I’m currently very caught up in some real life stuff don’t have time to read and reply but I will read everything and reply at length tomorrow! I feel a consensus about the path to take is starting to develop I will post a draft in accordance with what I think are the right steps to take forward in accordance with consensus.
2 Likes
I agree with.
I think i did not make the low-level mistake. I added a fAbstention flag in blockindex class not just use global flag. So every node can get the block abstention state, not just mining nodes. I know the logic of solving the abstention part is complicated, I will review.
2 Likes
If this feature is really hard to impletment, I suggest we avoid it. In this situation, lack of dev fund, we need simple&direcrly solutions to bring B&C into operation ASAP. Advanced features can be added in future when B&C begin to receive revenue.
I guess when CCEDK reopen, the BKS price will drop because quite some BKS investors are losing faith, and it’s hard for us to fund more for B&C project unless we upgrade software to demonstrate dev team are working well.
Centralization and decentralization certainly have pros and cons respectively, I suggest when 12-15 reputed signers are elected, a desision making mechansim in emergency situation can be:
After a decision made by reputed signers, and accompany objection motion is automatically created with hash codes, there will be 2 weeks for shareholders to vote for this objection motion. Signers will move on if this objection motion not passed.
Apathetic shareholders aren’t deserved to be respected, they should be controlled by more professional/active members.
In an extremely emergency situation just like the DAO stolen event, the reputed signers can act without shareholders’ permission, if the latter facts prove they are right, they are guiltless, if they are wrong, just resign.
I agree. Make small and frequent steps. Discover problems early when the consequence is not severe.
2 Likes
I think that maybe Jordan feels his reputation has been damaged and that it would be in the best interest of B&C Exchange for BlockShareholders to move on without him by selecting a new project lead. This statement from Angela (most likely Jordan) seems to suggest that he endorses Sigmike as his replacement without him having to post it here himself.
I still respect Jordan even after Sigmike elected as new leader.
After all, Jordan has made so much effort on these projects.
3 Likes
@backpacker, I remember that you talked with sigmike about the Mac OS version “deterministic” issue, could you solve this?
If not, I’ll install Linux on my PC, because I dislike windows for too much virus.
How much time do you think it would take to fully review the 5.0 code made by @Eleven and do the release?
Also, once 5.0 is released, whether it contains abstention and default data feed or not, I guess all the trading mechanism remains to be implemented before B&C is completed.
How much time do you think, @sigmike and @Eleven, it will take to get the completion?
I agree as well. Including abstentions into the protocol is an important feature for apathetic voting, however I believe we can survive and pass grants without it by cutting out non-upgraded clients. We can include abstentions later on. Non-vital features like this should be excluded until we are able to pay for their inclusion from revenue made off of BKC sales, otherwise we will be paying for them through BKS dilution.
1 Like
I think other people can change the website. I don’t know about bitcointalk.
I am not against it but I have important concerns about my/our ability to finish the project, and especially to finish it quickly enough for the shareholders:
My available time is limited and varying.
If Eleven is our main (only?) developer, I’m afraid he will need a lot of support, and communication with him is hard.
There are some parts of the project I never thought about in details, so I’m not certain everything is feasible.
It’s not clear whether the project will have enough resources.
That’s right but you set this flag from the global variable that is changed only when a block is minted.
I haven’t run the code, but by reading it I don’t see how a remote node could determine whether a miner was abstaining when he produced a block. Did you test the code with 2 nodes?
I don’t think it’s really hard (not harder than other protocol changes at least), but it clearly needs more work.
I have reviewed it already. What remains to be done is me writing down my remarks and Eleven fixing the code. And reviewing again and maybe some other rounds. Writing down my remarks should not take very long. But I’m wondering whether my time would be better spent actually writing the code.
I think some (or maybe even all) of them has been written already by glv and Eleven, but I haven’t reviewed them.
There’s an important detail about them though: they are based on Nu 2.1 code, which seems to be still unstable. I think @woodstockmerkle did a pretty good job at fixing it but I don’t know how complete it is, nor whether he can finish it.
As I said earlier answering that question would take some time, and I could only estimate how much time it would take for me (I don’t know about other developers efficiency, I don’t know how much time they spent on previous changes nor their availability).
1 Like
Well, we can wait, that’s BKS holders only option, even for 2-3 years.
If you can make an educated guess about the cost of that, I’m pretty sure BKS holders will discuss contracting you for that.
I understand @Eleven, @glv and @woodstockmerkle do a very good job, but I understand as well that you have more experience in that field and might be able to produce equally good results faster and maybe even at less cost (even if your hour rate is higher).
B&C needs to be able to start trading soon if it wants to improve the overall situation.
There will be a time when the market for decentralized exchanges is more saturated than it is now.
Waiting too long makes market entry harder.
2 Likes
Wonderful with how many option we are left now, considering all the promises and positive energy spread on this forum and on bitcointalk several months ago.
The financial situation has become “a little bit more complicated”.
Not having exchanged all development funds for NBT would leave B&C in a better position.
Diversification would have been good in that case as well - a part of the funds kept in NBT, a part kept in BTC.
But exchanging all BTC for NBT was necessary to create the NBT demand, which was necessary for Nu to go on.
This decision was made from someone with in-depth knowledge about the financial situation of Nu (especially the information that is still being hidden from the public) without involving shareholders.
Fill in an appropriate sock puppet name, if you want to know who had that knowledge.
The lack of knowledge combined with trust in a single entity turned out to be a bad move.
It wasn’t really possible to ask the right questions before it was too late.
Maybe it’s time for a motion to request
- all information regarding Nu that’s still missing
- all information regarding B&C that’s still missing
For the latter one I’ve already made a proposal for improvement:
1 Like
Which overal situation and how?
Not everyone wants to mimick JordanLee.
3 Likes