0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 problemSo stan will always support BM no matter what kind of decision he made.
Quote from: Rune on October 27, 2014, 01:05:16 pmQuote from: xeroc on October 27, 2014, 12:51:46 pmOnce 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 fundedyou 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 aboutand probably plenty of other technical issues that will prevent a regular home computer to run a delegate ... in the long termfor now you are safe to use a cheap 10$/monthly VPS ...how knows how soon this changesAside from the price, what is the practical differences for renting a cluster from the same pipelines that delivers the VPS that are currently used? Will custom optimization of the hardware be required?The price will just be subsidized by the DAC so that's not gonna be an issue.There shouldn't be hardware customization. However I think using VPS would be bad idea. All VPS servers could be shut-down by single government request or cloud service provider policy change. In the end even if the price is subsidized by the DAC only these that maintain it efficiently will remain.
Quote from: xeroc on October 27, 2014, 12:51:46 pmOnce this reaches VISA level you will not be able to run the delegate on a regular computer .. you will need a cluster due to- the huge amount of incoming transactions- the number of ECDSA verifications you need to perform on the other delegates- the lookups in your database to figure out if a transactions is valid or not fundedyou will also need a huge "bandwidth" (technical correct term would be "data rate" -- but that's another issue) .. due to- HUGE blocks of several mega bytes .. EVERY 10 seconds- HUGE overhead because every node you are connected to you will want to send you transactions your already know aboutand probably plenty of other technical issues that will prevent a regular home computer to run a delegate ... in the long termfor now you are safe to use a cheap 10$/monthly VPS ...how knows how soon this changesAside 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.
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 fundedyou 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 aboutand probably plenty of other technical issues that will prevent a regular home computer to run a delegate ... in the long termfor now you are safe to use a cheap 10$/monthly VPS ...how knows how soon this changes
Quote from: emski on October 27, 2014, 01:08:35 pmQuote from: Rune on October 27, 2014, 01:05:16 pmQuote from: xeroc on October 27, 2014, 12:51:46 pmOnce this reaches VISA level you will not be able to run the delegate on a regular computer .. you will need a cluster due to- the huge amount of incoming transactions- the number of ECDSA verifications you need to perform on the other delegates- the lookups in your database to figure out if a transactions is valid or not fundedyou will also need a huge "bandwidth" (technical correct term would be "data rate" -- but that's another issue) .. due to- HUGE blocks of several mega bytes .. EVERY 10 seconds- HUGE overhead because every node you are connected to you will want to send you transactions your already know aboutand probably plenty of other technical issues that will prevent a regular home computer to run a delegate ... in the long termfor now you are safe to use a cheap 10$/monthly VPS ...how knows how soon this changesAside 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!
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.
Quote from: Gentso1 on October 27, 2014, 11:37:59 amQuote from: Rune on October 27, 2014, 02:08:54 amQuote from: gamey on October 27, 2014, 12:21:18 amQuote from: Rune on October 27, 2014, 12:06:37 amI 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.
Quote from: Rune on October 27, 2014, 02:08:54 amQuote from: gamey on October 27, 2014, 12:21:18 amQuote from: Rune on October 27, 2014, 12:06:37 amI 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.
Quote from: gamey on October 27, 2014, 12:21:18 amQuote from: Rune on October 27, 2014, 12:06:37 amI 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.
Quote from: Rune on October 27, 2014, 12:06:37 amI 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 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.
Quote from: Rune on October 27, 2014, 02:08:54 amQuoteI 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.
QuoteI 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 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.
Quote from: Ander on October 25, 2014, 05:05:33 amIts 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.
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.
Quote from: Rune on October 26, 2014, 11:21:58 pmSounds 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 ?
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.
fuzz, joeyD, tonyKThese 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.
Oops, So I had this wrong all along! Thanks Fuz
Quote from: James212 on October 25, 2014, 10:34:03 amQuote from: johncitizen on October 25, 2014, 09:51:15 amQuote from: networker on October 25, 2014, 05:53:14 amYou 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 problemSo 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 clearifyStan is dans dad
Quote from: johncitizen on October 25, 2014, 09:51:15 amQuote from: networker on October 25, 2014, 05:53:14 amYou 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 problemSo 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
Quote from: networker on October 25, 2014, 05:53:14 amYou 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 problemSo stan will always support BM no matter what kind of decision he made.Haha, I thought they were brothers!?
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.
Quote from: trader on October 25, 2014, 12:33:02 amI vote for tonyk.tonyk will probably ban people. I vote for xeroc.
I vote for tonyk.
Quote from: eagleeye on October 24, 2014, 11:52:21 pmQuote from: ticklebiscuit on October 24, 2014, 08:14:17 pmWhat 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.
Quote from: ticklebiscuit on October 24, 2014, 08:14:17 pmWhat 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.
What is a professional Community Management Team? And who are you?