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 ādeterministicā issue, could you solve this?
If not, Iāll 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 donāt 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, Iām 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 Iām not certain everything is feasible.
Itās not clear whether the project will have enough resources.
Thatās right but you set this flag from the global variable that is changed only when a block is minted.
I havenāt run the code, but by reading it I donāt 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 donāt think itās 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 Iām 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 havenāt reviewed them.
Thereās 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 donāt 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 donāt know about other developers efficiency, I donāt know how much time they spent on previous changes nor their availability).
1 Like
Well, we can wait, thatās BKS holders only option, even for 2-3 years.
If you can make an educated guess about the cost of that, Iām 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 āa little bit more complicatedā.
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 wasnāt really possible to ask the right questions before it was too late.
Maybe itās time for a motion to request
- all information regarding Nu thatās still missing
- all information regarding B&C thatās still missing
For the latter one Iāve already made a proposal for improvement:
1 Like
Which overal situation and how?
Not everyone wants to mimick JordanLee.
3 Likes