Author Topic: [Worker Proposals] Documentation and Technical Support + Python Dev and Apps  (Read 3804 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3182
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
While I wish the best for [member=120]xeroc[/member] and actually have no doubt that his skills are demanded more than enough to keep him comfortably working in one job or another, we're all here because we want to see Bitshares succeed.  That outcome is NOT served well if we cannot retain his talents, which means my sizable investment here is more at risk than it should be, and I'm sure others feel the same way.  Why do you not seem concerned about this?  Can I ask, do you have a stake in BTS beyond the 126,000 BTS in your abit account?
As you can see, I have another 154,000 BTS in my in.abit account, and counting. ;) Relax dude. I do concern, but it's useless to say that here. I did vote with all my stakes for xeroc. Xeroc has right to work elsewhere, he is not a slave of BitShares.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline Pheonike

That"s the problem, someone like XEROC with his skills and overall knowledge of the platform should be able to be a full-time worker. There should be at least a core group of developers supported by the platform who can put in time needed and not worry about losing their pay for things unrelated to their overall performance.

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
    • View Profile
Congrats on getting a job.

I don't quite get why you are posting all this stuff though... As far as I can tell all your workers got voted in and you set the pay.  If you wanted more pay, why didn't you ask for more?  You kind of sound like the guy who quits or gets fired and says "That company is screwed without me, I'm irreplaceable!" . Life does go on and so will bitshares.  Whether your working for it or not.

You certainly got a wrong impression.

The issue was (and kind of still is) .. that my worker wouldn't make it if Bytemaster didn't vote for it (I actually asked him NOT to vote for it, but it seems it is to late) ..
The problem here is that I have deliberately not searched for a regular job because my impression was that my work here is appreciated and could be funded for longer ..
Only due to the anti-dilution discussion and the decisions of one individual, this worker would not have been approved .. which  is a big issue not only for me!

The reasons I didn't want BM to vote for my workers is very simple: BitShares deserves to be more independent from CNX and it is very unfortunate that it currently can't be because of this one proxy!

Anyway, if the subsequent workers are approved .. I of course will put the promised time into BitShares .. the other "job" is also just a freelancing just for about 20h/week (at most) .. and I do have quite some things on my list to do .. not just coding and docs

A lot of people trust BM and for good reason.  He's the inventor of BTS and if anyone wants it to succeed it is him.  People see that and set BM as their proxy.  By saying you don't want BM to vote for you is like saying none of his other supporters (and probably your supporters) shouldn't vote for you either... I don't see the logic in your request to not have BM or any of his proxies vote for you.  Your basically asking for everyone who is anti dilution to change there minds and vote for you.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3309
    • View Profile
[member=120]xeroc[/member] - you should get paid.

What is more you should get pad not at 50% rate but at 100%!

You should not ask BM to not vote for you if he does find your work bringing more value than your pay. My guess is - he does.

You should not ask alt to not vote against your worker - he has a perfectly valid argument too. Start up shares do not end up being sold the second an employee gets his paycheck.

So where all this fails? I think, in You assuming that BTS has a system to finance itself! When in reality it doesn't. It has a very good tool, to archive such start up financing though. What is missing from it (the extra step needed for this to be true financing of a start up) - the long term capital willing to hodl BTS for at least 2-3 years, while paying you the full deserved salary.

How can we do that (my thoughts, there might be better plans)?
- directly locking the worker pay(probably using 1.3-1.5 bigger pay than what they do pay you) for 2-3 years for willing investors; while those investors pay you directly.
- selling an asset backed/receiving said 1.3-1.5x locked BTS; while you receive the proceeds (in bitEUR or BTS) from the asset sale.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2016, 08:09:06 pm by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12570
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
That"s the problem, someone like XEROC with his skills and overall knowledge of the platform should be able to be a full-time worker. There should be at least a core group of developers supported by the platform who can put in time needed and not worry about losing their pay for things unrelated to their overall performance.
I would LOVE to work on bitshares full time, but i made the compromise (two compromises actually) .. to only work half-time at rather low rate and bet big on its success

A lot of people trust BM and for good reason.  He's the inventor of BTS and if anyone wants it to succeed it is him.  People see that and set BM as their proxy.  By saying you don't want BM to vote for you is like saying none of his other supporters (and probably your supporters) shouldn't vote for you either... I don't see the logic in your request to not have BM or any of his proxies vote for you.  Your basically asking for everyone who is anti dilution to change there minds and vote for you.
I do trust BM. He is the sole reason I am here and love where I am!
The reason I asked him to not voice his opinion was to not give the
shareholders the impression that Daniel dictates who should be worker
and who should not. I very much appreciate the trust he puts into me but
would have preferred the ecosystem to disconnect from its father
eventually. It may need some more months until we are there.
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12570
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
[member=120]xeroc[/member] - you should get paid.

What is more you should get pad not at 50% rate but at 100%!

You should not ask BM to not vote for you if he does find your work bringing more value than your pay. My guess is - he does.

You should not ask alt to not vote against your worker - he has a perfectly valid argument too. Start up shares do not end up being sold the second an employee gets his paycheck.

So where all this fails? I think, in You assuming that BTS has a system to finance itself! When in reality it doesn't. It has a very good tool, to archive such start up financing though. What is missing from it (the extra step needed for this to be true financing of a start up) - the long term capital willing to hodl BTS for at least 2-3 years, while paying you the full deserved salary.

How can we do that (my thoughts, there might be better plans)?
- directly locking the worker pay(probably using 1.3-1.5 bigger pay than what they do pay you) for 2-3 years for willing investors; while those investors pay you directly.
- selling an asset backed/receiving said 1.3-1.5x locked BTS; while you receive the proceeds (in bitEUR or BTS) from the asset sale.
Thanks for the kind and open words .. much appreciated.

Another idea to work this out would be:

- let the committee create an asset that works as an option to get pays x*1.03^y USD after y years (e.g. USD-OPTION-2015)
- pay x USD options to the workers
- fund the options by asking for .10% trading fees on bitassets
- put revenue from trading as a buy order for the options into the dex

just an idea. Since I am not an economist .. it might be flawed
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline Samupaha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: samupaha
I do trust BM. He is the sole reason I am here and love where I am!
The reason I asked him to not voice his opinion was to not give the
shareholders the impression that Daniel dictates who should be worker
and who should not. I very much appreciate the trust he puts into me but
would have preferred the ecosystem to disconnect from its father
eventually. It may need some more months until we are there.

While I find this reasoning to be very virtuous, I don't think we are in a situation where Bytemaster's voting can be ignored. He is the lead developer so people will either use him as a proxy or check how he votes and base their voting on that. If Bytemaster isn't voting for something, people can get impression that it's not worth of DAC's resources to fund that worker.

Also, you shouldn't take too seriously the arguments from antidevelopment/antibytemaster crowd. If they were right, Bitshares should be performing much better now when Bytemaster is not controlling anymore most of the witnesses and committee – but that's not clearly the case.  And if new people see that lead dev is not taking actively part in the decision making, they might think that he is not commited to the project anymore.

So please [member=5]bytemaster[/member] could you vote for xeroc?

Offline Samupaha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: samupaha
Congratulations! You are voted in!

Offline twitter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
    • open a online trading account
@xeroc I appreciate all the work you done for our community. You have my support
open a trading account today ....  https://bitshares.openledger.info/?r=bue

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12570
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Congratulations! You are voted in!
[member=120]xeroc[/member] I appreciate all the work you done for our community. You have my support
Thanks for all the support.

For those that wonder what I did the last week, I am preparing articles for different parties among which are
OpenBazaar and the upcoming newsletter ...
Hope to be able to get back to coding soonish
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline btswolf

are you still working on the remaining Whitepapers?

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12570
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
As a quick update:
* I've added a few more basic articles to the docs
* rewrite of the API pages
* wrote some articles for the (hopefully) upcoming newsletter
* upgraded the testnetwork seed node to allow STEALTH testing on stealth.cnx.rocks
* and some more stuff I just forgot :P

and most happy, I am that I made huge progress in the offline-signing python code.
There just seems to be one issue left that makes the signatures non-canonical and I need to figure out what the reasons for this is.
But some python-signed transactions made it into the blockchain. So that's something.

Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1365
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
There just seems to be one issue left that makes the signatures non-canonical and I need to figure out what the reasons for this is.

The is_canonical check in Graphene is much too restrictive, IMO. Signatures sometimes just fail it. The only option is to retry with a different random value.
Please vote for my BitShares witness "cyrano" and for my STEEM witness "cyrano.witness"!
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12570
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
There just seems to be one issue left that makes the signatures non-canonical and I need to figure out what the reasons for this is.

The is_canonical check in Graphene is much too restrictive, IMO. Signatures sometimes just fail it. The only option is to retry with a different random value.
Yhea .. that is what the UI does and what I have implemented as well now. Seems to work reliably now
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12570
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I just pushed a new feature branch that is capable of signing (currently only) transfers and can not yet include memos:
https://github.com/xeroc/python-graphenelib/tree/feature/offline-signing

Code: [Select]
from grapheneapi.grapheneclient import GrapheneClient
from graphenebase import transactions

class Config():
    witness_url       = "ws://localhost:8090/"
    wif               = "5KQwrPbwdL6PhXujxW37FSSQZ1JiwsST4cqQzDeyXtP79zkvFD3"
    from_account_name = "nathan"
    to_account_name   = "init0"
    amount            = 10
    asset_name        = "CORE"
    # memo              = ""


if __name__ == '__main__':
    client = GrapheneClient(Config)
    connected_chain = client.getChainInfo()
    to_account   = client.ws.get_account(Config.to_account_name)
    from_account = client.ws.get_account(Config.from_account_name)
    asset        = client.ws.get_asset(Config.asset_name)

    fee      = transactions.Asset(0, "1.3.0")
    amount   = transactions.Asset(int(Config.amount * 10 ** asset["precision"]), "1.3.0")
    memo     = transactions.Memo()  # Not implemented yet
    transfer = transactions.Transfer(fee,
                                     from_account["id"],
                                     to_account["id"],
                                     amount,
                                     memo)
    ops              = [ transactions.Operation(transfer) ]
    ops              = transactions.addRequiresFees(client.ws, ops, "1.3.0")
    ref_block_num, ref_block_prefix = transactions.getBlockParams(client.ws)
    expiration       = transactions.formatTimeFromNow(60 * 60)
    signed           = transactions.Signed_Transaction(ref_block_num, ref_block_prefix, expiration, ops)
    w                = signed.sign([Config.wif], chain=connected_chain)
    ret              = client.ws.broadcast_transaction(transactions.JsonObj(w), api="network_broadcast")
    print(ret)

Todo:
 * Add memo (shouldn't take too long since most code is already implemented)
 * Add other operations besides 'transfer'
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH