Looks like a $1500 money grab. Also from the comments here seems like he would try to discredit the technology. DASH is doing just fine without it.
Budget Proposal: Peter Todd to review Instant X?
- Thread starter JuanSGalt
- Start date
That's because you didn't specify that he wanted paying to do it!
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.
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
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:
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?)
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:
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.
- 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 -
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?
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 crowning said all that's to say, but if he was too cryptic, this might help:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zkkj9/bram_cohen_inventor_of_bittorrent_having_met/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zkkj9/bram_cohen_inventor_of_bittorrent_having_met/
OK, while I see the comedy value of Reverend Todd debating Juan online, I now see the light. Here is the right team for the job:
So, who wants to reach out to them...
So, who wants to reach out to them...
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.
T
toknormal
Guest
I see that the first guy is on Twitter, I'll break the ice...OK, while I see the comedy value of Reverend Todd debating Juan online, I now see the light. Here is the right team for the job:
So, who wants to reach out to them...
EDIT:
https://twitter.com/TaoOfSatoshi/status/705116944970747908?s=09
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.
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
IMO, it would be more beneficial for the community to give this money to the liquidity team to have a better DarkSend liquidity
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!
I would hope too that the team members who wrote the code would weigh in on whether or not an independent instantX code review is appropriate at this time.