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.
freebie has created many crypto trading bots, if this is something the community is interested we could create a transparent accumulator
b-b-but the fees!
RIP bot? https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19890.msg255724.html#msg255724
"We have plenty of qualified coders here who would review the code for next to nothing" ??
Tuck, forgive me if you were being sarcastic (I can never tell), but this statement is absurd. We are talking about writing new code to change the native functionality of the blockchain. Do you honestly think that it is a wise idea to ridicule the idea of asking Cryptonomex (who are more familiar with graphene than anyone else) to audit and test the new code to make sure that it will work? They could do this faster, and more efficiently than anyone else at this stage.
So just to clarify, my understanding: you are talking about hiring someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assuming that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing"?
I'm wondering why Dan is stating that CNX will have to review any code, as if we don't have any other options. There are other options, they are rarely brought up or considered.
Denying or ignoring that fact is just going along with the herd mentality that we see here far too often ... and I like going against the herd because it's the only way this forum will address any topic seriously versus the usual ...
"You da man Dan! Whatever you say is gold! I'm all for it ... with my proxy vote because I'm too lazy to think or vote for myself!"I am not trying to come to the defense of Cryptonomex, they can defend themselves. I am just stating a FACT - They are the most qualified to audit any new code for graphene, and IMO we certainly want them auditing any new code that will be adopted by the blockchain at this stage- especially since we have still not achieved major adoption and (I would argue) are still vulnerable in many ways.
It's also a FACT that we don't have to use CNX.
Another FACT is that this forum rarely discusses any alternatives. The forum herd just listens to Dan and immediately announces they back whatever he says, without any further consideration.
Why is that? Where has that mentality gotten us so far?
Why is the majority of the forum so afraid to discuss other options?
Anyone bringing up an alternate opinion gets responses like this one of yours, which focuses on my post and it's intentions instead of discussing/seeking out any alternatives that may be available, while at the same time reiterating that Dan's the best answer we have. How do you know that? Have you sought out third parties within the few hours this proposal was posted? Nope, you haven't. You're just stating Dan's the best answer, when you have no clue if Dan's the best answer because you haven't even considered any alternatives outside of the one I mentioned, which I agree is not the best one, but at least it is one!
I haven't had more than an hour myself to find a better alternative, neither has anyone else, but hey screw all that, let's just go with what Dan says, because we've exhausted all possibilities in those few hours!
It's as if Dan's the only answer and any other opinions are too "this or that", so let's just go with Dan's idea, because we don't want to have any sort of real discourse, that's too much trouble and time consuming. It's not like we have more than a few hours to decide.
Hell, v2.0 hasn't been out that long and we're already moving towards v3.0.
So tell me again how great Dan's 2.0 idea was? Oh yeah, so great that he himself is scrapping it after a few weeks.
By all means, let's just continue to deride anyone else offering to solve the problems with BitShares by calling them "random coders" and rely solely on Dan, because we just don't have the time to think about things!Of course we all hope this will change going forward, as outside teams of coders learn to write for graphene, but this has not happened yet.
Why would it happen when they will simply be talked to like a autistic step-child (it's OK, I'm an autistic step-child so I can say that) by Dan and the forum will give responses like yours, as if there's not possibly anyone else in the world as qualified as Dan and time is running out, we must hurry or else the "competition" (where are they again?) will get all our monies!Think about it this way
No. Too many people here rely on others to think for them.- if there were a bunch of people sitting around who were qualified to audit new graphene code - don't you think that they would be writing code themselves as we speak? Where are they? I'm not saying they don't exist, but I am also not just assuming that they DO.
How would you know? In the few hours you've spent reading Dan's proposal, who have you sought out as an alternative? Who's council did you seek that offered other opinions on the matter? How much were you able to cover in those few hours? Do you really want to make drastic changes to your monetary future that quickly based on the thoughts of one man who history has shown repeatedly has gotten it wrong? I mean, what incarnation of PTS are we on BTW? How many name changes (so we forget the past mistakes) have we been through? How many more must we endure?
Disclaimer : Dan you're the man bro! But I want alternatives discussed. I want to hear other opinions, other coders thoughts, other alternatives to your ideas proposed, and this forum constantly bowing to your ideas is not helping that progress. At some point we have to give this some time, let others have a chance, which has yet to happen and if things continue this way it never will happen. There never will be others offering to help as long as the Community continue to do whatever Dan says and not even give others the chance to open their mouth or even find out about the opportunity (like now). We might as well slap a disclaimer on all of Dan's Worker Proposal's that reads, "You have two hours to decide or else!".
it is 52K but keeping in mind they are giving 5x better rate per BTS (about 0.015 instead of 0.003) it is more like ~$10,000 total.
I don't beleive you guys are trying to nickel and dime the developers. If the cost is off +/- $25000 so what. The benefits of fixes will dwarf any cost at this point.
how so exactly? can you explain to me how bitshares will make the money back through a cosmetic change and two fee changes?
its also 42 thousand not 25, a major difference.
I don't beleive you guys are trying to nickel and dime the developers. If the cost is off +/- $25000 so what. The benefits of fixes will dwarf any cost at this point.
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
no one?
Software development is pretty expensive in reality. $8000 is like two or three people working on something for a week.
im a software dev who charges 60$ an hour and im telling you theres no way it will take 8000$ worth of man hours to accomplish this task.
Great! I will tell you what, lets specify this task a little bit more fully and we will hire you to deliver it. If you can do it faster and cheaper then by all means! We will charge a small fee to review your work and verify that it is of suitable quality. Lets see a competitive bid.
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
no one?
Software development is pretty expensive in reality. $8000 is like two or three people working on something for a week.
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
