-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 86
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
BSIP-83: Decouple BitAssets from Platform Governance Process #239
Comments
As a witness I personally like this idea but it just won't work. This BSIP solve a small problem but create a bigger problem. It avoid witnesses being voted out due to price feed issue but actually terminate life of BitAssets once it pass ownership to third party, because there is no party have higher credibility than committee and witnesses in Bitshares Blockchain. The destiny of third party smartcoins is lack of price feed providers or global settlement at the end. Anyway, this BSIP was not proposed by committee members, nor witnesses, nor top proxy. I don't see the possibility to get this BSIP voted in. What concern me now is next core team WP can get voted in or not. |
YES I see the need for a new group/token called Price-Feeder, which is independent from witnesses. |
The current text is being revised based on discussions with the community including the Committee, and will be updated in the future |
Decouple BitAssets from Bitshares BSIPS Repository |
Such an obvious and serious problem, why didn’t get back for such a long time? |
What exactly do you mean with "obvious and serious problem"? |
Why this BSIP have a number so quickly? a political game? |
Because the person who was assigning BSIP numbers happened to be one of the authors. Again, how can the simple assignment of a sequential number be a "serious problem"? And in what way could the number be used in "a political game"? IMO this is a non-issue. |
Obviously, this reason does not make sense. I have the power, can I do anything that is good for me? Who gives you the power? community. I think this is a very serious act of ultra vires, taking power for personal gains. |
Please explain how assigning a serial number effects "personal gains". |
I think that some people think that this is good for themselves, or that he wants to hurt some people in the community, which has brought a personally clear meaning. I think this is already very serious. |
I understand that the ideas presented in BSIP-83 are not well-received by all community members. Please note that BSIP-76 did receive a number when requested, despite the fact that there was much disagreement about it: #221 (comment) |
Because some people want to quickly pass this BSIP in order to harm the interests of some people in the community (such as cn-vote), they are too eager to use the authority to assign numbers and want to pass this bsip. IMHO this is entirely a power for personal gain. |
The only BSIP that was passed quickly was BSIP-76. |
Back to the original question Why this BSIP have a number so quickly? a political game? |
This was answered above, when pmconrad said: "Because the person who was assigning BSIP numbers happened to be one of the authors." Therefore, no. It was not a political game.
Thank you for your opinion. However, myself and many within the community believe this BSIP is very well aligned with POS principles. In fact, it is trying to fix a broken system where the "S" of POS could be (and is being) artificially inflated by some. |
This is supposed to be the discussion thread for BSIP-0083.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: