What will be paid to B&C exchange developer

[mhps]

Thanks for reviewing the code.

with a switch threshold lowered to 55%). Since there are currently 62% of minters voting for protocol

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%.

[Sabreiib]

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%).

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.

[sigmike]

Do I understand it right that the lower the percentage allowed the bigger the risk t have a fork?

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.

[Sabreiib]

@sigmike, thanks for your work! In this crisis, Jordan Lee doesn’t show up, B&C dev fund in danger, and some apathetic miners… All these make shareholders feel sad.

We need you now, and will support you with our full strengh. Who is the “BCexchange” account in bitcointalk? Could Sigmike post a reply on bitcointalk forum that all shareholders need to upgrade to v5.0 with 55% threshold?

I guess we can elect some reputed signers who will take charge of fund payment etc, in this special situation, we need a semi-decentralized organization to speed up progress.

[Eleven]

Hi sigmike could add your comments on my code, point to where I am wrong. It will be good for the 5.0 release and me also shareholders. [quote=“sigmike, post:80, topic:4165”]
And more importantly it reveals an important lack of knowledge of the blockchain process from @Eleven
[/quote]

Please don’t make a so quick decision.
Yes I agree with you option that will make fork and results some complicated thing. But as you know that time you and jordan always has different opinions. I just follow one leader and drive the project move forward.

[Nagalim]

We could also give sigmike and eleven a bunch of bks that they will start minting with, thereby decreasing the apathetic %.

[Sabreiib]

Nushareholders can help B&C by minting on v5.0, after all, 40% BKS in their hands.

I guess B&C is their biggest hope, if Nu fails.

[Sabreiib]

You will follow Sigmike if the motion passed, after v5.0 released, I’ll draft that motion to elect Sigmike as technical leader.

[crypto_coiner]

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.

I think that is a must –
First of all, there is no leader per se unless we are defining and even provisioning its role in a motion.

[crypto_coiner]

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?

Absolutely IN.
Tasks include Recruiting, Promotion, Evangelism.
Payments possible in NBT, BKC, NSR and BKS

[crypto_coiner]

And more importantly it reveals an important lack of knowledge of the blockchain process from @Eleven

As it is rather a subjective statement, that requires some elaboration and exposure to all shareholders.

[Sabreiib]

Can we vote a reputed signers team after V5.0?

A dozen of reputed signers are the best for payment, recruiting, promotion, Evangelism.

In a crisis, we can see more clearly who is more responsible and kindness.

BTW, if B&C succeeds, I suggest we take a portion of revenue as foundation multi-sig by reputed signers, to pay for the software development and promotion etc. So @sigmike @eleven @CoinGame @ben etc you may work part time or full time for many years, if you wish. B&C can be the first profitable DAO, sustainable development!

We are together to run a business from all over the world, we are on same boat, our community is definitely different from those hype alt coins.

[sigmike]

Who is the “BCexchange” account in bitcointalk?

I don’t know. Maybe @tomjoad does.

Could Sigmike post a reply on bitcointalk forum that all shareholders need to upgrade to v5.0 with 55% threshold?

I could but I only have very few posts on bitcointalk so people may not trust me.

Hi sigmike could add your comments on my code, point to where I am wrong. It will be good for the 5.0 release and me also shareholders.

Sure I will, but it will take some time so it didn’t look like highest priority.

Please don’t make a so quick decision.

Ultimately it’s shareholder’s decision to upgrade or not. They have to decide whether they want a quick 5.0 that only forks out non upgraded clients, or a full 5.0 that requires more time and development, that would also enable abstention and data feeds upgrade alerts.

Knowing that abstention can be added later in a future protocol upgrade, and data feed upgrade alerts can be added in a non-protocol upgrade.

Yes I agree with you option that will make fork and results some complicated thing. But as you know that time you and jordan always has different opinions. I just follow one leader and drive the project move forward.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Jordan and I indeed had disagreements about the data feeds (not about abstention, after we discussed it). You were right to follow Jordan and I’m not saying we should rewrite it the way I’d have done it. I’m just saying it still needs work. But since my main criticism was that is was overly complex, I’m not certain we can finish it quickly.

As it is rather a subjective statement, that requires some elaboration and exposure to all shareholders.

The major problem is that he determines whether a block is abstaining or not by reading a global flag inside the minting code, whereas he should do it by parsing blocks when they are received. It means the application was seen like it was a single autonomous node that would create all the blocks. That’s why I think it’s an important lack of knowledge of how the blockchain works in the code.

Can we vote a reputed signers team after V5.0?

Yes, voting for reputed signers was part of 4.0. It was just never enabled because the protocol never switched.

[Sabreiib]

Ultimately it’s shareholder’s decision to upgrade or not. They have to decide whether they want a quick 5.0 that only forks out non upgraded clients, or a full 5.0 that requires more time and development, that would also enable abstention and data feeds upgrade alerts.

Something like egg vs chicken, nowadays around 30%+ miners are apathetic, so we need ban them at first and let active miners efficiently pass motions.

We should not get stuck here, let’s move on, but I guess @sigmike need to talk with Jordan(if possible) and update B&C website download link, bitcointalk forum.

[Sabreiib]

A motion which receives a vote in 5001 out of any 10000 consecutive blocks and the majority of share days (coin days) in those 10000 consecutive blocks is considered passed.

Well, if @sigmike is not against within 24 hours, I’ll draft a motion to elect sigmike as B&C technical leader.

[Dhume]

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.

[Eleven]

I’m just saying it still needs work. But since my main criticism was that is was overly complex, I’m not certain we can finish it quickly.

I agree with.

The major problem is that he determines whether a block is abstaining or not by reading a global flag inside the minting code, whereas he should do it by parsing blocks when they are received. It means the application was seen like it was a single autonomous node that would create all the blocks

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.

[Sabreiib]

I know the logic of solving the abstention part is complicated, I will review.

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.

[mhps]

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 agree. Make small and frequent steps. Discover problems early when the consequence is not severe.

[Sentinelrv]

By the way, why would Angela mention sigmike as a new leader?

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.