Exactly what I’ve been saying. I can understand though if they want to hold off on this until this new version is ready.
1 Like
In addition, keeping a pc 24/7 running is not for everyone. Hence the need for BCbox considering what what peerbox has managed to make the pos diff to rise lately.
1 Like
the world is not just english
There is no full video describing the event…
sample:
(B & C Exchange 4.0 kurduğum halde tam olarak mantığını çözemedim. bu borsayı nasıl kulanırız? Bunu öğrenemedim. vido yok. işte bundan dolayı B & C destekleyen yeni insanlar bulunamıyor.)
3 Likes
To quote Jordan:
To which I would respond with:
Slow the fuck down. No serious exchange unilaterally changes the whole system on 30 days notice. I’m not talking about bitcoin exchanges, which I don’t (yet) consider completely serious. I’m talking about exchanges like chicago board of trade, the new york stock exchange, and the dalian exchange.
Okay, maybe the dalian exchange gets capital controls instituted on short notice, but then again I don’t trade there.
These are your competitors. If it’s been 60 days and still been no substantial growth in the protocol adoption, then maybe its time to consider some of these proposals. If it gets to 90 days then start talking about more drastic things like buying back all ‘old’ legacy shares and exchanging them for an entirely new blockchain that starts out at protocol version 5.
Relax a little. Contact all the original crowdsale buyers. If you can’t contact them because all you have is an email and a bitcoin address, then maybe you might want to consider that running a business with shareholders without having multiple contact methods for your shareholders might be a bad idea.
I’d appreciate this if someone could repost this to the nubits.com form, or let me know if there’s a reddit forum. While I do have a business critical need to be able to market commodities using distributed blockchain based exchanges, I don’t have the time and the patience to track every single forum.
Or just estimate how much the price would have to go up to acquire enough shares to vote for the upgrade. It might be a good investment. But if you are going to throw out the contract you layed out for 90% consensus for upgrading, then slow down a little, and make sure you know what both the legal and ethical implications of such a change will be.
This should be no push and rather a pull scheme.
Nobody has the duty to inform BKS holders.
They have the duty to stay informed!
BKS is no investment that can be used for minting without following development.
If BKS holders didn’t update within that time frame and didn’t voice concerns for making the next step now (enable e.g. asset & signer voting), then I don’t know how it shall work in the future.
Partially dispossessing apathetic BKS holders (who still mint with old clients) to limit the damage for the non-apathetic BKS holders might be necessary for the future success of BCE.
BKS holders who care need to be protected as well!
If the votes for protocol 4.0 don’t increase soon, someone might draft a motion (followed by grants) or a grant (with an appropriate frame work) to sort this out.
This is the current situation:
getinfo
"blocks" : 409188,
...
getprotocolvotes
{
"2.0" : {
"blocks" : 1109,
"block_percentage" : 55.45,
"switch_to_date_time" : ""
},
"4.0" : {
"blocks" : 891,
"block_percentage" : 44.55,
"switch_to_date_time" : ""
}
}
2 Likes
Some of these changes such as the upgrade alerts and default data feeds have been talked about by Jordan before, so they’re not exactly new ideas. This is the first time I’ve heard him reprioritizing them though.
While I hope it doesn’t come to this, if it did, it would surely wake shareholders up and let people know:
- That we’re serious about getting this exchange up and running correctly.
- That there will be serious consequences for shareholders who don’t pay attention, mint, vote or upgrade on time.
It would make people think twice about becoming a shareholder if they’re not completely serious. It needs to be made known that becoming a shareholder is not like owning other simple cryptocoins. It brings with it serious responsibilities.
The fate of the entire organization and its future revenue potential depends on the active participation of shareholders and their daily decisions and voting habits. We can’t allow non-serious shareholders to bring down our organization before it’s even begun.
Actually, I think an argument can be made that it is in the best interest of the business and its future to weed these people out now rather than later. I’m not advocating for it yet, but I think it is a legit argument. We need to do everything in our power to protect B&C Exchange and ensure that only serious and active business minded shareholders make up the organization.
3 Likes
Some kind of centralised checkpointing at stage of development could save us a lot of troubles.
Tend to agree as a temporary measure, as in this stage of early development the protocol upgrade is not really a choice the shareholders have. It is the developers’ direction so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to find consensus in a democratic way.
Almost no one takes the 50% voters against the protocol upgrade seriously anyway because no reasons have been communicated to do so.
Agree with the poster about not rushing into something that would overcomplicate things though. However time to market provides some pressure in moving on.
Maybe when BKS was sold there should be a warning in bold, “You pay to buy voting rights. Use it or risk losing it.” Still I feel your pain. I lost interest in BTS because it changed often and changed big. Stakeholders vote with their feet when the community over-played their hands. We shouldn’t rush the big changes.
According to how many blocks my shares have found in the last 6.3 days and the percentage of my shares in total supply, there are 38% shareholders minting. If 47% of them are voting for 4.0, then 20% of all shareholders are minting but not voting for 4.0. If we don’t mobilze some of them we never reach 90%.
Therefore I think 30 days into releasing 4.0 and not getting nearly enough YES vote yet getting no NO voice for the protocol in the forum, we should send a message to the purchase contact addresses. We should also post it on the BKS exchange and withdraw/deposit pages at CCEDK. In this message we explain 1. the situation where apathetic shareholders are endangering the development and competitiveness of B&C, and 2. that 60 days into the release a 30-day voting will start for so-and-so serious action.
The security of the dominant data feeds will be a serious issue if they are auto-installed.
In the long term I think some kind of incentive should be put in place to encourage voting. The networks does it for processing txs in the forms of block mining/minting rewards. Why not do it for voting if voting is so vital? The simplest way is just increading mintng reward (so voting YES or NO both gets rewarded) either permanently or when high% consensus is needed.
That hits the nail on the head!
…try to get rid of what endangers the success of B&C Exchange!
Limit the power of apathetic minters by increasing the power of active minters.
Try to get a feeling how much of this is caused by evil minters1.
1 evil minters: to understand what I mean by that, read this: [Draft] BKS grant to bring protocol 4.0 votes above 90%
1 Like
This looks like trouble with the blockchain fikes or the wallet files.
The easiest way to test this is by renaming the application data folder to get a fresh start.
As you are running windows, the application data for BCExchange should be located at %appdata%\Bcexchange.
Open a Windows explorer and rename that folder.
Don’t delete it!
Btw. do you have backups of your wallet files or your BKS private keys?
After having renamed it, start bcexchange.exe again.
2 Likes
Thank you! I fix it!
Did you already try? Did it work?
I did as you advised. now there is synchronization. like all good. Wallet*.dat file is replace.
1 Like
After reviewing the comments about my proposal its apparent it has good support. I will direct the development team to begin implementing it immediately. I will report back soon who is playing what role in readying the release. There are a few questions that remain about exactly how the default data feeds will work in terms of the UI that I will work on resolving.
I will also start a thread with a proposal on the particulars of how to have an election of default data providers very soon.
What is the window? The normal 10k or something bigger?
We have 3.
How easy will it be to do a revote, say once a year? It would be a softfork, correct?
No voting? Starting voting and citing the last-100-block-percentage would give a sense of due process.
1 Like
Thought likewise. To which extent does it make sense to submit a motion for this. Did we submit a motion for 4.0,1?
I gather this is perceived as too radical, although it would have several benefits (with regard to waking shareholders and unveiling evil minters).
Am I right?