Topic: **MANDATORY UPGRADE REQUIRED** [ANN] B&C Exchange - All users must upgrade - page 3. (Read 174430 times)

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.

Several options are being proposed to speed up the upgrade of B&C Exchange. Architect Jordan Lee and others present their proposals here: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/proposal-to-speed-adoption-of-the-reputation-system/3785

We have many powerful options at our disposal and we are confident shareholders will select an option that allows the upgrade to proceed safely and efficiently.

It has been 30 days since we released B&C Exchange 4.0, but only 47% of network minting power has upgraded. To effect the protocol change that will allow us to use the reputation system requires a 90% adoption rate. Given that the adoption rate is rising only very slowly, it is likely that it would take months to reach the switch threshold of 90%. It is important that we move forward with adoption of the reputation system more quickly so we can prepare for the full release of B&C Exchange.

The dividend distribution is coded in the client, but a software fork to support additional currencies doesn't lead to dilution; it would merely be a new client release with a new feature.
As far as I understand the dividend addresses (public keys) get derived from the BKS private keys.
At a snapshot date, a distribution to the dividend addresses takes place.
Introducing additional/alternative dividend types isn't even a protocol update - you just need a client to distribute dividends and a client to generate the dividend addresses.


While this risk is theoretically exisiting, I have a hard time seeing a relation between it and the upgrading apathy.
BKC don't exist. Not a single one has been created so far,
There's currently only one place that trades BKS: CCEDK (BTC and US-NBT pair; almost no orders an no volume at the BTC pair, some orders and a little volume at the US-NBT pair).
There's no place with leveraged trading or put options - at least not to my knowledge.
So how can this be a real risk now?

I think it's a lack of responsibility that made people start their client to mint blocks without paying attention to the development.
The slow development over some months might have made them think that it's not important to pay attention.
That's wrong!
Without a protocol update to 4.0 (blocks minted by client versions 4.0.0 and 4.0.1), there's no reputed signer voting, no asset voting, etc.
Trading can't start without switching to 4.0!

People who continue to mint protocol 2.0 blocks (e.g. client release 3.0.2) essentially vote against activating exchange functions at B&C Exchange.
Whuaaaaat?

Very interesting.

What options are there to distribute dividends with other currencies (say maybe Nubits or something like Grantcoin) while still retaining the network effects? Or will this require a fork, with all the associated dilution.

What options are there to distribute dividends with other currencies (say maybe Nubits or something like Grantcoin) while still retaining the network effects? Or will this require a fork, with all the associated dilution.

There also seems to be a risk of financial engineering a 'short' outside the BKS/BKC/etc system in which it becomes profitable to acquire, and then vote against the self-interest of the acquired crypto asset. It is either this, or a lack of patience that seems to be resulting in the long time it's taking to get enough clients upgraded (and voting for) the 4.0 protocol.

B&C user interests are of paramount interest for BKS holders. It's the users that consume BKC, which are required to pay fees and get destroyed by that. Destroying BKC means new BKC can get sold. That generates revenue (BTC), which BKS holders want to achieve (BTC will be distributed as dividends to BKS holders).
Signers are a kind of contract workers, hired by BKS holders.
If they don't behave, they'll get removed and replaced.

Thanks, it would be good to compile a list of data feed providers to make it easier for people to decide

Thanks, it would be good to compile a list of data feed providers to make it easier for people to decide

We have reached 42.85% of protocol votes for version 4.0. All shareholders must upgrade to version 4.0 immediately. The protocol switch date will be two weeks after 90% of blocks are minted with 4.0.0 or 4.0.1.

There a number of facts shareholders should know (unless they are using data feeds) regarding configuring asset voting.

For the maxtrade value, bear in mind that it won't really matter until the 5.0 version is released. Let me explain a little about the development process as I see it from now until just past release of 5.0, which will explain my suggested maxtrade value. Right now most messages can be sent, but their processing isn't implemented. We will work on that and as we do, we will begin see the exchange function in the context of a few narrow and limited use cases. Because the exchange will be incomplete, it stands to reason there will be plenty of ways to exploit the solution in its incomplete form. That is fine, because we are on test net and it is just part of the process. Eventually, we will get to where we have provided for all the use cases and no known major or high risk exploits are possible. This will be the time to move the solution to production, but we wouldn't want to do so with high max trade values. We want to start it with very low max trade sizes, so it can be tested without risk of loss of substantial funds. A good place to start would be around 1 USD. Once the exchange performs well with that limit, it can be raised incrementally at whatever pace seems appropriate at the time.

In regard to required signers and total signers, please remember that the protocol requires two backup signers to validate orders. This means 2 of 3 multisig cannot meet B&C protocol. The protocol can be changed (this hasn't even been coded yet), but doing so increases risk. I recommend we not do that. 2 of 4 is the minimum number of signers to be protocol compliant. If 2 of 4 is used, and a single signer is unavailable, no orders with the involved funds can placed. The funds wouldn't be lost because they can still be withdrawn without backup signers, however. I suggest 3 of 6 as a minimum number of required and total signers. More total signers and more required signers, such as 8 of 15, provide much better decentralisation but somewhat higher costs for transaction fees and signer compensation. My recommendation for a starting point is 3 of 6:  3 required signers and 6 total signers. I hope we move to 8 of 15 soon.

Also bear in mind that once an asset has been successfully voted in, you don't need to keep voting for it with its maxtrade value and so forth, unless you want to change one of the values from its current setting. If you don't vote, then your vote is counted as a vote for the status quo. So, if the current number of required Bitcoin signers is 3, if I vote for 3, it just wastes blockchain space. An abstention will be interpreted as a 3 by protocol. If you wanted to change it to 5, then you should include it in your vote. This notion of an abstention being counted as a vote for the current network setting applies to most things that can be voted for within B&C Exchange.

And I've just been reminded that there's another data feed for BKS voting:
https://discuss.nubits.com/t/cryptogs-bcexchange-data-feeds-beta/2503

And I've just been reminded that there's another data feed for BKS voting:
https://discuss.nubits.com/t/cryptogs-bcexchange-data-feeds-beta/2503