These are chat archives for grin_community/dev
Grin development , for general questions use the #support channel- https://github.com/mimblewimble/grin
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.
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
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
and who decides who can be a paid developer or not
In my mind, the dev herself.
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)
yes, so for the source I'm thinking:
- the tromp fair mining license
- push forward services that redistribute some minimal profits (pools, exchanges, etc)
- 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.
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.
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.
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.