[Passed] Dynamic Fees in NuDroid

[Nagalim]

So motions are only for attaining consensus, they do not actually create any funds. What would happen here is everyone would vote for whatever price they want, then we would tally up how high a price we can set and attain 50%. Then, we would put up a bounty motion with that price, which would then be expected to pass. Once the work is completed, we would pay the bounty to whoever completes the work.

[cryptog]

A poll could be more appropriate.

[Cybnate]

Not convinced this is going to work as there is no market with developers sitting and waiting to do this. If that was the case I’m sure we would already have had another grant up with a better bid for this work.This is only going to waste a lot of time and we are going to miss out on the Shareholders’ wish to raise the fees.

Still don’t understand why we are not prepared to pay a normal market price for quality development work. We do this for Nu development, but the mobile client NuDroid is not worth it? Have a hard time to understand that. Maybe someone can enlighten me?

[Nagalim]

I’d be down with a poll too. A vote is weighted by shares while a vote is just 1 vote per pseudonym, but we could try that to start with.

[Sentinelrv]

I agree with Cybnate. Beside there being no market yet for this type of work at Nu, which could help push costs down through competition, MatthewLM is the developer who knows NuDroid best. Why waste all that time trying to find somebody else that will do it for cheaper? The new person will have to establish trust with shareholders. They’ll also have to get up to speed on everything that Matthew has done with his work on NuDroid. Matthew is a great developer and has been dedicated to NuDroid development for a while now. I feel it would be best for NuDroid itself to keep him on board, even if it means paying a little extra. Shareholders have many other concerns right now and I just don’t think it’s worth it to start from scratch with a brand new person (who we will have to find) just so we can save several hundred dollars. Of course, this is only my opinion.

[Cybnate]

If it is about a few hundred bucks I’m happy to chip in with my own funds and sell a few shares as I think it is not worth it discussing a few hundred bucks lacking a real market.

[cryptog]

I am fine with the amount asked.
I just think that as long as the fee is 0.01nbt we do not need this grant.
However i would favor certainly a grant that funds the upgrade of nudroid to nu2.1 by @MatthewLM , which includes the tx fee automatic adjustement.

[jooize]

I might have been unclear. What happens if I input a different amount than presented into a custodian vote?

Say I put 2000 instead of the requested 1600.

[Cybnate]

The network will considered it as a separate vote/grant. Only when other Shareholders use exactly the same amount a grant with a different amount can pass.

[jooize]

Okay, so while it may not be a great approach since it fragments votes (and might not even make sense if the requested amount truly is required), those who like an idea but want to grant another amount could simply enter it?

Only the first successful grant would create NuBits at the custodial address though.

NuBits will only be created at a particular address once. If shareholders wish to make multiple grants to a single custodian the custodian must use a different address for each grant.

— https://nubits.com/about/white-paper#custodial-grants

[Cybnate]

Okay, so while it may not be a great approach since it fragments votes (and might not even make sense if the requested amount truly is required), those who like an idea but want to grant another amount could simply enter it?

Yes, and you answered your own question. It usually doesn’t make sense to do so. Proposing another grant is likely to be more successful. And yes, only one grant per address, good to reiterate indeed.

[Sentinelrv]

@assistant custodian vote BSn4pCHyK7T9iFafSiYnPuGjGoyW65J5js

[assistant]

Hi @Sentinelrv

Here are the details for the Custodian Vote on BSn4pCHyK7T9iFafSiYnPuGjGoyW65J5js:

---

##BSn4pCHyK7T9iFafSiYnPuGjGoyW65J5js
###1600.00 NBT.
Blocks: 5320 (53.200000%)
Share Days: 1428490726 (48.820802%)

---

[Sentinelrv]

Almost there.

[MatthewLM]

This grant has now passed. I shall have an update complete by the 4th of December. Thank you.

[willy]

Four whole weeks for this custodian grant to pass. This must be some kind of record?

[Sentinelrv]

Four whole weeks for this custodian grant to pass. This must be some kind of record?

Yeah, I don’t get it either.

Anyway, so once this is done we will be able to raise the NuBits transaction fee without anything breaking correct?

[MatthewLM]

I’ve completed the server-side software which is now installed here: https://svr1.nubitsexplorer.nu/q/getvalidhashes/getfee

The software’s source code is available here: https://github.com/MatthewLM/py-nugetfee

An update to the Android app will come in the next few days.

[MatthewLM]

I have released NuDroid 4.4. It will soon be available on Google Play.

You can download an APK from here: https://github.com/Cybnate/NuDroid/releases/tag/v4.4

In this release NuDroid will automatically calculate Nu 2.0 dynamic fees, and may also be compatible with Nu 3.0 fees. Also wallet backups are now displayed with the most recent first, making it easier to restore from a recent backup.

The release took a little longer than expected due to unexpected issues and bugs, though it’s near enough the deadline I believe.

Thanks,

Matthew

[Cybnate]

Also cross posted the announcement here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1117925