OK, but without some upper boundary we're setting up a fertile ground for things like
Anyway, if using currencies with more than 3 letters is something urgent for your project, I can look into that, but the usual procedure is that you open a wish ticket and wait for eons for it to be evaluated and then maybe fulfilled :wink:
we don't follow the standard strictly
As I said, ISO 4217 doesn't mandate that "all the rest of the currency codes not in the list are forbidden to be in use, and if you do use them then you are Bad and you should feel Bad!". By saying that ISO 4217 is supported we say that e.g.
PHP is Philippine peso and not some token that PHP Language Foundation decided to create, like Red Foundation did with RED.
The goal is to be useful to the most people, and the standard helps with that as a guideline. BTC, ETH, and RED are special crypto cases. Beyond that, we may want to consider a model like the standard uses (country code + currency letter, or X + precious metal symbol). There are pros and cons to short names too. In finance it's well known, and makes it easy to format things uniformly. That is, the codes are not meant to be self explanatory. That may help normal people, but not experts in the domain.
The proliferation of cryptocurrencies is insane, but it's a new world too. We have to choose between playing favorites (RED) and blessing some, eliminating limits, or telling people that they just need to come up with a moniker that fits our 3-letter model. Right now we've blessed a few, and if someone wants to use theirs with money, how painful is it to use
3 letters is certainly limiting, but we should think about other issues, e.g., special characters.
>> append system/locale/currencies/list 'x3mb () >> X3MB$1330 + 7 == X3MB$1337.00 >> append system/locale/currencies/list 'moon-soon () >> negate -moon-soon$42 == MOON-SOON$42.00
Exclusive offer! :wink: Hacked in a few hours and not thoroughly tested though, so play with that and see how bad it is. I'll keep the branch around as a PoC for your wish, in case it will be granted.
@siriusye Good advice if your red team is ethical
The team is not immoral at least in comparing to many other pure scam projects back to 2018. RED ICO is just yet another money grab project. However, the cold blooded attitude from the team is the worst part. Most of the team members were simply showing no care about the token community/ico participants. They only care about their RED language. And ICO participants paid for their dream.
No, it's not possible with Red and that was never the plan. However, it's possible with the Red-based C3 dialect. Calling this money grab is an unfair insult.
well, this project causes people lost 99% of their investment. The token price went from $0.6 to now $0.0029. Roadmap on the originally white paper has been delayed for 2 years. There is no updates about c3 at all. Tell me why this is not a money grab project? Team simply wants money to continue this project and their RED lang dream. They are not willing to do anything for the investment return even only for implementing c3 as they suggested on the white paper. If you think i am insult the project, show me something about C3, anything, on the code level or even a more clear plan. It is not on the github, not on the task list, it is not even exist.
To @siriusye and @15926222352:
I don't even know what you're doing.
I'm afraid that makes all the opinions you voice in this room either uninformed or misleading. To learn what we are doing you can simply follow the official blog or our main technical chat, or stay up-to-date elsewhere. Granted, all the announcements are framed for the technical audience passionate about the project, not passive "investors".
Why? There's a committed sin of dichotomy: a line drawn in the sand between people following the long-term technological lineage that Red embodies as a guerilla in the trenches of war against software complexity, and people interested only in short-term gains from RED token price fluctuations and changes in liquidity from listings on exchanges. That's the contrast as striking as the difference between nomadism and capitalism, but I'm going a bit over my head here. These people genuinely do care, but about entirely different things: Red the tech and RED the token.
They are not willing to do anything
With that being said, here is a listicle of a huge, stinky pile of utter nothing (as you claim) that has been done (or hasn't?) in the last year, in no specific order:
money!datatype, which allows you to specify both fiat and cryptocurrencies, so that you can write in C3
RED$0.123 + 4. Then there's also a dedicated branch that extends the support beyond 3-letter currency identifiers, which are quite common in crypto space;
ref!datatype — more of a syntactical nicety, which nevertheless allows modeling various references and identifiers in C3, e.g.
send @siriusye ETH$0.88;
And that doesn't cover all the internal work on tokenomics, prototyping, design discussions &c.
The upshot is that C3 is an embedded domain-specific language, and that the degree of its completion is largely dependant on the evolution of the host language. Red's team is a small and dedicated one, it can't redirect all the man-power solely to C3, and has to kill not just two, but three or even five birds with one (mile)stone; we advance not directly, but laterally.
Yet, you have the nerve to call all of that a "money grab".
show me something about C3
All of the bullet points that I listed above are about C3 one way or another. Besides, here is an extensive R&D I did on C3 design and dusted off the shelf.
It's a draft, yes; it's shaggy, incomplete and cut in pieces, because some of them weren't finished, some went directly to prototyping stage, and some are too biased to share or closed under informal NDA. I'm not gonna apologize for the state of it, rather, I expect an apology from you for insulting my and other's hard work.
it is not even exist
It does, albeit in a private repository sitting on a back-burner... and then it doesn't. "Existing" is an essentialist category denoting a fixed entity with definite qualities and no capacity for change; Red's ontology is, on the contrary, immanent to the world of matter-energy-information flow — there's no being, only becoming of an open-source project. It's an emergent process driven by human singularities scattered across the globe (an entrainment phenomenon; boy, do I like to digress).
And you can join us by contributing, anytime, anyplace — after all, it's not a matter of extensive (geographical distance, timezone, amount of free time alloted to you on weekends) but intensive (well-preparedness of pull-requests, frequency of helping advices, usefulness snippets) properties. Are you tired of waiting for C3 for too long? Make it come! Or plates are truly full, yet we keep piling more and more on top.
Being a financial contributor and benefactor is hugely appreciated, but that does not give you any right to come with your rules in someone else's monastery, doing not as Romans do — attacking the project, assigning blame for the allegedly lost investment, even though no financial returns were ever promised (see p.13 about legal considerations).
The token offering involves and relates to the development and use of experimental software and technologies that may not come to fruition or achieve the objectives specified in this white paper. The purchase of tokens represents a high risk to any contributors.
"It's really sad", as you have put it.
All those information just shows that C3 is stopped at an early research stage
A lengthy research paper and 7 factual statements about C3 being developed laterally with each new milestone show that everything has ground to a halt before it even started? If you say so.
If the team needs 10 years to finish RED, then C3 will only start after that
Or the team can throw out an incomplete prototype just to satisfy your urge and move the RED price up (or not). Is that what you want?
Show something real and systemically done is a more solid prove.
All the blog announcements and news in the official channels are done more-or-less systematically (granted, we lack an up-to-date roadmap as @pekr noted). We also have a dedicated aggregator. Have you read them before making such claims? Also: 7 factual statements about the work being done in the last year, all of which provide direct benefits to C3. Have you read them too? If you did, then you saw everything there is to publicly show.
If the no financial returns is true, the road map should be true too.
Non sequitur. Re-read the p.13 and direct quotation I referred to earlier in full, without selectively skipping parts.
i don't really want to attack the project
Yet you do. Is that an apology for insulting other's work?
but sometimes the attitude of the team makes me feel really outrage
I cannot speak on behalf of the project and the Red team, but personally, I'm very, very sorry for working on Red non-stop for the last year, sometimes skipping weekends and dedicating all my spare time to contributions (roughly 3.1 out of 7 above-mentioned bullet points) — truly, one can see how such an attitude can be outraging. Friggin' nerds!
But alas, I cannot help myself but keep pumping. So, I suggest you simply leave this room and stop getting into such a bad mood, wasting your nerve cells on peasant coders who can't make you rich in a blink of an eye.
How people can really don't care?
Indeed, how? That's what I keep asking myself every time I look at the similar exchanges in this room and elsewhere.
Back to the ICO time, it worth 40million dollars.
Yes, and then Ethereum badly crashed, and so is RED, because it's an ERC-20 token. And after that "investors" spread the liquidity of an already illiquid asset with unauthorized listings on exchanges. Let's keep our facts straight.
The team just walked away with the money with an attitude of i dont want to allocate manpower for this direction
That makes me think you simply dismissed all the points I've raised in the previous message, preferring instead to pose as a victim of the bad Red team, "the disingenuous thieves who left thousands of contributors without a dime after said contributors consciously made a highly risky, speculative purchase".
Be that way.