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
Kristy-Leigh Minehan
@OhGodAGirl
Wonderful. And I will continue to refute you.
Sonia-Chen
@Sonia-Chen
I'm setting myself another self-imposed 48hr silence in this group, starting now, to improve ETH governance. Good luck everyone! Everything will be good.
Kristy-Leigh Minehan
@OhGodAGirl
Let the best technocracy win.
Danno Ferrin
@shemnon
I feel discussion about the particulars of ProgPow should not be on Governance. There are gitter channels for progpow.
Ghost
@ghost~55c3ed250fc9f982beac84b3
I actually think that unless there are other pressing matters to discuss here, this channel is just fine for discussing ProgPOW
Andrew
@vtbradle_twitter
At least keeps it out of AllCoreDevs
Ghost
@ghost~55c3ed250fc9f982beac84b3
sometimes it is kind of annoying that once a really interesting discussion starts, someone tries to "shoo" it away :)
Ghost
@ghost~55c3ed250fc9f982beac84b3
I don't really mind where the discussions are happening, as long as they are happening :)
Andrew
@vtbradle_twitter
With ya there
Danno Ferrin
@shemnon
I think governance about ProgPow is on topic, details of Asics and miner economics are better served in ProgPoW-review.
James Hancock
@madeof_tin_twitter
I am trying to find the right room to discuss the difficultly adjustment algorithm. Any tips on where is best?
I’ve been doing some research :)
consciousEntity
@consciousEntity
I would suggest gitter AllCoreDevs
Nick Savers
@nicksavers
@madeof_tin_twitter if it's just a question you could ask in any of the client implementations rooms (Discord for Geth, Riot for Parity) otherwise if it's a complicated discussion a thread on the Ethereum Magicians might be more helpful.
The AllCoreDevs Gitter chat is more for clients devs among each other for coordination.
James Hancock
@madeof_tin_twitter
Geth has a discord 🤔 didn’t know.
I think it is probably more appropriate for one of the rooms. Just a few questions
Greg Colvin
@gcolvin
@sneg55 "The committee would vote on EIPs to be implemented.” So I suppose this commmittee is going to pay the client developers to implement them? Or are open source contributors supposed to obey The Committee for some other reason?
Nick Sawinyh
@sneg55
I have nothing to do with this coup proposal, just found it on twitter.
Greg Colvin
@gcolvin
Twitter—where the bird shit falleth from the sky...
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop

Greg Colvin made the following comment on the Gitter Ethereum/governance chanal:

Greg Colvin @gcolvin Mar 29 17:15
“I personally abhor Twitter and Reddit, but I shouldn't let that color my judgement so much. Yes, they are means of communication. What I said is that they are not communities. What I would like to see is more organization, more attempts to be legitimate voices for the community and its subcommunities. Right now it's like a shouting mob that I have to tune out to get any work done.”

Canonizer.com is for exactly for this kind of organization and consensus building . It stops all the yelling since everyone can just reference what camp they are in. If anyone wants something, they can support an existing community or camp already working on that or create a new consensus building topic, or new competing camp in an existing topic for others to join and help.

The only hard part, is finding enough people that want the same thing you do. Once you achieve that, people will find a way to make it happen.

We’ve started the Ethereum Consensus Project (see: https://canonizer.com/topic/210-Ethereum-Consensus-Project/1) for exactly what Greg is asking for. We’ve seeded it with the following 3 consensus building survey topics:

ProgPoW: https://canonizer.com/topic/211-Programmatic-Proof-of-Work/1
State Fees: https://canonizer.com/topic/212-Ether-State-Fees/1
Ethereum Consensus Algorithm: https://canonizer.com/topic/213-Ethereum-Consensus-Algorithm/1

These are just 3 seed topics, to get things started. Anyone can make any improvements, as long as they get approved by existing supporters. And anyone can start any additional topic to build a consensus community on anything.

If there is anything we can do to help with this process, reach out to me, or use support@canonizer.com . Our team at Canonizer.com is fully dedicated to the Etherium community. And please be aware that this is still a crude prototype, still with lots of issues and things that need to be fixed. So any an all help with this is greatly appreciated. This is an open source system (https://github.com/the-canonizer/canonizer.2.0), being developed for free, by volunteers.

Jean Cyr
@jean-m-cyr
@BrentAllsop Am not overly optimistic algorithmic consensus will help. My main concern with any approach, be it gitter, magicians, canonizer, or otherwise, is the allowance of anonymous registration and voting.
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop

It’s not algorithmic consensus building. It just measures the consensus of the wiki camps people build and support any way you want. (i.e. expert consensus vs popular consensus… of existing wiki camps representing growing communities.)

We have a phone verification system, where people can be verified by providing their phone number. This works in the US now, but we have plans to implement is worldwide as soon as possible. So someone will need to pay for 2 phone numbers, to have 2 votes. And we are working closely with the Self Soring Identity community for a much more capable KYC verification system in the near future. So canonizer algorithms will be able to easily filter out anonymous supporters, if you wish.

Nick Sawinyh
@sneg55
anonymous supporters could use disposable numbers for sms verification
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
For now, yes, but soon we will have a much more robust KYC self sovrign identity verification system, which will filter them out. So it would be a waste of time, knowing any support would soon be filtered out, once we have KYC self sovereign identity proofs.
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