V12 Testing Thread

crowning said:
Proposals are (more or less, permanent payments to the developer of your choice excluded) DASH projects. Valid projects run (including proposal and voting delay) in the order of weeks minimum.

We have about 2700 Masternodes. If each Masternode creates only 1 proposal, and the resulting projects run only 2 weeks average (that's optimistic, with discussion and voting it's easily 4 weeks minimum) we're talking about 5400 weeks, that's more than 100 years. Divide this by the number of developers and we'll have enough work for the rest of our lives.

My proposal :grin: to prevent SPAM/DoS is to allow each Masternode to create exactly one single proposal in its lifetime.

If someone REALLY wants/needs to create a second proposal he can move the 1000 DASH vin to a different address and create it from this new Masternode.
Minimum delay are the confirmations for the Masternode, which we already have in place.

Discuss!
Click to expand...
I'm afraid an attacker still can mess with the system by moving his MN to another vin and submit another proposal. A rich attacker can easily have 10 MNs and keep doing this with his 10 MNs.

How about we do what Udjin suggests, make them pay a "collateral deposit" to the Foundation first. Also, I'm not sure if this can be done... But could I suggest the Foundation set up a panel to verify the proposals and their authors to make sure all are legit (by requiring proposal authors to show their real identities), then issue a stamp of approval before a proposal is accepted to be submitted by a Masternode.
 
It's an excellent idea to have to make a payment to make a single proposal. Make it 10 bucks per proposal (equivalent in dash) and we make sure we get serious proposals and kill an attack vector. Limiting each master node to one proposal is not as effective as it limits participation.
 
flare said:
Exactly what i was thinking: use the same mechanism which limits the number of masternodes - it has proven to work since 1+ year now :)

"One vin, one vote, one proposal"
Click to expand...
I think you are both onto something. I guess the only part that worries me is aren't we supposed to have the entire scope of the project nailed down and planned out prior to starting to code? It sounds to me like we have a great bunch of ideas but no actual working spec of this entire system that we are actively building. That doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as we aren't going to attempt to push this code out this _year_.

Isn't it standard practice to work out all these types of kinks prior to starting to write code let alone push it live?
 
coingun said:
I think you are both onto something. I guess the only part that worries me is aren't we supposed to have the entire scope of the project nailed down and planned out prior to starting to code? It sounds to me like we have a great bunch of ideas but no actual working spec of this entire system that we are actively building. That doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as we aren't going to attempt to push this code out this _year_.

Isn't it standard practice to work out all these types of kinks prior to starting to write code let alone push it live?
Click to expand...
This!
 
coingun said:
I think you are both onto something. I guess the only part that worries me is aren't we supposed to have the entire scope of the project nailed down and planned out prior to starting to code? It sounds to me like we have a great bunch of ideas but no actual working spec of this entire system that we are actively building. That doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as we aren't going to attempt to push this code out this _year_.

Isn't it standard practice to work out all these types of kinks prior to starting to write code let alone push it live?
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be better to have some of this actually written out. Especially in a larger development group. But, I think Evan has spelled a lot of how this is going to work out, and since his first proposal, he has updated the original idea with ideas presented here. I think he knows what the base has to be, and as we come up with issues/ideas, he updates the actual code to reflect them. I think it's actually working for us, because Evan is kind of a hands on person, he thinks through his coding, He seems to mold his code like a sculpter and he sees different ways of doing things because he has done it one way already, and adjusts when he sees a better way. (sorry for the run on sentences)

In the end, it seems Evan doesn't like talking things to death. He likes to dive in, even if he has to trash a bunch of work because there was a better way. However, I can definitely see that when the development team gets larger, things will have to be worked out in much more detail. It's getting pretty complex now, and I'm sure that'll start happening sooner than later.

Also, when Evan dives in, he (and we) get better ideas that sometimes feel like they wouldn't have come otherwise. So I'm not going to complain about the method to his madness at this time, and I suspect he'll be flexible when he has to let loose the control to other developers. This is getting big and complex and he is definitely gonna need more and more help. The project seems like it's already broken up between this proposal/payment by blockchain, darksend (maintenance), instant X functionality and wallet interface. I think each has a main developer working on those particular sections and they all have to interface with each other.

Anyway, I've had a bit too much to drink, LOL. Daughter made us a lovely dinner with wine, and I'm a lightweight, LOL. But my point is that it's a bit looser in structure right now, but I see things getting much more structural in the near future. Hopefully not so much as to interfere with creativity and production though. Which is why I think a lot of open source projects seem to make much faster progress than programs put out by big corporations and with much fewer people ;)

Forgive me, I think I'm gonna lay down now.... LOL
 
fible1 said:
It's an excellent idea to have to make a payment to make a single proposal. Make it 10 bucks per proposal (equivalent in dash) and we make sure we get serious proposals and kill an attack vector. Limiting each master node to one proposal is not as effective as it limits participation.
Click to expand...
I would suggest the required collateral deposit to be at least 100 DASH. "It takes money to make money". If a genuine person who can create something useful for this coin and want to make money from it, a 100 DASH as a collateral is not that much if he's going to get paid a lot more for his product, and more likely he can afford it.

And this deposit is to be returned back to him at the completion of all work and agreement.
 
moli said:
I would suggest the required collateral deposit to be at least 100 DASH. "It takes money to make money". If a genuine person who can create something useful for this coin and want to make money from it, a 100 DASH as a collateral is not that much if he's going to get paid a lot more for his product, and more likely he can afford it.

And this deposit is to be returned back to him at the completion of all work and agreement.
Click to expand...

100 Dash is too much
and then you have to deal with deposits and returns!
(another escrow account, keeping books, responsibility,...)

i would stick to a fee (10 bucks or something as mentioned above)
much easier to deal with in the long run
 
tungfa said:
100 Dash is too much
and then you have to deal with deposits and returns!
(another escrow account, keeping books, responsibility,...)

i would stick to a fee (10 bucks or something as mentioned above)
much easier to deal with in the long run
Click to expand...
I don't think it's too much to do this, same thing the foundation is keeping your foundation membership fund. But this would eliminate bad actors, which is more important.
 
moli said:
I don't think it's too much to do this, same thing the foundation is keeping your foundation membership fund. But this would eliminate bad actors, which is more important.
Click to expand...

I do NOT want to derail this thread
but
if i am looking for 400-600 US$ funding for some webpage banner campaign in china
i have to deposit 300 US$ first ?!
no way, we would be losing out on a lot of good smaller ideas
(and it will be a ton of work to deal with these deposits :wink:)
 
tungfa said:
I do NOT want to derail this thread
but
if i am looking for 400-600 US$ funding for some webpage banner campaign in china
i have to deposit 300 US$ first ?!
no way, we would be losing out on a lot of good smaller ideas
(and it will be a ton of work to deal with these deposits :wink:)
Click to expand...
In the real world of businesses, 300 USD is a joke. So either you're serious or not about your business, it's a VERY small amount of money to deposit.
 
moli said:
In the real world of businesses, 300 USD is a joke. So either you're serious or not about your business, it's a VERY small amount of money to deposit.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. Peanuts. Leaves all the time wasters out.
 
why not have the "option" to make a deposit, and it can be any custom amount. Some might be able to put up big deposits, others may not want to do it, and others only little deposits. I do have to say that the money from a deposit could rather be used to help grow the business.
 
TanteStefana said:
Yes, it would be better to have some of this actually written out. Especially in a larger development group. But, I think Evan has spelled a lot of how this is going to work out, and since his first proposal, he has updated the original idea with ideas presented here. I think he knows what the base has to be, and as we come up with issues/ideas, he updates the actual code to reflect them. I think it's actually working for us, because Evan is kind of a hands on person, he thinks through his coding, He seems to mold his code like a sculpter and he sees different ways of doing things because he has done it one way already, and adjusts when he sees a better way. (sorry for the run on sentences)

In the end, it seems Evan doesn't like talking things to death. He likes to dive in, even if he has to trash a bunch of work because there was a better way. However, I can definitely see that when the development team gets larger, things will have to be worked out in much more detail. It's getting pretty complex now, and I'm sure that'll start happening sooner than later.

Also, when Evan dives in, he (and we) get better ideas that sometimes feel like they wouldn't have come otherwise. So I'm not going to complain about the method to his madness at this time, and I suspect he'll be flexible when he has to let loose the control to other developers. This is getting big and complex and he is definitely gonna need more and more help. The project seems like it's already broken up between this proposal/payment by blockchain, darksend (maintenance), instant X functionality and wallet interface. I think each has a main developer working on those particular sections and they all have to interface with each other.

Anyway, I've had a bit too much to drink, LOL. Daughter made us a lovely dinner with wine, and I'm a lightweight, LOL. But my point is that it's a bit looser in structure right now, but I see things getting much more structural in the near future. Hopefully not so much as to interfere with creativity and production though. Which is why I think a lot of open source projects seem to make much faster progress than programs put out by big corporations and with much fewer people ;)

Forgive me, I think I'm gonna lay down now.... LOL
Click to expand...
I agree with some of these points and don't with others but let us not forget. We put this "idea" forward for a vote and we all voted to implement it. If said idea changes dramatically from the time we spec'd it and had the vote then some people might feel that there should be a re-vote as the "idea" has changed quite dramatically from the time it was put forward. Again just trying to have some open discussion not stifle innovation but when we talk about decentralized governance I don't recall a lot of democracies that put a vote forward to the people but then dramatically skew away (for better or worse) from the original question proposed for vote.

I agree evan's freestyle method has gotten us a long way but the other hand is it can also leave some potential attack vectors because we aren't stepping back and thinking about all the pieces of hte system and how they interact. We have already come up with ideas for limit spam on proposals and I'm sure a lot more great ideas are to come. I guess I'm just wondering at what point have we diverged far enough from the original OP that we need to reacquire consensus. I don't think we are anywhere near that yet but talking about it can't hurt.
 
moli said:
I would suggest the required collateral deposit to be at least 100 DASH. "It takes money to make money". If a genuine person who can create something useful for this coin and want to make money from it, a 100 DASH as a collateral is not that much if he's going to get paid a lot more for his product, and more likely he can afford it.

And this deposit is to be returned back to him at the completion of all work and agreement.
Click to expand...

I think we should make it a smaller number but non-refundable. Anything above 5 USD works and it's non-punitive; to collapse the submission system would take several thousand USD.

Pablo.
 
coingun said:
Couldn't agree more. Peanuts. Leaves all the time wasters out.
Click to expand...

300 Bucks are peanuts ?
well in the real world yes, here we are still crowdsourcing for amounts like this or pay from our own pocket.

will there be budgets ? Marketing/Development/....
not that i know off, as far as i know it will be project based.

proposals have to be over 5K US$ otherwise peanuts ? (i am just making this up)
(i see all prices just going up :wink: + us missing out on a lot of good small valuable ideas)

this should be open to anybody
not only big hitters asking for big budgets,
remember we are talking about the now (next month)
not in 10 years when we are a real company
:grin:
 
tungfa said:
300 Bucks are peanuts ?
well in the real world yes, here we are still crowdsourcing for amounts like this or pay from our own pocket.

will there be budgets ? Marketing/Development/....
not that i know off, as far as i know it will be project based.

proposals have to be over 5K US$ otherwise peanuts ? (i am just making this up)
(i see all prices just going up :wink: + us missing out on a lot of good small valuable ideas)

this should be open to anybody
not only big hitters asking for big budgets,
remember we are talking about the now (next month)
not in 10 years when we are a real company
:grin:
Click to expand...
I think that we just have a different definition of what type of scope/services the blockchain needs and should higher. There is a few sides to the coin here though. It almost feels like we could be ripping off our current developers by getting some benefit for their hard work but not having to pay any return to them. I mean personally I would face palm myself so hard if when these proposal's get opened up they are for stuff like creating logos and doing marketing. That is such a short sited view. These proposals to me should be reserved for real tangible improvements to the actual blockchain technology. To me this means proposals with contents such as:

Making our mining setup's easier and more cross platform
Making our masternode setup easier and more understood (scripted? automagic)
Providing us the easiest way possible to vote from our masternode
Making our wallet updates automagical
Implementing in wallet bootstrapping for blockchain syncing
Beginning to build the API for other tier 2 services (I really think we should just build an api for tier 2 network so that the community could start working on other services like DS and IX. It seems like this approach would really allow the dev's to focus on the brick and motar as otehrs would be pushing to build the new tier 2 services such as paid blockchain syncing or something of that sort.)

This to me is the type of proposals that should be put forward. If those types of proposals are, then each masternode only ever being allowed to put forward a single proposal really has merit.

Then again when I look at those proposals a lot of them would fall under the grounds of the core dev team. I think someone said though that they aren't allowed to put forward proposals? It would almost be a great dry run of the system for us to simply have the first few months/rounds of proposals be put fourth by the dev team as what they think are the most needed places for us to spend time. Then we could actually pay them for some of their hardwork to finish the budgeting system as well as lay the other ground work. Really if you exclude them they could just create sudonym's anyways and do it anonymously.
 
I think this discussion should move somewhere else as we will be killing the Test Thread with this
 
eduffield said:
I removed the update, there's something up with it. It's hogging 100% of the CPU on boot for quite some time. I'm going to look into it, then I'll repost.
Click to expand...
Win7 x64, normal QT 32bit Wallet, all cpu activity normal, almost all the time 0-1% cpu usage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top