I don’t concur.
I perceive it as a duty of shareholders to stay informed and gather information.
It’s not the duty of BCE to educate them.
Remember:
we don’t even talk about low minting participation caused by people who buy and hold BKS and treat it as passive investment.
We talk about BKS holders who mint, but don’t follow the request to update (because of apathy or evil intentions)!
This pretty much expresses my point of view:
I can agree with that point of view. The burden should be on shareholders and not the organization itself. But at the very least OS X needs to be released so that they can upgrade before something like this were to happen.
You don’t want to suppose that a holder of a massive amount of BKS (I’m not speaking of single digit numbers BKS here) can’t afford a single RaspberryPi to run 4.0.1?
That’s an investment of $50.
…which is only necessary if compiling the daemon on OSX is as complicated as compiling the GUI client, no other suitable computer is available and Parallels isn’t installed (do you really know OSX users who don’t have Parallels installed?)
So no, not having a client for OSX is no obstacle for this proposal to move power from those who don’t care to those who care (even evil minters care in some way, although their interests are somewhat different from those of “regular” BKS holders).
For many the cost is learning all the geek skills. If a plug and play B&Cbox is available it would be different. But many don’t have uninterrupted internet access.
Having a bce-box created after nu-box (the grant for the development needs to gain some more traction), which gets automatically updated during system maintenance (sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade or alike) would be very nice.
We aren’t there yet.
But installing Raspbian on a RaspberryPi and compiling bcexchanged following this guide: http://docs.nubits.com/nu-raspberry-minting/ is no rocket science nor does it require (advanced) geek skills.
Those who don’t have uninterrupted internet acces can’t mint protocol 2.0 blocks without interruption - they are the lesser evil 
Looking at the slump in 4.0 blocks that happened after a temporary increase:
I think it’s necessary to further this discussion.
Not minting at all with a version 4 client or minting with a non-version 4 client in the current situation is irresponsible.
It endangers the operation of BCE before it even started being an operational exchange.
It hamstrings the decision making now and in the future, if those BKS holders don’t wake up - or get relieved from a part of the burden they bear.
If BKS holders shy away from waking both the non-minting or “version 3 minting” BKS holders, they will need to compensate the trouble originating from that for good.
I bet a round of BKS from a grant, which get distributed to BKS addresses that mint 4.0 blocks can do wonders.
I’m not even saying we should start to go all the way to distribute BKS to minters to increase their relative power to 90%, but I say we should make the first steps.
Such a grant requires only a simple majority, which could be reached.
One thing that I’ve learned the very hard way is:
You need to provide people with incentives, if you want them to do what’s good, if doing the right thing isn’t enough!
The incentive to upgrade the client to version 4 and mint with it to make BCE operational seems to be insufficient. Making BCE operational isn’t enough.
We need to increase the incentive for them to do the right thing, which is to mint with version 4 clients.
That’s both true for those who don’t mint at the moment and for those who mint with client version 3.
B&C v4.0 was released exactly 6 weeks ago today. That’s a whole month and a half. We cannot operate a business with people who are this disconnected. While I understand there is the opinion that shareholders shouldn’t be required to be constantly involved with daily operations and that default data feeds will help the business run as it should, as @masterOfDisaster mentioned in the other thread, “Not upgrading a client version can’t be fixed with automatically registered data feeds!”
We should not have to stoop to their level and lower to 55%. Just think what would happen if a severe bug was discovered in the protocol while we were managing people’s funds and it took our lazy shareholders over a month and a half to realize they needed to upgrade. Our reputation would be severely damaged. I agree with MoD and I say it’s better to cut these people out of the organization now so they don’t have a chance to bring us down in the future. Some of the benefits of such an action are listed below…
It’s entirely possible that moving forward with this and starting voting will wake up these shareholders. If not then they have no one to blame but themselves. I will support such a motion or grant if it is drafted up. What do data feed providers think? @Cybnate, @cryptog, @Nagalim, @crypto_coiner?
I don’t want to cut anybody out.
I don’t like pushing this proposal.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to discuss a measure, which is nothing else, but partially dispossessing people.
Alas, I don’t see viable alternatives.
@Sentinelrv hit the nail on the head:
Not only the reputation would be damaged. BCE could tumble and fall because of such apathy.
At the moment BCE is in the convenient situation that nothing else but the start of the business is at stake (which in my opinion is just enough to think about wake-up calls).
Gladly it’s not customers’ funds that are at risk.
The decentralized and distributed nature of BCE can’t prevent users from having funds stuck at BCE multisignature addresses if a sever bug hinders them from withdrawing them,
…registering a data feed is not enough…
I won’t support this yet. I’m not convinced that the distribution method is sufficiently elegant. I worry about the marketing angles. I also don’t think 1.5 months is too long, it took me a while to upgrade to v4.0. Some people will wait a good bit of time to make sure the upgrade is stable before switching to it.
What’s the alternative?
Sit and wait?
Let other decentralized exchanges start with their business?
Struggle with apathetic BKS holders each time a decision needs support?
I bet you are aware that BCE isn’t operational just because the protocol switch (that still takes 2 weeks after 90% are on version 4) was initiated…
Neither do I, but I fear the possible failure of BCE a lot more than angering shareholders who could get partially dispossessed.
Even if this proposal would find support.
Even if a BKS grant to distribute BKS to 4.0 minters would pass.
Even if the distribution would be planned (by extracting BKS addresses from 4.0 blocks in a given window).
Even if all that would happen…
…all a shareholder who doesn’t want to fall victim to the dispossession has to do is: mint with a version 4 client!
I can’t believe that’s too much, but if it is, well…
I’m not saying we nees an alternative. I am saying I’m scared of one-time dilutions that cause abrupt discontinuities in share valuation.
I understand BlockShare prices would be impacted negatively by a dilution like this, but how many people are really paying attention at this point to notice a devaluation? We have only one exchange with low volume and every time I look at Coinmarketcap I don’t see BlockShares in the list. It’s almost as if we don’t exist yet. If we were Ethereum and in the top 2 with all eyes on us, then everyone would see the devaluation happen. If we had to do it, then this would probably be the best time to reduce the impact. That’s only my opinion though.
I think I’ll be ready to support this motion after hearing what Jordan and the data feed providers have to say.
I don’t plan on creating only a motion.
I hope that what I have in mind is possible with a multisig BKS address:
Ok, now you’re not talking a one time dilution anymore. So do we give enough time between dilution events for people to notice and upgrade to catch the next dilution? Are we bribing people to become active, or are we rewarding those that already were?
Would it be better to penalize those who actually mint with <4.0 and never switched to 4.0 within a given time frame, rather than those that don’t mine with 4.0? I worry about those who only have a small amount of BKS (like up to ~20 BKS), who by chance might not get a block in a long period of time. It’ll benefit non-minters, but the purpose is to get the message across.
I’ll support an other 1-month time frame for waiting, after warnings are publicized at certain selected venues. We might also need a clause that this plan is void if we can update to 4.0 on time, which will likely be better for PR.
I was hoping to wake up people with the sheer discussion.
That didn’t work.
Now it’s time for the next step(s).
Exactly.
A one-time dilution was never my intention, although it would have been the more frightening one (I was rather trying to sound things out).
A bit of both.
As running this business is not enough incentive, we need to provide the apathetic guys with additional incentives to act responsibly.
Sure, only I don’t know how.
Distributing BKS to addresses that mint 4.0 blocks is the only publicly verifiable and relatively easy (for those who can parse blockchains…) operable approach I can think of.
The motion and the grant alone will take some time and create some efforts.
The nagging thing is, that if all pans out, all this effort is wasted, wasted by those who care to compensate the bad effect of those who don’t.