Jordan is also Jordan’s assistant. And Jordan is not his real name. Welcome to crypto. 
But if @JordanLee is also @Phoenix then he’s still around the forums. Or maybe @Phoenix is just trying to impersonate him?? His jokes with Mr Bean seem a bit uncharacteristic, so I’m not 100% sure.
There were posts from Superman as well in his thread about becoming chief of liquidity operations, but I think they were deleted. I thought they were from Jordan/Phoenix at first as well, but then the Superman account said Phoenix should work for free without payment in NSR, something which he wouldn’t have said if the account was under the control of Phoenix. So maybe the Mr. Bean and Superman accounts are not from him after all and are simply joke accounts that outsiders are using to play pranks on us.
So he suggested me to ask you guys can I be paid bks. sorry again.
I think most of us here would be fine with you being paid in BKS, as long as it means B&C actually comes out and this whole thing hasn’t been a massive waste of time, energy, hopes and dreams.
This would mean we have a few questions to answer.
If we don’t, perhaps v5.0 is ready for release. That is the release that needs 55% upgraded in order for the protocol switch to occur. It would cut the people not upgrading out of the equation. It would also remove the people minting without voting, because the default behavior should now be set to abstain from voting as Jordan talked about doing before. This means people minting without voting would no longer effect the outcome and we could most likely successfully pass a BlockShares grant. @CoinGame, do you also know if this release is almost ready to go? Sorry to ask you so many questions, but we don’t have Jordan to rely on at the moment.
I asked CoinGame this above, so hopefully he knows the answer.
The last thing that needs thorough testing is the vote abstaining. Unfortunately the NuBits crash and having to pay the final fee out of my own pocket for the NuBits.com open sourcing (as a result of the crash) has complicated things for me. I won’t be able to continue with the testing as a result for the time being. I’m not sure when I’ll be able to return.
Much of 5.0 code is complete though and simply needs to be confirmed as working, and maybe some restructure to the UX in how abstained votes are presented.
I’m not sure about the second question to be honest. We should have been testing trading by now, but the failure to upgrade the protocol has disrupted the process significantly. NuBits price crash has tremendously complicated things further.
So basically Eleven needs payment through BlockShares. If apathetic voters are interfering too much for us to be able to vote for a BlockShares grant for him, (still not sure if it will be a problem) v5.0 won’t be able to help with this problem because it’s not done testing yet. What if proceeds from NSR sales were able to help you finish testing? What would you need from us if we were able to get that to you?
You should request a payment to cover the costs you paid in advance from your own pocket.
Yes, I believe @CoinGame should do both. The 1st NuShare auction ends today I believe. He should ask for compensation for what he needed to pay out of pocket for the website work. He should also ask for compensation to finish testing B&C v5.0, so we can get the protocol updated and pay Eleven in BKS.
The way I see it, NSR sales can only do so much, and I highly doubt we’ll be able to raise enough to cover over $700k. The only option that I see that has a chance of success is getting B&C the funding they need to finish and release it. Then B&C can use a percentage of its profit to lift Nu slowly out of debt. That is the only viable option that I can see. Please read @Dhume’s thread about it here…
What about all other contractors who have nubits that are worth a fraction now?
They should do the same.
Keeping the system running is more important than chasing after the peg.
You need contractors to keep the system running.
Yep, if they all leave because of lack of payment then we’re definitely screwed. The peg is lost. Everybody knows it now. We need to choose the most viable path forward with the biggest chance of success. B&C has a viable revenue model, unlike Nu. We can use this to our advantage, but that can only happen if our contractors continue to get paid. It is in Nu’s best interest to make sure that keeps happening.
First, we need a leader in B&C development, @sigmike? Or @eleven? @CoinGame?
Then if the new leader and other dev accept BKS, bks shareholder should grant some BKS to them. That’s dilution, I and @dhume are both big and active shareholders, so we can help the motion to pass.
How much time and money do we need to finish B&C project?！
Mindblowing story. I read some of your commits @Eleven and I am confident that you won’t have a problem finding other opportunities with your skills. Honest question: Is anyone of you developers of B&C really 100% behind the design paper (also paging @sigmike, @CoinGame )? I would really like to understand some fundamental properties of this exchange design.
As a hint for shareholders: Maybe, to get a better understanding of the current funds available in JLs possession, it could be a good start to ask @cryptog or @eleven to reveal the addresses they received their funds from … you know, open ledger and so … but maybe JL also took care of those things and mixed the coins. Also the email contact to Angela might be of use - maybe if you offer some hard BTC to her then she might tell something, if she indeed is a real person.
I’m in as B&C Shareholder and would vote for such a motion.
I do have PM skills as some of you already know, but severely lacking the time to properly lead a project as this due to other commitments and the requirement to have a more reliable source of income. But I can help a bit.
Let’s break this down:
@coingame, how much more testing time (hours/days or dollars) do you anticipate you needed to release 5.0 to a working state (not necessarily a pretty state).
@Eleven, how much time for bug fixing do you need during @coingame’s testing?
And how much time would you need to package and release binaries for 5.0 so community can start testing?
Finally we need to keep eleven on standby for a couple of hours a week to continue to fix issues found with 5.0.
With these answers we can submit a motion to Shareholders and get them to finish release 5. Everything else beyond will need to be discussed. Just keep in mind mind that we have other essential costs to sustain, like hosting/maintaining the forum and the website.
It depends on the bug. Usually it need 2-3 hours. I almost fix all the bugs. It remains someone need review my code, before @sigmike did this, now I think he is busy. So maybe I will do it.
package does not take much time, but I don’t have a windows and Mac OSX. For windows it is easy to solve, I can find a cumputer and build the neccessary environment and package.
We can do without the OSX to start with, although @sabreiib may not agree 
Like the confidence 
Hope @sigmike is able to find some time to respond.
Same for @CoinGame for the testing.
We really need to get a proposal in front of the Shareholders to release 5.0 asap.
In this situation I will agree even if only linux is supported.
@sigmike should say something; and @Eleven, thanks for your hard work, we will find solutions to provide you salary to finish B&C project.
I have no idea.
I don’t. He has always been very careful about hiding his identity.
I haven’t, but my communication with him was very sparse these last weeks.
Sometimes he was absent from the chatroom for several days. He usually came back to answer if we mentioned him (but not always), but I think nobody mentioned him since the crisis started.
I think we could finish the core system. I’m not sure about the front end because there are a few things I never took the time to think about. But if something unclear came up we could certainly find a solution without Jordan (unless it’s a fundamental flaw without good solution but Jordan probably wouldn’t help either).
I think the main problem is my available time. He asked me at the beginning of the year to lead the team, but I failed mostly because I lacked time. So he took this role again. I can probably take it back, but my available time is still uncertain.
Right now it’s unlikely. If we consider the shareholders who didn’t upgrade their client are apathetic then we currently only have 63% of active shareholders so we would need about 80% of them to vote for a motion or a grant to make it pass. And they include Jordan.
But as Sentinelrv said, if we switch to protocol v5 then it should not be a problem as long as 50% of the non-abstaining shareholders agree.
I wrote the detailed protocol specs, so about the core system the answer is probably yes. I’m not sure about the front end though, but I think it was not planned for this development round anyway.
I could probably lead on the technical side of the project but I lack time.
I have recently had a few important disagreements with Jordan on some technical parts, but I didn’t have the time or the energy to debate them with him (except for the default data feed, which was very bad for the future in my opinion so I took the time). So if I’m going to lead the development we may have to discard some of the very recent work Eleven did. An advantage of this way would be that a part of the remaining code (the signer logic) could be written by any coder, not only by C++ coders with good knowledge of blockchain internals.
I’m not sure about that because BKS is very illiquid right now.
That’s a very hard question that has always been in the hands of Jordan only. I don’t know anything about the costs involved besides my own. Evaluating the time only is also very difficult, especially because I don’t know how the other developers are efficient nor how much time testing requires. I may be able to evaluate how much time I would need to do everything myself, but even that would take quite some time and would be very uncertain.
Do you mean do we support the design paper as it is written? I think many parts are unclear but I was able to write more detailed protocol specs from it. These specs include changes from the design paper though (about which Jordan never gave his opinion, so I don’t even know if he read them).
My contacts with Angela have been through BitMessage only, and I guess it’s the same for the others.
I’m not sure the others are able to build the packages right away. I was usually the one doing it. It takes an hour or so, but it’s mostly automated so it doesn’t cost very much (it could be fully automated by the way, by anyone with Linux system administration skills). That’s for Linux and Windows builds only though.
I can probably find some time to review your changes.
Having disagreement with Jordan for good reason is what was lacking at a lot more places. It’s good to see that you were not afraid of disagreeing with Jordan!
May I ask about the default data feed - do you think it was a bad idea to have a default data feed?
…because I think it was…
I’m not sure whether “which was very bad for the future” is related to the disagreement with Jordan or the data feed and want to be sure about that.
Discarding some of the work to pave the ground for a more flexible way forward doesn’t sound bad at all!
Do you think you have enough time to lead the development if you were to be chosen?
Do you have enough confidence in Nu left to be paid with NSR (Nu could offer NBT-NSR swaps for the NBT that are in the B&C development fund)?
If not, what payment would you accept?
I guess this indicates that NSR are no option, because NSR are illiquid as well. You wouldn’t want to have a speculative payment, right?