Budget Proposal: Peter Todd to review Instant X?

Should DASH pay Peter Todd to review Instant X?

  • Hell Yeah

    Votes: 28 43.1%
  • Fuck no

    Votes: 37 56.9%

  • Total voters
    65
  • Poll closed .

JuanSGalt

Active Member
Oct 28, 2014
138
286
113
So I know there's mixed feelings about Todd, but he is well known in blockchain tech and is very much focused in the field of zero confirmation txs and fast payments or lack there of.

Not sure who else would be good to do some third party review of instant x, but never the less I asked him and here is his response.

screenshot.1456864424.jpg

So yup! Todd will review Instant X code for 150 USD / hour.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,552
729
183
Well, thats.. unexspected. From the very man that called Dash "snake oil". Anyways i think now is not the right time as Dash Evolution will change a lot
and it will need time to get developed and tested properly. I also see risks with using Peter Todd ....
 

MangledBlue

Well-known Member
Jun 28, 2014
1,246
678
183
USA
I personal can't see him and/or any review he does as being an un-biased reviewed.
But with that said - would he actually damage his 'reputation" for DASH?
hummmmmm


edit: withholding my vote for now....
 

oaxaca

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jul 8, 2014
573
832
263
Evolution will be a long time coming. Instantx should be ready enough for this. Bring it on!

Juan - get the almighty Todd to give you his DASH address so the block reward funding can go directly to him.

Double win!
 
  • Like
Reactions: buster

InTheWoods

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Oct 12, 2014
721
941
263
Todd is a Monero investor & fan. Not sure he's the right man for the job. I very much doubt it. He's against everything Dash stands for, being real digital cash. He's also an overpriced consultant. Not worth wasting money on him.
 

Macrochip

Active Member
Feb 1, 2015
224
185
103
Short answer: Fuck that guy.

Long answer: He's an abrasive human being and a PITA, zero people skills, always looking to start an argument, attacking Gavin and Jeff from out of the blue (just recently on Twitter on why they call themselves "Core developers", the nerve of that douchebag!) and basically a neckbeard without the beard (See Maxwell for that).
That was just character traits, I know, but the argument that he's somehow qualified to do the review just because he wrote a double spend tool and trolled Coinbase with it is laughable.
There's tons of serious, respected researchers able to pull off that job and actually deliver a credible result (something I will never expect from Todd).
Wuille, van der Laan, Andresen come to mind. What about Vitalik Buterin? All these people are (at least publicly) unbiased potential judges and peer-reviewers of Evan's work. Strongly opposed to this suggestion.

PS:
His rate is also ridiculous. How much did we pay Kristov Atlas to review DarkSend? Damn sure it wasn't 1,500+ USD !!
 
T

toknormal

Guest
That was just character traits, I know, but the argument that he's somehow qualified to do the review just because he wrote a double spend tool and trolled Coinbase with it is laughable
+1 I don't think he's very professional. He's more of a celebrity than a professional.

The right way to get a technical review done (if that's really what this is about) is to find a sleepy academic department out in the 'real world' that's got no axe to grind other than analytical rigour. Fund a couple of PHD students or something to produce a report that will be useful to the project.

If Peter Todd is being sought for his celebrity status ("well known in blockchain tech") rather than his reputation for dispassionate rigour, then don't be surprised if it ends up as a "celebrity put down" rather than a rigerous appraisal.

He's already given his verdict on record anyway. So why pay him $150 an hour just to type it out ?
 

TheDashGuy

Well-known Member
Dec 16, 2015
1,228
1,010
183
I would like to minus 1 vote from the yes category, I didn't realize how much it would cost. We'd be better off hiring someone not so ill-hearted towards Dash.

Data can be spun. That is all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InTheWoods
T

toknormal

Guest
Going back to Juan S Galt's original initiative, despite my views on the proposed reviewer, I still think the idea's worthwhile in its own right. (The idea of getting it reviewed that is).

But it would be for technical purposes rather than promotional purposes IMO. The thing is, 0-conf transactions are a very big challenge and a huge number of them do get used for goods exchange in the Bitcoin world. So the more understanding that there is of the strength's and weaknesses around InstantX's approach the better IMO.

The problem with Todd reviewing it is that it's just going to get spun to death whatever the outcome. Just simple due-diligence tells you it's a non-option. The project does need reviews like this but ones that can be learned from away from the adversarial politics of bitcoin celebrity, altcoin wars and general promotional hype that all these assets are subject to.

Also, another thing. Anyone who's got any experience of this type of stuff would know that even as a client, you have work to do in setting the parameters and demanding from the contractor that certain questions be answered in a quantifiable way. You're not looking for an opinion - you're looking for results and a level of analytical rigour that allows you to direct your future priorities. That involves a good deal of work in specifying the review. It isn't the same as asking someone to write a magazine article on whether gold's going to rally this month.

The way this is worded is that it's just a blank sheet for PT to mouth off on disguised as technical appraisal. He might actually be competent enough to do such an appraisal (being generous) but you'd have to get him to come up with analysis, not conclusions. For example, he has alluded to the fact that InstantX is "breakeable" and will be broken in no time. Well MD5 hashing was "broken" but it's still in full use all over the place. Bitcoin 0-confs are as broken as a chocolate teapot and yet they're still in use all over the place. InstantX is, however not broken. So many things are clearly a question of degree in terms of being fit for purpose. This is what needs to be investigated, fully understood and quantified in terms of risks and rewards. That would not be a futile exercise in my opinion, but it takes a very balanced and dispassionate approach to come up with meaningful results that aren't just an endorsement of the reviewer's own prejudices.
 

yidakee

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 16, 2014
1,812
1,168
283
Shit, I voted yes by mistake, what a ding-dong.

Peter Todd has lost credibility and reputation. He's is terribly pedantic, too immature and hot-headed to be trusted with such a thing. If he fixes open-source code, bless him, otherwise, no thanks.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: nmarley

HinnomTX

Active Member
Jul 22, 2014
166
196
103
Let's put the ugly tweets, ad hominems and personality conflicts aside. DASH is not taken seriously in some circles because of a lack of peer reviews (and they may be right to snub us). We should be hiring serious Bitcoin brains to audit InstantX. If Peter is in for $1500 (about 400 DASH), let's hire him. No one in the community wants to see a fork or double spend because of an exploit found in InstantX.

Also... interesting things happen when you're getting paid. Peter might come away impressed that we voted for and funded this operation from the blockchain. If nothing else it will further the most compelling part of our story: we are getting stuff done through DGBB and the budget proposal system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SnowHater

Active Member
Dec 25, 2015
299
221
113
I can't see the actual proposal on the dashwhale. Or it is just preproposal discussion?
 

InTheWoods

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Oct 12, 2014
721
941
263
Let's put the ugly tweets, ad hominems and personality conflicts aside. DASH is not taken seriously in some circles because of a lack of peer reviews (and they may be right to snub us). We should be hiring serious Bitcoin brains to audit InstantX. If Peter is in for $1500 (about 400 DASH), let's hire him. No one in the community wants to see a fork or double spend because of an exploit found in InstantX.

Also... interesting things happen when you're getting paid. Peter might come away impressed that we voted for and funded this operation from the blockchain. If nothing else it will further the most compelling part of our story: we are getting stuff done through DGBB and the budget proposal system.
What your saying would make perfect sense in a different context. This is Peter Todd we're talking about though. He hates the idea of Dash, crypto as real money. Dash opted for the revolutionary path some XT, Unlimited and Classic folks desired but couldn't do with Bitcoin. Todd doesn't want crypto as money but merely as a niche subversion tool of sorts. Do you know what anarcho-communists think of money? They think money is evil. Ask his friend, the communist Amir Taaki.

He is invested in Monero and few hundred dollars won't suddenly turn him from Monero to Dash fan.

Even if he were to do a code review, results would suck. He would come up with some stupid idea like his Replace By Fee which just killed Bitcoin for retail. This guy is like the anti-Dash dev. I bet he'd say something silly like InstantX is some centralized system relying centralized servers or some lame crap like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JGCMiner

JuanSGalt

Active Member
Oct 28, 2014
138
286
113
I asked Kristov, He said no, for now. Getting a Bitcoin Core dev to review it would be big media wize. What's Maxwell's rate? xD
 

stan.distortion

Active Member
Oct 30, 2014
846
494
133
Anyone suitable to do a review that's found fault with Peter Todds work in the past? It didn't sound like a bad idea at first but yeah, that wouldn't be an unbiased review.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JuanSGalt

JuanSGalt

Active Member
Oct 28, 2014
138
286
113
What do we expect to gain from an InstantX code review?
Legitimacy, a lot of people are mistified by instantx and the maximilianist bitcoin folk are in denial.

DASH's privacy is great, but that along is not good enough sadly, not with Adam Back working on confidential txs for Bitcoin. Instant x is essential for DASH as money, if this is the direction we want to go. If so, then we need make sure everyone gets how well it works.
 

InTheWoods

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Oct 12, 2014
721
941
263
Legitimacy, a lot of people are mistified by instantx and the maximilianist bitcoin folk are in denial.

DASH's privacy is great, but that along is not good enough sadly, not with Adam Back working on confidential txs for Bitcoin. Instant x is essential for DASH as money, if this is the direction we want to go. If so, then we need make sure everyone gets how well it works.
Confidential tx requires bigger block sizes, much bigger. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ml3y5/an_open_question_to_adam_back/cvg9foh

Not sure this will happen anytime soon given how stuck Bitcoin development is and how reluctant Core is to increase blocksize. 2MB won't be enough to implement this I'm afraid.

InstantX amounts will be increased in the next few months. Maybe wait until then for a review.
 

oaxaca

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jul 8, 2014
573
832
263
Even if the review does not go ahead, the screenshots of Juan discussing it with Pope Todd would be marketing GOLD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: splawik21

HinnomTX

Active Member
Jul 22, 2014
166
196
103
So let's get someone from Team Classic to review it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? Whoah, wait. What about Mike Hearn? Does he freelance? :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: stan.distortion