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 .

GreyGhost

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 4, 2014
303
556
263
Santa Monica, CA
Interesting idea. But if we want to compete with the Bitcoin alongside the line -- "DASH is better money than BTC" -- to have one of the main contributors to bitcoin's open source code to review our own advanced feature, it's like having Microsoft evaluating Linux at the latter's early stages.

Moreover, if Dash is superior to Bitcoin in so many ways, as we all like to claim, to have their developer evaluating ours is like having one of Yugo engineers evaluating Mercedes-Benz Formula 1 car. A wrong thing to do.
 

tungfa

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 9, 2014
8,898
6,746
1,283
Interesting idea. But if we want to compete with the Bitcoin alongside the line -- "DASH is better money than BTC" -- to have one of the main contributors to bitcoin's open source code to review our own advanced feature, it's like having Microsoft evaluating Linux at the latter's early stages.

Moreover, if Dash is superior to Bitcoin in so many ways, as we all like to claim, to have their developer evaluating ours is like having one of Yugo engineers evaluating Mercedes-Benz Formula 1 car. A wrong thing to do.
I totally agree
+ wrong timing
the team is working on 12.1 (many improvements in the code) there is no point doing anything before that !

edit
this will take some time , incl testnet and all
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T

toknormal

Guest
Legitimacy, a lot of people are mistified by instantx and the maximilianist bitcoin folk are in denial.
I think it's useful to stop and try to really understand the motivations and priorities behind the divergence of vision here.

The Adam Back/Maxwell (Bitcoin core) camp are trying to preserve the consensus integrity that bitcoin has by not implementing any hardforks. They see hardforks as creating an "altcoin" (which by a broad definition is true). They will solve the "0-conf" problem with the Lightning network, large block sizes with sidechains and privacy equally with sidechains.

Reading this guy's feed provides quite a good account of what they're trying to do: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1876;sa=showPosts

On the other hand, Dash is doing exactly the opposite. Getting the blockchain to scale natively and dealing with fungibility natively. Both visions are probably equally viable and consistent with their priorities. Bitcoin is concentrating on "staying bitcoin" and its whole roadmap is geared to that. Dash is focused on developing a coherent blockchain with a high level of native monetary fidelity.

Any "review" that gets done needs to take account of these priorities otherwise it's useless because if you measure the progress towards one objective in the context of another, then you just end up with misplaced conclusions.

For example, no one seems to have noticed the gaping disparity in outcome when Dash is given a monetary appraisal as distinct from a technological one. Peter Todd called Dash "snake oil" meanwhile those two monetary researchers in the "Proof of Labour" thread who've devoted the last 4 years of their lives to thinking about monetary models called Dash the "most advanced" cryptocurrency out there. Why the grand canyon of a gap in views ? Because of different priorities.

I sure know which one meant more to me. The review that matters has already been done and it's in that other thread.
 
Last edited:

GreyGhost

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 4, 2014
303
556
263
Santa Monica, CA
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.
Sure, "we need to make sure everyone gets how well it works," but having Peter Todd "reviewing the code" is not the way to go. (should you wish to, please refer to my previous post on the topic and to toknormal musings above)

As oaxaca hinted, I'd rather have Peter Todd keep telling us InsantX is a snake oil and you, Juan, debating him. We can have a free debate, say over at Amanda's, and have an impact 100x greater than a $1,500.00 "review" from him that than, again, would not really add up to much.

(think fiat world and "credit ratings" in which credit agencies were being paid by the banks to rate them. Well, are we going to go the same route and pay to be rated?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: raganius

InTheWoods

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Oct 12, 2014
721
941
263
I think it's useful to stop and try to really understand the motivations and priorities behind the divergence of vision here.

The Adam Back/Maxwell (Bitcoin core) camp are trying to preserve the consensus integrity that bitcoin has by not implementing any hardforks. They see hardforks as creating an "altcoin" (which by a broad definition is true). They will solve the "0-conf" problem with the Lightning network, large block sizes with sidechains and privacy equally with sidechains.

Reading this guy's feed provides quite a good account of what they're trying to do: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1876;sa=showPosts

On the other hand, Dash is doing exactly the opposite. Getting the blockchain to scale natively and dealing with fungibility natively. Both visions are probably equally viable and consistent with their priorities. Bitcoin is concentrating on "staying bitcoin" and its whole roadmap is geared to that. Dash is focused on developing a coherent blockchain with a high level of native monetary fidelity.

Any "review" that gets done needs to take account of these priorities otherwise it's useless because if you measure the progress towards one objective in the context of another, then you just end up with misplaced conclusions.

For example, no one seems to have noticed the gaping disparity in outcome when Dash is given a monetary appraisal as distinct from a technological one. Peter Todd called Dash "snake oil" meanwhile those two monetary researchers in the "Proof of Labour" thread who've devoted the last 4 years of their lives to thinking about monetary models called Dash the "most advanced" cryptocurrency out there. Why the grand canyon of a gap in views ? Because of different priorities.

I sure know which one meant more to me. The review that matters has already been done and it's in that other thread.
The way Bitcoin Core wants to solve privacy is quite limited. It will only protect the amounts sent/received, not the sender/recipient. https://leastauthority.com/blog/zerocash_and_confidential_transactions.html
 

tungfa

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 9, 2014
8,898
6,746
1,283
The way Bitcoin Core wants to solve privacy is quite limited. It will only protect the amounts sent/received, not the sender/recipient. https://leastauthority.com/blog/zerocash_and_confidential_transactions.html
recent bitcoin fuzz
(k atlas was furious about p todd treatments)
are here
https://news.bitcoin.com/open-bitcoin-privacy-project-top-5-wallets-2016/
fuzz:
https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/

sorry a bit off topic
but this only shows that todd is definitely the wrong person for this job
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,876
1,866
1,283
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.

View attachment 2223

So yup! Todd will review Instant X code for 150 USD / hour.
If he is willing, I'd say yes. I'd expect him to give us a solid analysis and if he sees solutions, to share them. I'd like him to comment on solutions we might come up with on anything found. He is definitely a person who doesn't like us, but if he has any work ethics, and gives it to us straight, I'd be all for it. If he just wants us to pay for him to troll - well, I would think that would hurt his reputation, so I'm willing to take the chance. A skeptic is more likely to find loopholes. And if he's nit-picky about stuff that is statistically 99.999% impossible and says there is a chance to game something, well, we can see for ourselves how probable that would be and if it needs work.
 
M

MangledBlue

Guest
I can't see the actual proposal on the dashwhale. Or it is just preproposal discussion?
- step's on soap box -

Ugh.....
- PROPOSAL's should NOT be used as a discussion platform - PERIOD

THIS is the 'discussion platform'
IF a 'discussion platform' cannot garner enough support - WHY OH WHY, would you want to "burn" ANY DASH???

I seriously don't think some people understand what the voting system, is, or, what, it's ACTUALLY suppose to be used for.

Sure - you can use it as a 'Poll' - don't get me wrong here - BUT
- people should really stop throwing just anything into the 'voting system'
- start talking about the proposal first - get support for it, or it dies.......

Anybody that wants to submit a frivolousness proposal that has not even been peer-reviewed.....
..... can simply send those 5DASH to the address below

There ARE currently proposal(s) on the DASH voting system that are completely laughable and never should have been created.



- steps off soap box -
 
  • Like
Reactions: JuanSGalt

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,876
1,866
1,283
+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 ?
Then again, this is a much better idea! A+++
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,876
1,866
1,283
OK, so I take it he isn't a good person at all? I don't know anything about him except his snake oil comment, which around here can be taken with a grain of salt. :what:

anyway, I'd rather do Toknormal's idea, we should find some PHDs in Economics and have them do their dissertation on this or something??? Or get a professor to get his class to study this, especially a gaming class or something?
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,876
1,866
1,283
OK, maybe I should reel in my doubtful benefits, LOL

Can't change my vote though, so... :p
 

stan.distortion

Well-known Member
Oct 30, 2014
959
584
163
That would make a lot of sense, certainly more than Peter Todd. I did like the idea of Mike Hearn though, always had a lot of respect for that guys work but both Mike or Peter could result in drama and chaos, maybe a fair amount of publicity but probably a lot of the wrong kind.
 

RJMcSherry

New Member
Mar 14, 2015
15
10
3
I would definitely be interested in having the InstantX code and functionality professionally reviewed by a reputable third part, however, I don't believe Mr. Todd could provide a complete unbiased review alone... Maybe if he was joined by other renowned devs? Or a completely different third party all together? I have a strong belief in DASH and definitely want it to become more appreciated by others instead of the butt-end of most jokes.
 

Comodore

Member
Nov 8, 2015
185
97
88
I am againts. I made my vote for yes but I am againts and I can't change it.

Please no more Peter Todd, he is cancer
 
  • Like
Reactions: JuanSGalt

dark_wanderer

Member
Nov 12, 2014
82
36
58
OMG, is it that guy who called DASH snake oil and bad crypto??? Pay him 150 USD / hour for a code review whose outcome will be snake oil and bad crypto???

IMO, it would be more beneficial for the community to give this money to the liquidity team to have a better DarkSend liquidity :)
 

Macrochip

Active Member
Feb 1, 2015
226
199
103
So many voicing their "NO" votes and yet the "yes" votes keep increasing by a silent crowd. Still it's important to note that 3 yes votes are actually no votes. Nonetheless I'd like to hear the currently 24 pro-voters out. Why would he specifically be a good choice? Remember this isn't about deciding whether to have a review or not (I am pro review, I originally suggested it on Twitter!), it's about a specific person doing it! If you weren't aware of that don't vote!
 

dark_wanderer

Member
Nov 12, 2014
82
36
58
Is it possible to check how many yes votes originate from users 1) whose registration date is less than let's say one week; 2) who posted something meaningful on the forum (no spam, no ads) etc. ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: raganius

mjsrs

Member
Aug 6, 2014
87
68
68
Instead of getting someone to review the code I think it would be more beneficial to create a bug report + fix program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raganius