Stealth Transfers Worker Proposal

[Tuck Fheman]

PS I'm a top 50 largest shareholder

#btstip "lil_jay890" 1 FISTBUMP

https://youtu.be/yT_bYEY8Gi0

[bytemaster]

No software company offers a warranty on a FREE product provided WITHOUT WARRANTY.

If you think BitShares should have a software support contract that covers a certain amount of bug fixes then that may be the proper way to structure things.

Software bugs cost people money, if we had to take out liability insurance for any and all losses as a result of software then our rates would be $1000 per hour or more. It would be totally impractical to produce software on an kind of market competitive schedule.

It is not liability insurance, it is fixing the non working coffee makers coming out of your factory. (as in not compensating the people killed by it, just fixing the one that fail at making coffee)

Really?

The warranty would be 9 times greater than the product itself???

This is one hell of a shitty product, if it costs 9x more to repair all defects than to produce it in the first place.

In software terms there are always bugs and things that can be considered "non-working". That said, we DID come back and fix things without charge.  The reason we pointed out that we didn't ...HAVE TO... is merely to protect us against unbounded liability for making fixes to bugs / issues that come up.

A 9x markup represents how much longer it would take to audit the code and ensure it is free of bugs. It represents the time it would take to implement all the extra tests required to increase the quality of all of the code to the level of perfection demanded by some.

You better believe that if a coffee pot manufacturer was giving away free products that had some minor defects they wouldn't offer to fix them.  Especially if it came with no warranty as being fit for any purpose.

Like I said above, we overcommitted to what we could deliver in a USER INTERFACE.  We also quickly retracted the bond market commitment a week after announcement. 

This whole "blame game" is not really productive.  Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment. It is up to each of us to manage our own personal expectations.

Please just answer my question! Will the other chains get the improvements that bts pays for?!?

PS I'm a top 50 largest shareholder... And if I'm bringing up these points what do you think compettitors are saying?

Yes.  If we do it then we are the copyright holders and will have unrestricted use.

[monsterer]

The new bond market rules are more complex than the one originally proposed because it actually enforces margin calls on users.

Fantastic! I'm glad you came around to the idea

[lil_jay890]

No software company offers a warranty on a FREE product provided WITHOUT WARRANTY.

If you think BitShares should have a software support contract that covers a certain amount of bug fixes then that may be the proper way to structure things.

Software bugs cost people money, if we had to take out liability insurance for any and all losses as a result of software then our rates would be $1000 per hour or more. It would be totally impractical to produce software on an kind of market competitive schedule.

It is not liability insurance, it is fixing the non working coffee makers coming out of your factory. (as in not compensating the people killed by it, just fixing the one that fail at making coffee)

Really?

The warranty would be 9 times greater than the product itself???

This is one hell of a shitty product, if it costs 9x more to repair all defects than to produce it in the first place.

In software terms there are always bugs and things that can be considered "non-working". That said, we DID come back and fix things without charge.  The reason we pointed out that we didn't ...HAVE TO... is merely to protect us against unbounded liability for making fixes to bugs / issues that come up.

A 9x markup represents how much longer it would take to audit the code and ensure it is free of bugs. It represents the time it would take to implement all the extra tests required to increase the quality of all of the code to the level of perfection demanded by some.

You better believe that if a coffee pot manufacturer was giving away free products that had some minor defects they wouldn't offer to fix them.  Especially if it came with no warranty as being fit for any purpose.

Like I said above, we overcommitted to what we could deliver in a USER INTERFACE.  We also quickly retracted the bond market commitment a week after announcement. 

This whole "blame game" is not really productive.  Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment. It is up to each of us to manage our own personal expectations.

Please just answer my question! Will the other chains get the improvements that bts pays for?!?

PS I'm a top 50 largest shareholder... And if I'm bringing up these points what do you think compettitors are saying?

[Akado]

It is a great product and it is SO close to being a fully functional, decentralized exchange and trading engine. If I were a developer and it were my baby, I'd want to make it bug-free as well.

If it isn't quite perfect, then we spend the funds to get it done. We'll be thankful we did.

Bond Markets were dismissed and replaced for stealth transfers. There goes the trading engine. Still I would gladly approve a worker proposal for that to be implemented but I guess we will end up spending much more money in something we need. At this time we could already have bond market at the protocol level for free which we don't.

We ditched the bond market we originally proposed after feedback from the community.  The protocol level rules created a system that was combination bond/option and that made them difficult to price an unpredictable.  The new bond market rules are more complex than the one originally proposed because it actually enforces margin calls on users. This extra complexity means we can toss the partial work that we already did on bond markets prior to June 8th and must start over.

I really really want a bond market. I am just trying to estimate the relative complexity of various tasks.

Thanks for the reply, was waiting on some clarification about bond markets.

[rgcrypto]

I really really want a bond market. I am just trying to estimate the relative complexity of various tasks.

I think (just an idea) we have an opportunity to attract devs with this problem. How about going on bitcointalk/other crypto forum and advertise that the  BitShares blockchain is looking to implement bond markets and that CNX is starting the bid at 100k. Anyone who wants to compete to get the job can outbid CNX to get the loot upon completion of the project.

[bytemaster]

It is a great product and it is SO close to being a fully functional, decentralized exchange and trading engine. If I were a developer and it were my baby, I'd want to make it bug-free as well.

If it isn't quite perfect, then we spend the funds to get it done. We'll be thankful we did.

Bond Markets were dismissed and replaced for stealth transfers. There goes the trading engine. Still I would gladly approve a worker proposal for that to be implemented but I guess we will end up spending much more money in something we need. At this time we could already have bond market at the protocol level for free which we don't.

We ditched the bond market we originally proposed after feedback from the community.  The protocol level rules created a system that was combination bond/option and that made them difficult to price an unpredictable.  The new bond market rules are more complex than the one originally proposed because it actually enforces margin calls on users. This extra complexity means we can toss the partial work that we already did on bond markets prior to June 8th and must start over.

I really really want a bond market. I am just trying to estimate the relative complexity of various tasks.

[Akado]

It is a great product and it is SO close to being a fully functional, decentralized exchange and trading engine. If I were a developer and it were my baby, I'd want to make it bug-free as well.

If it isn't quite perfect, then we spend the funds to get it done. We'll be thankful we did.

Bond Markets were dismissed and replaced for stealth transfers. There goes the trading engine. Still I would gladly approve a worker proposal for that to be implemented but I guess we will end up spending much more money in something we need. At this time we could already have bond market at the protocol level for free which we don't.

[btstip]

Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...

• bytemaster: has been credited 1 GREATIDEA

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,20104.msg259203/topicseen.html#msg259203

Created by hybridd

[Tuck Fheman]

#btstip "bytemaster" 1 GREATIDEA

[donkeypong]

It is a great product and it is SO close to being a fully functional, decentralized exchange and trading engine. If I were a developer and it were my baby, I'd want to make it bug-free as well.

If it isn't quite perfect, then we spend the funds to get it done. We'll be thankful we did.

[btstip]

Hey rgcrypto, here are the results of your tips...

• jakub: has been credited 1 FISTBUMP

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,20104.msg259189/topicseen.html#msg259189

Created by hybridd

[rgcrypto]

Since 2014 Q4 (when the dev team ran out of money), CNX owes us nothing. Just get used to it.
CNX is free to make worker proposals whatever they like (including fixing bugs) and we are free to accept them or reject them.

If a coder is unwilling to take responsibility for his bugs, he only risks his reputation.
CNX is not doing us a favor - they are just taking care of their reputation.
They said they would fix the bug so there is no issue.

And if we continue with this "attitude of entitlement" - we risk our reputation (as a community).

#btstip "jakub" 1 FISTBUMP

[bytemaster]

No software company offers a warranty on a FREE product provided WITHOUT WARRANTY.

If you think BitShares should have a software support contract that covers a certain amount of bug fixes then that may be the proper way to structure things.

Software bugs cost people money, if we had to take out liability insurance for any and all losses as a result of software then our rates would be $1000 per hour or more. It would be totally impractical to produce software on an kind of market competitive schedule.

It is not liability insurance, it is fixing the non working coffee makers coming out of your factory. (as in not compensating the people killed by it, just fixing the one that fail at making coffee)

Really?

The warranty would be 9 times greater than the product itself???

This is one hell of a shitty product, if it costs 9x more to repair all defects than to produce it in the first place.

In software terms there are always bugs and things that can be considered "non-working". That said, we DID come back and fix things without charge.  The reason we pointed out that we didn't ...HAVE TO... is merely to protect us against unbounded liability for making fixes to bugs / issues that come up.

A 9x markup represents how much longer it would take to audit the code and ensure it is free of bugs. It represents the time it would take to implement all the extra tests required to increase the quality of all of the code to the level of perfection demanded by some.

You better believe that if a coffee pot manufacturer was giving away free products that had some minor defects they wouldn't offer to fix them.  Especially if it came with no warranty as being fit for any purpose.

Like I said above, we overcommitted to what we could deliver in a USER INTERFACE.  We also quickly retracted the bond market commitment a week after announcement. 

This whole "blame game" is not really productive.  Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment. It is up to each of us to manage our own personal expectations.

[tonyk]

Since 2014 Q4 (when the dev team ran out of money), CNX owes us nothing. Just get used to it.
CNX is free to make worker proposals whatever they like (including fixing bugs) and we are free to accept them or reject them.

If a coder is unwilling to take responsibility for his bugs, he only risks his reputation.
CNX is not doing us a favor - they are just taking care of their reputation.
They said they would fix the bug so there is no issue.

And if we continue with this "attitude of entitlement" - we risk our reputation (as a community).

I did see an entitlement in the last 5-7 posts or so...but it was not coming from me... or the community.
Or do you suggest, we stop asking legitimate questions, for some greater good?