BitShares 5.0 (2020-09-28)

[Ammar Yousef (ioBanker)]

Remove voting power from liquid BTS and tickets #2262
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2262

New BSIP or BSIP24 discussion: stake lock-up mechanism, count only real "locked" stake as voting stake #83
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/83


Maybe someone explains Abit that BTS is not Steem and that BTS is core token of our ecosystem .

So somebody who is inactive and stacking BTS has in his eyes more value in governance than somebody who is activly using bitshares ecosystem and knows the ins and outs and creates income for bitshares.
The active member having completly no say as he is using BTS in the ecosystem which is the main purpose of BTS.

Maybe Abit can explain to us how somebody who stacks only participates in bitshares growth and i'm not talking about price.

Comments from that BSIP in github

TheTaconator DEV

My main concern with the proposition is for the stake in collateral. It seems unfair to those holders to limit their influence on voting especially due to the value that their collateral brings to the ecosystem.

startailcoon UI DEV

BTS locked in collateral could be counted as locked assets. Even if it could be liquidised its also a risky business while making good volume for the bitAsset as well. It could be considered a good thing that the asset is used, and thus should be counted.

Open orders aren't locked, since they are for sale, and shouldn't be counted.

xeroc DEV

Collateral: I would argue this should be voting because it is not quickly liquidated in case the BTS valuation goes down. Also, people have been asked to go short if they really want to support the system and we would take away their voting right now. Doesn't feel right.

If we were to require a powerup to enable governance features I see the following major issues:
This changes the previous deal which has potentially been used by investors to decide to buy in. Given that BTS is much more decentralized than STEEM (there is no 'steemit inc.') this might open up the possibility for class action suites against a) the proxies who approved that change, and b) the witnesses who applied the change.

Schiessl UI DEV

Just FYI: Removing liquid BTS from voting power will strip ref UI users of their voting since you can only stake BTS with CLI.

blckchained gateway DEV

dude you went against consensus and brought trojan in previous release, as a top witness I will not support any code from you

Litepresence DEV and honest asset

The world is full of good locksmiths: some of them are unethical thieves

R DEV and security tester

Degrades BTS Utility

I could continue with the statements of honest DEV's on bitshares.

You Ammar belong to a red socket dev caste who thinks like socialist leaders who have nothing and want to control everything claiming that folk can't handle wise decissions.
That's the exect same explanation of eastern communism why they had planned econemy.
Btw you red socket proofed already on iobanker that you totaly failed.I told you a year before that noone nuts enough is going to follow an unethical dev with poor trading fundamentals and law knowledge who proofs himself untrustworthy each time on telegram.
Did something changed after a year of your spamming and garbage claims ?I guess not ?How much debt has your token now after such a long time ?Like $2K in total which you call a great success?

I am what I am; you are what you are; people around knows; you radical racist; here is BitShares, the Blockchain of diversity; a worldwide organization; built and controlled by the intelligent race; and guess what? you are not one of us and cannot control us with your fiats; we will break your fiats down like a fly; expect us.

[blockchained]

insulting the only last active core developer on this blockchain

LoL this kind of developers as abit must be kicked out from the job as fast as possible

But I'm not surprised why you are supporting broke of the consensus and abit scam



When I look to your company I laughed hard:

https://www.e-krediidiinfo.ee/14386003-IOBANKER%20O%C3%9C

you have nice office in the middle of the forest, very "trustworthy"

Männimäe, Pudisoo küla Kuusalu vald Harju maakond 74626

did you google yourself where you registered? Take it easy I made some screenshots for you





with such "office" no surprise why you support fraud =)

I had a couple of companies in Estonia lived there for a while and when I saw the place of your company registration I laugh out loud, just FYI if it not Tallinn or Tartu 9 from 10 it is a scam, and then I google it and found your office in the middle of nowhere)))

[Thul3]

Remove voting power from liquid BTS and tickets #2262
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2262

New BSIP or BSIP24 discussion: stake lock-up mechanism, count only real "locked" stake as voting stake #83
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/83


Maybe someone explains Abit that BTS is not Steem and that BTS is core token of our ecosystem .

So somebody who is inactive and stacking BTS has in his eyes more value in governance than somebody who is activly using bitshares ecosystem and knows the ins and outs and creates income for bitshares.
The active member having completly no say as he is using BTS in the ecosystem which is the main purpose of BTS.

Maybe Abit can explain to us how somebody who stacks only participates in bitshares growth and i'm not talking about price.

Comments from that BSIP in github

TheTaconator DEV

My main concern with the proposition is for the stake in collateral. It seems unfair to those holders to limit their influence on voting especially due to the value that their collateral brings to the ecosystem.

startailcoon UI DEV

BTS locked in collateral could be counted as locked assets. Even if it could be liquidised its also a risky business while making good volume for the bitAsset as well. It could be considered a good thing that the asset is used, and thus should be counted.

Open orders aren't locked, since they are for sale, and shouldn't be counted.

xeroc DEV

Collateral: I would argue this should be voting because it is not quickly liquidated in case the BTS valuation goes down. Also, people have been asked to go short if they really want to support the system and we would take away their voting right now. Doesn't feel right.

If we were to require a powerup to enable governance features I see the following major issues:
This changes the previous deal which has potentially been used by investors to decide to buy in. Given that BTS is much more decentralized than STEEM (there is no 'steemit inc.') this might open up the possibility for class action suites against a) the proxies who approved that change, and b) the witnesses who applied the change.

Schiessl UI DEV

Just FYI: Removing liquid BTS from voting power will strip ref UI users of their voting since you can only stake BTS with CLI.

blckchained gateway DEV

dude you went against consensus and brought trojan in previous release, as a top witness I will not support any code from you

Litepresence DEV and honest asset

The world is full of good locksmiths: some of them are unethical thieves

R DEV and security tester

Degrades BTS Utility

I could continue with the statements of honest DEV's on bitshares.

You Ammar belong to a red socket dev caste who thinks like socialist leaders who have nothing and want to control everything claiming that folk can't handle wise decissions.
That's the exect same explanation of eastern communism why they had planned econemy.
Btw you red socket proofed already on iobanker that you totaly failed.I told you a year before that noone nuts enough is going to follow an unethical dev with poor trading fundamentals and law knowledge who proofs himself untrustworthy each time on telegram.
Did something changed after a year of your spamming and garbage claims ?I guess not ?How much debt has your token now after such a long time ?Like $2K in total which you call a great success?

[Ammar Yousef (ioBanker)]

Remove voting power from liquid BTS and tickets #2262
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2262

New BSIP or BSIP24 discussion: stake lock-up mechanism, count only real "locked" stake as voting stake #83
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/83


Maybe someone explains Abit that BTS is not Steem and that BTS is core token of our ecosystem .

So somebody who is inactive and stacking BTS has in his eyes more value in governance than somebody who is activly using bitshares ecosystem and knows the ins and outs and creates income for bitshares.
The active member having completly no say as he is using BTS in the ecosystem which is the main purpose of BTS.

Maybe Abit can explain to us how somebody who stacks only participates in bitshares growth and i'm not talking about price.

Voting is used for governance purposes; governance is used for stabilizing the blockchain, it's infrastructure and development; you are not an infrastructure expert nor a developer; you don't need to be here by the way; you are claiming your self as a market expert; I doubt that too, kindly stay in market making and show us what can you do for BitShares instead of insulting the only last active core developer on this blockchain.

For those who cannot read codes nor understand development should never get involved in voting, when it comes to the changes that is proposed here; this will raise the value of BTS because BTS will be locked and any leading role in development further would require sacrificing BTS in locks; if development is failing for these voters; the future value of their BTS when it's unlocked is enough punishment for them.

[Thul3]

Remove voting power from liquid BTS and tickets #2262
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2262

New BSIP or BSIP24 discussion: stake lock-up mechanism, count only real "locked" stake as voting stake #83
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/83


Maybe someone explains Abit that BTS is not Steem and that BTS is core token of our ecosystem .

So somebody who is inactive and stacking BTS has in his eyes more value in governance than somebody who is activly using bitshares ecosystem and knows the ins and outs and creates income for bitshares.
The active member having completly no say as he is using BTS in the ecosystem which is the main purpose of BTS.

Maybe Abit can explain to us how somebody who stacks only participates in bitshares growth and i'm not talking about price.

[abit]

AMM is a strong addition - can we see an overview of how it will work? (I.e. is it deployed on testnet or anything?)

Can we get an overview of each of the changes and why they are proposed? List copied below for clarity.

Release Notes: BitShares Core 5.0.0

Add extended history tracking for select accounts.
Extended operation history for accounts selected by ID or by registrar
Implement Automated Market Maker (AMM) aka Liquidity Pool
Implement liquidity pool
Remove voting power from liquid BTS and tickets
Remove liquid vp

Not only these. As of writing there are 59 closed issues and merged pull requests in the same milestone: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/milestone/31?closed=1 .

[Thul3]

Does i understood correctly that abit decided himself now to implement that all BTS even non collateral will lose all voting power and only stacked BTS will have voting power ?


I guess it can't be more stupid to punish active traders on bitshares.

Seems like abit joined hardcore socialism where he knows best what others want as they are to dumb to vote correctly like in good old east block.


Maybe we should rebrand bitshares to abitshares?

[Thul3]

The plan is to activate BitShares 5.0 on 2020-09-30.

Who's plan ?

Please point witnesses the BSIP's which have been voted in so they can follow protocol based on DPOS which bitshares is.

Also the last dicussions about these changes and what exectly will change and what it will enable like someone asked on github.

Where were discussions about changing voting power and where did they get approved so i can read about it myself ?

Who made the audit ?

The same person who put the last trojan into mainnet 4.0 ?Bitshares now a one men show where community doesn't need to participate anymore  ?

Another group already preparing to fork away should your madness and ignorance of their demand not stop where everyone else tried to not let a serious fork happen.

Can we get an overview of each of the changes and why they are proposed?

They are not proposed.Proposals can be refused or modified.They are enforced in full against any protocol or community participation where majority doesn't even understand the changes which will be implemented because of lack of any explanation or discussion.


Some points are not even 24h old on github with open questions by participants which are not answered.

This whole upgrade is a joke.

Sorry i won't support a one men show who went nuts not answering a single question on github or letting other peoples opinion be included.

[matle85]

AMM is a strong addition - can we see an overview of how it will work? (I.e. is it deployed on testnet or anything?)

Can we get an overview of each of the changes and why they are proposed? List copied below for clarity.

Release Notes: BitShares Core 5.0.0

Add extended history tracking for select accounts.
Extended operation history for accounts selected by ID or by registrar
Implement Automated Market Maker (AMM) aka Liquidity Pool
Implement liquidity pool
Remove voting power from liquid BTS and tickets
Remove liquid vp

 

[binggo]

Support!

Code is there.

[blockchained]

The plan is to activate BitShares 5.0 on 2020-09-30.

The key feature in BitShares 5.0 is Automated Market making (AMM) aka liquidity pooling & mining. Code is here: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2260

All changes: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/milestone/31

dude you went against consensus and brought trojan in previous release, as a top witness I will not support any code from you

[abit]

The plan is to activate BitShares 5.0 on 2020-09-30.

The key feature in BitShares 5.0 is Automated Market making (AMM) aka liquidity pooling & mining. Code is here: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/2260

All changes: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/milestone/31

Poll workers for the changes:

1.14.289 - "Poll---AMM Featured BTS 5.0 Update---Yes"
1.14.290 - "Poll---AMM Featured BTS 5.0 Update---NO"

Please vote.