The community needs a professional community management team.

[BTSdac]

You are right.
BM  is a good programmer. That doesn't mean he is a great leader.
Stan is BM's father.  I dodn't think this realtion will help solve the problem
So stan will always support BM no matter what kind of decision he made.

I think Bm is not only a good programmer , but a man with excellence and long term strategy also

[Rune]

Once this reaches VISA level you will not be able to run the delegate on a regular computer .. you will need a cluster due to
- the huge amount of incoming transactions
- the number of ECDSA verifications you need to perform on the other delegates
- the lookups in your database to figure out if a transactions is valid or not funded

you will also need a huge "bandwidth" (technical correct term would be "data rate" -- but that's another issue) .. due to
- HUGE blocks of several mega bytes .. EVERY 10 seconds
- HUGE overhead because every node you are connected to you will want to send you transactions your already know about

and probably plenty of other technical issues that will prevent a regular home computer to run a delegate ... in the long term

for now you are safe to use a cheap 10$/monthly VPS ...
how knows how soon this changes

Aside from the price, what is the practical differences for renting a cluster from the same pipelines that delivers the VPS that are currently used? Will custom optimization of the hardware be required?The price will just be subsidized by the DAC so that's not gonna be an issue.

There shouldn't be hardware customization. However I think using VPS would be bad idea. All VPS servers could be shut-down by single government request or cloud service provider policy change. In the end even if the price is subsidized by the DAC only these that maintain it efficiently will remain.

As long as delegates are expected to only use VPS providers from their own country (unless bitshares are illegal, such as russian and china), then I think we should be fine, as our trusted nodes would be spread across the entire planet. There is no One World Government that can shut down all VPS providers globally in an instant. If we observe initiatives to create a system that would allow them to crack down simultaneously on all delegates globally, then we can begin to rethink the system. However, if such a drastic attack against us happened, we can be almost 100% sure that they will also be expending significant amounts of resources on infiltrating our social and trust structures, and then the 1 human rule would again protect us significantly.

[emski]

Once this reaches VISA level you will not be able to run the delegate on a regular computer .. you will need a cluster due to
- the huge amount of incoming transactions
- the number of ECDSA verifications you need to perform on the other delegates
- the lookups in your database to figure out if a transactions is valid or not funded

you will also need a huge "bandwidth" (technical correct term would be "data rate" -- but that's another issue) .. due to
- HUGE blocks of several mega bytes .. EVERY 10 seconds
- HUGE overhead because every node you are connected to you will want to send you transactions your already know about

and probably plenty of other technical issues that will prevent a regular home computer to run a delegate ... in the long term

for now you are safe to use a cheap 10$/monthly VPS ...
how knows how soon this changes

Aside from the price, what is the practical differences for renting a cluster from the same pipelines that delivers the VPS that are currently used? Will custom optimization of the hardware be required?The price will just be subsidized by the DAC so that's not gonna be an issue.

There shouldn't be hardware customization. However I think using VPS would be bad idea. All VPS servers could be shut-down by single government request or cloud service provider policy change. In the end even if the price is subsidized by the DAC only these that maintain it efficiently will remain.

What if the IP is masked?  How would gov's find out?  Through the VPS provider giving info up without being asked for it?

There are numerous ways. Cloud providers can still check what you store on the servers and/or in the ram. The traffic is also visible. You need to connect to seed ports too. In the end your software is running on their hardware. They can see what you do.

[fuzzy]

Once this reaches VISA level you will not be able to run the delegate on a regular computer .. you will need a cluster due to
- the huge amount of incoming transactions
- the number of ECDSA verifications you need to perform on the other delegates
- the lookups in your database to figure out if a transactions is valid or not funded

you will also need a huge "bandwidth" (technical correct term would be "data rate" -- but that's another issue) .. due to
- HUGE blocks of several mega bytes .. EVERY 10 seconds
- HUGE overhead because every node you are connected to you will want to send you transactions your already know about

and probably plenty of other technical issues that will prevent a regular home computer to run a delegate ... in the long term

for now you are safe to use a cheap 10$/monthly VPS ...
how knows how soon this changes

Aside from the price, what is the practical differences for renting a cluster from the same pipelines that delivers the VPS that are currently used? Will custom optimization of the hardware be required?The price will just be subsidized by the DAC so that's not gonna be an issue.

There shouldn't be hardware customization. However I think using VPS would be bad idea. All VPS servers could be shut-down by single government request or cloud service provider policy change. In the end even if the price is subsidized by the DAC only these that maintain it efficiently will remain.

What if the IP is masked?  How would gov's find out?  Through the VPS provider giving info up without being asked for it?

I think that 3I should hire Stan as a CEO!

  Stan is one of my favorite human beings of all time. 

[emski]

Once this reaches VISA level you will not be able to run the delegate on a regular computer .. you will need a cluster due to
- the huge amount of incoming transactions
- the number of ECDSA verifications you need to perform on the other delegates
- the lookups in your database to figure out if a transactions is valid or not funded

you will also need a huge "bandwidth" (technical correct term would be "data rate" -- but that's another issue) .. due to
- HUGE blocks of several mega bytes .. EVERY 10 seconds
- HUGE overhead because every node you are connected to you will want to send you transactions your already know about

and probably plenty of other technical issues that will prevent a regular home computer to run a delegate ... in the long term

for now you are safe to use a cheap 10$/monthly VPS ...
how knows how soon this changes

Aside from the price, what is the practical differences for renting a cluster from the same pipelines that delivers the VPS that are currently used? Will custom optimization of the hardware be required?The price will just be subsidized by the DAC so that's not gonna be an issue.

There shouldn't be hardware customization. However I think using VPS would be bad idea. All VPS servers could be shut-down by single government request or cloud service provider policy change. In the end even if the price is subsidized by the DAC only these that maintain it efficiently will remain.

[gamey]

What you're describing is simply a technical issue. The delegate client just needs to be made easier to use. I don't think there's anything preventing a delegate client from being as easy to use as the normal client, the only difference being that it has to always run or be installed on a VPS. If binaries are used there just need to be some extra system that compares checksums of the files with numbers on the blockchain to ensure the delegate is a non-tampered exact copy.

What happens when the drive fills up, you are DDOSed, or you have to figure out why you are having network issues ?

It isn't compilation that is the hard part, it is fixing a broken machine.  Compilation is literally a list of approximately 7 steps to type in.

So it is en education thing too.  We will require people to learn to be sys-admins first according to the rules you are pushing. 

I just don't understand.

[Rune]

Once this reaches VISA level you will not be able to run the delegate on a regular computer .. you will need a cluster due to
- the huge amount of incoming transactions
- the number of ECDSA verifications you need to perform on the other delegates
- the lookups in your database to figure out if a transactions is valid or not funded

you will also need a huge "bandwidth" (technical correct term would be "data rate" -- but that's another issue) .. due to
- HUGE blocks of several mega bytes .. EVERY 10 seconds
- HUGE overhead because every node you are connected to you will want to send you transactions your already know about

and probably plenty of other technical issues that will prevent a regular home computer to run a delegate ... in the long term

for now you are safe to use a cheap 10$/monthly VPS ...
how knows how soon this changes

Aside from the price, what is the practical differences for renting a cluster from the same pipelines that delivers the kind of VPS's that are currently used? Will custom optimization of the hardware be required?The price will just be subsidized by the DAC so that's not gonna be an issue.

[Gentso1]

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value.

I absolutely believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether to be anonymous or not. The advantage of forcing the one delegate = one human rule is that anyone looking to infiltrate us would probably break that rule. While it is not trivial to detect people breaking the rule, it is still easier to look for people breaking it, than people who are simply harboring dishonest intentions that might "go off" later when they are deeper into the trust structure.

It is hard to fake real human behaviour and social interaction. I imagine scammers, criminals or intelligence agents will underestimate this difficulty because they are predominantly sociopaths.

I agree that no matter who gets the job it should be one person=one delegate. This also ensures that if it is a team of people and one person's actions will not get the entire team voted out.

Not everyone who has value will want to run their own delegate or will they have the technical skills.  It is just a flawed way of looking at things.  People can subcontract work out all the time.  Only honest people will be punished by this "rule". 

It is flawed because you are trusting people to be honest about something, when we should just look at the result created. 

It would be up to the team to get rid of the bad actor, and if the team had enough value otherwise they could likely be reelected in.  This rule is an unenforceable arbitrary rule that just hurts the ability to hire non-technical people in roles they are good at.

By your logic you want to leave it up to the team to get rid of a bad apple. By mine it should be up to the community to pick out the bad apple.

I actually sub contract out my delegate(don't worry I am not in the top 101 ).  I do not have the technical skill to run a delegate myself. I think I a can help if different ways but as rune has pointed out I believe it will be made much easier to run a delegate in the future.

xeroc also makes a valid argument that the equipment required (if that level is achieved) will put running a delegate out of reach of the daily user.

I am trying to understand your side but what do we have to gain by not making a rule like this? Lets try to forget atm the rule would be mostly un-enforceable.

[xeroc]

Once this reaches VISA level you will not be able to run the delegate on a regular computer .. you will need a cluster due to
- the huge amount of incoming transactions
- the number of ECDSA verifications you need to perform on the other delegates
- the lookups in your database to figure out if a transactions is valid or not funded

you will also need a huge "bandwidth" (technical correct term would be "data rate" -- but that's another issue) .. due to
- HUGE blocks of several mega bytes .. EVERY 10 seconds
- HUGE overhead because every node you are connected to you will want to send you transactions your already know about

and probably plenty of other technical issues that will prevent a regular home computer to run a delegate ... in the long term

for now you are safe to use a cheap 10$/monthly VPS ...
how knows how soon this changes

[Rune]

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value.

I absolutely believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether to be anonymous or not. The advantage of forcing the one delegate = one human rule is that anyone looking to infiltrate us would probably break that rule. While it is not trivial to detect people breaking the rule, it is still easier to look for people breaking it, than people who are simply harboring dishonest intentions that might "go off" later when they are deeper into the trust structure.

It is hard to fake real human behaviour and social interaction. I imagine scammers, criminals or intelligence agents will underestimate this difficulty because they are predominantly sociopaths.

I agree that no matter who gets the job it should be one person=one delegate. This also ensures that if it is a team of people and one person's actions will not get the entire team voted out.

Not everyone who has value will want to run their own delegate or will they have the technical skills.  It is just a flawed way of looking at things.  People can subcontract work out all the time.  Only honest people will be punished by this "rule". 

It is flawed because you are trusting people to be honest about something, when we should just look at the result created. 

It would be up to the team to get rid of the bad actor, and if the team had enough value otherwise they could likely be reelected in.  This rule is an unenforceable arbitrary rule that just hurts the ability to hire non-technical people in roles they are good at.

What you're describing is simply a technical issue. The delegate client just needs to be made easier to use. I don't think there's anything preventing a delegate client from being as easy to use as the normal client, the only difference being that it has to always run or be installed on a VPS. If binaries are used there just need to be some extra system that compares checksums of the files with numbers on the blockchain to ensure the delegate is a non-tampered exact copy.

[BTS007]

I think that 3I should hire Stan as a CEO!

[gamey]

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value.

I absolutely believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether to be anonymous or not. The advantage of forcing the one delegate = one human rule is that anyone looking to infiltrate us would probably break that rule. While it is not trivial to detect people breaking the rule, it is still easier to look for people breaking it, than people who are simply harboring dishonest intentions that might "go off" later when they are deeper into the trust structure.

It is hard to fake real human behaviour and social interaction. I imagine scammers, criminals or intelligence agents will underestimate this difficulty because they are predominantly sociopaths.

I agree that no matter who gets the job it should be one person=one delegate. This also ensures that if it is a team of people and one person's actions will not get the entire team voted out.

Not everyone who has value will want to run their own delegate or will they have the technical skills.  It is just a flawed way of looking at things.  People can subcontract work out all the time.  Only honest people will be punished by this "rule". 

It is flawed because you are trusting people to be honest about something, when we should just look at the result created. 

It would be up to the team to get rid of the bad actor, and if the team had enough value otherwise they could likely be reelected in.  This rule is an unenforceable arbitrary rule that just hurts the ability to hire non-technical people in roles they are good at. 

[Gentso1]

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value.

I absolutely believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether to be anonymous or not. The advantage of forcing the one delegate = one human rule is that anyone looking to infiltrate us would probably break that rule. While it is not trivial to detect people breaking the rule, it is still easier to look for people breaking it, than people who are simply harboring dishonest intentions that might "go off" later when they are deeper into the trust structure.

It is hard to fake real human behaviour and social interaction. I imagine scammers, criminals or intelligence agents will underestimate this difficulty because they are predominantly sociopaths.

I don't understand how this rule keeps people from infiltrating.  People have more power as multiple delegates.

It is exceptionally easy to fake human interactions if you have an IQ above 120.  Thats the problem with this whole crypto space.  I can show you whole projects I suspect are one guy with multiple accounts that have faked whole projects dev teams.  Sociopaths understand these things better than anyone.  Thats why they are such great manipulators in general.

You are right. Maybe make it a rule with the understanding that it would be tough to enforce. Maybe with more features integrated down the road their could be some way to identify different people working on the project as delegate's. At least with a rule in place if they are found out action could be firm and swift. 

[Gentso1]

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value.

I absolutely believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether to be anonymous or not. The advantage of forcing the one delegate = one human rule is that anyone looking to infiltrate us would probably break that rule. While it is not trivial to detect people breaking the rule, it is still easier to look for people breaking it, than people who are simply harboring dishonest intentions that might "go off" later when they are deeper into the trust structure.

It is hard to fake real human behaviour and social interaction. I imagine scammers, criminals or intelligence agents will underestimate this difficulty because they are predominantly sociopaths.

I agree that no matter who gets the job it should be one person=one delegate. This also ensures that if it is a team of people and one person's actions will not get the entire team voted out.

[gamey]

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value.

I absolutely believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether to be anonymous or not. The advantage of forcing the one delegate = one human rule is that anyone looking to infiltrate us would probably break that rule. While it is not trivial to detect people breaking the rule, it is still easier to look for people breaking it, than people who are simply harboring dishonest intentions that might "go off" later when they are deeper into the trust structure.

It is hard to fake real human behaviour and social interaction. I imagine scammers, criminals or intelligence agents will underestimate this difficulty because they are predominantly sociopaths.

I don't understand how this rule keeps people from infiltrating.  People have more power as multiple delegates.

It is exceptionally easy to fake human interactions if you have an IQ above 120.  Thats the problem with this whole crypto space.  I can show you whole projects I suspect are one guy with multiple accounts that have faked whole projects dev teams.  Sociopaths understand these things better than anyone.  Thats why they are such great manipulators in general.

[gamey]

Its good to have a community manager but I dont think this should be a paid position.  Generally this kind of communtiy message board management is something that tends to just happen, for free.

I'd rather that the paid delegates that we are paying for with dilution just be developers, and funds going to marketing campaign, at this time.

Agree with this. Product development first.

It depends on what a community manager is.  It can be seen as a form of marketing.  This isn't the same as a forum mod.

[starspirit]

Its good to have a community manager but I dont think this should be a paid position.  Generally this kind of communtiy message board management is something that tends to just happen, for free.

I'd rather that the paid delegates that we are paying for with dilution just be developers, and funds going to marketing campaign, at this time.

Agree with this. Product development first.

[Rune]

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value.

I absolutely believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether to be anonymous or not. The advantage of forcing the one delegate = one human rule is that anyone looking to infiltrate us would probably break that rule. While it is not trivial to detect people breaking the rule, it is still easier to look for people breaking it, than people who are simply harboring dishonest intentions that might "go off" later when they are deeper into the trust structure.

It is hard to fake real human behaviour and social interaction. I imagine scammers, criminals or intelligence agents will underestimate this difficulty because they are predominantly sociopaths.

However, I'm not totally against having delegate organizations, in situations where the delegates' employees cannot be trusted to run a node (and thus essentially become external contractors to the organization), or in special cases such as I3, who I think have "earned" their right to maintain an external structure because it preceded the blockchain, and they can considered "grandfathered" in. Should we acquire other full teams in a single acquisition they could also earn their right to autonomous external organization, and could be "grandfathered" in under similar conditons as I3. What I want to prevent are that the default mode of business-related communication and organization between employees already fully integrated to the system, becomes secret and compartmentalized. I think that will also reduce the possibility of political or colluding factions to form.

[Rune]

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value.

I absolutely believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether to be anonymous or not. The advantage of forcing the one delegate = one human rule is that anyone looking to infiltrate us would probably break that rule. While it is not trivial to detect people breaking the rule, it is still easier to look for people breaking it, than people who are simply harboring dishonest intentions that might "go off" later when they are deeper into the trust structure.

It is hard to fake real human behaviour and social interaction. I imagine scammers, criminals or intelligence agents will underestimate this difficulty because they are predominantly sociopaths.

[Stan]

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value.

One thing I've learned in the past year is that trying to make iron-clad rules for how we should behave for all time is folly.  None of us are that smart.  Who knows what the threat matrix for this industry will be even six months from now?  We are agile little mammals trying to out-maneuver ferocious all-consuming dinosaurs.  Let's not tie our little paws too tightly. 

[gamey]

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value. 

[tonyk]

I dislike the pompous title and have hard time justifying the need of the existence of some formal appointed figure to do this job...

To say nothing about the need to spend 10K for this monthly... I can definitely find a better ways to spend such an amount.

If for some unknown to me reason the community prevails and I lose the argument... I vote for:

fuzz and gamey (JoeD is already sleeping 3h as it is, so I do not want to make his life even harder)

[Rune]

Sounds good. My only issue with this is that I would prefer to have them run a delegate each to get payment this way, as I think it is a good idea to try to cultivate a 1 delegate = 1 human voting habit from the beginning.

Isn't it better to just measure the work done vs what is paid ?  Why exactly is it a good idea ?

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

[gamey]

Sounds good. My only issue with this is that I would prefer to have them run a delegate each to get payment this way, as I think it is a good idea to try to cultivate a 1 delegate = 1 human voting habit from the beginning.

Isn't it better to just measure the work done vs what is paid ?  Why exactly is it a good idea ?

[Rune]

fuzz, joeyD, tonyK


These guys are great and are on mumble all the time. They seem to nearly live bitshares.

joeyD has a background as a educator and has certainly done a great job of helping me along.

TonyK is a but rough around the edges but really is a good guy. His understanding of economics is also very good.

Fuzz is like the glue. He seems to get along with nearly every member he has encountered. He serves as a moderator for mumble sessions and I think would be a perfect way to help bridge the above 2 with the public.

The 3 gentlemen above all ready donate a ton of there free time doing the the  job you describe for free. They have proven themselves in different ways but they are tested at QA and helping new members.

I would also suggest less money (sorry guys ).  Give each one 2k a month and I think many will be surprised with the level of service they will provide.

Sounds good. My only issue with this is that I would prefer to have them run a delegate each to get payment this way, as I think it is a good idea to try to cultivate a 1 delegate = 1 human voting habit from the beginning.

[Gentso1]

fuzz, joeyD, tonyK


These guys are great and are on mumble all the time. They seem to nearly live bitshares.

joeyD has a background as a educator and has certainly done a great job of helping many who have come to the mumble looking for help, in addition to posting the mumble recordings. I swear the guy doesn't sleep.

TonyK is a bit rough around the edges but really is a good guy. His understanding of economics is also very good. This is great because as different types of users come on here we are going to need a good economist to speak to them in a language they understand.

Fuzz is like the glue. He seems to get along with nearly every member he has encountered. He serves as a moderator for mumble sessions and I think would be a perfect way to help bridge the above 2 with the public.

The 3 gentlemen above all ready donate a ton of there free time doing the the  job you describe for free. They have proven themselves in different ways but they are tested at QA and helping new members.

I would also suggest less money (sorry guys ).  Give each one 2k a month and I think many will be surprised with the level of service they will provide.

[Rune]

I like the idea that the Chinese community can discuss and nominate their own choice for the Chinese community manager. I think there should only be two full time paid positions though. The idea that the full time community manager should be unpaid is irrational. That would mean the person who specializes in doing a vital job that is extremely important for the success of our company would have to spend the majority of his time working on something unrelated, in order to survive.

Regarding the salary, I come from a country with a very high tax rate. I don't know what level of salary is common or appropriate for this kind of position. I'd like to get suggestions from everyone regarding the level they think is correct, you are all the employers after all. Even better would be for fuz to make his own offer, which we can then use as the basis for negotiation.

[fuzzy]

Oops,  So I had this wrong all along!   Thanks Fuz 

no problem.   

[James212]

You are right.
BM  is a good programmer. That doesn't mean he is a great leader.
Stan is BM's father.  I dodn't think this realtion will help solve the problem
So stan will always support BM no matter what kind of decision he made.

Haha, I thought they were brothers!?

Lol, so did I......  Can someone plz clearify

Stan is dans dad

Oops,  So I had this wrong all along!   Thanks Fuz 

[James212]

  on Rune's idea.  When we should impliment this however is a question for whom ever is watching the budget and the cash burn.  I'm sure there are quite a number a demands for the projected/existing reserves which will need to be prioritized.   Maybe part of the Marketing budget can be earmarked to address new members and help with better organization(?).

  I would love to see a forum setup which includes up/down voting capabilities.  This will help greatly help to weed through to the important postings and assist to create consensus.   


Edit: I second Fuzz' nomination.  He's done a great job. 

[fuzzy]

You are right.
BM  is a good programmer. That doesn't mean he is a great leader.
Stan is BM's father.  I dodn't think this realtion will help solve the problem
So stan will always support BM no matter what kind of decision he made.

Haha, I thought they were brothers!?

Lol, so did I......  Can someone plz clearify

Stan is dans dad

[James212]

You are right.
BM  is a good programmer. That doesn't mean he is a great leader.
Stan is BM's father.  I dodn't think this realtion will help solve the problem
So stan will always support BM no matter what kind of decision he made.

Haha, I thought they were brothers!?

Lol, so did I......  Can someone plz clearify

[cube]

Besides Fuzzy and tbk, I would like to suggest adding the following people to the nomination list:

gamey, xeroc, emski, amencon, ripplexiaoshan, thom

[johncitizen]

You are right.
BM  is a good programmer. That doesn't mean he is a great leader.
Stan is BM's father.  I dodn't think this realtion will help solve the problem
So stan will always support BM no matter what kind of decision he made.

Haha, I thought they were brothers!?

Dan is a great leader and Stan is autonomous in his decisions. You can be sure their consensus is universal intelligence.

[networker]

You are right.
BM  is a good programmer. That doesn't mean he is a great leader.
Stan is BM's father.  I dodn't think this realtion will help solve the problem
So stan will always support BM no matter what kind of decision he made.

[Overthetop]

After the mumble meeting yesterday, Mr. Bo Shen raised a voting for a 3 member team of the spokesman for the chinese community,and the result will come out tonight.

BTW, I think it is great help to get one global team to avoid all kinds of communication issues.

 

[eagleeye]

  I hate to say this.....But  10K USD can hire 2 professional developers......

If 10K USD were to be spent , it would only be in a profitable position for the business or development, for example , in the marketing department.

After all , a senior FBI field agent is collecting like what , 80K a year ?

The AGS fund has only about 1 million USD worth left , I don't this can last long if added 2* 120K a year....

Unless you're talking about delegate position , but in the short term the pay is worth like 100 USD a month ...

So I wonder which aspect can come up with that kind of money except from the marketing team.

But they don't get regular monthly payments now,as what I've learned from last night 's mumble section.

10k can hire 10 - 20 professionals in India for 1 month.  I have a Masters level attained graduate 5 years out working with my from India he is good but hes not a Silicon Valley professional, but still.

[eagleeye]

He has like 6000 posts, thats enough for a community management team.  We dont organize it where we limit liberty or free speech.  Bytemaster has already said that they are doing that on the business end.

Liberty must be kept.

[Ander]

Its good to have a community manager but I dont think this should be a paid position.  Generally this kind of communtiy message board management is something that tends to just happen, for free.

I'd rather that the paid delegates that we are paying for with dilution just be developers, and funds going to marketing campaign, at this time.

[ALAN---]

Really cool suggestion for the better future of BTS.
 

[Rune]

I vote for tonyk.

tonyk will probably ban people.  I vote for xeroc.

Xeroc unfortunately isn't available to work fulltime for us, as he is currently doing his phd. However he can and will surely be compensated by whoever gets elected as community manager through bounties for the work he does and has done.

[eagleeye]

I vote for tonyk.

tonyk will probably ban people.  I vote for xeroc.

[speedy]

I vote for tonyk.

[eagleeye]

What is a professional Community Management Team?  And who are you?

Rune is a respected member.  I do not know if Fuz wants to be a community manager but he is mumble server and Beyond Bitcoin X.

I have already talked with fuz and tbk about this on mumble, however there needs to be a community-wide discussion about it, since it will be stakeholders that choose whether or not they will get hired as delegates.

I agree community wide discussion.

[gyhy]

 

[Rune]

What is a professional Community Management Team?  And who are you?

Rune is a respected member.  I do not know if Fuz wants to be a community manager but he is mumble server and Beyond Bitcoin X.

I have already talked with fuz and tbk about this on mumble, however there needs to be a community-wide discussion about it, since it will be stakeholders that choose whether or not they will get hired as delegates.

[eagleeye]

What is a professional Community Management Team?  And who are you?

Rune is a respected member.  I do not know if Fuz wants to be a community manager but he is mumble server and Beyond Bitcoin X.

[ticklebiscuit]

What is a professional Community Management Team?  And who are you?

[Rune]

To prepare for the influx of new users that will come after the merger and the marketing push, I think it is vital that we begin to organize our community much more efficiently. The key to this will be a more streamlined forum, and a professional team managing both the forum and the mumble server, who can oversee and pay out bounties to developers that work implement it all into a greater frictionless framework that will enable any new user to quickly join the community and instantly connect with existing members and get any help they require, in live chat, forum posts or mumble voice calls.

Similarly, it is also vital we move to create a forum structure that will allow for efficient delegate applications, and allow all developers from the broader altcoin community who wish to integrate with us a very transparent and streamlined platform to put forth their application to the stakeholders.

Currently, as I understand it, bitsapphire and toast are the forum are the administrators of this forum. However, given that they are both developers I think it is a bad allocation of specialized labor to have them wasting their time on moderation and other forum stuff that non-developers can do. I propose we choose to hire as delegates at least 2 members of the community to work as full time community managers, one English and one Chinese. They can set up delegates that can raise funds for the forum and will allow them to work full time organizing and integrating the community, and welcoming any newcomers. They can also function as efficient conduits of information between forum/mumble users and developers, in both the english and chinese community.

Obviously it is us stakeholders who are the ones that decide who should be hired as community managers, so we need to dicuss and reach a consensus on who we are going to elect once paid delegates are implemented, so they can prepare for the work and prepare to learn to set up delegates.

Personally I'd like to nominate Fuzzy as the english community manager, and tbk as the chinese community manager.

My reasoning behind choosing them is simply that they are the ones from the english and chinese community, respectively, that I trust the most. I recognize there are also other contributors who would be very much worthy of these positions, but even if they are not chosen it is important to remember that fuzzy, for instance, would be able to raise funds for bounties to pay to everyone he believes are helping. What is most important is that we can trust the community manager to manage their funds responsibly, as we can then trust them with a relatively large amount of money to leverage across the community and fund things such as professional, around-the-clock translations done by those in the community who have already proven themselves by doing it for free before.

I imagine we could aim to pay them something like 10-15k USD per month here in the beginning, but we should also have a discussion about what is fair in this regard, and how much of the funds they can take for themselves, and how much should be spent on paying out bounties.