search

bitshares / baips

BitAssets Improvement Proposals
6 stars 8 forks source link

baip-0002.md #9

Closed wenhuadream closed 4 years ago

wenhuadream commented 4 years ago 
BAIP: 0002
Title: Reform of loopholes in feed price mechanism
Authors: cn-vote  bitshareschina@163.com
Status: Draft
Type: Consensus 
Created: 2019-11-7

Abstract

This BAIP defines reforms to the current feed price mechanism vulnerability. The specific program is: Thefeed price is the highest between the current price and the two-day moving average price .

Motivation

After the failure of BSIP42, the current feed price mechanism has major loopholes and serious negatives, many cex exchanges use our vulnerability to maliciously short,which seriously damaged the ecological balance, which caused us to suffer many unnecessary losses and hindered the development of the entire ecology. When the vulnerability has been expanded to be intolerable, in an emergency, the passage and execution of BSIP76 has temporarily blocked the expansion of the vulnerability. However, the current feed price mechanism is still in urgent need of reform.

Rational

"The feed price is the highest between the current price and the two-day moving average price ". This BAIP does not conflict with the previous consensus on the feed price of all the communities. The feed provider continue to collect the feed price according to the original community consensus, and the community consensus on the protection of the black swan(BSIP58) and the minimum feed price is continued(BSIP76). This BAIP only requires the introduction of the abstract described in the feed price script, which is "The feed price is the highest between the current price and the two-day moving average price ".

Specifications

Implementing measures

If (current price >  two-day moving average price) {
  feed price = current price;
}
Else{
  feed price = two-day moving average price;
}

Noun explanation

If the voting confirm the change, committee will announce the change at least 3 days before the change is implemented by feed provider.

Summary for Shareholders

This program is simple and effective, and can prevent malicious short-selling or increase malicious short-selling costs to a certain extent.

Discussion

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/244

See Also

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29698.0 https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29699.0 https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29635.0 https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28418.0 https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29684.0 https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29687.0

Copyright

This document is placed in the public domain.

grctest commented 4 years ago

Why did you merge this baip? Zero response to reviews has been given. This is a clear abuse of repo privileges & a complete disregard for baip due process.

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, 03:25 zhouxiaobao-2010, notifications@github.com wrote:

Merged #9 https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9 into master.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitshares/baips/pull/9?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADZAOFZG56DYAMMEPJFS4CLQSODEPA5CNFSM4JJX6QAKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFWZEXG43VMVCXMZLOORHG65DJMZUWGYLUNFXW5KTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOUWHWQZY#event-2777639015, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADZAOF2BWKDKDR7BG43SV6LQSODEPANCNFSM4JJX6QAA .

abitmore commented 4 years ago

@zhouxiaobao-2010 it's not good to merge a pull request when the discussion is still going on. Although this pull request has been merged, personally I don't think it's ready for voting.

@grctest IMHO the process is still to be clearly defined. We should put it in BSIP-01.

clockworkgr commented 4 years ago

Although I agree with the essence/core content of the BAIP, I also agree with @grctest and @abitmore that it needs a bit more polishing and discussion before merging.

Just because it can get approved/voted due to current stake distribution, doesn't mean we don't have to be completely clear/transparent and descriptive towards the community as a whole.

grctest commented 4 years ago

@grctest IMHO the process is still to be clearly defined. We should put it in BSIP-01.

BAIP 1 states:

  • The BAIP author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions.

The author is not responsible for merging their own BAIP.

  • It also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the author.

The pull request was force merged by the author despite community members claiming it's not an appropriate solution.

  • If the BAIP editor approves, he will assign the BAIP a number, label it, give it status "Draft", and add it to the git repository.

No BAIP editors (abit, jerry nor fabian) publicly approved this PR before merger, nor the number, label, status.

The title should accurately describe the content.

The title does not accurately describe the content.

Why does OP have merge rights? Clearly they're being used in bad faith, like how the last PR was closed and reopened to discard review comments.

abitmore commented 4 years ago

Why does OP have merge rights?

Just FWIW, the PR was created by @wenhuadream and merged by @zhouxiaobao-2010, AFAIK they're not the same person, although both are in the cn-vote union/group (in this sense, since the author is cn-vote, we can say the author approved and merged his own draft). @zhouxiaobao-2010 is currently an active committee member thus has write permissions in the repository. More info and discussion in #11.

grctest commented 4 years ago

Now this BAIP has been put to a poll?! https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=31255.0

What a load of nonsense, this BAIP is not fit for purpose & the authors cannot accept any criticism/critique.

grctest commented 4 years ago

@zhouxiaobao-2010 Why did you merge this PR when many comments in this review remain unanswered?