For the BIP 0001, does this mean adding a new case to reward.cpp or using linear (modifying it?) or modifying the convergent_linear formula?
For the BIP 0022, has Bittrex been contacted beforehand to ask them to send their BLURT to the @null account themselves to avoid having to use this BIP (even if I have very little hope in their willingness to take 5 minutes to do so)? Are any multi-channel notices planned? Has Probit been contacted and consulted about this BIP?
Hi, @nalexadre,
The burn was preemptively added. One of our team members actually reached Bittrex to gauge their opinion on this, but we still did not hear from them. According to their documentation, honoring the airdrop will be as hard as listing a new coin.
Due to regulatory reasons, and to avoid possible issues. We doubt that they could simply send the BLURT to Null. They would rather deflect such a responsibility to the community, which is the logical choice. Because at the end of the day, they can never be 100% sure that this is the will of the majority of stakeholders. A fork, on the other hand, is a clear message.
For the other exchanges, we believe that a more compressive approach. We even believe that such an approach could possibly push some exchanges to list Blurt.
Thank you for this additional information 👍
Hi, it will be a formula paramenter change.
Regarding Bittrex they haven’t been contacted, not sure given their current shutdown phase such contact is even worthwhile and may even yield unexpected consequences such as key holders taking notice and taking advantage and dumping the funds for cash, or perhaps they decide these funds should be part of their liquidation to pay out creditors.
Why do you feel probit needs to be notified? They shouldn’t be affected.
In this case, I assume that a technical post will be made to developers at the appropriate time, so that they can modify frontends and libraries accordingly.
Yes, it can be a double-edged sword, it's a situation where we're walking on eggshells and where every decision can have far-reaching consequences. Fortunately, the shutdown of Bittrex and the overriding need to secure the blockchain are, I think, sufficient justification for this decision.
I'm speaking in an advisory role and as an Exchange. It's related to this comment I made a few days ago.
Hi, regarding additional technical details and whether libraries need to be updated for a parameter change I will defer to @saboin.
Also, regarding Probit I was speaking to them on another matter and raised the question whether the burn action on the unclaimed Bittrex airdrop makes them uneasy in any way, this however, could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby asking this question sends them down this avenue of thought where before they wouldn’t even have thought or worried about it. I caution against overthinking, every choice on this HF can be picked apart and argued in any direction, sometimes an executive decision just needs to be made on the basis of the macro rewards and risk merits of the decision and the outliers treated with less weight in the decision making process, otherwise we cannot progress with any changes effectively.
OK, I'll check with him.
I think you made the right decision to raise the subject with Probit during a discussion as they are a key player for the Blurt blockchain and consequently have a right to information. Communication is an essential tool to avoid misunderstandings about the actions we want to undertake. The challenge is not to overdo it to avoid falling into immobilism or counterproductive effects.
Probit replied, they said they have no issue with the Bittrex funds burn and that it is our decision.
I’m not going to post the private chat with Probit on chain but have shared in DM with @saboin @nalexadre and @symbionts to verify. Hope it satisfies this concern.