1
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.
4
General Discussion / Graphene vs. BitShares in GitHub
« on: January 16, 2017, 02:06:54 am »
I'd like some developer feedback on reorganizing the GitHub repositories.
For the most part the https://github.com/cryptonomex/ organization seems to be no longer maintained. Specifically there is no one that is maintaining issues and pull requests in https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene and https://github.com/cryptonomex/fc. @svk is still maintaining https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui but I think there is a possibility he will be abandoning it soon based on his approved worker proposal here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23645.0.html
I've already started a new fc fork here https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-fc which merges all applicable updates and pull requests from https://github.com/cryptonomex/fc and https://github.com/steemit/fc. BitShares will use the bitshares-fc fork moving forward.
I'd like to propose a merge of https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene and https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2. The main reasons for doing so would be to bring the issue tracker into the BitShares organization where myself and other BitShares developers can maintain it, and also to avoid confusion about which of multiple issue trackers and forks BitShares users and contributors should work with.
Due to the way GitHub works, in practice such a merge would essentially involve deleting the current bitshares-2 repository, moving and renaming the graphene repository to take its place, and then restoring all missing branches, tags, and releases from the previous bitshares-2 repository into the new one.
This would also effectively mean that BitShares would become the "reference" Graphene implementation and there would be no more "pure" Graphene project. I think this would be fine, because it can be seen from the current diff between graphene and bitshares-2 at https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/compare/master...bitshares:bitshares?w=1 that Graphene already contains "hardfork" code as though it were already part of BitShares, and that it is already missing a number of patches that BitShares contains since nobody is maintaining it. If desired, somebody could maintain a branch downstream of BitShares that removes hardforking code, etc. that would represent a clean Graphene. I would likely do this to begin with as there are still differences for example in the testing infrastructure in Graphene vs BitShares which still need to be fixed.
Performing such a merge would also require agreement from Cryptonomex, whom I cannot speak for. If they do not want to do this or it is otherwise undesirable, an alternative would be to use the https://github-issue-mover.appspot.com/ tool to copy all issues from the graphene repo into the bitshares-2 repo. This would still leave the upstream Graphene repo and issue tracker in place though, which could still be confusing for users and contributors. It could be a reasonable middle ground if perhaps the upstream graphene issue tracker was disabled afterwards to help avoid confusion.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
@abit @dannotestein @kenCode @svk @xeroc
For the most part the https://github.com/cryptonomex/ organization seems to be no longer maintained. Specifically there is no one that is maintaining issues and pull requests in https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene and https://github.com/cryptonomex/fc. @svk is still maintaining https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui but I think there is a possibility he will be abandoning it soon based on his approved worker proposal here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23645.0.html
I've already started a new fc fork here https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-fc which merges all applicable updates and pull requests from https://github.com/cryptonomex/fc and https://github.com/steemit/fc. BitShares will use the bitshares-fc fork moving forward.
I'd like to propose a merge of https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene and https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2. The main reasons for doing so would be to bring the issue tracker into the BitShares organization where myself and other BitShares developers can maintain it, and also to avoid confusion about which of multiple issue trackers and forks BitShares users and contributors should work with.
Due to the way GitHub works, in practice such a merge would essentially involve deleting the current bitshares-2 repository, moving and renaming the graphene repository to take its place, and then restoring all missing branches, tags, and releases from the previous bitshares-2 repository into the new one.
This would also effectively mean that BitShares would become the "reference" Graphene implementation and there would be no more "pure" Graphene project. I think this would be fine, because it can be seen from the current diff between graphene and bitshares-2 at https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/compare/master...bitshares:bitshares?w=1 that Graphene already contains "hardfork" code as though it were already part of BitShares, and that it is already missing a number of patches that BitShares contains since nobody is maintaining it. If desired, somebody could maintain a branch downstream of BitShares that removes hardforking code, etc. that would represent a clean Graphene. I would likely do this to begin with as there are still differences for example in the testing infrastructure in Graphene vs BitShares which still need to be fixed.
Performing such a merge would also require agreement from Cryptonomex, whom I cannot speak for. If they do not want to do this or it is otherwise undesirable, an alternative would be to use the https://github-issue-mover.appspot.com/ tool to copy all issues from the graphene repo into the bitshares-2 repo. This would still leave the upstream Graphene repo and issue tracker in place though, which could still be confusing for users and contributors. It could be a reasonable middle ground if perhaps the upstream graphene issue tracker was disabled afterwards to help avoid confusion.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
@abit @dannotestein @kenCode @svk @xeroc
5
General Discussion / BitShares Seed Nodes
« on: January 15, 2017, 10:24:48 pm »
This is a new thread to maintain updated info on seed nodes for BitShares. The previous thread was: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18908.0.html
The current list of default seed nodes is here: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/blob/master/libraries/app/application.cpp#L168-L181
I am requesting that operators currently in the list please confirm whether you are still actively maintaining your listed node(s). Anyone that wants to be added please also post here.
Sincere thanks to all volunteers for providing this essential service to the community and stakeholders.
The current list of default seed nodes is here: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/blob/master/libraries/app/application.cpp#L168-L181
Code: [Select]
"104.236.144.84:1777", // puppies (USA)
"128.199.143.47:2015", // Harvey (Singapore)
"212.47.249.84:50696", // iHashFury (France)
"51.15.61.160:1776", // lafona (France)
"bts-seed1.abit-more.com:62015", // abit (China)
"seed.bitsharesnodes.com:1776", // wackou (Netherlands)
"seed.blocktrades.us:1776", // BlockTrades (USA)
"seed.cubeconnex.com:1777", // cube (USA)
"seed.roelandp.nl:1776", // roelandp (Canada)
"seed04.bitsharesnodes.com:1776", // Thom (Australia)
"seed05.bitsharesnodes.com:1776", // Thom (USA)
"seed06.bitsharesnodes.com:1776", // Thom (USA)
"seed07.bitsharesnodes.com:1776", // Thom (Singapore)
"seeds.bitshares.eu:1776" // pc (http://seeds.quisquis.de/bitshares.html)
I am requesting that operators currently in the list please confirm whether you are still actively maintaining your listed node(s). Anyone that wants to be added please also post here.
Sincere thanks to all volunteers for providing this essential service to the community and stakeholders.
6
Meta / Are forum email notifications working?
« on: January 12, 2017, 09:56:21 pm »
I think this has been going on for quite a while. I no longer seem to receive emails to notify of mentions, PMs, etc. Is anyone else having this problem?
7
Meta / Subforum consolidation
« on: January 04, 2017, 03:26:24 am »
The forum seems very fragmented to me these days, particularly given the evolution of the community since the early days of BitShares 2.
I think it would be healthy to shake things up a bit, and consolidate subforums so that it is simpler for users to discover new and/or active discussion.
What do you think of consolidating the main subforum section into just these 4 categories:
@fav @xeroc What do you guys think?
I think it would be healthy to shake things up a bit, and consolidate subforums so that it is simpler for users to discover new and/or active discussion.
What do you think of consolidating the main subforum section into just these 4 categories:
- General Discussion - Anything not in the below sections. Mostly general BTS discussion but can also include general blockchain technology/industry discussion.
- Stakeholder Proposals - For concrete voting proposals for proxies, witnesses, committee members, and workers.
- Project Development - For discussion of concrete software development related to the BTS ecosystem. Ongoing community library/tool discussion can go here.
- Technical Support - For help to users and service providers with operating or integrating with BTS ecosystem software.
- Questions & Concerns threads will be merged into General Discussion or Technical Support based on the topic.
- Community Meetups will be merged into General Discussion.
- BitShares 2.0 and all subforum threads will be merged into General Discussion, Project Development, or Technical Support based on the topic.
- Marketing and all subforum threads will be merged into General Discussion or Project Development based on the topic.
- 3rd Party Projects and all subforum threads will be merged into Project Development or Graveyard based on the subforum or topic.
- Trading & Speculation and all subforum threads will be merged into General Discussion or Project Development based on the topic.
- Marketplace will be merged into General Discussion.
@fav @xeroc What do you guys think?
8
Meta / Did forum posts between around Nov. 7 to Nov. 13 disappear?
« on: November 14, 2016, 09:40:10 pm »
BitSharesTalk seemed to have been down for a while during that period.
Checking today, it looks that some posts have disappeared. For example, my worker thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23495.0.html had reached 3 pages previously, but now it is truncated back to 1 page.
Edit: I specifically remember a post I made on Nov. 10, which is now gone looking at my post history.
Checking today, it looks that some posts have disappeared. For example, my worker thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23495.0.html had reached 3 pages previously, but now it is truncated back to 1 page.
Edit: I specifically remember a post I made on Nov. 10, which is now gone looking at my post history.
9
Stakeholder Proposals / [Worker Proposal] Project administration & essential maintenance
« on: November 06, 2016, 12:13:42 am »
This proposal is based on my original thread here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23474.msg300044.html#msg300044
Soledger Inc. (myself and @Agent86) is proposing a BitShares worker for handling administrative and maintenance tasks including--but not limited to--the following:
We think it's important that a specific party maintains responsibility for addressing any emergency issues that disrupt the ongoing stability and operations of the network. In addition, it is my experience that it is helpful to have an unambiguous project administrator to act as a clear point of contact to help coordinate community contributions, avoid fragmentation of community efforts, and generally help keep things organized so that important information is readily accessible.
Taking into account that the BitShares codebase is reasonably stable at present, we have chosen a pay rate of 10,000 BTS/day for this worker. At a conservative exchange rate of $0.004/BTS, this is roughly $1200/month or $14,500/year. $0.004/BTS currently corresponds roughly to a market cap of $10.3 million. At the time of posting, the current price is around $0.0045/BTS and market cap $11.6 million.
For comparison, here are the most recent expired workers:
This Soledger worker has been defined to last until 2017-12-31. For those who want to approve this worker, please choose the correct version that expires in 2017, instead of my first attempt that was mistakenly set to expire in 2016:
If and when this worker is approved, I will request full administrative permissions for the BitShares GitHub organization (https://github.com/bitshares/). Upon acquiring said permissions, I will begin to perform any reorganization/cleanup/updating that I see fit, in line with the tasks outlined in the initial bullet points.
Edit: Given the decentralized nature of the greater BitShares project, I think it is important that currently active community leaders hold some administrative authority, and so if I am given GitHub admin permissions, I will also look into adding other admins: @xeroc and @svk are two names that come to mind.
Thank you to all stakeholders for your consideration.
Soledger Inc. (myself and @Agent86) is proposing a BitShares worker for handling administrative and maintenance tasks including--but not limited to--the following:
- Emergency security patches
- Emergency network stability patches
- Merge upstream Graphene, fc, other library updates
- Fix important compilation and compatibility issues
- Tag core releases
- Manage GitHub issue tracker
- Manage GitHub pull requests
- Consolidate high-quality community projects into BitShares GitHub organization
- Consolidate and maintain other important documentation to help ease contributing and integrating
We think it's important that a specific party maintains responsibility for addressing any emergency issues that disrupt the ongoing stability and operations of the network. In addition, it is my experience that it is helpful to have an unambiguous project administrator to act as a clear point of contact to help coordinate community contributions, avoid fragmentation of community efforts, and generally help keep things organized so that important information is readily accessible.
Taking into account that the BitShares codebase is reasonably stable at present, we have chosen a pay rate of 10,000 BTS/day for this worker. At a conservative exchange rate of $0.004/BTS, this is roughly $1200/month or $14,500/year. $0.004/BTS currently corresponds roughly to a market cap of $10.3 million. At the time of posting, the current price is around $0.0045/BTS and market cap $11.6 million.
For comparison, here are the most recent expired workers:
This Soledger worker has been defined to last until 2017-12-31. For those who want to approve this worker, please choose the correct version that expires in 2017, instead of my first attempt that was mistakenly set to expire in 2016:
If and when this worker is approved, I will request full administrative permissions for the BitShares GitHub organization (https://github.com/bitshares/). Upon acquiring said permissions, I will begin to perform any reorganization/cleanup/updating that I see fit, in line with the tasks outlined in the initial bullet points.
Edit: Given the decentralized nature of the greater BitShares project, I think it is important that currently active community leaders hold some administrative authority, and so if I am given GitHub admin permissions, I will also look into adding other admins: @xeroc and @svk are two names that come to mind.
Thank you to all stakeholders for your consideration.
10
General Discussion / BitShares administrative and maintenance tasks
« on: October 31, 2016, 11:08:37 pm »
Edit: I have created a worker proposal based on this thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23495.msg300188.html#msg300188
Hello everyone,
It's been a long time! Some of you will remember me as a former BitShares developer and project manager (https://github.com/vikramrajkumar), particularly during the lifespan of BitShares 1. Since BitShares, I haven't been involved in any blockchain projects, but now I am changing that and want to start contributing to the industry again.
I've linked up with Lance Kasper, or Agent86 as he's known on this forum (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9289), who you may recall also previously worked as an active member of the BitShares community. The two of us decided to start a company together, as a vehicle for us to explore some of our own ideas around blockchain technology.
We are Soledger Inc. (https://www.soledger.com/), and are based in Chicago, IL, USA. We are completely independent and are not affiliated with Invictus, Cryptonomex, Steemit, or any other organization. At present, Soledger is focusing on exploring some of our own experimental ideas, which you will hear more about once we have something that we are ready to share. However, we have not forgotten the BitShares community and want to see it grow and succeed as much as possible.
Given the nature of our prior experience with BitShares, we think it could be mutually beneficial for Soledger to handle certain project maintenance/administrative functions for the project.
BitShares seems to have been running with reasonable stability for some time now and we want to help preserve that stability. We think it could be beneficial to have someone who is unambiguously responsible for certain maintenance tasks around the network and platform. In practice, this would mostly mean that someone is in charge of administrating the GitHub organization (https://github.com/bitshares) and repositories, and could include responsibilities such as:
- Emergency security patches
- Emergency network stability patches
- Merge upstream Graphene, fc, other library updates
- Fix important compilation and compatibility issues that may arise
- Tag core releases
- Manage GitHub issue tracker
- Manage GitHub pull requests
- Consolidate high-quality community projects into BitShares GitHub organization
- Consolidate and maintain other important documentation to help ease contributing and integrating
Since the platform is already relatively stable, we would expect these responsibilities to be fairly straightforward to manage. Regardless, we think BitShares could benefit from help with maintaining the stability and ongoing operations of the network, as well an administrator to act as a clear point of contact to help coordinate community contributions, avoid fragmentation of community efforts, and keep things organized to help achieve consensus on decisions.
If there is support for Soledger to take on such a role, we are thinking that we will define it as a simple worker proposal, and thus only proceed if there is sufficient stakeholder agreement.
Let us know your thoughts and questions, and whether you think something like this makes sense for BitShares.
Hello everyone,
It's been a long time! Some of you will remember me as a former BitShares developer and project manager (https://github.com/vikramrajkumar), particularly during the lifespan of BitShares 1. Since BitShares, I haven't been involved in any blockchain projects, but now I am changing that and want to start contributing to the industry again.
I've linked up with Lance Kasper, or Agent86 as he's known on this forum (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9289), who you may recall also previously worked as an active member of the BitShares community. The two of us decided to start a company together, as a vehicle for us to explore some of our own ideas around blockchain technology.
We are Soledger Inc. (https://www.soledger.com/), and are based in Chicago, IL, USA. We are completely independent and are not affiliated with Invictus, Cryptonomex, Steemit, or any other organization. At present, Soledger is focusing on exploring some of our own experimental ideas, which you will hear more about once we have something that we are ready to share. However, we have not forgotten the BitShares community and want to see it grow and succeed as much as possible.
Given the nature of our prior experience with BitShares, we think it could be mutually beneficial for Soledger to handle certain project maintenance/administrative functions for the project.
BitShares seems to have been running with reasonable stability for some time now and we want to help preserve that stability. We think it could be beneficial to have someone who is unambiguously responsible for certain maintenance tasks around the network and platform. In practice, this would mostly mean that someone is in charge of administrating the GitHub organization (https://github.com/bitshares) and repositories, and could include responsibilities such as:
- Emergency security patches
- Emergency network stability patches
- Merge upstream Graphene, fc, other library updates
- Fix important compilation and compatibility issues that may arise
- Tag core releases
- Manage GitHub issue tracker
- Manage GitHub pull requests
- Consolidate high-quality community projects into BitShares GitHub organization
- Consolidate and maintain other important documentation to help ease contributing and integrating
Since the platform is already relatively stable, we would expect these responsibilities to be fairly straightforward to manage. Regardless, we think BitShares could benefit from help with maintaining the stability and ongoing operations of the network, as well an administrator to act as a clear point of contact to help coordinate community contributions, avoid fragmentation of community efforts, and keep things organized to help achieve consensus on decisions.
If there is support for Soledger to take on such a role, we are thinking that we will define it as a simple worker proposal, and thus only proceed if there is sufficient stakeholder agreement.
Let us know your thoughts and questions, and whether you think something like this makes sense for BitShares.
14
Random Discussion / MOVED: BTer deposit issues, growing concern
« on: July 09, 2015, 03:42:35 pm »
This topic has been moved to Trading & Speculation.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=16577.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=16577.0
15
Random Discussion / MOVED: Why is Litecoin going insane?
« on: July 08, 2015, 07:02:16 pm »
This topic has been moved to Trading & Speculation.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=17457.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=17457.0
