[Poll] Plan C: release new version with the unplanned features processed

[binggo]

abit was paid to audit it, if you don't see the problem that he put inappropriate code that fully changes consensus, I can't help you. For me personally abit and a core manager are criminals and must be blacklisted from the core forever.

When i hire a team to develop something, i still will hire a supervisor to check and oversee all the thing to make sure everything is right，not the PM to check and oversee all the thing, this is the basic engineering directive.

And i don't think these "changes consensus" is wrong, we didn't have the consensus long time ago, when we used the leveraged collateral to vote,  When we locked feed prices for such a long time, when we can spent the money from the committee-account without the permission of vote, the consensus already gone, just many of us didn't realize it on that time, we all become the trojan already from that moment.

There already didn't have the core fro bts from 2019.

I follow the things which were helpful than harmful, which can benifit the community, i don't follow any person or group.

it will happen in both ways if it  abit/beos control or cn vote control, just one way without trojan and another one with it.

Yes, it will happen, but i chose the "trojan" not chose the cn-vote, as long time ago i'm a trojan already, and i knew who is more worse.

There have chance and hope in this "trojan", and i can't see any chance and hope in the cn-vote chain, the problem of DPOS is more serious than what we see, not only the vote system but also the system of witness, anyone wants to make a reasonable changes, i will support it, even i'm insignificant. DPOS didn't exist the "consensus"，only “delegated”.

[Thul3]

I can't help you. For me personally abit and a core manager are criminals and must be blacklisted from the core forever.
I'm tired that the same group over and over again opens different pandora boxes.

Like predicted it won't stop at one trojan


DL to Abit
I get it. But then there is not much to be discussed. 2a and 2b are safest option but require significant work as to my understanding. @abitmore ? Can we do 2a for a quick fix and just remove any votes from witnesses (make voting irrelevant over fixed list) until 2b is implemented ?

Abit confirms to focus on that


Forcing at all cost his point of view not accepting a no.

I know for a fact that some people are now focusing on DL to hold him responsible for his actions and statements.
Witnesses can be also hold responsible.
Please remember DL is very well aware that witnesses are liable for their actions and told before that is the problem of witnesses.He doesn't care if you will get legal issues.
Please inform yourself first about your liability before adding KNOWINGLY a second malcious code.

[blockchained]

trojan is trojan

the code is public, everyone can check it, and why nobody check it?

abit was paid to audit it, if you don't see the problem that he put inappropriate code that fully changes consensus, I can't help you. For me personally abit and a core manager are criminals and must be blacklisted from the core forever.
I'm tired that the same group over and over again opens different pandora boxes.

the cn-vote patch chain will be controlled totally by the CN-VOTE and the debtor. The vote system, the wittness system and the committees will be filled with vote buying and vote each other.

it will happen in both ways if it  abit/beos control or cn vote control, just one way without trojan and another one with it.
Rule number one never trust a dev that put trojan in the release
I don't know how a community will split, I don't believe in this to be honest, I think we will see the same faces fighting for the power even cnvote wins, but I lost the last credibility that I have to abit, he just a fraudster in my eyes. And I will not support anything from him, one trojan already enough

[binggo]

trojan is trojan

I don't think it is a trojan, the code is public, everyone can check it, and why nobody check it?
There have people said that a long time ago in HIVE, just nobody care about it and nobody care about the code, or the most of people have agreed with it.

Yes, these changes are hard passed by such a community which was controlled by the debtor, never have a chain like BTS was governed by by the debtor.

You think what abit did is a Trojan, but this is the fault of all the community not abit. CN-VOTE make a patch and you agreed with it, so that is not a trojan? this patch didn't change anything with abit code, just change some codes and let these changes can only benifit the CN-VOTE and the debtor.

I will leave some words in here, in the future, the cn-vote patch chain will be controlled totally by the CN-VOTE and the debtor. The vote system, the wittness system and the committees will be filled with vote buying and vote each other, let's wait the day coming, hope everyone will be satisfied with the result in the future.

[blockchained]

he has put trojan in the code, he was paid to audit this code, and he abandoned his duties, easy as that

now you're asking is it ok that abit raped the community trust? it is not ok

why he is not kicked out, and we're discussing this fraud at all

things are not so simple as you think.

before BTS4.0, actually cn-vote was able to control the committee if they like.

so is it possible to implement a DPOS1 to eliminate this kind of risk through the BSIP draft -> voting ->core development process? I don't think so, one reference is BSIP22, although now almost everyone says he agree vote decay, BSIP22 has not yet been approved after about 2 years.

I don't think what abit did is acceptable, but he was definitely not doing evil.

and I don't think to just remove the unplanned features is  a good enough solution to this problem.

maybe a better solution is to plan another protocol improvement with a new version.

1.include the vote decay and DPOS1 features(maybe DPOS1 can also be applied to witness voting)
2.remove, disable or update the Staking Voting Power and the Additional Voting Rules, dependent on some more deep discussion.

things will be done following the BSIP draft->voting and approvment->development and release->code audit and test->protocol improvement process.

trojan is trojan
you knew that these changes will not pass through the community not only cnvote against these changes and core put trojan in the code, and abit was paid quite good from reserve pool for audit. Trojan in release all I need to know, I don't give 1 fuck about intentions or excuses.

[bitcrab]

You talk about CN-Vote controll committee.The funny thing is what i saw is that Abit controlled committee and everyone else complaining including cn-vote that he executes only his own and your personal views and doesn't consider the opinions of any other committee member.He only stopps when being forced when not getting enough votes to pass transfers for exmample.

what binggo said is right, you do not understand the things among cn-vote, abit and committee.

and clearly, if you dislike one, he will be the worst people in the world in your words.

enjoy.

[Thul3]

he has put trojan in the code, he was paid to audit this code, and he abandoned his duties, easy as that

now you're asking is it ok that abit raped the community trust? it is not ok

why he is not kicked out, and we're discussing this fraud at all

things are not so simple as you think.

before BTS4.0, actually cn-vote was able to control the committee if they like.

so is it possible to implement a DPOS1 to eliminate this kind of risk through the BSIP draft -> voting ->core development process? I don't think so, one reference is BSIP22, although now almost everyone says he agree vote decay, BSIP22 has not yet been approved after about 2 years.

I don't think what abit did is acceptable, but he was definitely not doing evil.

and I don't think to just remove the unplanned features is  a good enough solution to this problem.

maybe a better solution is to plan another protocol improvement with a new version.

1.include the vote decay and DPOS1 features(maybe DPOS1 can also be applied to witness voting)
2.remove, disable or update the Staking Voting Power and the Additional Voting Rules, dependent on some more deep discussion.

things will be done following the BSIP draft->voting and approvment->development and release->code audit and test->protocol improvement process.

They are simple.

Abit broke any possible rule in the past 12 months.

He has "currently" control over github so who is going to trust him he won't put another time another trojan horse far worse because it fits his personal view.
He clearly said multiple times he has no issues with cheats if it fits his view even way before putting the trojan horse.

You talk about CN-Vote controll committee.The funny thing is what i saw is that Abit controlled committee and everyone else complaining including cn-vote that he executes only his own and your personal views and doesn't consider the opinions of any other committee member.He only stopps when being forced when not getting enough votes to pass transfers for exmample.

but he was definitely not doing evil.

Is there something worse than core putting in a trojan horse ?
I don't blame only Abit but its also community fault to let every abuse pass he did by only verbal complaints.
Everyone complaining about Abit but noone showing a clear STOP signal with the excuse we can't do anything against it but at the same time yelling corruption,scams and supporting acts like this one in hope the abuse will stop.


Abit is with full intention destroying bitsharesdex telegram channel by banning admins adding his personal bot to have full control over that chat even noone grant him this power.
He clearly redirects traffic to bitsharesdac channel which is controlled by him/digital lucifer and beos where they are
recruiting people for BEOS and spreading tons of FUD like CN-Vote forking out of bitshares creating a new coin and leaving.
Openly demanding that CN Vote should fuck off forever from bitshares via fork and the tons of other lies.
Everyone else who says the truth gets banned there.
A channel for conditioning people.

Abit is being asked daily to remove his bot from every member on bitsharesdex and to unban all the people he banned.
Till today no reaction.

So don't tell me Abit is not evil.So much bad things he did he would be banned long time ago on any other serious project

Abit lost support from CN-Vote, from foreigners a longer time ago for his never ending abuse and being called there a scammer and only BEOS/DL left for him.

 
Today you got now also the tons of question from people which name the new coin will have thanks to the conditioning on bitsharesdac

We got now also an insane digital lucifer acting like the chief of bitshares and being commander to decide about everything and give the only offical statements in the name of bitshares to media which are totaly contaire with the opinion of the community.

[bitcrab]

he has put trojan in the code, he was paid to audit this code, and he abandoned his duties, easy as that

now you're asking is it ok that abit raped the community trust? it is not ok

why he is not kicked out, and we're discussing this fraud at all

things are not so simple as you think.

before BTS4.0, actually cn-vote was able to control the committee if they like.

so is it possible to implement a DPOS1 to eliminate this kind of risk through the BSIP draft -> voting ->core development process? I don't think so, one reference is BSIP22, although now almost everyone says he agree vote decay, BSIP22 has not yet been approved after about 2 years.

I don't think what abit did is acceptable, but he was definitely not doing evil.

and I don't think to just remove the unplanned features is  a good enough solution to this problem.

maybe a better solution is to plan another protocol improvement with a new version.

1.include the vote decay and DPOS1 features(maybe DPOS1 can also be applied to witness voting)
2.remove, disable or update the Staking Voting Power and the Additional Voting Rules, dependent on some more deep discussion.

things will be done following the BSIP draft->voting and approvment->development and release->code audit and test->protocol improvement process.
 

[blockchained]

he has put trojan in the code, he was paid to audit this code, and he abandoned his duties, easy as that

now you're asking is it ok that abit raped the community trust? it is not ok

why he is not kicked out, and we're discussing this fraud at all

[EuropaSH]

Abit provided a description of the innovations https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32566.0
Is it bad?
Many dpos blockchains work on this principle.

Where is the description of the updates of the new patch?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32560.0

[Thul3]

vote decay          YES
collateral            Not really
DPOS1               YES
Stacking            Never in this form

Way of implementation    Never

[binggo]

Why not?

[bitcrab]

I believe fork is not the best solution for the current opinion conflict, although the expectation to fork lead BTS price to go up in short period, in long term view the fork will make the community break up and hurt the BTS brand. so I created below poll worker proposals to collect opinions from the community. I hope it can be the new start point for the community to look for consensus. please vote for each of the 4 unplanned changes to the voting system according to your opinion. I do not defined any subsequent actions that follow the poll result, however I believe the result will be important reference for any players in this game.

please check https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32546.0 for detail of the 4 unplanned changed features:

1.14.274   Poll-Unplanned Change-Support Vote Decay
1.14.275   Poll-Unplanned Change-Do Not Support Vote Decay


1.14.276   Poll-Unplanned Change-Support DPoS1
1.14.277   Poll-Unplanned Change-Do Not Support DPoS1

   
1.14.278   Poll-Unplanned Change-Support Staking Voting Power
1.14.279   Poll-Unplanned Change-Do Not Support Staking Voting Power


1.14.280   Poll-Unplanned Change-Support the Additional Voting Rules
1.14.281   Poll-Unplanned Change-No Support the Additional Voting Rules

Here the "Additional Voting Rules" stand for this:
4.voting rules after the permanent locked up appears
when the first "permanent locked up" position appear on the chain, below rules will be alive:
4.1 the voting power of the account with no "permanent locked up" position will be 0
4.2 BTS in collateral or ordering status will have no voting power

Now we have Plan A and Plan B:
Plan A: fork smoothly.
Plan B: fork with exception handling, which is discussed here: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2239

I'd like to suggest a Plan C: release a 4.* version with removed/kept/updated the features which abit had added, based on the voting result and additional discussion and voting.   and surely follow the BSIP approval->development and release->code audit and test->protocol improvement process.

In my view, either the fork happen or not, the current chain always need such a Plan C.

I hope all stake holders can positively vote to tell your opinion.