Worker Proposal Review

[CryptoPrometheus]

This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming. 
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead? 

This will be real fun explaining to user.

"Your transactions are almost always free. But if you buy LM and  manage to send transactions during high volume times you will get $0.16 per transaction back, while everybody else will not get even a penny."

The "0 fees" proposal adds many additional layers of complexity. When it comes to fees, we should be reducing complexity, not adding it. I agree with the idea of 0.1 BTS fee to place an order. This should be high enough to prevent major spamming, but low enough (currently $0.0003) to likely be perceived as inconsequential by traders. Am I wrong about that?

Edit: I raised this same topic in a mumble a few weeks ago - The idea of charging 0.1 BTS  for placing or cancelling an order, and then having a volume based fee on successful execution of the trade. I know I am not the first one to raise this issue, but I would be interested to hear BM's take on it. IMO he has created a 0 fees plan with way too many complexities, that might take a few months to implement. Wouldn't it be easier to write the code to implement the volume based fees, and then toggle the other fees down to 0.1 BTS? Maybe they could do this part first (the volume based fees), and then we could test the 0.1 BTS fee schedule for awhile, and see how it goes. If traders are ok with this, then there will be NO need to go for the 0 fees plan at all.

[tonyk]

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.

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.

could you elaborate on what you mean? not sure how it comes out to 10k

They  want 3.5 Mil BTS.
 today this is about 3.5mil * 0.003290   = $11,515

My bad they want 5 workers 3.5Mil each for total of $57,575...and all the intellectual rights, as in if one wants to use it commercially he had to pay them more....
Making a better offer on that front  is another thing you can do, i.e. offering it free as in beer.

[Shentist]

proposal 1:

to complicated

- i stated before, let the reciever pay the fees and everything lese should be the same

example:

if i send as a basic account user a transaction the reciever will pay the fees. if the reciever is a basic account the fee is 40BTS and for the Lifetime account 4 BTS.  So we should just set the minimum amount you have to send to 40 BTS or the basic account fee.

this will be no problem for the sender or the reciever. this is the same system visacard etc. are operating. as a merchant i will upgrade to lifetime meber and know that everytransaction i do i have to charge + 4 BTS or cover the costs.

- keep it simple, the proposal is to complicated. let not just the frontend look simple, but keept the backend as simple as possible.

2. need more details to make final judment

3. + 4. are nice

5. if the community pay for this please apply some fees to get over time back into the bitshares network.

- KYC .... costs x BTS and the network will keep 100% of all this fees, untill the developmentcosts are paid. After the fees will split like stated for referral program.

[kuro112]

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.

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.

could you elaborate on what you mean? not sure how it comes out to 10k

[tonyk]

This is PURELY a cosmetic change.  The minimum transfer would be fee + 1 satoshi and the merchant would only see a gain of 1 satoshi.  From the user's perspective they paid the merchant $0.20, but the merchant only pocketed $0.01.  In no case can one user drain funds from another by spamming.

So it's really the user paying the fee, but it's not displayed as a fee. the merchant just gets $0.20 less in this example. Right?

From a referral program's perspective, it's still the normal user that counts, right? User is paying (hidden) fee to merchant, referral gets 80% of that hidden fee. Correct?

This will be real fun explaining to user.

"Your transactions are almost always free. But if you buy LM and  manage to send transactions during high volume times you will get $0.16 per transaction back, while everybody else will not get even a penny."

[CryptoPrometheus]

interestingly lets take a look at the average salary for a google software engineer (arguably the most advanced on the planet)
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Salaries-E9079.htm

looks like its around 170k a year which puts the hourly at just above 80$ per hour...

if its an open bid then by all means freebie is willing to tackle these two tasks. however charging us a fee to review our work? really?
aren't you the ones trying to find developers to work for you? thatls pretty redic... I should be charging you the fee.

i just want to make sure the community isnt being asked to fund software development with inflated numbers, freebie is willing to step up and solve this problem if we see people trying to take advantage of this insane concept that somehow development will require a team of 3 working at 200$ an hour on... changing fees? really? its pre existing code.

I'm really starting to like this "random coder on the forum".

Why would Cryptonomex have to review code that we (the BitShares Community) paid someone else to write for BitShares?

I thought Cryptonomex was no longer part of BitShares, we are only considering hiring CNX (via a Worker Proposal) and are not obligated in any way to do so.

I'm not saying we wouldn't want code reviewed that was written by another person/group, but I'm pretty sure we have plenty of qualified coders here that could/would do that for next to nothing.

Why are you (Dan) stating this like it's mandatory that CNX would handle that job?

This is a bit confusing.

On one hand CNX can work for anyone they want, hell you've even kind of thrown it in our face that CNX could work for others at a higher rate and have offers to do so, but it's like you're doing poor old BitShares a favor by offering to do this job for 2X the rate anyone else would. And on top of that it sounds like you're saying we're required to use CNX to then review anyone else's code that we chose over you.

It sounds like CNX is operating as a proxy ruler from afar, kind of like the US Government does things.  

Will you be installing a puppet regime next or is this your declaration that CNX is that puppet regime?

"Let my people go!" 

"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 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.  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. Think about it this way - 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.

[mike623317]

is there anything in here regarding polishing up the user experience in terms of things like css. Maybe i'm using the wrong terms, but the i think the prettiness of the webpages could be polished up a little to compete with people like coinbase and bitfinex.
The functionality is there on these pages, but it look a bit crude on the login page, the permissions page etc.
Just saying if you're trying to compare apples to apples.

[btswildpig]

Can BTS get a refund if the fee is not increased in a reasonable time frame as advertised ? 

[tonyk]

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.

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.

[mike623317]

Screw the competition. We need this change in place yesterday. It is essential to our framework and user experience. I don't think the price or time frame is outrageous at all; let's get Cryptonomex and Bunker to put this in place and then we'll have the product to attract actual volume.

If you want to have competitions and invite any out-of-work developer whose skills are not well known to the community, then do this later for add-ons.

I agree. Lets get on it. But i would like us to be as specific as possible.  I dont think we can afford to have more front end/usability issues (perceived or not). We need to get it right to shake off this feeling on perpetual development.

[testz]

Why would Cryptonomex have to review code that we (the BitShares Community) paid someone else to write for BitShares?

Competition it's really good, but I will vote for worker proposal only if work will be reviewed by CNX or another trusted programmer from our community (like @pc for example).
Fire proposals and let's shareholders decide. 

[mindphlux]

This is PURELY a cosmetic change.  The minimum transfer would be fee + 1 satoshi and the merchant would only see a gain of 1 satoshi.  From the user's perspective they paid the merchant $0.20, but the merchant only pocketed $0.01.  In no case can one user drain funds from another by spamming.

So it's really the user paying the fee, but it's not displayed as a fee. the merchant just gets $0.20 less in this example. Right?

From a referral program's perspective, it's still the normal user that counts, right? User is paying (hidden) fee to merchant, referral gets 80% of that hidden fee. Correct?

[kuro112]

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.

[puppies]

The proposal reads specifically:

Because this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.

This would indicate the sender pays nothing and the receiver pays the fee. The discount is for RECEIVING transactions then, not SENDING transactions, if I may interpret that.

This is PURELY a cosmetic change.  The minimum transfer would be fee + 1 satoshi and the merchant would only see a gain of 1 satoshi.  From the user's perspective they paid the merchant $0.20, but the merchant only pocketed $0.01.  In no case can one user drain funds from another by spamming.

thanks. makes sense.

now what is the incentive for LT Memberships? the user based referral program would be dead, right?

As long as the sender still gets the 80% refund in their vesting balance then the incentive is still there. 

[Pheonike]

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.