Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - JoeyD

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 31
91
General Discussion / Re: Dan is doing the right thing .. again!
« on: June 29, 2015, 10:29:42 pm »
First up I applaud you for your efforts to keep the ship afloat even with funds drying up, compared to the threats I've seen on the ethereum reddit of simply abandoning development if they are not paid those wages.

Maybe I should have split up my post to clearly differentiate between my gripes with what's going on with ethereum from my concerns for the move to bitshares2.0. Or maybe you are reacting more to newmines post.

Like I said I don't refute the fact that the developers are adding value to the community and I do hope you don't think everybody believes that you should not reap any benefits of the sweat equity you've put in.  Bytemaster remarks about the crypto-community not realizing how much value developers add sounds a little bitter and over generalizing.  Then again you might very well have a better grasp on this than I do, but is unwillingless really all there is to it?

I'm still not convinced using going rates is entirely applicable in the crypto-currency crowd-source scene in it's current state and I don't think it is solely because of unwillingness to pay developers. I think cryptocurrencies are a little different from your average startup especially in the funding aspect. Not only are the current cryptocurrencies not targeting the same audiences on the same scale as something like twitter, their funding has to come mostly internally from their own marketcaps instead of coming from the outside, almost like mini economies. Cryptocurrencies are still a long way from reaching adoption like the current internet, and the internet itself took quite a while to reach it's current level of adoption. I think comparisons with similar niche crowd-sourced projects would be more fair and set more realistic expectations.  If there was new outside VC money coming in or big corporations support then those "industry standard" wages would be more easily achievable, but the crypto scene is not that big and with bitcoin as the only onramp this limits the amount of people and money that can be reached even more. If blockchains would be in the realm of google/facebook levels of succes then I'd expect the going rates or higher would be a non issue.

Honestly the bitcoin bearmarket following the mtGox bubble might be a bigger culprit than community unwillingness, although Ethereum dumping 30k btc in a bearmarket probably didn't help much either.

EDIT
Oops sorry Method-X, seems I'm a slow typer and the discussion already moved way beyond where I started my reply.

92
General Discussion / Re: Dan is doing the right thing .. again!
« on: June 29, 2015, 06:46:20 pm »
Gotta admit that I feel pretty disappointed with Vitalik after reading those reddit posts a couple of days ago. Although I guess that was just me completely misjudging him.

Last I saw was him talking about one single guy on the team getting $150k because he earned something like $200k in his previous job. And that they had to pay of this 25% interest loan that had run up close to 1 million dollars so they had to cash out as soon as possible. Then there also was the whole sleeping in the same bedroom and living as frugally as possible thing the teammembers repeated on several occasions and then suddenly these numbers pop up. I didn't know Switzerland was that expensive, if that's the going rate for shared room lodging and bread and water.

I can understand people wanting to eat and pay the rent and all, I get that, but something here stinks. And not just with Ethereum who defend themselves by vaguely pointing to other people in unrelated occupations getting more money then them and trying to make it sound as if that somehow justifies their own abnormal salaries for the average start-up because I guess some feeling of their own superiority. One of the things I dislike the most, after all the hype about the non-profit crypto society they were talking about is the threats going around to drop the project if no new funds come in, as if running out of over $20 million funds in that short amount of time had nothing to do with them.

Mind you this is not just relevant for the ethereum devs, but I see this in several other crypto communities as well including bitshares. I see a lot of people feeling very self entitled and do a lot of comparisons with other jobs before they decide on a wage they feel they should get and then start making conclusions based on that. I get the distinct impression that most are in crypto as some kind of get rich quick scheme, which is clouding their judgment. The thing is, weren't we starting a revolution and trying to replace the broken financial systems and get rid of the asshole banks and inflation and all that.

Now here's the thing with most revolutions and start-ups, they usually don't start of with the founders having massive comfortable guaranteed salaries from day one. Actually most startups run into quite a bit of bad weather with only a small chance to strike it big. But we are not just a startup we are trying to start a revolution against the powers way bigger than any puny national one and realistically that should make people expect quite a bit worse weather than the average startup. Why does it appear that nobody in crypto expects any setbacks? I'm also getting a bit fed up with a lot of developers labeling anybody who isn't coding as some kind of freeloader or leech, as if our time, interest, efforts and word of mouth are nothing, Speaking for myself I'm not getting paid any wages at all, quite the opposite really, crypto is a massive financial loss for me so far, so I find these remarks coming from people giving themselves $150k wages in bad taste for lack of a better eufemism.

Wasn't one of the issues that we were trying to solve how the current financial system being a massive tumor sucking the life out of the economy? For starters it does sound a little fishy to me to still use their hyperinflated salaries as a comparison for salaries in this "better" system. In theory the cost of the system itself should be as close to zero as we can get which to me sounds diametrically opposed to the concept of the system making a profit. The "profits" should be generated outside with business models making use of the system. Trying to get rid of monopolistic bloodcloth toll-roads and instead create a more efficient road-network. What I'm fearing some crypto-devs plus communities are trying to do is building themselves the best tollbooth they can and be opposed to all other tollroads. In other words, I fear that quite a few people are starting to confuse the system with their business/profit models.

So I'm not opposed to cryptonomics setting themselves up as the contractors specialized in building new crypto-roads, as long as that doesn't mean they “own” those roads plus the roadsystem and have an incentive to optimize for toll-booths. I see nothing wrong with making money from building many many roads in the future. However the IP-move on the toolkit by bitshares/cryptonomex bothers me. Especially the listed motivations about not wanting/allowing competing chains in the same field and reserving all rights. I also think newmine has a point about the community funding the toolkit and now suddenly we don't seem to own it anymore.

Here's my biggest worry, the bitshares/cryptonomex team are only human, but having many conflicting interests is not something that works well for humans. Since most here seem to like the term incentive over interests, I'm very concerned over potential problems with the conflict of incentives in the move to cryptonomex/bitshares2.0.

Another concern I have is with what feels like a Cathedral type development model, with a select group of priest developing the new gospel in a hidden room, which the community at large then has to accept when they decide to publish the final version. I'm not seeing that many outside developers contributing or interacting with the source code, which I doubt is merely accidental or because of lack of interest. This doubt has been strenghtend when I saw the fear of being copied mentioned in the recent blog-posts as motivation behind the IP. While that model might be more comfortable to traditional corporations and people wanting control, it does limit community participation and winning hearts and minds naturally (IMO it also limits natural evolution), but I think it also requires  a very strong traditional marketing. And lets be blunt, marketing is not something the team in Blacksburg excels at. Btw did PayPals referral program really work without a powerful marketing at all? The blogs mention that corporations/investors were unwilling to enter because of the lack of IP-control. Does that mean there is a lineup of big money guaranteed to enter that vastly outweighs potentially alienating of kindred spirits or even existing community hearts and minds?

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that the bitshares team have bad intentions, actually for a lot of these choices I suspect them being forced into them by “community” pressure. However I do think the bitshares-team-members are only human and they are not making it easier on themselves to stay the course. I also hope the bitshares community is looking beyond themselves making a quick buck and really think about what they are building with their voting power.

93
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: House cleaning
« on: June 28, 2015, 08:36:04 pm »
Btw I wasn't referring to government crackdowns or illuminati or fancy schmanzy stuff like nuclear bombs or emps.

What I was talking about were single points of failure where any Bob the builder with one of them mini diggers could accidentally take out a big percentage of the entire bitshares network.

Happened to me just a couple of days ago where the entire city went offline and without power, just because of one single Bob the Builder mishap.

In short is there a way to identify single points of failure on top of trying and distribute the network just a little across the globe? In case of a nuclear holocaust I'd be all up for joining the bitshares lan-party in your bunker, I'll even bring my own tinfoil so we can fold hats together, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

94
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: House cleaning
« on: June 28, 2015, 09:05:02 am »
Is there a way to identify or measure geological distribution of the delegates? 

I'm starting to get the impression that a lot of the delegates are now clustering on a couple of small locations. Worst case scenario we'll have a large number of sockpuppet delegates with no actual separate infrastructure or benefit to security and robustness.

EDIT
Take for example the 10 delegates or more databunker is managing are they all on the same network connection? Nothing personal to you Data, it's just that you posted here, I'm sure there are others doing the same thing.

95
Beyond Bitcoin [closed] / Re: Mumble client certificate issue.
« on: June 27, 2015, 07:39:34 pm »

yea, http://beyondbitcoinshow.com/ is down

You are right, I'll try to contact jabba to see what's up. The mumble server is not down btw, it has it's own dedicated server.

96
Beyond Bitcoin [closed] / Mumble client certificate issue.
« on: June 27, 2015, 05:41:45 pm »
I got a heads up from Thom, mentioning that he was having trouble with certificates on the mumble client on the beyondbitcoin server.

I've did some testing with a couple of others where we repeatedly tried registering through android and other pcs with different certificates and names, but we were not able to reproduce the problem.

So if people are having issues could you list them plus the steps you took for them to occur?

Keep in mind, the mumble certificate is like a public/private keypair and it will replace the password you have to use the first time you login to the server. After that the certficiate is used instead of the password to login and encrypt traffic. This also means that only one identity can be logged on at the same time with the same certificate. Also you can't arbitrarily change names when you've registered yourself on the server.

Should you want to change/retrieve your name give a shoutout to either Fuzzy, JabbaJabba or me to remove the registration from the server, which will allow you to reregister with the name you'd like.

97
Your point is fine if it were made at bitshares inception. To rename the entire brand now would be another huge PR nightmare, would totally mess up all the search traffic and further confuse and muddy the perception of the product.

I'd agree with you were it not that "the product" has changed so much and is completely changing again. Or would you say that Btsx -> bts -> bts2 is not confusing when they are supposed to be different beasts all together with hardly any relation other than a chronological one. Besides that still leaves the smartcoin brand which is totally confusing seeing how many projects out there are already using the term.

Also the bitshares brand is not that strong or ubiquitous even in our small corner of the internet.

98
NO No bit and no coin, ever. Both of them are the "e-" from the dotcom bubble, can anybody still name an e-blah company? QED, ergo, alpha omega: no bit and no coin, PERIOD.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I suggest you check the name of this blockchain, this forum, etc etc.

And how does that refute my point in any way? Don't take this the wrong way monsterer as the next part is not directed personally at you (I suspect a lack of caffeine to be the culprit in your case), but I seem to have to explain this point more than once.

Outside forum veterans I'm not very successful trying to differentiate this chain from all the other blockchains to new people. Actually in most of the best case scenarios people just confuse it with a project part of bitcoin. Hell I've seen notable people in this forums use the term dpos instead of bitshares when communicating in other communities.

I was too late on this forum to take part in the discussion on deciding the name bitshares. Although I might still not have been able to make my point clear as it seems people still fail to understand how big of a marketing faux-pas the "bit-" and "coin" terms represent.

To make my point as clear as I can: bit and coin have now become background noise instead of clear branding and only add to confusion and makes marketing or even just identifying itself that much more impossible.

99
That's just a test program that fails to build, which might have something to do with using dynamic boost libs. Anyway, you don't need to build the test programs.

Instead of just typing "make", use "make bitshares_client" to build the CLI wallet, or "make buildweb BitShares" for the GUI.

Well I'll be darned, it worked. After solving all the compile breaking issues I was completely focused on having the entire compilation go through without errors, but like you said, just proceding with the rest of the wiki resulted in a working client.

Thank you and hopefully these few steps I posted will help other linux users compiling because they aren't immediately obvious from the wiki.

100
If the utility and tech is solid you could call it anything.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

NO No bit and no coin, ever. Both of them are the "e-" from the dotcom bubble, can anybody still name an e-blah company? QED, ergo, alpha omega: no bit and no coin, PERIOD.

Besides the complete lack of naming originality, why would you want to make it harder for yourself if you don't even want the coin connotation and confusion in the first place? Makes no sense to me.

101
Technical Support / Compiling on different linux distros, like gentoo
« on: June 19, 2015, 10:54:20 am »
Have people tried compiling the client on something other than ubuntu? If so how did you do it?

I'm trying to figure out how to install the client on gentoo, but I seem to get stuck in the final stages of the install, with no clue on how to proceed.

So here's what I did sofar.

I followed the instructions of the wiki made sure I've installed all the required dependencies and run cmake without the static boost.
Code: [Select]
cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DBoost_USE_STATIC_LIBS=OFF .
Next I edited the files mentioned in this post by monsterer plus a couple not listed there. To get them all I edited the files I got from running
Code: [Select]
grep "unit_test.hpp" *.cpp in both the libraries and tests folders.

Afterwards (although I had to add a symlink to db_cxx to the berkeley db on my gentoo install, but that wasn't a major issue) compilation seems to run smoothly up to 
Quote
[ 98%] Built target nathan_tests
Linking CXX executable wallet_tests
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.9.2/../../../../lib64/crt1.o: In function `_start':
(.text+0x20): undefined reference to `main'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
tests/CMakeFiles/wallet_tests.dir/build.make:132: recipe for target 'tests/wallet_tests' failed
make[2]: *** [tests/wallet_tests] Error 1
CMakeFiles/Makefile2:2228: recipe for target 'tests/CMakeFiles/wallet_tests.dir/all' failed
make[1]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/wallet_tests.dir/all] Error 2
Makefile:116: recipe for target 'all' failed
make: *** [all] Error 2

And here's where I'm stuck, I've tried moving -lpthread and -ldl to the end of link.txt as I've seen a couple of people do with similar problems on the forums, but that didn't solve the issue for me.

Any ideas on how to proceed from here?

102
General Discussion / Re: Ripple fined
« on: May 10, 2015, 01:07:10 pm »
No I wasn't talking about militaristic dictatorships. What I mean is that when I joined the army I thought the whole hazing thing and breaking in "the jeans" (which was how the noobs were called by the people who had been wearing floral patterns for a little longer) was nonsense, but to my horror I've discovered that for quite a large group of people it seems a necessary evil in order to break them out of their egocentric bubble and become aware of their surroundings and get a more realistic perspective on themselves. And these people weren't drafted, but were all there voluntarily.

So what I was trying to point out was that voluntarism doesn't directly lead to utopia, nor is discipline necessarily bad. At least not for adolescents and late teens, from what I've seen.

So while I agree, governments have now overstepped their bounds and become massive tumors eating away at the health of the entire body, I'm no longer as convinced that humans in general are able to self govern. So while I agree with the current problems we face, I've not yet seen a clear solution to the problem either. And a lot of libertarians, I feel, have a tendency to skip over quite a few essential topics when they talk about their solutions. I wish I had a little more time to go into those here, because it is a topic I'd be interested in hearing other viewpoints.

103
General Discussion / Re: Ripple fined
« on: May 10, 2015, 10:48:12 am »
@kencode: I'd like to believe that a solution is possible, but I gotta admit that I've developed my doubts over the years. I kinda lost faith in the good of man as a general principle. I'm starting to suspect quite a large percentage of man is monstrous by nature. One thing I've learned in the army is that hierarchy and force are more practical and effective means to keep peace and a semblance civilization than I previously wanted to believe. In short, take away government and force and things quickly turn towards the situation in Lord of the flies.

Also pure capitalism might lead to cyberpunkian Bladerunneresque futures, where megacorps own your ass. And I know that's pretty much how it is now, where megacorps own the politicians, media and law, but for now they still have to keep a semblance of the socalled democracy.

Doesn't mean I won't keep trying to find a better solution to our current ones.

104
General Discussion / Re: Bytemaster and Mumble - A Proposed Solution
« on: March 01, 2015, 06:51:53 pm »
Disclaimer- Sorry if I sound a bit miffed, but that's because I am.

During the meet and greet I suggested a single one time (unrecorded if absolutely required) conversation with Dan and or Stan Larimer and a few community members to get to the bottom of this new decision to no longer communicate with the community and from now on only dictate. This was an off the cuff remark in the hopes of getting to know the actual argumentation  instead of us having to speculate and trying come to some sort of community consensus on solutions to these speculations.

Hey Joey, I wasn't trying to imply that this was your suggestion. I did my best to make it clear in the OP that I just wanted to explore this idea a bit further and get everyone's opinions.

Truthfully, I was not fully convinced myself of the validity of this approach myself, but nevertheless, I thought it prudent to continue the dialogue for purposes of gaining clarity about the issue from the community. I tried to present the strongest arguments I could as to its merits, and to offer them up as a prospective solution. If we can use this forum to clarify where we all stand on divisive issues such as this one, it will be easier to understand how and where to apply our efforts at addressing any real or perceived elephants in the room.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

I'm finding myself getting angrier every passing minute about the idea of not being allowed open discussion anymore, what the flying capital f followed by a towering exclamation mark. Are you trying to commit suicide here? Are there actually people or investors (note the excluding differentiation there) out there who honestly think that creating the bitshares groupie DAC is a good idea? If this is the influence of some whales, let them speak up and make themselves clear, because I was under the impression this was a community effort.

Btw I challenge anybody throwing out the Ethereum marketing as a good thing to defend that with actual arguments, because I've been unable to have any meaningful discussion about ethereum anywhere on the internet and their forums are a joke, how in hell can you find anything there. Ethereum marketing to me looks like letting fanboys dream and not hindering anybody with some common sense. I'm not in favor of bullshitting people like that at all and find it a very very dangerous development in our attempts in providing new improved transparent solutions.

I find the shooting in the foot analogy far to weak, these new developments are more like shooting yourself in the temple or throwing ourselves off of a cliff.

Maybe I should talk with people on mumble to vent some steam, because this thing is really really pissing me off.

105
General Discussion / Re: Bytemaster and Mumble - A Proposed Solution
« on: March 01, 2015, 05:52:28 pm »
Disclaimer- Sorry if I sound a bit miffed, but that's because I am.

During the meet and greet I suggested a single one time (unrecorded if absolutely required) conversation with Dan and or Stan Larimer and a few community members to get to the bottom of this new decision to no longer communicate with the community and from now on only dictate. This was an off the cuff remark in the hopes of getting to know the actual argumentation  instead of us having to speculate and trying come to some sort of community consensus on solutions to these speculations.

I do agree with the statements made earlier that either the mumble hangouts are recorded or not done at all. Maybe the format or frequency can be altered, but not recording or performing a pre-scripted staged play are both not an option for me.

I don't understand what the point is of a letstalkbitcoin setup, that's the same thing as bitshares.tv. With all due respect (and I do enjoy the bitshares.tv episodes that I've seen) that would be just another non-interactive dictating format where you have to trust interviewers and editors and offers no way for community members to react in real time if at all.

Btw, for anyone without the time to attend these "hangouts" just imagine the time required to actually create something close to what's proposed for setting up such a "show". Anyone who wants it should probably go for it themselves, because I can't think of anyone with the free time to do it.

Maybe the problem is in the name beyondbitcoinshow, while the mumble voicechat is more like irc, but with voice. It's just that occasionally the bitshares main-developer shows up at predetermined intervals and community members have a chance to interact and make absolutely sure that their concerns are actually being heard and not buried in the massive shitstorms on the forums or comment-sections. Actually I think comment sections and forums incite shitstorms because of that reason alone, people have no way to make sure that their message came across and in their self enforcing anxiety make things worse. With voice in realtime this is a lot harder, because for one it would be noisy, but when you do manage to get your statement or question in, you are at the very least certain that your message came across.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 31