Budget Proposal: Peter Todd to review Instant X?

[JuanSGalt]

So I know there's mixed feelings about Todd, but he is well known in blockchain tech and is very much focused in the field of zero confirmation txs and fast payments or lack there of.

Not sure who else would be good to do some third party review of instant x, but never the less I asked him and here is his response.

So yup! Todd will review Instant X code for 150 USD / hour.

 

[qwizzie]

Well, thats.. unexspected. From the very man that called Dash "snake oil". Anyways i think now is not the right time as Dash Evolution will change a lot
and it will need time to get developed and tested properly. I also see risks with using Peter Todd ....

 

[MangledBlue]

I personal can't see him and/or any review he does as being an un-biased reviewed.
But with that said - would he actually damage his 'reputation" for DASH?
hummmmmm


edit: withholding my vote for now....

 

[qwizzie]

i cant help but notice the end date of this poll by the way :grin:

 

[oaxaca]

Evolution will be a long time coming. Instantx should be ready enough for this. Bring it on!

Juan - get the almighty Todd to give you his DASH address so the block reward funding can go directly to him.

Double win!

 

[InTheWoods]

Todd is a Monero investor & fan. Not sure he's the right man for the job. I very much doubt it. He's against everything Dash stands for, being real digital cash. He's also an overpriced consultant. Not worth wasting money on him.

 

[Macrochip]

Short answer: Fuck that guy.

Long answer: He's an abrasive human being and a PITA, zero people skills, always looking to start an argument, attacking Gavin and Jeff from out of the blue (just recently on Twitter on why they call themselves "Core developers", the nerve of that douchebag!) and basically a neckbeard without the beard (See Maxwell for that).
That was just character traits, I know, but the argument that he's somehow qualified to do the review just because he wrote a double spend tool and trolled Coinbase with it is laughable.
There's tons of serious, respected researchers able to pull off that job and actually deliver a credible result (something I will never expect from Todd).
Wuille, van der Laan, Andresen come to mind. What about Vitalik Buterin? All these people are (at least publicly) unbiased potential judges and peer-reviewers of Evan's work. Strongly opposed to this suggestion.

PS:
His rate is also ridiculous. How much did we pay Kristov Atlas to review DarkSend? Damn sure it wasn't 1,500+ USD !!

 

[toknormal]

That was just character traits, I know, but the argument that he's somehow qualified to do the review just because he wrote a double spend tool and trolled Coinbase with it is laughable

+1 I don't think he's very professional. He's more of a celebrity than a professional.

The right way to get a technical review done (if that's really what this is about) is to find a sleepy academic department out in the 'real world' that's got no axe to grind other than analytical rigour. Fund a couple of PHD students or something to produce a report that will be useful to the project.

If Peter Todd is being sought for his celebrity status ("well known in blockchain tech") rather than his reputation for dispassionate rigour, then don't be surprised if it ends up as a "celebrity put down" rather than a rigerous appraisal.

He's already given his verdict on record anyway. So why pay him $150 an hour just to type it out ?

 

[raganius]

Personally, I would never trust Peter Todd... for anything.

 

[TheDashGuy]

I would like to minus 1 vote from the yes category, I didn't realize how much it would cost. We'd be better off hiring someone not so ill-hearted towards Dash.

Data can be spun. That is all.

 

[italx]

I really think it would be impossible for him to do a impartial review.

 

[orbitboy]

I think everyone has said everything I've been thinking. No Thanks.

We'd be better off hiring someone not so ill-hearted towards Dash.

I really think it would be impossible for him to do a impartial review.

I think this is the top middle and bottom of all this. Very politely put.

 

[toknormal]

Going back to Juan S Galt's original initiative, despite my views on the proposed reviewer, I still think the idea's worthwhile in its own right. (The idea of getting it reviewed that is).

But it would be for technical purposes rather than promotional purposes IMO. The thing is, 0-conf transactions are a very big challenge and a huge number of them do get used for goods exchange in the Bitcoin world. So the more understanding that there is of the strength's and weaknesses around InstantX's approach the better IMO.

The problem with Todd reviewing it is that it's just going to get spun to death whatever the outcome. Just simple due-diligence tells you it's a non-option. The project does need reviews like this but ones that can be learned from away from the adversarial politics of bitcoin celebrity, altcoin wars and general promotional hype that all these assets are subject to.

Also, another thing. Anyone who's got any experience of this type of stuff would know that even as a client, you have work to do in setting the parameters and demanding from the contractor that certain questions be answered in a quantifiable way. You're not looking for an opinion - you're looking for results and a level of analytical rigour that allows you to direct your future priorities. That involves a good deal of work in specifying the review. It isn't the same as asking someone to write a magazine article on whether gold's going to rally this month.

The way this is worded is that it's just a blank sheet for PT to mouth off on disguised as technical appraisal. He might actually be competent enough to do such an appraisal (being generous) but you'd have to get him to come up with analysis, not conclusions. For example, he has alluded to the fact that InstantX is "breakeable" and will be broken in no time. Well MD5 hashing was "broken" but it's still in full use all over the place. Bitcoin 0-confs are as broken as a chocolate teapot and yet they're still in use all over the place. InstantX is, however not broken. So many things are clearly a question of degree in terms of being fit for purpose. This is what needs to be investigated, fully understood and quantified in terms of risks and rewards. That would not be a futile exercise in my opinion, but it takes a very balanced and dispassionate approach to come up with meaningful results that aren't just an endorsement of the reviewer's own prejudices.

 

[InTheWoods]

It's probably best to hold of any reviews until Evolution or the next Dash version. InstantX will get some significant improvements I believe.

 

[crowning]

Since he already labeled Dash "snake oil" without thoroughly research he'd make himself noncredible if, after researching it for money, he'd come up with a different result.

 

[yidakee]

Shit, I voted yes by mistake, what a ding-dong.

Peter Todd has lost credibility and reputation. He's is terribly pedantic, too immature and hot-headed to be trusted with such a thing. If he fixes open-source code, bless him, otherwise, no thanks.

.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

I hate Peter Todd. I'm all for a review, however. Let's just find someone who is so less blatantly anti-Dash.

I'm conducting a poll on Twitter, to see what the casuals think.

 

[HinnomTX]

Let's put the ugly tweets, ad hominems and personality conflicts aside. DASH is not taken seriously in some circles because of a lack of peer reviews (and they may be right to snub us). We should be hiring serious Bitcoin brains to audit InstantX. If Peter is in for $1500 (about 400 DASH), let's hire him. No one in the community wants to see a fork or double spend because of an exploit found in InstantX.

Also... interesting things happen when you're getting paid. Peter might come away impressed that we voted for and funded this operation from the blockchain. If nothing else it will further the most compelling part of our story: we are getting stuff done through DGBB and the budget proposal system.

 

[SnowHater]

I can't see the actual proposal on the dashwhale. Or it is just preproposal discussion?

 

[InTheWoods]

Let's put the ugly tweets, ad hominems and personality conflicts aside. DASH is not taken seriously in some circles because of a lack of peer reviews (and they may be right to snub us). We should be hiring serious Bitcoin brains to audit InstantX. If Peter is in for $1500 (about 400 DASH), let's hire him. No one in the community wants to see a fork or double spend because of an exploit found in InstantX.

Also... interesting things happen when you're getting paid. Peter might come away impressed that we voted for and funded this operation from the blockchain. If nothing else it will further the most compelling part of our story: we are getting stuff done through DGBB and the budget proposal system.

What your saying would make perfect sense in a different context. This is Peter Todd we're talking about though. He hates the idea of Dash, crypto as real money. Dash opted for the revolutionary path some XT, Unlimited and Classic folks desired but couldn't do with Bitcoin. Todd doesn't want crypto as money but merely as a niche subversion tool of sorts. Do you know what anarcho-communists think of money? They think money is evil. Ask his friend, the communist Amir Taaki.

He is invested in Monero and few hundred dollars won't suddenly turn him from Monero to Dash fan.

Even if he were to do a code review, results would suck. He would come up with some stupid idea like his Replace By Fee which just killed Bitcoin for retail. This guy is like the anti-Dash dev. I bet he'd say something silly like InstantX is some centralized system relying centralized servers or some lame crap like that.