-
plowsof
ccs.getmonero.org/funding-required animated video proposal got a +35 xmr donation 👀
-
plowsof
perhaps the worst written proposal i've ever seen , doesn't even link to the 'document' that describes what their proposal will actually produce (and its hosted on google docs anyway), was being buffed with micro transactions in the beginning by the proposers (to make it seem that 80 people donated) and now finally, it actually , got funded. let us all learn from this and stop caring about our well written ccs proposals
-
ooo123ooo1234567
is it sarcasm ?
-
plowsof
10% sarcasm
-
interloper[m]
sarcasm? naaaah
-
ooo123ooo1234567
"What keeps Monero working?" working code; "How does the network stay up to date?" an interesting question
-
ooo123ooo1234567
-
plowsof
the microdonations part is true at least in the beginning, maybe someone else did it, i don't mind, just funny to see
-
plowsof
make proposal : send 80 * 0.00000000001 transactions . thank everyone for the support
-
ooo123ooo1234567
if it's so easy then try yourself
-
ooo123ooo1234567
But there is a way to prevent such cheating, but it isn't the most important problem currently
-
ooo123ooo1234567
s/But/There/, s/there//
-
ooo123ooo1234567
plowsof: how would you prevent such cheating in the most ideal way ?
-
plowsof
there is a 1 year long waiting list before an idea will get put forward for funding.. enough time for me to churn some outputs
-
plowsof
to prevent spamming of donations? can just implement a min amount in usd equivalent or monero to not += the contributor count , but then people would complain their 10 cent donation isn't counted
-
nioc
the average donation was just under 0.1
-
ooo123ooo1234567
given all donations are public again (view key isn't available currently), what anti-cheat to use ?
-
plowsof
the viewkey is available
-
plowsof
ccs
-
plowsof
svk: 645936bdbb2e13830f587351b73b226c7c107ff94e5db0e0dd19c661cd657b0a
-
plowsof
pa: 43H2k6iDgyfNo4HzgQKF8ABALWGpRz9Ez6uexXLGFyuC32SevoaGUiKWbebSkqy5EzdkviwJ4NQwDHkxVxHceUtLBzBjoTV
-
ooo123ooo1234567
source ?
-
plowsof
unpublished, but permission granted to share some months ago
-
ooo123ooo1234567
it means not publicly available
-
plowsof
it made the rounds here months ago too, its just not listed anywhere,
-
plowsof
-
ooo123ooo1234567
"was being buffed with micro transactions in the beginning by the proposers (to make it seem that 80 people donated)" this problem doesn't exist with public view key; yes / no ?
-
ooo123ooo1234567
<plowsof> "to prevent spamming of donations..." <- in the worst it could be 50% self-donation with arbitrary split, what to do in this case ?
-
plowsof
no anti cheat would prevent this, always ways to get around it i guess (unless the contributor number is hidden on the site) . i was just making an observation (looking at the transactions in front of me, and comparing it to how others get funded) (i don't mind) , real people have donated clearly
-
ooo123ooo1234567
plowsof: are you sure ?
-
ooo123ooo1234567
* "no anti cheat would prevent this" are you
-
plowsof
KYC to have contributor += 1
-
ooo123ooo1234567
only solutions compatible with anonymity of participants are interesting, KYC isn't ok
-
plowsof
impose a minimum amount (like the bounties site do to stop comments being spammed)
-
ooo123ooo1234567
source ?
-
plowsof
-
ooo123ooo1234567
that threshold is a workaround for poor UI that can't display a lot of comments properly, it isn't an anti-cheat
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
People are willing to take financial losses to gain notoriety.
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
I think the only anti cheat is having the project vetted at the door.
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
If ccs wants to be decentralized, then there should be no barrier to entry and people should be allowed to donate as much to themselves as they want
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
If it is centralized, scams should be shut down as soon as they are exposed
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
There's no reason they have to pay out the money. Meaning, if you donate to yourself to push through some bullshit, your money will end up with the general fund or another ccs voted on by community
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
If its decentralized.. and you want to fund yourself.. go right ahead.
-
rbrunner
Does that trick really work? Donating 100 times a piconero at the start of a CCS, and people think, hey, best thing since sliced bread it seems, I will also donate?
-
rbrunner
Maybe there are submitters who try, but people don't fall for it?
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
Most people probably dont fall for it. But im sure there are people that lie and say "I raised 35 xmr from 100 people in only x amount of time" on their resume
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
"I work for monero"
-
rbrunner
To apply working at some random shitcoin with that resume? :)
-
ooo123ooo1234567
<rbrunner> "Does that trick really work..." <- Probably yes, but not directly
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
rbrunner: That or to go around giving seminars with their videos 😅
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
I dont think people donate because other people are.
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
Usually, if I see a LOW number if donators on a good project that is far from its goal, ill donate.
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
Of there are a lot of donators, you feel like "my donation doesnt make a difference"
-
rbrunner
ooo123ooo1234567: What possible kind of inderect effects do you see here at work?
-
rbrunner
*indirect
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
Fluffying the numbers is marketing, but at a certain point becomes counter productive to gaining traction
-
ooo123ooo1234567
<rbrunner> "ooo123ooo1234567: What possible..." <- any speculations based on these numbers
-
ooo123ooo1234567
project goal -> the next obstacle -> task description (at least should be verifiable and helpful for project goal)-> reward funding (add incentive to solve task, tasks with good verifiable description are supposed to be more attractive) -> submitted solutions (public log of incremental work done by participants, motivate to submit solutions asap) -> reward split (unbiased judgement, punish incorrect solutions / spam);
-
ooo123ooo1234567
with some spam protection it should be compatible with anonymity of participants
-
ooo123ooo1234567
monero-project/monero #8061#issuecomment-1013368354, an example of reward split that isn't present by default anywhere currently
-
ooo123ooo1234567
"If someone suggests a significant refactor that is better than what I've done and uses very little of my code ..." and this rule should be announced before beginning of the bounty, not after (as it was with atomic swap)
-
plowsof
this proposal would have benefited from some ''competition", anon dev, forked some project, puts a sales pitch with buzz words in the proposal, goes awol for 7 months, doesn't implement what was promised.. instead says ' that would take some work, ill do something else '
ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/xmrsale-2021.html
-
plowsof
if you ever see 'future work / not milestones' written in a proposal , consider it a fairy tale
-
ooo123ooo1234567
any task would benefit from competition, including seraphis / mining centralization problem / privacy issues with ring signatures / any UI / any maintenance / any bug fixes
-
ooo123ooo1234567
* bug fixes / cryptography audit
-
ooo123ooo1234567
<plowsof> "this proposal would have..." <- one more payment processor ?
-
ooo123ooo1234567
certainly the most important and hardest problem in monero
-
ooo123ooo1234567
* in monero judging by number of attempts to build it
-
ooo123ooo1234567
* in monero judging by number of attempts to solve it
-
chesterfield[m]
There needs to be one payment processor per merchant
-
chesterfield[m]
Unique payment processor
-
chesterfield[m]
This helps with privacy
-
chesterfield[m]
Wow it’s not easy being a genius
-
plowsof
i dont agree with a true 'bounty' model (to much incentive to 'get er done / merged' without enough time for testing e.g. p2pool integration in the gui which has some issues), i would rather see small periods of 'none compete' with regular updates on work
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
For bounty it should be like IRS does
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
You come up with your solutions and only the best solution is paid out.
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
If only one solution is put forth, perhaps merged, paid half and the rest if no others come forth with 3-6 months
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
If a better solution is found, pay the other half the the better solution and then pull some funds from general fund (or scam ccs) to cover the new submission bounty
-
ooo123ooo1234567
<plowsof> "i dont agree with a true 'bounty..." <- bounties.monero.social - no concurrent participation / no competition, no reward split; what competition are you talking about ?
-
plowsof
Paint my fence. the first person to paint my fence wins the bounty
-
ooo123ooo1234567
No. task -> solutions -> reward split;
-
plowsof
yes i agree with task -> solutions -> reward split
-
ooo123ooo1234567
there is a freedom in task description (precision, how to verify, how to compare different solutions), in reward amount; reward split can't be removed
-
ooo123ooo1234567
<plowsof> "i dont agree with a true 'bounty..." <- fairness isn't achievable without competition
-
plowsof
the viewtags example is fair because , its 'done already' and there is/was a reward to 'do it better' / review it. i just don't want duplication of effort to the point where its like a race , and those contestants could have been working on something else
-
ooo123ooo1234567
<plowsof> "i dont agree with a true 'bounty..." <- merge of poor patches is a problem of review process which doesn't have any incentive currently
-
ooo123ooo1234567
<plowsof> "the viewtags example is fair..." <- No. it isn't fair, there was no reward to 'do it better' / review before approval from UkoeHB, but it's an example in the right direction
-
ooo123ooo1234567
<plowsof> "the viewtags example is fair..." <- indeed, race would be very harmful for that scammer
-
ooo123ooo1234567
* harmful for profit of that scammer
-
ooo123ooo1234567
" i just don't want duplication of effort to the point where its like a race ..." indeed, duplication of efforts with all these payment processors is a good counterexample for your concern
-
ooo123ooo1234567
in practice lack of formal competition leads to duplication of efforts, see ?
-
ooo123ooo1234567
also it's a decision (based on their skills / motivation / etc) of those who will implement something whether to duplicate efforts or not
-
ooo123ooo1234567
sometimes it makes sense to repeat some work in order to find deep issue and better solution
-
plowsof
can i not just get life changing money every other month and be left alone in peace?
-
ooo123ooo1234567
if development process is working then just use monero and don't worry about it's internal problems
-
ooo123ooo1234567
if it doesn't work and it's know how to improve it then it makes sense to compete in order to implement better solution and get reward for it
-
ooo123ooo1234567
<plowsof> "can i not just get life changing..." <- grants from govt is a way to achieve both without a compromise
-
qwerty[m]1
communityworkgroup.org USES GOOGLE COOKIES TO SPY ON YOU!!!!!
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
sgp_ @sgp_:monero.social:
-
plowsof
delete the _ga cookie? i think people who are concerned about that have uber opsec anyway where no js / cookies are allowed . also you are registered using the monero .social matrix server? aren't they the ones you are warning us about spying on you?
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
Shouldn't be "we share info with Google" on a monero website
-
plowsof
ofrnxmr[m]1: lol true
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
Information about your use of this site is shared with Google.
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
Whoever read this and thought it would be acceptable to implement, is a questionable person.
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
"The Monero Marketing Workgorup became the Monero Community Workgroup during the first Community Workgroup meeting on 18 June "
-
ofrnxmr[m]1
Workgorup
-
qwerty[m]1
who owns the website?