Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • Jun 20 2016 02:11
    @alexvandesande banned @algotrader2013
  • Jun 05 2016 10:31
    @alexvandesande banned @adamskee
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
And we will be able to do do constant SMS verification, not just one time, to mark someone as not valid, if they do not maintain their phone.
How easy is it to get disposable numbers?
Nick Sawinyh
@sneg55
pretty easy, there is a bunch of services for that, i.e. https://mobilesms.io/#pricing
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
Those are all one use numbers. You can't get the same number, every month, forever, right?
Nick Sawinyh
@sneg55
It’s called numbers with revalidation and it will be more expensive for anonymous supporters, but it’s possible.
Jon Stevens
@lookfirst
Twillio should be easy to use to blow that method out of the water.
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
As I said, it is a temporary not perfect solution, till we can get full KYC user proofs through the up and coming self-sovereign identity systems. We are a small team working as fast as we can. We’ll get there, eventually.
None of that will get in the way of real users, creating real high quality state of the art camp structures, representing concisely and quantitatively what someone wants and why. It will stop all the yelling.
Jon Stevens
@lookfirst
'real user'
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
Someone must be willing to do the wiki work to find and put up ugood arguments, measuring how many those arguments convert, and pushing the best ones higher in the camp statement, and higher in the camp structure.... That takes good negotiation skills, and work, and so on.
Jon Stevens
@lookfirst
I can't believe there is a patent on this idea. That alone makes me not want to use it.
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
The patent is only to stop some huge hierarchy from taking things over, once they see what it can do. Canonizer will be managed in a completely leaderless, bottom up, canonization process way, using quadratic voting to make all decisions, and all that. It is all open source (see: https://github.com/the-canonizer/canonizer.2.0 ), with an MIT open source license. So, anyone can freely use any of it, as long as they don’t throw some huge hierarchy at it to take things over.
Jon Stevens
@lookfirst
Don't worry, the last thing anyone would want to do is steal a bunch of untested PHP code.
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
Our goal is to eventually be compatible with Wikiipedia, which, unfortunately, uses PHP.
Jon Stevens
@lookfirst
I don't understand what 'compatible' means in this context. Uses the same backend language seems like a weird compatibility requirement.
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
right, we will likely move to a different platform, and away from wiki text, in the future.
Jon Stevens
@lookfirst
I feel like there is a good xkcd or dilbert for this conversation. I'll just stop now.
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
Anyone is welcome to help us with some consulting, so our very small team of mostly volunteers can do things better.
Tim Beiko
@timbeiko

Not sure if this is the right channel for this, but given all the governance talk about the EIPs process recently, I’ve tried to create a new page on eips.ethereum.org to describe the process. On one hand, I think it can be valuable to make the process a bit more explicit, but on the other, I’m weary of creating yet another thing that will need to be maintained and that people will have to stumble upon.

Here is a link to a current draft: ethereum/EIPs#1932

I’m wondering if anyone thinks this type of initiative is helpful, and whether it may be best as part of another resource (i.e. EIP-1, EIP-233, etc.)

Thanks!

Marius van der Wijden
@MariusVanDerWijden
I've written down my pains with the current governance of funds by the EF: https://medium.com/@marius_49637/why-decentralization-hurts-the-ethereum-foundation-e47cdfdb773
Nick Savers
@nicksavers
Ouch. The ProgPoW politics I understand, but a $500 prize not so much
Jean Cyr
@jean-m-cyr

“do not have a timeline” for the payment

Seriously! Seems a pretty shady a response...

Marius van der Wijden
@MariusVanDerWijden
Jon Stevens
@lookfirst
Shrug. The contest was deliminated in USD and it seems like you got what you were owed, which was $500 worth of ETH. No way to predict that the price would have gone up and it could have gone down, even in the blink of an eye. Next time you do a contest, request that the prize be specified in ETH instead, if that is your goal.
Lane Rettig
@lrettig
@lookfirst To me that’s the least interesting part of what happened — the other stuff is more interesting. E.g. why did it take so long to get paid? Why was it on him to follow up? Why was there no response?
@MariusVanDerWijden thanks for sharing your story
John Tromp
@tromp
paying him at the earlier rate would have been an appropriate gesture in light of the huge delay and unresponsiveness
Leeward Bound
@leewardbound
i feel like a thing i hear a lot is that ethereum devs get paid in ethereum, so they are invested in the future of ethereum and should want to see it maximize it's value (i'd never myself make that argument, but it came up repeatedly in the block rewards funding telegram room) - in that light, he did the work at ETH=~$150 for EF, an organization that pays people in ETH to build projects that will maximize the value of ETH, and then they waited for the value to go up before giving him less ether?
if it were any other billing dispute, i'd agree that $500 is $500, no rate lock was agreed, but here it seems to stink a bit
Marius van der Wijden
@MariusVanDerWijden
I do not want to gain anymore than the $500 from this!
However I think donating the difference between the earlier rate and the rate of today (roughly 1.5ETH) would be the right thing for the EF to do
Boris Mann
@bmann
@MariusVanDerWijden I understand your point of view but this is a lost cause
We’re about to make some policies for EthMagicians around this where the reverse happened.
I am stilles owed expenses from last summer when ETH was $1000. I shouldn’t get more ETH today, I’ll get it at that past time.
In the EFs case — they are still going to give you $500 worth of ETH
To be clear — I think the EF’s handling of these cases is atrocious
I was there in Paris and the person from the EF stood up last minute at the opening and pledged the prizes
Jon Stevens
@lookfirst

@lookfirst To me that’s the least interesting part of what happened — the other stuff is more interesting. E.g. why did it take so long to get paid? Why was it on him to follow up? Why was there no response?

Of course... but we can ask lots of questions about the processes of the EF. Such as the original part of his blog post about ProgPoW and the lack of funding there. We can call out the EF on 'the right thing to do' (TM) in 500 different ways, but that doesn't get anywhere either. To conflate the two issues together just feels like attention gathering. At the end of the day, he got lucky that ETH went up in price and he had something to complain about. If it had gone down, maybe there would have been no comment? He got paid after complaining in public because someone dropped the ball. Good. End of story.

Benjamin Cordes
@benjyz
that's what contracts are for.. specifying details of payment
employment contract => detail means of payment, date of payment, .. and more
there is a feedback loop issue with paying in network currency, e.g. in Dash the resources available fluctuate widely with price
Benjamin Cordes
@benjyz
Nick Savers
@nicksavers
Good idea. Put the money in a Smart Contract when pledging it.
Lane Rettig
@lrettig
“put your money where your mouth is” -> “put your ETH where your code is” :)
Jean Cyr
@jean-m-cyr
A more current version, or so it would seem: “put your mouth where your money is” -> “put your code where your ETH is”
MaxSemenchuk
@MaxSemenchuk
hey guys, is it live still?
if so would like to get you perspective on using Kialo for different Ethereum governance debates. E.g. https://www.kialo.com/ethereum-ecosystem-should-be-funded-through-some-form-of-taxation-30287?path=30287.0~30287.1
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
Still here. Looking forward to meeting you at blockchain week.

Canonizer seeks to collaborate with everyone, including Kialo, especially since they have such a nice user interface, something Canonizer could use some help with. But it hasn’t been a priority since like everything else on the internet, it just polarizes people. At every level of the T-Bar structure they use, there is nothing but polarizing to one side or the other. Whereas with Canonizer’ s camp tree structure, you can push the polarizing issues to lower level sub camps that are still supporting the super camp, keeping the important consensus stuff at the top. Since everyone only talks about what they disagree on, everywhere else this is completely lost, as a collateral damage from continuous arguments on lessor important issues. At canonizer you discover that on almost every polarizing issue, there is far more important stuff that can be found that everyone agrees on.

Take the flat earth topic, for example. There are many arguments listed on the “flat” side of the argument, including any that anyone can collect, regardless of whether anyone values them or not, so it gets more weight than it should. At canonizer, you can measure the value of the argument or results, by how many people they convert. The best ones rise to the top.

Also, there is no real measure of consensus for any of the sides or arguments. There is no way to find out if anyone’s beliefs have been falsified (as can be measured on Canonizer when people jump camps) and so on. You need to find out, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants, when working to build and track consensus, so you can work to win everyone over to the same camp. It’s all about falsifiability, at Canonizer.com, we get each side to focus on what it would take to ‘falsify their side’ or get them ‘on board’. Then it is up to the experimentalists to do the experiment, forcing “scientific consensus’ that can rigorously be tracked. (Did they all actually jump camps or what else may still be required?)

Adam Schmideg
@adamschmideg
@BrentAllsop Do you have a flat earth topic on Canonizer? I couldn’t find it. It would be easier to compare Kialo and Canonizer if we look at the same topics processed differently.
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop

@adamschmideg , Canonizer is still fairly new/prototype so not a lot of content yet. The well developed proof of concept topic is the one on “Theories of Consciousness. About the closest topic to this on Kialo is the one on “Are ghosts real”.

With canonizer you can see there is a surprizing amount of consensus forming around the new falsifiable state of the art “expert consensus” “Representational Qualia Theory”. Notice that this topic shows there is a near unanimous consensus defining ghosts, or at least “conscious knowledge of ghosts” in an approachable via science way. Where as on kialo you get ghost are not real arguments like: “There is no scientific evidence for ghosts” which many people would reject, and arguments that are just clearly wrong like “There is no mainstream religions that says ghosts are real.

At canonizer the focus is on falsifiability. Each camp is encouraged to describe what could falsify their camp (or negotiate what would be required to get them on board). This is what makes it such a powerful theoretical tool. Once the experimentalists do the experiment, it forces a scientific consensus. You can see just how powerful arguments and evidence are by how many people they definitively convert. For example we’ve seen people abandon theories of consciousness camps due to data coming out of the large hadron collider.