What will be paid to B&C exchange developer

I’ve been around.

I haven’t had a lot to contribute to the deep economic discussions, so I’ve been been voting and quietly maintaining a lot of the community’s infrastructure with @CoinGame to keep myself involved.

3 Likes

Well, getting insight like this from people that are supposed to be working closely behind the scenes with Jordan on B&C is very important. I am inclined to agree with what the dev team thinks is the best course of action when it concerns Jordan’s effectiveness as project leader. He obviously had the idea or vision for this exchange as well as Nu, but that doesn’t mean he is best suited to lead the project to completion.

The negatives you mentioned “lack of communication, engagement, and transparency” have been mentioned many times by other members outside the dev team, so at first it seems to be nothing new. However, I thought that this was only his normal behavior toward shareholders. I’m quite shocked to learn that members of the dev team feel the same way, because I always assumed he was very involved behind the scenes in coordinating development and managing projects. It seems that my assumption of him as an effective project manager behind the scenes has been false this entire time?

If that is true, then we should move on without Jordan and select a new project lead, preferably @sigmike if he is willing. I believe his past work with Peercoin, Nu and B&C qualify him as the best candidate we could ask for to lead the project to completion. The qualities that make him an excellent candidate are his track record, expertise in coding and understanding of the protocol, transparency, communication with the community and his ability to think long-term in crafting the best solutions for the network. If shareholders were to go this route I would support it.

It would be great if other team members shared their opinion of Jordan as project leader and whether they believe it would make sense to replace him. Please don’t be afraid to share your opinion freely with shareholders. Jordan can’t fire you. BlockShareholders ultimately hold all the power and have the final say.

1 Like

Voting for a new leader that would replace Jordan via the Nu blockchain voting mechanism he invented would be…the most beautiful way for him to pass the baton.

By the way, assuming hypothetically that we get a new architect, we still need to:

  • make sure than the commit access is transferred from Jordan
  • the development fund is transferred from Jordan

That implies that Jordan …reads that.
@JordanLee ?

1 Like

If that is true, then we should move on without Jordan and select a new project lead, preferably @sigmike if he is willing. I believe his past work with Peercoin, Nu and B&C qualify him as the best candidate we could ask for to lead the project to completion. The qualities that make him an excellent candidate are his track record, expertise in coding and understanding of the protocol, transparency, communication with the community and his ability to think long-term in crafting the best solutions for the network. If shareholders were to go this route I would support it.

It would be great if other team members shared their opinion of Jordan as project leader and whether they believe it would make sense to replace him. Please don’t be afraid to share your opinion freely with shareholders. Jordan can’t fire you. BlockShareholders ultimately hold all the power and have the final say.

How can we pay him? What I’m getting out of @sigmike is that he has very little time and he’s not all that excited to work for BKS.

So now what?

1 Like

We would have to try auctioning some BKS off for Bitcoin I guess. But before that v5.0 might need to be released. It depends on if apathetic minters prevent us from voting for a new BlockShares grant.

1 Like

I just got a bitmessage from Angela. Angela felt free to quote the message if I wish. So it is the message

"I imagine you probably don’t feel very good about having been paid in NuBits at an exchange rate of $0.31 and having your NBT immediately go down below $0.15, probably before you could sell it. I don’t have the discretion to change what happened, but sigmike might if he becomes the leader. I would suggest you bring the issue up to him and also tell shareholders on the forum what happened to you, so they can help you find a solution.

Can you talk with shareholders and sigmike about what they want in terms of paying in NuBits going forward? There are two choices:

  1. stop paying with NBT right now and start paying with BTC gained from BKS sales. This conserves NBT with the hope that its value will be higher later
  2. keep using NBT to pay you and other contractors until it is gone, then use BKS sales. A complication is that most of our NuBits are parked and can’t be transferred right now.

There are a little over 120,000 NBT in the B&C wallet right now. Only about 45,000 are available to transfer for contractor payments in early July. Most of this can be given to you, but there is a real chance 45,000 NBT won’t be enough for the next pay day if the exchange rate drops to much. All I can do is pay the NuBits we have available. Other solutions need to come from shareholders. Please share this with the community so a decision can be made about how to handle the funds and how to pay contractors such as yourself. You are welcome to quote the entire message on the forum if you wish. "

5 Likes

Eleven, you need to release v5.0 so that we can ban those fucking apathetic miners, otherwise we may not pass a motion.

If Jordan will not show up till July 1st, I"ll raise a motion to elect sigmike as our leader and BKS auction to support your coding.

4 Likes

This message is 99% from Jordan. 99% sounds a lot just for a guess, but I feel pretty confident it is him.
By the way, why would Angela mention sigmike as a new leader?

3 Likes

Please just do that and stop relying on Jordan for heaven’s sake.

+1

@Eleven when will v5.0 release?

I would like to see @creon involved in B&C development. He has the knowledge, energy and passion to be a leader.

1 Like

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.

7 Likes

Off-Topic There are solutions for that available right now. At least for Bitcoin, requires a little fee and a third party deal. Shapeshift is also using it. Google is your friend.[quote=“sigmike, post:75, topic:4165”]
For example I’d rather not handle team payments, recruiting, etc.
[/quote]
A team like @crypto_coiner, @cryptog and myself could handle payments and recruitment. I’m sure there are other who could qualify. Haven’t asked any of them yet.
Question is what’s in it for such a team, as it takes time and there are risks? The Shareholders may need to think of this.

Good point

2 Likes

Thanks for these! So the next steps are:

1)Sigmike permit @Eleven 's v5.0 (coingame’s comment?). We ban those apathetic miners.

  1. BKS holders pass a motion that sigmike is the technical leader & architect.

  2. cybnate and others take charge of PR etc. We then discuss how to fund the next development.

Let’s move on, B&C will very likely become the first profitable DAO! No pump&dump, no hype, it’s serious business!

2 Likes

Given that shareholders really don’t want to mess up their relationship with devs, and that we can’t give custodian grants, perhaps we can adopt the following work flow:

First, core developers lend X amount of BKS to the network, to be auctioned off by a multisig team
Then, after 5.0 is published, shareholders vote to pay back the borrowed BKS plus interest via a custodial grant

The risk here is that I’m not totally certain nobody will make it hard to pass the custodial grant. At least if I buy those BKS I will vote for it.

Definitively.

I’ve reviewed the changes and unfortunately they are not ready for release. There are minor issues that we could deal with later but there is a major one that just makes abstention not work at all. And more importantly it reveals an important lack of knowledge of the blockchain process from @Eleven. So the amount of work to get this release finalized is not negligible.

If shareholders just want to “ban apathetic miners” we could still release 5.0 with only the protocol 5 switch (which is the same as protocol 4 but with a switch threshold lowered to 55%). Since there are currently 62% of minters voting for protocol 4 we can expect protocol 5 to pass, and about 38% of the shares to be forked out if they continue to run version 3.

3 Likes

Thanks for reviewing the code.

Do I understand it right that the lower the percentage allowed the bigger the risk t have a fork? If this is true we should change the percentage threshold to 60%.

I support this one, and you decide the number of 55% or 60%, our goal is to select you as the technical leader ASAP.

@Dhume, what’s your opinion? You are a big shareholder.

There will be a fork anyway because non-upgraded clients will continue to mint on the old protocol. If upgraded clients have more than 50% of the minting shares they will have the longer chain eventually, but because the process is random, if the percentage of upgraded nodes is close to 50% we may have some times where the old nodes have the longer chain and we may experience large reorganizations that may facilitate double spends. After a certain time the reorganizations will fail anyway (because we can’t have reorganizations on more than about a week if I remember correctly).

It also means that more than 50% of the shareholders must keep minting on the new protocol during and after the switch because if they ever fall below 50% the old chain may take over while it still can and we would have to restart the process on the old chain, with more uncertainty.

Since the number of 4.0 nodes is decreasing (we were at 65% a few days ago, 62% yesterday, and 60% today), if we set the threshold to 60% there are good chances it won’t pass. Unless the reason is there was some 4.0 shares were just transferred and are going to back to minting on 4.0 soon.

Also if BKS are not traded on exchanges I think the double spend risk is low. Shareholders can probably wait for things to stabilize before they exchange BKS.

So I’d keep 55%, with a warning on shareholders saying that to be safe they should only exchange BKS with trusted parties until about 1 week after the switch.

3 Likes