200 PTS - Bounty Rules and Procedures Document [Closed]

[phoenix]

AJ_ and I are currently putting our heads together to come up with something. Would a publicly view-able google drive doc be acceptable for development and/or entry?

[phoenix]

I would like to provide an idea to enhance the process of make decision of final bounty amount.

1. 3I post a Bounty Requirement with several optional bounty amoumts. e.g 100 PTS, 200 PTS, 400 PTS

2. Forum users join, and voting for that, which they think should be the approximate price for the task. The bounty with most user support would be the final bounty given to someone complete the task.

3. Maybe, even voting for the final effect of the result of task, give 90%, 100%, 110%.

This could be just a small improvement, but can attract the community to join and contribute in some degree.

I believe 3I wants to avoid any voting systems in the bounties to prevent fraud. However, they do want to include bidding for the right to enter for a bounty, which will allow the bounty to be lowered to the true market value.

[boshen1011]

1+

[HackFisher]

I would like to provide an idea to enhance the process of make decision of final bounty amount.

1. 3I post a Bounty Requirement with several optional bounty amoumts. e.g 100 PTS, 200 PTS, 400 PTS

2. Forum users join, and voting for that, which they think should be the approximate price for the task. The bounty with most user support would be the final bounty given to someone complete the task.

3. Maybe, even voting for the final effect of the result of task, give 90%, 100%, 110%.

This could be just a small improvement, but can attract the community to join and contribute in some degree.

[bytemaster]

I have posted a draft version of Bounty Rules to hold things over until a more complete document is produced by this bounty.  See the sticky post in Bountiful Bounties board.  The ideas expressed in the draft should be incorporated into the final bounty rules document.

[bytemaster]

I was recently inspired by this: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/emergent-networks-and-falling-hierarchy/#.Ur9syGQW3M4 on emergent networks.

Response to 1) I think there will always be cut-throat competition. On this project for instance, let's say there are two teams working on the problem. Only one team can win. That means it's going to be a complete waste of time for the losing team. Perhaps someone should have the unfortunate job of discouraging teams that are on the wrong track and have a low chance of winning. This would minimize wasted time. If the team was really spirited though, they could pivot and move in a new direction.

(By the by, I'm putting together a team for this. I'm thinking a three person team to set the outline and work out details. The team members must be willing to do a group video or phone conference. Our team would then set smaller bounties for other community members to write specific parts of the manual. This should be a fast way to get the job done.)

Study the work of John Nash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkhuetnJmM (the Stag hunt) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stzPcqmyhI4  . There does not always have to be cut throat competition. That only happens when cut throat competition is the easiest winning strategy and that winning strategy is promoted by the market.

So we should not reward cut throat competition and instead reward cooperative competition. We are all on the same team as part of the same community/economic ecosystem and certain cut throat activities damage our ecosystem. Cheating for example is not good for anyone who wants to make a living following the rules. Just like how botnets aren't good for any of us who mined following the rules. If someone were just out to win in the most cut throat fashion then creating botnets is more lucrative than being fair, stealing someone elses ideas is more lucrative than coming up with your own, and sabotaging someone else's work is more lucrative than competing on merit.

If you look at how governments operate, they are cut throat and never compete fairly with each other. If we are trying to build the ideal free market then we should do what we can to try to understand how game theory can be used to produce cooperative capitalism so that competition is used only to make the overall economic ecosystem stronger, more robust, etc.

I watched the videos but I don't think they apply to my example of two teams, because the two teams are competing over one resource. Pepsi and Coke compete in a market, not for a single customer. The videos do apply to members of a team working to complete tasks. In that situation, some people can hunt stags and some people can catch hares, and we can all have something to eat.

Working on a bounty like this is risky. You always have the chance of being beaten by a lone genius who can produce things quickly.

I think there must be a principle that says every person or team working on a bounty must make their intentions public on the bounty thread before they start. So that way individuals and teams can decide how to proceed.

My policy is that all work must be done publicly in github (or forums) and announced.  If someone wishes to copy your initial progress and fork something or steal a method they should negotiate with the creator because without permission from all contributors to a solution the bounty will not be paid.  This protects everyone and encourages people to 'license' their work to as many teams as possible to maximize their chance of getting paid. 

I also suggested a policy that submarine submissions do not get this benefit and other teams can copy their efforts when the do surprise everyone.   Bottom line, bounties are there to motivate cooperation and division of labor and not to have backstabbing secret silo development.

[que23]

I was recently inspired by this: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/emergent-networks-and-falling-hierarchy/#.Ur9syGQW3M4 on emergent networks.

Response to 1) I think there will always be cut-throat competition. On this project for instance, let's say there are two teams working on the problem. Only one team can win. That means it's going to be a complete waste of time for the losing team. Perhaps someone should have the unfortunate job of discouraging teams that are on the wrong track and have a low chance of winning. This would minimize wasted time. If the team was really spirited though, they could pivot and move in a new direction.

(By the by, I'm putting together a team for this. I'm thinking a three person team to set the outline and work out details. The team members must be willing to do a group video or phone conference. Our team would then set smaller bounties for other community members to write specific parts of the manual. This should be a fast way to get the job done.)

Study the work of John Nash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkhuetnJmM (the Stag hunt) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stzPcqmyhI4  . There does not always have to be cut throat competition. That only happens when cut throat competition is the easiest winning strategy and that winning strategy is promoted by the market.

So we should not reward cut throat competition and instead reward cooperative competition. We are all on the same team as part of the same community/economic ecosystem and certain cut throat activities damage our ecosystem. Cheating for example is not good for anyone who wants to make a living following the rules. Just like how botnets aren't good for any of us who mined following the rules. If someone were just out to win in the most cut throat fashion then creating botnets is more lucrative than being fair, stealing someone elses ideas is more lucrative than coming up with your own, and sabotaging someone else's work is more lucrative than competing on merit.

If you look at how governments operate, they are cut throat and never compete fairly with each other. If we are trying to build the ideal free market then we should do what we can to try to understand how game theory can be used to produce cooperative capitalism so that competition is used only to make the overall economic ecosystem stronger, more robust, etc.

I watched the videos but I don't think they apply to my example of two teams, because the two teams are competing over one resource. Pepsi and Coke compete in a market, not for a single customer. The videos do apply to members of a team working to complete tasks. In that situation, some people can hunt stags and some people can catch hares, and we can all have something to eat.

Working on a bounty like this is risky. You always have the chance of being beaten by a lone genius who can produce things quickly.

I think there must be a principle that says every person or team working on a bounty must make their intentions public on the bounty thread before they start. So that way individuals and teams can decide how to proceed.

[luckybit]

I was recently inspired by this: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/emergent-networks-and-falling-hierarchy/#.Ur9syGQW3M4 on emergent networks.

Response to 1) I think there will always be cut-throat competition. On this project for instance, let's say there are two teams working on the problem. Only one team can win. That means it's going to be a complete waste of time for the losing team. Perhaps someone should have the unfortunate job of discouraging teams that are on the wrong track and have a low chance of winning. This would minimize wasted time. If the team was really spirited though, they could pivot and move in a new direction.

(By the by, I'm putting together a team for this. I'm thinking a three person team to set the outline and work out details. The team members must be willing to do a group video or phone conference. Our team would then set smaller bounties for other community members to write specific parts of the manual. This should be a fast way to get the job done.)

Study the work of John Nash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkhuetnJmM (the Stag hunt) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stzPcqmyhI4  . There does not always have to be cut throat competition. That only happens when cut throat competition is the easiest winning strategy and that winning strategy is promoted by the market.

So we should not reward cut throat competition and instead reward cooperative competition. We are all on the same team as part of the same community/economic ecosystem and certain cut throat activities damage our ecosystem. Cheating for example is not good for anyone who wants to make a living following the rules. Just like how botnets aren't good for any of us who mined following the rules. If someone were just out to win in the most cut throat fashion then creating botnets is more lucrative than being fair, stealing someone elses ideas is more lucrative than coming up with your own, and sabotaging someone else's work is more lucrative than competing on merit.

If you look at how governments operate, they are cut throat and never compete fairly with each other. If we are trying to build the ideal free market then we should do what we can to try to understand how game theory can be used to produce cooperative capitalism so that competition is used only to make the overall economic ecosystem stronger, more robust, etc.

[que23]

I was recently inspired by this: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/emergent-networks-and-falling-hierarchy/#.Ur9syGQW3M4 on emergent networks.

Response to 1) I think there will always be cut-throat competition. On this project for instance, let's say there are two teams working on the problem. Only one team can win. That means it's going to be a complete waste of time for the losing team. Perhaps someone should have the unfortunate job of discouraging teams that are on the wrong track and have a low chance of winning. This would minimize wasted time. If the team was really spirited though, they could pivot and move in a new direction.

(By the by, I'm putting together a team for this. I'm thinking a three person team to set the outline and work out details. The team members must be willing to do a group video or phone conference. Our team would then set smaller bounties for other community members to write specific parts of the manual. This should be a fast way to get the job done.)

[phoenix]

We need this fast, it's getting complicated to sort out.

I'm working on this now

[barwizi]

We need this fast, it's getting complicated to sort out.

[bytemaster]

Right. In the normal use case I will define the high level bounty and judge final result but the manager will handle writing detailed bounty spec and day to day management. 

Manager gets paid only when I approve final result.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phoenix]

16) Have a commission system for the bounty operator/organizer.  The goal is to motivate rapid question/answer/evaluation cycles and divide up the task of running the bounty in addition to completing the bounty.

what do you mean by a commission system? How do you imagine it working?

Creating and managing bounties requires work on two sides.  Both sides should have incentive to settle the bounty as quickly as possible. 

We want to hire bounty managers that are paid by the number of successful bounties they can manage.

So a bounty may be issued by one person, but managed by another. This manager should have an incentive to settle the bounty quickly. They should also be paid for managing multiple bounties. Is this correct?

[bytemaster]

16) Have a commission system for the bounty operator/organizer.  The goal is to motivate rapid question/answer/evaluation cycles and divide up the task of running the bounty in addition to completing the bounty.

what do you mean by a commission system? How do you imagine it working?

Creating and managing bounties requires work on two sides.  Both sides should have incentive to settle the bounty as quickly as possible. 

We want to hire bounty managers that are paid by the number of successful bounties they can manage.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phoenix]

16) Have a commission system for the bounty operator/organizer.  The goal is to motivate rapid question/answer/evaluation cycles and divide up the task of running the bounty in addition to completing the bounty.

what do you mean by a commission system? How do you imagine it working?