|
Newmine (OP)
|
 |
January 03, 2015, 06:36:55 PM
Last edit: July 08, 2015, 05:23:33 PM by Newmine |
|
As if the millions of dollars in "donations" and 100's of millions in BTS they own weren't enough, the BitShares Dev's are proposing a hard code in the client that will automatically vote/approve all the Devs for Delegate positions who receive 50 BTS per produced block 85 times a day.
It seems these guys are all about sucking money out of the system instead of trying to grow what they already have.
How many full time Devs does this thing need?
|
|
|
|
|
Denker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1016
|
|
January 03, 2015, 06:42:35 PM |
|
As if the millions of dollars in "donations" and 100's of millions in BTS they own weren't enough, the BitShares Dev's are proposing a hard code in the client that will automatically vote/approve all the Devs for Delegate positions who receive 50 BTS per produced block 85 times a day.
It seems these guys are all about sucking money out of the system instead of trying to grow what they already have.
How many full time Devs does this thing need?
No words for this.Greedy as hell. Do you have a link? |
|
|
|
|
|
Newmine (OP)
|
|
January 03, 2015, 06:45:29 PM |
|
As if the millions of dollars in "donations" and 100's of millions in BTS they own weren't enough, the BitShares Dev's are proposing a hard code in the client that will automatically vote/approve all the Devs for Delegate positions who receive 50 BTS per produced block 85 times a day.
It seems these guys are all about sucking money out of the system instead of trying to grow what they already have.
How many full time Devs does this thing need?
No words for this.Greedy as hell. Do you have a link? |
|
|
|
|
|
EvilDave
|
|
January 03, 2015, 07:42:15 PM |
|
TL:DR version: the BTS core devs have proposed to hardcode themselves into the BTS client for delegate voting purposes.
Most of the replies on the BTS thread itself are 'do not want', so the BTS community seems to be against it.
If the devs do push this through, it'll be another red flag for BTS status as 'probably not a scam', IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
davidpbrown
|
 |
January 03, 2015, 08:14:13 PM |
|
Newmine should know by now that saying shit doesn't make it true!
The devs are NOT proposing a hard code. It's not the best idea but it's put out there to stimulate discussion.
Feedback helps people resolve what is true and in their interests.
Newmine would like you to just believe his bullshit.. just ignore and appreciate that BitShares is trying to find the best ways forward, rather than having a dictatorship.
|
฿://12vxXHdmurFP3tpPk7bt6YrM3XPiftA82s
|
|
|
|
matt608
|
|
January 03, 2015, 08:14:37 PM |
|
This thread is ridiculous. Under the proposed default dev pay positions voters can vote them out with a click. Hardly greedy to put your salary in the hands of the users of your product.
The proposed change just allows the devs to stay focused on dev work instead of having to campaign to be elected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
delulo
|
|
January 03, 2015, 08:21:15 PM |
|
It was just a discussion proposal! And one that was just intended as temporary anyway until the client is out of alpha stage and voting is more convenient.
Newmine is posting nonconstructive stuff all day on the bitshares forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newmine (OP)
|
|
January 03, 2015, 08:31:10 PM |
|
It was just a discussion proposal! And one that was just intended as temporary anyway until the client is out of alpha stage and voting is more convenient.
Newmine is posting nonconstructive stuff all day on the bitshares forum.
Pretty sure I stated in the OP that it's a proposal. Trying reading it through. And yes, my .78 posts per day for over year constitutes as "nonconstructive stuff all day". I merely point out the things you can't see as you are drowning in the Bitshares grape Koolaid. |
|
|
|
|
|
davidpbrown
|
|
January 03, 2015, 08:43:35 PM |
|
Pretty sure I stated in the OP that it's a proposal. Trying reading it through.
And yes, my .78 posts per day for over year constitutes as "nonconstructive stuff all day".
I merely point out the things you can't see as you are drowning in the Bitshares grape Koolaid.
How stupid are you? What you suggested is obvious enough: .. the BitShares Dev's are proposing a hard code in the client that will
Blatantly misleading.. what Koolaid are you drinking!?.. you might want to look more closely. |
฿://12vxXHdmurFP3tpPk7bt6YrM3XPiftA82s
|
|
|
|
Indemnified
|
|
January 03, 2015, 08:44:27 PM |
|
As if the millions of dollars in "donations" and 100's of millions in BTS they own weren't enough, the BitShares Dev's are proposing a hard code in the client that will automatically vote/approve all the Devs for Delegate positions who receive 50 BTS per produced block 85 times a day.
It seems these guys are all about sucking money out of the system instead of trying to grow what they already have.
How many full time Devs does this thing need?
No words for this.Greedy as hell. Do you have a link? Here's the text:
Many of the core developers are critical to the success of BTS and they are implicitly trusted by everyone who downloads the wallet.
For this reason I would like to suggest that the next release of the BTS wallet set the "default" approval for the following core developers:
Me, Toast, Nathan, Vikram, Valentine, James, Ben, Dan N., Eric F.
Each of these guys is implicitly trusted and contributing directly to the github source. This would really help the core team to get and keep the votes necessary without having to worry much about their salary. Users could always "unvote" them.
Thoughts? ******************************************************************** This is very obviously just a proposal for the community to discuss the pros and cons. OP is spreading FUD for whatever his reasons are. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tradingriver
|
|
January 03, 2015, 08:55:27 PM |
|
Talking about Bitshares is always good  The proposal is just a proposal to discuss, but it seems to some people it is not possible to discuss ideas in public? And i am against it! |
|
|
|
|
Este Nuno
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
|
|
January 03, 2015, 09:00:13 PM |
|
I know it's not really supposed to be fully decentralised and all but this is pretty ridiculous. I was warming up a lot to BTS recently but seeing this is kind of weird. This is the type of thing that people will always post a link to whenever someone brings up or recommends BTS.
|
|
|
|
|
sumantso
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 03, 2015, 09:09:09 PM |
|
I know it's not really supposed to be fully decentralised and all but this is pretty ridiculous. I was warming up a lot to BTS recently but seeing this is kind of weird. This is the type of thing that people will always post a link to whenever someone brings up or recommends BTS.
Its yet another shining example how bad they are at PR. Dan is an honest and visionary bloke, but he and his team are less than useless in figuring out how things may go down badly in public. They seem to lurch from one fully avoidable PR disaster to another. Regarding this proposal itself, it was sounded out to the community to get feedback, its nothing to do with greed. The last thing any shareholder now would want is that voter apathy, and inability to vote easily may end up accidentally firing one of the core team. There some better suggestions already proposed in the thread, and I like the recommended slate one. |
|
|
|
sumantso
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 03, 2015, 09:13:05 PM |
|
This is very obviously just a proposal for the community to discuss the pros and cons. OP is spreading FUD for whatever his reasons are.
Pretty transparent to me what his reasons might be. I don't have to spell it out, anybody who has spent a decent amount of time here can see through it. TL:DR version: the BTS core devs have proposed to hardcode themselves into the BTS client for delegate voting purposes.
Most of the replies on the BTS thread itself are 'do not want', so the BTS community seems to be against it.
If the devs do push this through, it'll be another red flag for BTS status as 'probably not a scam', IMHO.
Oh look, its that NXT developer again trying to undermine again in the guise of 'IMHO'. |
|
|
|
|
Newmine (OP)
|
|
January 03, 2015, 09:17:15 PM |
|
I know it's not really supposed to be fully decentralised and all but this is pretty ridiculous. I was warming up a lot to BTS recently but seeing this is kind of weird. This is the type of thing that people will always post a link to whenever someone brings up or recommends BTS.
I have been there since the beginning and these little tweaks are constantly happening. As I have always stated, the core idea and original BitShares X is awesome. But, They diluted the shares adding 500 million more BTS so Bytemaster wouldn't leave to create a competing BitShares. Well uh, he's the guy that started BitShares. Why would he even think about leaving his project after collecting millions of dollars in BTC, PTS and subsequently BTS by way of PTS? Because he wanted more money. The shares he received from the Donations weren't enough. Now that dilution happened because no one wanted Bytemaster to jump ship, they decided to further dilute by way of inflation and giving special delegates, the Devs, 50 BTS per block which is around 4277 per day, equal to 130K per month, equal to 1.56 million BTS per year per delegate all because the Devs wanted more money. |
|
|
|
|
|
davidpbrown
|
|
January 03, 2015, 09:32:22 PM |
|
@Newmine
Given that you spend so much time faffing around on BitShares forum, it's a wonder that you can talk so confused. More likely you are just being deliberately disingenuous.. a lite NXT troll perhaps but you are in your own way doing BitShares a favour because for all your trying, anyone worthwhile will see straight through it and recognise that BitShares is stronger than NXT; PPC and other weaker offerings.
You should retitle the thread as Newmine's greed.
|
฿://12vxXHdmurFP3tpPk7bt6YrM3XPiftA82s
|
|
|
|
delulo
|
|
January 03, 2015, 09:47:07 PM |
|
I know it's not really supposed to be fully decentralised and all but this is pretty ridiculous. I was warming up a lot to BTS recently but seeing this is kind of weird. This is the type of thing that people will always post a link to whenever someone brings up or recommends BTS.
I have been there since the beginning and these little tweaks are constantly happening. As I have always stated, the core idea and original BitShares X is awesome. But, They diluted the shares adding 500 million more BTS so Bytemaster wouldn't leave to create a competing BitShares. Well uh, he's the guy that started BitShares. Why would he even think about leaving his project after collecting millions of dollars in BTC, PTS and subsequently BTS by way of PTS? Because he wanted more money. The shares he received from the Donations weren't enough. Now that dilution happened because no one wanted Bytemaster to jump ship, they decided to further dilute by way of inflation and giving special delegates, the Devs, 50 BTS per block which is around 4277 per day, equal to 130K per month, equal to 1.56 million BTS per year per delegate all because the Devs wanted more money. The statement about Bytemaster being greedy is complete bullshit. He didn't reserve himself any rights he did not reserve others. He get the same compensation as the other Devs. Developers have to be compensated somehow and paying them by newly issued shares (only max 6% per year; at the moment it is less then 1% dilution per year to pay for development!!). Please present facts in perspective. The problem I have with how you present things is that it is entirely one sided, sometimes misleading (like in this thread) and I not once heard you say how to resolve trade off issues. The development funding challenge for example: You complain about dilution to fund development all day (keep in mind it is ~ 1% dilution atm only) but never make a proposal how you would approach the problem. Would you suggest that all 10 highly qualified developers should work for free? On the merger you mentioned (500m new BTS): You should look more closely and present things as they are: There where two types of AGS donations: (1) AGS donations before Feb 28th (2) AGS donations after Feb. 28th (BTS Snapshot). Group (1) donators got BTS. Group (2) should have gotten all other DACs (a Domain name DAC for example) Bytemaster was planning. Bytemaster realized that those different DACs might end up competing with each other and divide his loyalty. Therefore there was a merger of group (1) and group (2) AGSers so that AGS, PTS, the VOTE DAC and the DNS DAC got the new BTS (20% dilution). In return DNS and VOTE were integrated into BTS and Bytemaster is only working on one project now as opposed to many as planned initially. That all made BTS more valuable but was not communicated well. You are a funny guy but you seem hate driven. |
|
|
|
|
|
davidpbrown
|
|
January 03, 2015, 09:54:22 PM |
|
funny strange.
|
฿://12vxXHdmurFP3tpPk7bt6YrM3XPiftA82s
|
|
|
|
Gentso1
|
|
January 03, 2015, 11:10:06 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StanLarimer
|
|
January 03, 2015, 11:20:39 PM |
|
I think the best antidote for people spreading false information is to post a little useful information and at least give fair minded newcomers a fighting chance at hearing the truth. I recommend Max Wright's deeply educational video interviews with Bytemaster for this purpose: you get to look into Dan's eyes and see the integrity and passion there. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjgfpSQFJTLqbgHm8mkgPdD-ma7t0bRhK... or, if you like stimulating your thinking, visit Bytemaster's blog at bytemaster.bitshares.org. Scammers seldom take the time (or have the ability) to publish that much thoughtful content. Then decide who you think is more credible - the OP or Bytemaster himself? |
|
|
|
|
|
