These are chat archives for grin_community/dev

7th
Aug 2018
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 19:59 UTC
welcome back @antiochp !
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 20:02 UTC
:wave:
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 20:02 UTC
it's good to "see" you again
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 20:03 UTC
been a little distracted with other unrelated things the past few weeks... back at least part time for the next couple of weeks
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 20:04 UTC
no pb, fully understand distraction
your single coinbase PR still had some good cleanup in it, no?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 20:05 UTC
yeah I'll pull those out and rework a simpler cleanup PR
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 20:06 UTC
yes, good to see you around @antiochp
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 20:06 UTC
taking some catching up with everything that's been going on recently
things are moving pretty fast
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 20:06 UTC
tell me about it...
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 20:08 UTC
Welcome back @antiochp
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 20:08 UTC
loads done, loads more to do
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 20:09 UTC
yes, fast and slow at the same time
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 20:55 UTC
@antiochp @quentinlesceller I can check the code but hoping either of you know, what happens if a transaction, after aggregation, becomes invalid?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 20:57 UTC
if it becomes invalid due to a new block (output already spent via another tx) then the tx pool should see that and evict it from the pool
as part of reconciling the tx pool against the updated chain state
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:00 UTC
so say I make a 499 outputs tx, yours coming after would get kicked out?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:01 UTC
I don't fully follow - what do you mean by "after" here?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:02 UTC
my 499 tx came in the stem first
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:02 UTC
you mean if my tx was attempting to spend one of the outputs you just spent?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:02 UTC
no, it just gets aggregated with mine
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:02 UTC
how does that make it invalid?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:02 UTC
oh I see what you're asking now
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:03 UTC
@tromp we have a max of 500 outputs
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:03 UTC
oh hmm
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:03 UTC
oh, that's a strange limit
i mean, why have a limit at all?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:04 UTC
so maybe we're happily building a tx with too many outputs because we're not validating the limit during aggregation?
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:04 UTC
oh
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:04 UTC
I guess the full aggregated one gets kicked out as invalid
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:04 UTC
memory exhaustion, network abuse and all that fun stuff, bitcoin has a tx size limit as well
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:05 UTC
we won't attempt to de-aggregate or recover the constituent txs in that scenario, no
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 21:05 UTC
everything we read from network (or even disk) must have limits
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:05 UTC
ok, I'll create an issue to track this, let's not delay the meeting further
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:05 UTC
we should probably respect the limits during aggregation
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:05 UTC
but grin is supposed to make aggregation easier
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:06 UTC
hope everyone is having a great summer!
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:06 UTC
been an interesting one for sure
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:06 UTC
☀️
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 21:06 UTC
too summer
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:06 UTC
if some service can securely aggregate hundreds of tx, like coinjoin, then we're actively preventing that
i mean some ppl may want better aggregation than dandelion can provide
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:07 UTC
more of a meteorological scorched earth policy than a summer
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:07 UTC
@tromp perhaps we can increase the limit, but one's needed, you can't go beyond block size either
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:07 UTC
right, the block size is where it shld stop
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:07 UTC
I think we still have to limit the number of outputs anyway @tromp
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:08 UTC
lets discuss in the git issue (or here) later?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:08 UTC
heh, heard of a drought going on in the UK, which I always thought was impossible
so let's go over the boring code stuff quickly and get to the interesting bits right after
as always, lots of small fixes and improvements, especially following T3
still lots of changes in the wallet but that's maturing nicely as far as I can tell
anything someone wants to mention in particular?
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:10 UTC
my mmr changes shld be rd now that i addressed remaining comments
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:11 UTC
@tromp yes, was going to do that very soon actually, sorry for the delay
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:11 UTC
:+1:
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:11 UTC
there's still the issue of simultaneous 0-based and 1-based indexing but that can be fixed separately
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:11 UTC
okay, then another good news is @hashmap is now officially a committer
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:11 UTC
:clap:
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:12 UTC
gratz @hashmap !
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:12 UTC
:clap:
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:12 UTC
🎖
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:12 UTC
which has limited perks right now but I guess that's a good segue into governance
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 21:12 UTC
perks?!
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:13 UTC
Corner office?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:13 UTC
free coffee and such
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:13 UTC
all the T3 grins you can eat
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:13 UTC
before going into the harder bits, I just wanted to acknowledge all the great folks here that are being immensely helpful even though they don't have much direct code in the grin repo
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:14 UTC
:+1:
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:14 UTC
apologies to the one I forget, but @jaspervdm, @lehnberg, @tromp and many others are right in there
jaspervdm
@jaspervdm
Aug 07 2018 21:14 UTC
:smile:
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:15 UTC
in addition to the people who do contribute code on and off, which is always extremely appreciated
ok, with that off the table, let's move on to governance
the crux of the matter, is how can we be worshipped for the next thousand years
as demi-gods, preferably
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:16 UTC
in our dreams, clearly:-)
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:16 UTC
:)
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:16 UTC
that would be quite the nap
more practically, @lehnberg created a real nice document to clear up the most pressing issues:
https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Regarding-Foundations
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 21:17 UTC
:rocket:-ing things to the moon, or further, seems popular
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:18 UTC
I'm now thinking more and more that there's no point in trying to formalize too much right now, it's a little too close to boiling the ocean
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:18 UTC
Glad it was useful, writing it helped clear out a lot of things in my own head that was floating around.
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:18 UTC
we can let various forms of interactions emerge and keep an eye on them and wait to formalize, this seems like a much more sensible approach
so what's left is what's on that page and some other topics like disaster recovery
regarding disaster recovery, I think we should start from a similar list and see what we're comfortable with or not
so let's wait until we have that to discuss
sounds good?
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:20 UTC
until we have a disaster?
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:20 UTC
Can you give an example of what disaster recovery would be in this context?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:20 UTC
heh, ideally before
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:21 UTC
just for clarification - you mean disaster like "libsecp is broken"?
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:21 UTC
I would say vulnerability in rangeproof for example
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:21 UTC
yes
we discover that someone exploited a weakness and created grins out of thin air
aliens teleport a quantum computer down here
or an important privacy breach in the pedersen commitments
all are good examples
so a good first step would be to list them, propose some possible fixes (rollback the chain, start from scratch, etc) and see which we're willing to consider
perhaps the possibility of a 100x ASIC should be listed in there as well, just to make clear what we would or would not do
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:24 UTC
Agree we can do that on the wiki just like the fundation page by @lehnberg .
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:24 UTC
exactly
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:24 UTC
yes, that sounds like a good approach
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:25 UTC

we discover that someone exploited a weakness and created grins out of thin air

This is quite an interesting example. cause it might for example put invisible inflation against privacy breach. I.e. to try to “fix” the inflation issue, privacy could need to be lessened.

What would be correct at that stage, might have a lot to do with what the priorities are. Control of supply (thus coin value) over privacy? Or vice versa. This is just an example, but if there is no project mission / vision / values, it might end up becoming quite ad-hoc at the time, which might lead to a lot of contention.

Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:25 UTC
ok, so we can all wait for one of us to start it first and then after a year add to it :P
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:26 UTC
I guess what I’m saying is, a lot of the answers to the possible disaster scenarios outlined, will depend a lot on what this project/community is about.
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:26 UTC
yeah - I think a lot of the definition and clarity around values may emerge from this discussion
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:26 UTC
there are some more obvious ones and some less so, like a bug in the wallet that results in unspendable coins for example
that's not necessarily grin, but it still somewhat is
@lehnberg correct, and there are measures we may not be able to take anyway
okay, so we can progress on that as well, now going back to foundation-like topics, at this stage I think we shouldn't pay too much attention to the legalese
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:28 UTC
is the issue tracker a good place to introduce and discuss disaster scenarios (ie each one in separate issue) ?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:28 UTC
unless someone strongly disagrees
liability is going to be very limited until at least 6 months in mainnet
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:29 UTC
@tromp the doc repo might be better
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:29 UTC
@tromp I for one would appreciate using issues even for non-dev stuff.
possibly somewhere where it’s not in the way for regular dev.
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:29 UTC
@tromp I'd agree with @quentinlesceller, start with a doc and then if there are some code implications on grin, create issues
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:29 UTC
which legalese do you mean? Or do you mean shouldn't worry about legal issues in general?
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:29 UTC
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 21:29 UTC
issues in the doc repo?
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:29 UTC
We just have to open issues
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:29 UTC
issue tracker might make discussion easier
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:30 UTC
not sure if that's the best though, but better than in the main repo.
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 21:30 UTC
to seoarate things for those not interested in 'politics'
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:30 UTC
@yeastplume mostly what's listed in the foundation doc, legal protection, legal representation
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:31 UTC
I'm concerned they'd get lost or buried under unrelated issues - and would get stale as they wouldn't necessarily be actionable immediately
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:31 UTC
@tromp I liked the approach of a doc and a link to a thread on the forum
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:31 UTC
problem with the wiki is that there is no easy meta-discussion functionality where you can talk about the contents and edits. we tried to link to a grin-forum thread to mitigate.
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:31 UTC
yes, what @antiochp says, triage isn't always simple...
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:32 UTC
'liability' would be tied to the general appetite of anyone affected by any grin-losing technical issues to try and sue somebody, which will in turn be directly related to grin's market value
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:32 UTC
and it's a wiki, we can easily accept named notes at the bottom of the page
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:32 UTC
@ignopeverell doc is fine as long as it's clear where to join in the discussion
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:33 UTC
I'm voting for doc + forum
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:33 UTC
@yeastplume that's one example, but I would point out that 1) it's never been done so might be premature worrying about it 2) it's also premature from a timing standpoint
that's probably not a concern until we hit an issue at least as large at what Ethereum has gone throught, don't you think?
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:35 UTC
regarding foundations etc, personally I’ve started to appreciate the absence of “official” entities. it’s a feature of the decentralized system, not a bug.
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:35 UTC
true, but I wouldn't want to keep it on the long finger forever, speaking as someone who's public (not that there aren't a zillion other coins made up of mostly public members)
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:35 UTC
we can only dream of having a problem that large...
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:35 UTC
also, as @tromp pointed out on grin-forum.org, my anonimity can be used to diffuse some of this
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:35 UTC
lol - @yeastplume takes the fall for whatever happens
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:35 UTC
Agree with @lehnberg here
:smile:
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:36 UTC
@yeastplume in the short to medium term, I won't hold it against you if you just say "that was igno's idea" when someone gives you $h1t
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:36 UTC
I was not initially in agreement with @lehnberg after reading through that doc the first time but after thinking about it a bit more I'm leaning toward being more in agreement
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:37 UTC
@yeastplume In that case, are you concerned with legal stuff ?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:37 UTC
@yeastplume and there are quite a few coins with very identifiable entities
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:37 UTC
Meaning some kind of foundation that will protect the devs ?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:37 UTC
@ignopeverell that's not necessarily a watertight defense if things go really wrong though
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:37 UTC
devs are protected if final authority rests with anonymous entities
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:38 UTC
@antiochp it's a complex issue and nothing is water tight
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:38 UTC
I'm a bit concerned in the case igno disappears @tromp
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:38 UTC
no I know - being facetious there
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:38 UTC
Not overly concerned at the moment, and having clear policies as to what would happen under certain disaster scenarios would go a way towards mitigating that, but I don't think we can hold these issues off indefinitely.
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:38 UTC
that is a prime calamity to consider
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:38 UTC
@quentinlesceller then you'll just have to migrate to an anonymous persona, just say you're Tom Elvis Jedusor :P
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:39 UTC
and I'm french so it fits well
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:39 UTC
even if leaders were not anonymous, there is no profit model here. nobody is making money by luring in innocent people and ripping them off.
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 21:39 UTC
free lunch!
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:39 UTC
@ignopeverell are you eating well? taking care of your health? getting enough sleep?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:39 UTC
for example, I'd cite this p2p sharing company, forgot their name (emule? edonkey?), the RIAA was so ticked off they sued the company, and then the founders and every single investor personally
so much for limited liability...
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:39 UTC
it’s hard to become liable when there’s no dev company profiting, there are no six figure foundation grants etc
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:40 UTC
@tromp asking the real questions here
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:40 UTC
so anyway, not living in the US is a good first step here...
@tromp I'm pretty healthy I think, exercising regularly and all :-)
sorry, can't share a medical
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:41 UTC
I think perhaps in the first instance, some kind of EULA (for lack of a better word) might be in order... by using this software you agree.. etc.. though is that really enforceable and counter to the spirit of the thing, etc
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:41 UTC
that's very good news!
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 21:41 UTC
(using ominous 'qoutation marks' is also supposed to help, maybe against libel laws)
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:41 UTC
I think the biggest risks/downsides with a relatively anarchic approach is that things might take longer. Things might not always get done. Might not always get done well. And it’s just a bit more disorganised and fewer people are accountable for performance.
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:41 UTC
@yeastplume I think it's totally fair in the first year to have some "at your own risk" on the website
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:42 UTC
just throwing this out for discussion - do we gain anything in the theoretical situation where all devs are anonymous?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:42 UTC
@lehnberg yes, that's the drawbacks of open source generally, but comes with tremendous advantages, at least in some cases
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 21:42 UTC
(typically Swedish to like Föreningar. Ok maybe I'll shut uo already...)
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:42 UTC
you lose ability for devs to give talks
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:42 UTC
@antiochp a little bit, probably not much
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:43 UTC
yeah - there are a load of downsides, just wondering if liability issues are "solved" with something like that
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:43 UTC
I'd personally lean towards having a group of people setting development priorities, while still allowing others to pick up and join on whatever they want
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:44 UTC
@antiochp anonimity of lead dev is very useful. having more anon devs means you have backups in place
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:44 UTC
if I had to weigh liability risk, one of use living in a country that would forbid anonymous coins would likely rank higher
but even then, most non-authoritarian countries don't go after developers
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:45 UTC

@ignopeverell
for example, I'd cite this p2p sharing company, forgot their name (emule? edonkey?), the RIAA was so ticked off they sued the company, and then the founders and every single investor personally
so much for limited liability…

Yes exactly. Meanwhile Bram Cohen got away with Bittorrent cause he open sourced the protocol and gave it all away for free. This is a great read for those who are interested: https://medium.com/@jbackus/resistant-protocols-how-decentralization-evolves-2f9538832ada

Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:45 UTC
@apoelstra has never touched the grin codebase (and I believe has stated as much) for similar concerns, for example (I may be mistaken here though, apologies if so)
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:45 UTC
thanks for the link @lehnberg
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:46 UTC
@yeastplume that seems feasible, which form would you envision that in, some sort of high level roadmap?
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:46 UTC
well, on that point I'd be happy with an 'EULA' at launch put together by someone who might have some sort of clue legally (whatever that means)
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:46 UTC
@yeastplume makes sense.
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:46 UTC
@yeastplume read the ASL license at the root of our source tree? :smirk:
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:47 UTC
@yeastplume do we have someone legally knowledgeable here ?
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:47 UTC
@ignopeverell on the setting priorities point? Yes.. a roadmap would be a good start... but beyond that, for instance if the team gets more than one paid developer, who ultimately tells them what to do?
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 21:48 UTC
this EULA should apply to what segments? grin-tech.org
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:48 UTC
IANAL but I'm fairly familiar with the legal issues surrounding open source projects, licenses, trademark law, copyright law, patent law a bit
@yeastplume who tells you what to do?
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:49 UTC
me, but that doesn't necessarily scale to n paid developers
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 21:49 UTC
🐈
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:49 UTC

Monero governance: https://medium.com/@dhsue/an-analysis-of-monero-governance-3f8bef770b29

Their core team act as “stewards”, and their definition is quite interesting: https://getmonero.org/2018/03/01/core-team-announcement.html

Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:49 UTC
I don't think we should go too far into dev babysitting, that goes more in the corporate model and less open source
which doesn't preclude help and guidance
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 21:50 UTC
@yeastplume depends on who pays
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:51 UTC
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:51 UTC
@hashmap that gets contentious quickly
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:51 UTC
we can reproduce a slightly shortened version of that here and there
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:52 UTC
if someone with a pile of cash pushes for specific features to be built - does that affect the roadmap? should it?
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 21:52 UTC
not babysitting.. guidance definitely.. and who decides who can be a paid developer or not, and who decides when a paid developer isn't pulling their weight and shouldn't be a paid dev any more?
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:52 UTC
Afaik, the core team elects new members to the their team themselves, but are not the ‘bosses’, and no central point of failure. This hopefully makes them quite sibyl resistant as well as they are known figures. Nobody decides what gets built, so in a way there’s nobody to blame for that either.

and who decides who can be a paid developer or not

In my mind, the dev herself.

John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 21:52 UTC
regarding DAO disaster. let's make clear we do not bail out any buggy scriptless script, no matter what:-)
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:53 UTC

and who decides when a paid developer isn't pulling their weight and shouldn't be a paid dev any more?

In my mind, the people who choose to donate (or not)

Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:53 UTC
@antiochp that should be the same as every open source project, a pile of cash can get the job done, not necessarily accepted, the team would decide on that
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:53 UTC
@tromp Let's create Grin Classic
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:54 UTC
I agree with @lehnberg here
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:54 UTC
Agree with @ignopeverell here, it's totally okay for someone to be paid to contribute. The team decides if it worth integrating it or not in the end.
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 21:54 UTC
@quentinlesceller or rather somebody has to fork Grin
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:55 UTC
I personally do want as many developers as possible here to be paid for their work
in my mind every one of you deserve it and then some
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:55 UTC
@antiochp yeah I think the main crux is ‘who decides to merge a contentious feature’. And this is where things tend to grind to a halt when it comes to Ethereum and Bitcoin as well… Meaning, if enough time passes, it will inevitably be the case that there will be contentious features. And how are decisions then made?
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:56 UTC
Right now that would be @ignopeverell, but what if he disapears?
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 21:56 UTC
maybe public meetings, Zug style
anomymity in numbers
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:57 UTC
so one option would be for many individual devs to fundraise individually?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:57 UTC
I can only think of 2 models here, bitcoin where nothing happens if there's no consensus, Ethereum where there's a core team that decides
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 21:57 UTC
@lehnberg have a project mission statement and debate whether contentious features align or not with it?
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:57 UTC
Yeah, @kargakis. That certainly would help.
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 21:57 UTC
:arrow_up:
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 21:58 UTC
otoh things may change in between
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 21:58 UTC
I'm thinking about funding vs merging contentious features as two orthogonal concerns but maybe they are more tightly linked
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:58 UTC
@antiochp there are many options, we haven't gone to that part yet, but OTOH either fundraise individually, we have some sort of common funds to pay some devs, or find employment with a company interested in grin that pays you to work on it
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 21:59 UTC
what if Jedusor's tor hidden service vomes back? maybe good to agree ahead to ignore any such events, and have defined reasoning why
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 21:59 UTC
@antiochp they are not orthogonal, sadly, as if you have more resources, you can lobby and push for things potentially much more efficiently.
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 21:59 UTC
I'm thinking that once we're done with this and the "what when shit happens" doc, we'll have a clearer view on dealing with most contentious issues
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:00 UTC
perhaps GIPs (Grin Improvement Proposals) could be decided by consensus of core devs after sufficient discussion with community, with ignotus having veto rights, and 2/3 majority consensus
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:00 UTC
@lehnberg true, what people often don't realize with open source is that just doing things gives you a lot of power
but is that an issue? I'm not so sure
@sesam we're way past jedusor I think so that likely wouldn't be such an issue, thankfully we don't have a Satoshi
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:02 UTC
grin-affiliated domain owners going random on Twitter. policy for/ against politicking?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:02 UTC
@sesam oh?
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:03 UTC
I'm somewhat interested in separating code and politics. hard, though.
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:03 UTC
Personally (speaking from experience) I like the monero forum funding model for specific developers/tasks. We'd still need to figure out what to do with central funds, (voluntary mining contributions or fair mining contributions)
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:04 UTC
(code also might become law at some point)
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:04 UTC
okay so what we have for now
  1. Doc about major failure scenarios and discussion on how we deal with them
  2. Point out what our license says here and there so it's more obvious (like on binary download for example)
  3. Some high level roadmap, I can do that for now obviously with feedback from people here
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:05 UTC
Sounds great
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:05 UTC
now as @yeastplume mentions funds, let's explore that a little
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:05 UTC
big enough chunk to start with
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:05 UTC
there are things we will need to finance, some small (website, maybe some build infra, etc)
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:05 UTC
part of central fund might go to bug bounties
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:06 UTC
and some larger, like bug bounties like @tromp mentions, or security audits
I'm still hoping we can get academic reviews as well, which we wouldn't have to find funds for
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:06 UTC
good to make a large enough, specified, wishlist
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:06 UTC
and maybe a good public acknowldgement system would go a long way as well
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:07 UTC
in terms of funding, I think it was @hashmap that mentioned that someone had suggested that a mining pool could have the opt-in/out option to donate a certain % of proceeds to a central fund
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:07 UTC
a lot security companies need to be able to clame public audits of high-visibility projects
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 22:08 UTC
yeah, it was Karthik Raju
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:08 UTC
yes, so for the source I'm thinking:
  1. the tromp fair mining license
  2. push forward services that redistribute some minimal profits (pools, exchanges, etc)
  3. general donations from helpful people or companies
now say that goes to a big pot, we can finance some of the project stuff
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:09 UTC
Are we planning to have another website or a we staying with grin-tech.org ? In term of public acknowledgement
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:10 UTC
I don't think we can promise any sort of regular pay from that for developers, so I think the @yeastplume style fundraising will still have to be around, although if we have enough money that pot could fund that directly
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:10 UTC
+1 for a less technically targeted site in addition to the existing grintech
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:10 UTC
but I was also thinking more about "bonus" distributions if we have more than we need for project-stuff
@quentinlesceller I think so yes, once we're ready for it
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:11 UTC
ok
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:11 UTC
any reaction regarding what I just mentioned regarding funds?
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:11 UTC
PRs with :tada: might qualify for bonuses once merged
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:12 UTC
what would be a 'bonus'? Perhaps using excess funds to fill up developer campaigns?
or lambos for all?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:12 UTC
I think its hard to visualize what funds from 1+2+3 would feasibly add up to in the short to medium term
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:12 UTC
I was thinking more of a general distribution
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:12 UTC

yes, so for the source I'm thinking:

  1. the tromp fair mining license
  2. push forward services that redistribute some minimal profits (pools, exchanges, etc)
  3. general donations from helpful people or companies

This sounds good. And generally, I think less is more here. The moment there’s an open ended pool of money, the issue becomes how to spend it. The better we can define how money is to be spent, the less headache there is around managing it.

Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:12 UTC
I agree @ignopeverell, mentionning service that follows the fair mining license is a great idea. It's in everyone's interest.
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:13 UTC
Donations might go a long way, if there is a healthy community.
Seems to have worked well enough for monero
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:14 UTC
yes, I've had various people/organization contacting me to say they'd contribute
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:14 UTC
There can be “grants” made available for devs for example
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:14 UTC
I think we just need to make sure people think about what would seem fair to them
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:15 UTC
Say a company wants to donate $x,000. Well they can fund a developer for six months with that, and then developers can be invited to apply for the grants.
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:15 UTC
and taxes
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:15 UTC
the part I find tricky is say you have a yeastplume, and antioch and someone who's paid part time to work on grin
the first is paid through donations
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:15 UTC
@lehnberg the problem with that is that can become very unsteady work
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:16 UTC
then what's fair as fair as distribution?
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:16 UTC

I think its hard to visualize what funds from 1+2+3 would feasibly add up to in the short to medium term

At the moment, I don’t think there’s a clear definition of how much funds is even needed in the short to medium term.

Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:16 UTC
a company might fund some dev directly. Loyalties follow
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:16 UTC
@ignopeverell distribution of what?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:16 UTC
some funds
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:16 UTC
well, what funds?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:16 UTC
grins
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:17 UTC
where did it come from?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:17 UTC
donations from mining for example
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:17 UTC
yeah @ignopeverell I'm not sure there's any way to fairly distribute - what would it be based on? LOCs? Tenure? Random?
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:17 UTC
Yeah… I guess if there’s a technocratic council, and part of the council’s job is to oversee the funds coming in from mining, then it would be up to them to make it work
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 22:17 UTC
well, you can estimate how much work each dev is doing more or less
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:18 UTC
the issue is we can't ask mining pools or miners to follow the project closely to a point where they fund people individually every time needed and prioritize, etc
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 22:18 UTC
for funds allocated for dev purposes
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:18 UTC
@kargakis I'm not convinced you can - in any "fair" way
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:18 UTC
@ignopeverell yes, it’s tragedy of the commons in a way
free-rider dilemma
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:18 UTC
at least not fair and objective
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:18 UTC
(for some definition of "fair" above)
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:18 UTC
yes, it's very difficult to estimate how much work a dev is doing... there's a lot of thinking and learning involved in everything that doesn't necessarily show up in LOC counts
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:19 UTC
let tromp decide? :)
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:19 UTC
only some of grin users will donate, but all will reap the rewards
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:19 UTC
@lehnberg contributing monetarily isn't free-riding, at least it's a contribution, but we can't ask a lot of attention in addition
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:19 UTC
its not the amount of work that counts though - its how much value it actually adds
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 22:19 UTC
exactly
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:19 UTC
if i decide it all ends up as bounties:-)
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:19 UTC
I don’t think there is a fair way of determining how much work went into it
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:20 UTC
might be fair that way
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:20 UTC
another funding mechanism, which I’m not so sure makes a lot of sense, I thought of, was some kind of optional “annual membership fee” to the “Grin association"
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:20 UTC
bounty of well defined ahead of time
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:20 UTC
we could say decide an amount every quarter and split amount committers, but that's unfair to non-committers
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 22:20 UTC
ok, let me rephrase this - you can estimate how much value is added by contributions
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:20 UTC
you pay some grins, and it gives you a right to participate in something
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 22:20 UTC
and that applies to any kind of contribution
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:21 UTC
community votes (non-binding) etc
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:21 UTC
signal had a PR merge bounty, 0.1BTC or so. long ago...
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:22 UTC
ok, so before we go too deep in how to distribute, everyone is in agreement with sources of funding, some sort of pot (still have to discuss who can move that) and using it for the project, with some redistributed to contributors judiciously (like don't bankrupt the project)?
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:22 UTC
+1
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:22 UTC
yeah no disagreements here
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:23 UTC
Agree
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:23 UTC
I'm not a big fan of community votes, that's going to leave all the gnarly complex work even more unrewarded
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:23 UTC
Completely in agreement
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 22:23 UTC
:+1:
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:23 UTC
phew, didn't expect to go that far
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:23 UTC
as long as central fund is small (< $100K), paying contributors according to efforts will work reasonably well. it's when the fund swells to millions that you will run into political troubles
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:24 UTC
Yeah, and I’m a bit worried...
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:24 UTC
indeed
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:24 UTC
there’s a lot of admin that comes with it.
and a lot of contention.
not sure what the alternative is though
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:24 UTC
Multi sig everything
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 22:24 UTC
let’s solve 100K problem first:)
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:25 UTC
multi-sig is good to solve the "pot of gold control" issue, but not necessarily allocation
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:25 UTC
🍍guy
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:25 UTC
heh
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:25 UTC
my ideal scenario would be to only collect money centrally for pre-defined purposes
never to a “slush fund"
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:25 UTC
+1 for predefined
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:26 UTC
Yeah that would avoid sitting on a huge amount.
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:26 UTC
I agree it would be the ideal scenario, but that's not reality
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:26 UTC
does anybody know how that’s been working out for monero?
(is that even how they do things?)
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:26 UTC
@lehnberg I think we have that in the 'forum funding' parts of the model, but if grin is successful we get a large amount of non-earmarked funds from mining, etc
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:27 UTC
I wouldn't necessarily use monero as an example, they've had a huge issuance very early on and quickly haven't needed much external funds
not a pre-mine, but not entirely too far
theodoricthegreat
@theodoricthegreat
Aug 07 2018 22:27 UTC
I don't believe Monero has a centrally managed slush fund. Think everything is purely donation based for individual proposals
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:27 UTC
and times have changed as well
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:27 UTC
True, what worked for them might not work for Grin
So yeah, maybe very clear rules for how to keep that slush fund from growing into a headache, i.e. making sure it gets spent often enough
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:28 UTC
we know there will likely be multiple millions of dollars allocated to mining grin from early on, say they're all nice and want to contribute 5%
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:29 UTC
if fund>lambo: big hackathon/party announced
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:29 UTC
it’s very tricky tho huh. the moment you start paying people on a fixed income, you expect accountability
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 22:29 UTC
prefer just from fast
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:30 UTC
@lehnberg I don't think we should do some fixed income
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:30 UTC
just a few beats away from mid-level management haha
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:30 UTC
bounties for critical bugs (that could collapse all grin value) might justify receiving majority of fair-mining-funds
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:30 UTC
as @yeastplume mentioned, I think developers should still handle their own fundraise ala monero
that's how you eat and get vodka on an everyday basis
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 22:31 UTC
but is this going to work forever and for everybody?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:31 UTC
but I think it's fair to have some way to reward good people and vest them more
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:31 UTC
no, definitely not fixed incomes... my grin funds are treated like billable hours for any other contract work
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:31 UTC
okay so maybe it’s better to start in the other end then: first define how much money is expected to be needed
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:31 UTC
@tromp agreed
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:31 UTC
and for what
and based on that define allocation of whatever money comes in
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:32 UTC
so we keep on order of 100K to reward code contributions and reserve all rest for bug bounties?
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:32 UTC
At least we can foresee that we will need a security audit
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:32 UTC
@tromp likes his bounties
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:32 UTC
@lehnberg but you're still trying to get back to an allocation model, which doesn't work with most mining-related revenue
or good citizen businesses
said differently, do you think the community would do a better job at allocating funds, or would they?
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:33 UTC
@yeastplume i do because they're more easily predefined in justifiable way
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:33 UTC
😬
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:33 UTC
indeed but you can't live on bounties
Crushhhhhhh
@Crushhhhhhh
Aug 07 2018 22:33 UTC
Has anyone thought about using a private corporation to handle some of these issues?
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:33 UTC
unless you're dog, the bounty hunter, I guess
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:34 UTC
@Crushhhhhhh for sure but that creates a lot more problems and doesn't necessarily solve the issue
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:34 UTC
so i would prefer to see donations sent directly to developers rather than a central fund
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:34 UTC

said differently, do you think the community would do a better job at allocating funds, or would they?

Not sure I follow, but if the community allocates funds, there’s fewer management issues.

hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 22:35 UTC
we may get a popularity contest in result
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:35 UTC
yes.
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:35 UTC
donators might be more at ease knowing whom they're funding too
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:36 UTC
so Grin Mining Inc. raises $5M in a grin mining farm, they want to make sure the project doesn't die in the first year, so want to give away 5% of profits, what do they do?
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:36 UTC
Maybe we should some kind of buckets and fill them by order of priority with the funds (bug bounties, dev...)
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:36 UTC
they contact the technocratic council
and work with them and the community to come up with a productive way to spend that money
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 22:36 UTC
yeah I like @ignopeverell idea about multisig wallet
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:36 UTC
heh heh, @lehnberg that's about the same thing, how does the technocratic council decides?
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:36 UTC
say, an anonymous donor might prefer donating to someone working anonymously
theodoricthegreat
@theodoricthegreat
Aug 07 2018 22:37 UTC
Grin Mining Inc. looks at The list of proposals (a la Monero), and funds them: https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:37 UTC
well the technocratic council is the technocratic council for a reason. so I guess they decide the same way you, the technocratic council, decide today
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:37 UTC
but who decides on the makeup of this council as the project grows?
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:37 UTC
my interpretation of your process is some kind of consensus effort, then maybe voting,and then ultimately an igno veto
the same way as today
the council decides
but the council might be bound by a document
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:38 UTC
today had no central funds
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:38 UTC
some kind of mission statement / constitution call it whatever you like
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 22:38 UTC
the trick is that member of that group are also receivers of funds (partially) - if they can’t reach a consensus nobody gets paid
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:38 UTC
I guess what I'm getting at is what difference does it make with getting the funds in the same pot as bounties/project needs/etc if the council decides anyway?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:39 UTC
it will be interesting to see what happens the first time we have an unpopular igno veto
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:39 UTC
it still boils down to people. and politics. sooner or later. unless defined ahead
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:39 UTC
GMI donates either to existing dev whose work they really like (e.g. Yeastplume) or to new one that has a promising dev proposal which they somehow trust
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:39 UTC
but does GMI care at that level of granularity or do they care more about the project as a whole succeeding?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:39 UTC
@theodoricthegreat that's very unlikely to work the majority of Grin Mining Incs out there won't bother
what @antiochp says
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 22:40 UTC
or do they want to control the project and drive it via funding?
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:40 UTC

I guess what I'm getting at is what difference does it make with getting the funds in the same pot as bounties/project needs/etc if the council decides anyway?

Good question. I’m not sure. A lot will depend on the degree of transparency, due process, and perceptions here.

Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:40 UTC
we have to consider contributions from donors who don't actually care about much more than their bottom line
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:40 UTC
right now people are contacting me to say "hey, we're going to do X and Y and we'll donate some to the project"
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:41 UTC
don't those ppl trust you to find a proper allocation?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:41 UTC
my answer to that is rather inadequate...
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:41 UTC
from a practical level, I have had quite a few people ask how they can donate to help the project succeed, and if someone is there and wants to donate, you need to strike while the iron is hot and not put barriers up in front of them before they can do so
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:41 UTC
some GMI will want goodwill too, and to avoid "taking a stand". Sports sponsorships are sticky.
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 22:41 UTC
their definition of success may differ from others definition of success
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:41 UTC
@tromp perhaps, but before any actual allocation it's hard to tell
what @yeastplume said too
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:42 UTC
Agree with @yeastplume
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:42 UTC
Okay. So listening to this, what y'all are saying is basically it makes sense to have a collection hat ready to accept donations whenever they present themselves.
and conditions are “hey you donate, but it will be up to the grin project to decide how to best spend it, not according to your personal interests or affiliations"
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:43 UTC
@sesam I don't think we're saying we want to constraing their choices either, if they're more comfortable donating toward specific developer projects, they can always do that
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:43 UTC
…and then the techno-council can decide? and the techno-council is up for that?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:43 UTC
are you? :-)
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:44 UTC
@ignopeverell to your example earlier - are you treating those interactions with potential donors as with you personally or with you as the leader of the project? At what point does the larger Grin community get involved?
theodoricthegreat
@theodoricthegreat
Aug 07 2018 22:44 UTC
The point that GMI won't be granular enough to donate to individual projecst makes sense
how about giving GMI and other people the option to donate to
  1. A general fund that is allocated by Grin Foundation or Grin DEvelopers,
  1. Specific projects
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:45 UTC
@antiochp sadly, no one has offered to throw money at me yet, so I had to return my Volkswagen
theodoricthegreat
@theodoricthegreat
Aug 07 2018 22:45 UTC
general fund can also allocate to specific projects/proposals
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:45 UTC
I think I’m up for the techno-council to decide on a central slush fund, as long as there’s not inaction that allows that slush fund to grow to a massive amount of money. And as long the techno-council is up for dealing with all the admin involved with that.
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:45 UTC
@antiochp so it's all been people trying to find way to contribute monetarily to the project, not necessarily right now but in the near future
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:46 UTC
Might be the first permanent staff member of the project to be honest, some admin person that can manage all this stuff and ensure money gets spent and communicate transparently about it to everybody.
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:46 UTC
yeah - not saying you're sitting on secret contributions :smile:
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:47 UTC
I guess it's just that my email is on my github page and it's easy to send an email...
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 22:48 UTC
you are using email? shame!
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:48 UTC
@kargakis what should I use?
Michalis Kargakis
@kargakis
Aug 07 2018 22:48 UTC
pigeons
fire signals
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:48 UTC
that would solve a lot of problems
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:49 UTC
(BTW - s/mime is considered harmful)
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:49 UTC
so everyone is ok with "individual developer campaigns, possibly some prject-related fundraise, and a techno-council for all unspecified donations?"
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:50 UTC
I think its a good starting point
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:50 UTC
And bug bounties
But yes we have to start somewhere
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:50 UTC
yeah, think that's okay for now
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:50 UTC
yep.
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:50 UTC
sounds like a good start
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:50 UTC
right, so I'm thinking the techno-council will have to start allocating some pots for bug bounties, reviews, etc
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:51 UTC
and we deal with the fallout of a disagreement on the council as it occurs
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:52 UTC
@ignopeverell is wise as King Solomon and will be mediating
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:52 UTC
yes, we need enough people and dispute resolution but we'll get to that
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:52 UTC
“Split the chain in half!"
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:53 UTC
I'm proposing we start with a techno-council made of the all the current committers (so 5) and first thing we do is identify some more people
I'm thinking ultimately a dozen people would be a good start
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:54 UTC
get them from Lobby, maillist and forum
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:54 UTC
for sure
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:54 UTC
And those are: Igno, Antioch, Yeast, Quentin, Hashmap -> Correct?
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:54 UTC
yes
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:54 UTC
some non-devs to balance
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:54 UTC
absolutely
everyone in that list is ok being part of this btw?
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:55 UTC
sure
as long as I don't have to take minutes for any meetings
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:55 UTC
yep
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 22:55 UTC
yeah
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:55 UTC
then we can decide on a subset for the multisig maybe, with agreement than nothing should move without some council agreement
or something like that
ok cool, @antiochp will take minutes for the next meeting
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:56 UTC
lol
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:56 UTC
yay
that's what we have gitter for I guess
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:56 UTC
Sure to be part of this
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:56 UTC
indeed
ok, I'll write something up on grin-forum first to get some discussion and make sure it reflects everyone's understanding
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:57 UTC
Sounds good
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:57 UTC
good show
Simon B.
@sesam
Aug 07 2018 22:58 UTC
thanks. gotta go now
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:58 UTC
Was is the longest Grin meeting ever ?
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:58 UTC
ok; off to bed
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:58 UTC
nice one. good discussion
John Tromp
@tromp
Aug 07 2018 22:58 UTC
g'night , all
Antioch Peverell
@antiochp
Aug 07 2018 22:58 UTC
night
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:58 UTC
Good night everybody
lehnberg
@lehnberg
Aug 07 2018 22:58 UTC
Night!
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:58 UTC
anyone wants to yell some violent disagreement at this point?
ah, everyone to bed, ok then!
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 22:59 UTC
too late
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:59 UTC
I DON'T
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:59 UTC
Lol
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:59 UTC
is that meeting too late?
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 22:59 UTC
too late to yell:)
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 22:59 UTC
excellent then!
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 22:59 UTC
Could be an hour earlier but I’m fine with the time anyway
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 22:59 UTC
I'm temporarily in their timezone.. it's 1AM now
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 23:00 UTC
oh...
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 23:00 UTC
same here
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 23:00 UTC
if any of you want to move it earlier, please say so with some time proposal
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 23:00 UTC
we'd originally intended 9 GMT, which became 9UTC which became 10 GMT and 11 CET
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 23:01 UTC
so 7 UTC?
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 23:01 UTC
exactly, but winter is comming
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 23:01 UTC
6 UTC?
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 23:01 UTC
The timing is not euro friendly for now
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 23:01 UTC
@yeastplume picked the 9 GMT at least
(not to point fingers or anything)
Yeastplume
@yeastplume
Aug 07 2018 23:01 UTC
9 GMT with daylight savings adjustments
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 23:02 UTC
are all our countries doing daylight savings?
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 23:02 UTC
for 1 hour meeting time is fine
Quentin Le Sceller
@quentinlesceller
Aug 07 2018 23:02 UTC
Yes both Canada and France
1 hour meeting at current time is fine
hashmap
@hashmap
Aug 07 2018 23:03 UTC
all our current ones, let’s say
Ignotus Peverell
@ignopeverell
Aug 07 2018 23:03 UTC
okay, we can try to stick to 1h, this was just progressing more than expected
@tromp @antiochp in case you missed it, I created mimblewimble/grin#1327