Worker Proposal Review

[bytemaster]

CNX has a lot on our plate, we want new developers to come in and therefore we bid HIGH prices for the work.

In other words, we bid relatively high so we can make a significant profit and reinvest it into the industry and other could underbid us.

Our workforce is also limited, so even if we wanted to bid on everything we wouldn't have the manpower to do so.

[lil_jay890]

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...?

Maybe we should be paying even more to the first developers hired by BTS 2.0 because it's good marketing. We need to attract lots of good programmers to work on Bitshares – and what could be a better way? Since there haven't been any real worker proposals before this, paying little bit extra might give a nice incentive to other programmers out there.

Of course I don't mean that we should be paying outrageous amounts of BTS, but just that we shouldn't be complaining about rates in Cryptonomex's proposal. I would vote for them even if the demanded payrate was higher.

This is exactly how markets work. People notice when other people are making a killing with high margins and then enter to compete. If BitShares wishes to diversify its developer base then it will need to make working for BitShares profitable enough that many people come out of the woodwork to get things done. Using the example of "fixed price contracts" with a 3rd party evaluator for completion means the blockchain can ensure that it actually gets a usable product for the money it pays.

On the other hand if the blockchain decides to be "cheap" then few will bother and those that are around will get distracted by higher paying opportunities.

I for one do not want to monopolize the worker proposals. I would much rather have decentralized development and parallel efforts.

Bytemaster, is there any other companies or individuals that you could refer to do a worker proposal?  I think what is stopping worker proposals is the lack of knowledge of the code by everyone except CNX.  Their is a fear of being undercut by CNX just because of the learning curve of the code.

[abit]

Just a quick note.

DEX orders stays in memory for ever, so at current market cap and 0.1 BTS fee for limit_order_create operation, it will take ~20K USD to exhaust all witnesses memory. ( Assuming 4GB mem witnesses )

Code: [Select]

0.003186*0.1*4*1e9/64 ~= 20K USD
64 = memory usage of 1 limit_order_object
0.1 = fee
4*1e9 = 4GB
0.003186 = USD per BTS

Memory exhausting protection need to be taken into account also.

We can have a parameter like "maximum open orders per account", or increase the fee to x bts when there are more than y orders placed by an account exist.

[bytemaster]

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...?

Maybe we should be paying even more to the first developers hired by BTS 2.0 because it's good marketing. We need to attract lots of good programmers to work on Bitshares – and what could be a better way? Since there haven't been any real worker proposals before this, paying little bit extra might give a nice incentive to other programmers out there.

Of course I don't mean that we should be paying outrageous amounts of BTS, but just that we shouldn't be complaining about rates in Cryptonomex's proposal. I would vote for them even if the demanded payrate was higher.

This is exactly how markets work. People notice when other people are making a killing with high margins and then enter to compete. If BitShares wishes to diversify its developer base then it will need to make working for BitShares profitable enough that many people come out of the woodwork to get things done. Using the example of "fixed price contracts" with a 3rd party evaluator for completion means the blockchain can ensure that it actually gets a usable product for the money it pays.

On the other hand if the blockchain decides to be "cheap" then few will bother and those that are around will get distracted by higher paying opportunities.

I for one do not want to monopolize the worker proposals. I would much rather have decentralized development and parallel efforts.

[Samupaha]

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...?

Maybe we should be paying even more to the first developers hired by BTS 2.0 because it's good marketing. We need to attract lots of good programmers to work on Bitshares – and what could be a better way? Since there haven't been any real worker proposals before this, paying little bit extra might give a nice incentive to other programmers out there.

Of course I don't mean that we should be paying outrageous amounts of BTS, but just that we shouldn't be complaining about rates in Cryptonomex's proposal. I would vote for them even if the demanded payrate was higher.

[bytemaster]

Lets emulate poloniex/bitfinex/etc.  0.2% fee for both BTS trades and asset trades.  0.1 BTS flat fee on trades because we have to have something to prevent spam, but this is low enough to not annoy anyone.

how about 0.1%? we should set a fee rate not higher than most traditional exchanges, including btc38.

[bitcrab]

Lets emulate poloniex/bitfinex/etc.  0.2% fee for both BTS trades and asset trades.  0.1 BTS flat fee on trades because we have to have something to prevent spam, but this is low enough to not annoy anyone.

how about 0.1%? we should set a fee rate not higher than most traditional exchanges, including btc38.

[btstip]

Hey fav, your tips have been queued to get sent to...

• Tuck Fheman: 100 NEWBIE

Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://btstip.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!

Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19890.msg255724/topicseen.html#msg255724

Created by hybridd

[mike623317]

Re. #5: This seems like development done mainly for the benefit of Identibit, I'm not sure why should the Bitshares network pay for it.

Nope, all fiat gateways might need it, no matter if it's BitShares or Identabit.

Not just 'might', they MUST. If you want to have on/off ramps you have to have KYC compliance PERIOD.

If this is not done then the exchanges have to figure out a way to deal with it.. one more reason for them not to make the move.

The only alternative to this is to handle it off-chain. Having it built right into the blockchain is not only more desirable, but also safer.

However.. the previous statement about helping identibit is true.. yet.. it also opens up the market entirely. So unless identibit has some other value propoition.. by having this done we are essentially opening up the whole marketplace.. and giving identibit competition.

We need on/off ramps.. this is the MAJOR thing needed because it's what gives bitcoin it's current dominance.. they have the on/off infrastructure. We make it easier for everyone to use ours so that people can buy bitUSD WITH USD .. then we got the plutonium to power the flux capacitor. (back to the future reference)

^^^^^^

[Tuck Fheman]

proxying my  there

#btstip "Tuck Fheman" 100 NEWBIE

lulz and thanks I think.

Edit: It appears that did not arrive or I'm doing something wrong. I'm assuming this would show up at btstip.io under the "Tuck Fheman" account but it did not. Received thanks!

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Re. #5: This seems like development done mainly for the benefit of Identibit, I'm not sure why should the Bitshares network pay for it.

Nope, all fiat gateways might need it, no matter if it's BitShares or Identabit.

Not just 'might', they MUST. If you want to have on/off ramps you have to have KYC compliance PERIOD.

If this is not done then the exchanges have to figure out a way to deal with it.. one more reason for them not to make the move.

The only alternative to this is to handle it off-chain. Having it built right into the blockchain is not only more desirable, but also safer.

However.. the previous statement about helping identibit is true.. yet.. it also opens up the market entirely. So unless identibit has some other value propoition.. by having this done we are essentially opening up the whole marketplace.. and giving identibit competition.

We need on/off ramps.. this is the MAJOR thing needed because it's what gives bitcoin it's current dominance.. they have the on/off infrastructure. We make it easier for everyone to use ours so that people can buy bitUSD WITH USD .. then we got the plutonium to power the flux capacitor. (back to the future reference)

[bitcrab]

What I think is people need to be able to do something with their money in 2.0 They can keep their money safe, ok, that's good, but what else?

What people need the most is an easy way of bringing fiat money into/out of bitshares. Right now, being in US and having wages payed in USD, the only way to bring money into bitshares is to buy bitcoins first through coinbase, or bitcoin ATM, or some other shitty way, because there is no good and reliable way to do this. Then you need to exchange your bitcoins to bitashares assets through another centralized exchange on a market with almost no liquidity. At each stage you suffer fees and slippage and waste your time. This is absolutely not ok.

If you want to bring money into Bitshares bring value into the tokens and they'll be worth more. You don't actually need to buy the tokens for them to acquire more value.  Let Bitcoin be the token people buy with cash, but then you have Safecoin, you have Storj, you have Ether, and a bunch of tokens which can be backed by apps or by resources, so you don't even need to do anything other than earn them directly.

Of course having money go in and out in USD is convenient but it's not necessary, it's just convenient. Not every exchange has USD. In fact I would think you should look more to China and Europe than to focusing on USD. People in the USA don't seem interested in buying altcoins or Bitcoin right now.

this not only relate to  "buying altcoins with USD", but also more, if BitUSD<->USD conversion is easy, then a USD<->CNY international remittance will be also easy. and this make big sense.

I remember limewallet has planned to do this, seems no update from them for long?

[jakub]

Re. #5: This seems like development done mainly for the benefit of Identibit, I'm not sure why should the Bitshares network pay for it.

Nope, all fiat gateways might need it, no matter if it's BitShares or Identabit.

[triox]

Re. #2: Awesome.

Re. #3: Openledger earns money through the referral program. Whether a different wallet/server model will attract more users, is their internal business case. I'm not sure why should the Bitshares network pay for it.

Re. #4: Awesome. API should be the priority.

Re. #5: This seems like development done mainly for the benefit of Identibit, I'm not sure why should the Bitshares network pay for it.

[Akado]

People in the USA don't seem interested in buying altcoins or Bitcoin right now.

Of course we are interested. But this is a fucking painful process. While trying to bring funds to bitshares last week, I checked many options. I even found a bitcoin ATM in a grocery store next to my block. What a useless machine. Coinbase looks to be the only suitable way to buy bitcoins, but then you need to convert them to BTS on another exchange with almost zero liquidity. So, to deposit funds to exchange you need to go to another exchange and another exchange. Is not this ridiculous?

Thats what metaexchange and others are for. You can buy on coinbase, send to metaexchange and you get the funds in your wallet.youonly need to send them once. Try it and it Will feel much easier than doing what you do. I know cause thats what i did before