Yes I think it was a bad solution to the apathetic miners problem for a few reasons, but much more importantly it would have prevented us to switch to a better solution later (because once everyone has a data feed we can’t know anymore which one are apathetic). I was going to raise the issue on the forum when Jordan finally debated about it and agreed.
I’m not sure. My available time varies widely. In the coming weeks I should have a little more time than in the previous months though, so it may be possible. It also depends on what you expect me to do. For example I’d rather not handle team payments, recruiting, etc. As I said in my previous message I’d be ok to lead the technical side of the project. That would means making technical decisions, providing tasks and reviewing work.
NSR are much more liquid than BKS. They are very volatile and the market is very thin but it exists, whereas I don’t even know if BKS can be traded somewhere.
Anyway if I’m going to find time it will be partially from my day job and my partners would not accept such a risky payment. So I can accept a speculative payment, but only partially.
I would need to review Eleven’s code. After that I think it would be ready to be released.
I agree with these criticisms. There are solutions to them though that we can discuss, except maybe for the slowness (trading will be fast, but the coins you bought won’t be available immediately).
Another problem is the signer fees. Signers will have a lot of messages to publish and if they pay the same fee as traders they will need a large compensation. Having a message dependent fee would probably be the best solution.
But these are off topic technical details.
As I said he already wanted me to lead the development and he took this role only because I could not. So I don’t think he would mind, quite the contrary.
If I remember correctly he said he wanted to keep the architect role though, but I’m not sure what that means. If it’s making big decisions about the direction of the projet, I think shareholders should do that.
And I guess he also wanted to keep the payment (with his assistant) and recruitment roles. I don’t really want these roles, so shareholders may have to find someone else anyway.
Regarding development I don’t think he lacked transparency. But the lack of communication was often a problem mostly because he didn’t actively follow the development and discussions until we explicitly asked him. He was also very stubborn sometimes and it took very long times to debate, but I think we always found an agreement at the end even when that meant to admit he was just wrong.
I do have commit access, although I don’t have admin access (that means I can’t add new commit accesses and he can remove mine). But ultimately we can move the project elsewhere.
