…and there’s a solution (proposed by you), which at some point of time in the future can’t be adopted, because it won’t get approved…
As the voting required for trading requires a new client version, this is a slightly different matter here, though.
Frequency voting has nothing to do with client adoption. At least in this age of humankind. I can imagine a time when the software someone runs can be changed by other iterations of the software like a neural network, but i can forsee endless security issues. For now, let’s stick with trying to get humans to download the new update using UI tactics like warning messages.
Sure!
How should I have written that to make it clear?
I’m aware that voting on assets etc. requires a new client, hence a new protocol and that’s the reason why frequency voting could do no good here.
If the asset/signer voting could be decided by frequency voting and the old clients were capable of minting blocks, but unable to cast asset/signer votes, they’d effectively vote null on assets/signers (there’s more than just that, but these are quite important).
That would hamstring the network just as much as the not happening protocol update does it right now.
But at least now all clients are equally able to participate in the network.
As iriitating as it might be to see this update apathy, it’s the better choice.
If BKS holders can’t be motivated to update the client to exceed 90% minting BKS on protocol 4.0 (because they just don’t follow the development) measures like offering a second round of BKS for free to all BKS holders minting with protocol version 4.0 would be a nasty, but possible solution.
To grant those BKS for distribution only 50% of votes are required.
That’s an extreme step and I hope it can be avoided, but I have no better solution for increasing the 4.0 blocks over 90%.
Apathetic BKS holders would cry loudly if they’d get aware of what happened, after it happened.
It’d harm their investment.
Not upgrading the client harms the investment of those who take BCE serious.
…I dearly hope this measure can be avoided…
2 Likes
The current pinned tweet (the first one people see on our page):
These are the upgrade tweets from just the past two weeks:
1 Like
Lol, thank you for your efforts posting all those tweets here.
You unveiled me: I’m a Twitter n00b 
Regarding that nasty “BKS distribution” stuff and just to give you an impression about the numbers:
say exactly 50.01% have updated their client and would vote for a BKS grant as well to distribute those BKS to 4.0 minters to increase the ratio of updated clients (precisely: clients minting with 90% of minting BKS) to above 90%.
That’d mean the total amount of BKS would roughly be increased by factor 41.
Without taking psychological effects into account (and just trying to deal with numbers), that’d reduce the value per BKS by factor 4.
The BKS would be distributed to BKS addresses that signed protocol 4.0 blocks in an announced time frame which needs to be big enough to give small holders a chance to mint.
Whether that is perceived as ruthless action and harms the BKS rate even more than by factor 4 or is considered a measure that shows how much BKS holders want the exchange to succeed no one can foresee.
An announcement of this measure alone could wake up BKS holders.
Even if it were taken, it could be done in more than just one round.
There’s a lot that needs to be defined before.
Distributing the BKS would be a pain.
I don’t know whether that can be done from multisig addresses.
I suppose we discuss the details once it’s become clear that such a measure can’t be avoided.
I just wanted to explain why not all is lost 
1
for the sake of simplicity say 100 BKS exist.
50 are on protocol 2.0, 50 are on protocol 4.0.
To bring protocol 4.0 at 90%, you need 400 BKS and distribute them to those addresses that vote for 4.0.
A grant to create 400 BKS passes.
After the 400 BKS are distributed, 450 BKS are on 4.0, 50 BKS are on 2.0.
450/(50+450)=0.9=90%
Mission accomplished.
2 Likes
This is a robbery.
When I run getpeerinfo, I found 4 peers are 3.0 and others are 4.0. We need to inform them efficiently. And where is the MacOS version???
1 Like
I have 3 our of 8 peers on 3.x. [quote=“Sabreiib, post:171, topic:3723”]
And where is the MacOS version
[/quote]
I think this should be clarified soon and is not helping. Either we release a Mac OS client in next week or so or we should make a statement that we cannot longer provide official MacOS support and advise shareholders to migrate to Linux or Windows.
No it isn’t. Every BKS holder can participate in that by minting. Nobody is forced to refrain from minting 4.0 blocks.
Maybe some tweets and posts in Chinese about the upgrade in the Chinese section of the forum would help?
Do you mean those shareholders with v2.0/3.0 will be diluted heavily in this way?
Give apathetic voters incentives.
1 Like
Only if they choose to not upgrade to 4.0 after:
- it’s been decided that this is the way to go
- the time frame that counts has been announced
There’s so much they can do to prevent this from happening like:
- upgrade their client
- vote against those measures (no need to upgrade for doing that)
“They” ? The 55% BKS holders?
Who has the right to dilute other people’s wealth? In your opinion, the 45% BKS holders and dev team can deprive other BKS holders’ money, is it right?
I believe this is NAZI behavior.
You are aware that 45% are no majority and can neither pass a motion nor a grant?
Consensus is not a number. The things @masterOfDisaster is proposing are similar to a simple increase of mint reward. Could we fork to make the mint reward 1 BKS? What would it require other than a minting majority and the dev team? Nothing, because the minting majority is the voice of the network. However, the minting majority tends to have a very strong alignment with the good intentions of the network because of their stake. That’s why the mint reward is moderate and not hyper-inflated.
1 Like
Well…
bcexchanged getprotocolvotes
{
"2.0" : {
"blocks" : 1266,
"block_percentage" : 63.3,
"switch_to_date_time" : ""
},
"4.0" : {
"blocks" : 734,
"block_percentage" : 36.7,
"switch_to_date_time" : ""
}
}
bcexchanged getinfo | grep blocks
"blocks" : 410213,Maybe it’s time to test the waters for a grant that creates BKS for distribution to BKS holders who mint protocol 4.0 blocks.
…just to find out how dire the situation is.
This does baffle me though, I can imagine shareholders not minting but I don’t understand the ones actually actively minting but still on 2.0… If you have a setup where your minting around the clock one would assume you would check at least every 1 or 2 weeks to see if the protocols your running are still up to date right?
Some might have setup a rig so that they can start minting and forget.
So first you invest money into a “start-up”, then take the time, effort and cost to set up a 24/7 minting rig and after that not even bother to check if everything is running smoothly every now and then? I have a hard time understanding that line of thought.
1 Like