past, what they think, what they want to do, we know that more clearly than themselves, they only fight for themselves(the gambler), not the community. Yes, that's we, many of cn-community members, we support abit this action, it's necessary and can't be avoided, even the process is not suitable, we all didn't want a chain to be controlled by a group of gambler in the future, we all didn't want a dead chain in the future, this is not the fault of  abit, this is the fault of all community, the community didn't realise the problem and didn't have the ability to fix it in the past.

Yes, you still can support this fork of cn-vote, this is your freedom, you will know you fight for who in the future.
Make a decision is very easy, but to judge it's right or not is hard, brother.

When pc has this thought, i argue with him, but i realised i'm wrong from what i seen in the reality, when i have a margin position, i can't think about the things rationally and can't make a right decision, the margin position controlled me, this is the debtor and gambler.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2020, 07:50:04 am by binggo »