There has been and will be cooperation. Why do we need to pay individuals salaries and hope they "cooperate" as if they weren't already? I don't see any organized development teams. I don't see cooperation. I see different developers all working on stuff and I cannot keep up with who is doing what or what progress is. For a project as big as this you need daily reports among developers and weekly reports to the community. We have a blog which provides some of that but it's not detailed. We don't get to see for instance a daily changelog with comments. If there is a bug that a particular developer is having a problem with is there a bugzilla or some other similar type of setup so we can see the outstanding bugs? If there's already the incentive to work together, distribute strengths as necessary, and efficiently organize roles in order to solve the problem at hand and secure the prize?
It's not about the prizes. The prizes are just incentives to motivate people to get involved in the process. It's actually about building the best possible Mastercoin protocol that can be built. This protocol has to be something which can allow many businesses and developers to build on top of it. Think of the Mastercoin development team as being as important as the Mozilla development team or the Chrome or Linux development team. Those teams aren't organized around a web forum using bounties, they all have a combination of salaried developers paid by sponsors or volunteers. Study successful projects to find the right combination but from what I have seen there is a role for full time salaried developers. The detriment of the salary is that when you have an official salaried "development team," it presents the idea that we already have the developers we need and we just need to wait and let them do work now that they are paid a salary. This is not conducive towards attracting new and possibly better talent! I don't get that idea at all. The Mastercoin project is so vast that even if you had 5 teams of 5 full time developers you'd still have so many trivial or experimental features to implement that you'd have room for bounties. For example reputation should be built on top of the Mastercoin protocol and the core developers shouldn't be concerned with building reputation functionality. The core developers shouldn't have to be focused on little details of the user interface. The core developers should be doing the really difficult stuff that the rest of us cannot do. It should be highly specialized experts working on features which are truly hard and which require 12 hour days of contemplating, designing, coding, and bug testing. If you understand what is involved you'll know it's not something that can be considered part time work and it's not really bounty work. You cannot work on a bunch of other projects or have a full time job and do this on the side, you should be doing this full time and give total effort to it that it deserves. additional thoughts: quote from board emails: Do you think that is fair? If you were a hopeful contestant and wanted to dedicate your skills towards a decentralized project?
Now, weigh that with its effectiveness. I think coalitions are great if the best developers we had right now got to call the shots on development, along with the freedom to not worry about their other financial obligations as much. Is there a way to encourage self-organizing coalitions so that we may still upkeep our promise of decentralization?
Decentralization makes sense, but you still need structure for development teams. You need a team leader, you need names for each team, you need focuses and objectives for each team and specialists. I assume guys like Tachikoma will naturally end up leading such endeavours anyways. It just may be better to keep up with decentralization and perhaps this subtle difference in mechanism could mean a lot down the road, motivation and incentive-wise and all that. Tachikoma knows a lot about the Mastercoin protocol as it currently is and on the parts he is working on. He cannot be expected to focus on every aspect. He probably should be team leader for the part he is working on, but what about all the other parts of the protocol spec left to be implemented? I think you need team leaders so that when new people join in they can go and ask that person how stuff works, how the design should be, how the code should look, and what needs to be fixed. It's just in my opinion a bad idea to be decentralized and unorganized. You can be decentralized and fully organized. |
|
|
|
This is a place for nominating and discussing which full-time developers we should hire for the Mastercoin project. I think the community is agreed that this is a priority, and that we have the financial means to compensate full-time developers with approriate salaries - let's get to it!
Anyone who wants to nominate a developer should provide an explanation as to why she's a good fit, and also provide some examples of her code, experience etc. (a link to a Github page is good). There should be ongoing discussions about what languages we might want developers to write in, what kind of backgrounds we would like them to have, how many full-time developers we need, how many hours we would like them to commit, what kind of salaries are reasonable, and what ever else seems pertinent.
Our current developers' work has been great, but unfortunately we don't have a team that can devote itself to Mastercoin full-time. Everyday that we don't have full-time developers, Mastercoin's first-mover advantage becomes less and less relevant.
The board hasn't endorsed the decision to hire full-time developers, and therefore has not endorsed this thread. I encourage whoever is in favor of hiring full-time developers to help convince the board that it is the right thing to do, and to refer them here.
Nominations are not limited to developers who are currently working on Mastercoin; members of the community are urged to nominate anyone they think would be a good fit and addition to the Mastercoin project.
What matters to me in my opinion is that the developers be trusted. Nothing is more important than to be able to trust the people writing the code. The other thing I hope to see is the formation of development teams to focus on specific feature sets. There should be a team focused just on user currencies. A team focused just on the distributed exchange. A team focused just on smart property. And a team which does quality assurance and security auditing. The security auditing could be done externally and contracted out. The bug testing can be done via contest. The core features should be the focus of the full time developers so that the contest developers can focus on the trivial features or the experimental features. Who are the candidates? It would be good to have a list of people willing to do the job rather than just voting for people who may not even be wanting the position. (I say this as it seems some of the current developers already have full time jobs and are not looking for full-time positions.)
First we need some structure. Just having a list of names without any teams is kind of ridiculous to me. You need to first come up with some development teams based around solving a particular objective or developing a particular feature set. Once you have that in place then you can try to figure out who might be good for particular features and who could be on different teams. Like for the distributed exchange you might want certain people but for the user interface you might want a completely different set of people. You might want different people for handling smart property and escrow from the people who are working on CFDs. Small teams focused on particular goals and feature sets is how you get things done. Individuals being picked off a list and being told to "develop" is not how you develop anything. Contests have structure but only work to a point. Contests can allow you to hack a project together but for really well written easily followed code you need someone who has a software design approach in the team leader position. That person shouldn't just be looking to implement the feature with some sort of hack as was done with Bitcoin but should be trying to do it in the way which is best for extensibility, modularity, and code abstraction so that future protocols can be built on top, and so that if necessary Bitcoin can be swapped out and so on. This requires people in design roles who can discuss which design approach is best. So whoever is team leader for developing smart property, they are going to have to think seriously about how to design it so that it remains trustless, decentralized, secure, private, scalable, extensible (future proof), and modular. If anything is developed which involves cryptography then you'll have to use process isolation for example, or you may have to find someone who understands how to work with the trusted platform module (for use in savings wallets). Smart property for instance will not be an easy feature to implement in my opinion unless it's in the most simple form but the design is critical and getting it right is critical. |
|
|
|
The next 6 months are critical. I believe a project manager is needed, someone with technical knowledge and management skills, who can hire and motivate the right people. A lot is at stake and the existing resources should be deployed intelligently and narrowly (i.e., not to fund every idea, but to use the bulk on the fundamentals) to hire the very best people to lead this project. Success at an early stage will create valuable dev MSCs that can fund the project for years going forward. The board needs to take decisive action to get the right people working on this project full time.
For open-ended ongoing tasks like this, I believe what David proposed could be effective, to have x percentage of the new coins released in some length of time. To keep on receiving the flow of funds one must do a satisfactory enough job to the community to justify keeping someone on. Open communication in this case will be vital.Edit2: I have rethought my position. See my post in the poll, I do not believe this is a good way of evaluating worth of work without clear objectives, and even harder to evaluate the worth of x PERCENTAGE of MSC in l time interval. Edit: at the same time, do we need a project manager? I'd like to ask the current developers their thoughts. Do self-organizing teams need/benefit from a top-down type of manager to get clear-cut objectives completed? I like to think that we just need the element of competition for truly grand prizes to speed things up fastest. If a manager indeed would help development, I would imagine a good manager would offer up their talents to a dev talent pool and put together a team. Bounties split as they're earned and as the team likes. Again, thoughts? Competition isn't everything. At some point you need cooperation between developers and contests don't really help people to cooperate. What you need to do is pay development teams. Assign certain developers to a team and pay them all as they build something together. So if a feature gets built by a team of 5 developers then team panther for instance should get paid as a group. Also you need to rely on collaborative software other than these forums to allow developers to collaborate and deal with bugs. So my advice is to form development teams and give each team a code name. Give each team a particular area of focus and make each team select a team leader. So if one team is working on smart properties and another team is working on stocks and another the user currencies now you have three teams working on important features. The team leaders from each team should be in communication with each other and should manage collaboration between the teams. The team leader should give a weekly report on the progress on the forum and give daily progress reports to the other teams via email. Use contests for purposes like smaller less critical features, experimental features, bug testing, or bug reporting. |
|
|
|
Why can't we do it in the same spirit as the first contest? Objectives laid out, prize is there, and developers are allowed to form coalitions as they liked. I like to think that coin distribution within the one partnership that the contest had (I forgot who) worked out fairly, as well as to the full body of the contestants. Let's let the contestants decide what's more important, their day job or a fixed bounty that rises day by day for creating a truly awesome life changing tech? It works because it's a race to claim the greater piece of the pie!
Discussion please!
Edit: tl;dr I think that for most objectives, core development wise, it is better to pay upon satisfactory completion vs paying up front.
I think full time developers are necessary. Contests can only work for so long. Look at the Linux development mailing list. You need between 5-10 full time developers and the money exists to easily hire them so why not? That does not mean they should be employees. Pay them in Bitcoin and give them tasks that suit full time development such as debugging, security oriented, the graphical user interface, quality assurance, and more. Don't do it in the typical way. Hire only the developers who accept being paid in Mastercoins. If they won't accept being paid in Mastercoins they shouldn't be full time developers for the Mastercoin protocol. Reserve that for the people who truly believe in what Mastercoin will be. For developers who do not have enough money to pay bills through the month and if they are truly skilled and proven then they should take place in the bounties to earn a spot as a full time developer. What I think would be a bad idea would be to bring in developers who are not a part of the Bitcoin community, or the Mastercoin community, and give them the most privileged position of full time developer. It's not just about the developer having skill but these are people who have to be trusted. Also have a look at Ciyam and see if it can solve some of these problems. http://ciyam.org/open/ Example: http://ciyam.org/open/?cmd=view&data=20121221072815393000&ident=M100V137&chksum=45c95736 |
|
|
|
You said you're pretty expert in trading.. therefore you should know that, whatever one of us can tell you, it would be purely speculations.. no one knows!
Moreover the timeframe matters a lot: which is your horizon? A few days investment? Weeks? Years? In the latter case, every moment is good..
I'm far from an expert, and even very good people have a very tough time getting the timing right. Time frame: Good point, I should have mentioned it's long term. I don't care how long I have to hold, and I'm convinced it will either go to the sky or to 0. If it goes to the sky first, and then later to 0, that's bad for BC, but for my investment it's kind of ok too... So I have the feeling you are right, almost every moment is good, untill it goes to 0, it will go up, up, up... Buy as much as you can as soon as you have the money. Do not wait. Dollar cost averaging is not as efficient of a strategy. |
|
|
|
Give it a few days, newcomers need to wire transfer their FIAT to buy some BTC and they also need to digest the news that they didn't even hear or read about in the paper based news paper  Remember what happened in April when it crossed a nice round number? $100 it was a press party all the was up to $265 and then it fell sharply to $70. After that it took many weeks to gradually reach where we are today. Patience! Exactly the same thing happened once $10 was broken back in 2011, a quick shot up to $32. Back then the market cap was ridiculously low  Of course breaking a psychological barrier might have an effect, but i don't think that the price will be 3k$ any time soon  It could easily be $3000 next week. We could see $1000 rise in a day just as we saw when it hit $100. |
|
|
|
So lets say that people are just getting into Bitcoin now and are buying 5BTC for $1000. You say that is not worth it? Their $1000 investment could easily increase up to $10,000 or even more in the next 4 or 5 years. Tell me of any stock that has ever had that great of returns!?
It is just a matter of time before people with large amounts of money realize the potential here and jump in to take advantage.
Sure the early miners scored big time. They took a risk and are already reaping rewards today. At that time it seemed like a long-shot though. I think we have even more proof NOW than the miners did back then that Bitcoin is going to work. So the risk is even less! There is regulation in place. There are more stable exchanges to buy and sell. There are large companies adopting Bitcoin. There are funds being put into place that will channel hundreds of thousands of dollars into Bitcoin.
NOW is a fantastic time to buy and $200 per BTC is still super cheap!
You were right. In a month $2000 will be the new cheap. $10,000 will be reached in 2014 and it might go to $50,000. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is still in the paperclip budget range. A government buyer would push it to 5 figures as they buy by the $1 million.
Why would a government have to buy Bitcoins when they can just take them from people? The FBI currently has enough Bitcoins to fund themselves for generations to come. |
|
|
|
This is delusional, I dont think 6 figures are possible. 5? Sure, but not 6. The Goverment and "powers that be" are not going to let random NEET's that happened to mine and buy thousands of BTC back in the day when they were worth cents becoming the new world 1% clique, let alone people like us that clearly missed the boat and are hoping to become millonaires by owning not a couple BTC but one, lol. Not happening. You're being a delusional conspiracy theorist. The government just wants maximum tax revenue and does not give a shit about who it comes from. In fact if its Democrats in office they probably like the idea of a new 1% because thats a new tax base for their social programs. Hope for a 5 figure peak at best, and keep in mind nothing stops the powers that be to simply declare Bitcoins ilegal if it ever becomes a serious threat to the status quo. Remember the fundamental value of BTC is 0.
If Bitcoin is declared illegal then people who made millions and who are starting businesses will move to a country where it's not illegal. Why not declare the Internet illegal to prevent Bill Gates from joining the 1%? Do you have any idea how stupid your argument is? If they were going to do that they'd have banned the Internet in the 1980s to prevent people from getting rich off the dot com bubble. Do you really think the government looks that far into the future? So, at this point in time, unless you are already a millonaire that can gamble a couple millions to buy BTC NOW, then wait a bit, see if it gets higher and sell, you are not going to be a millonaire by owning 1 BTC, not in a million years (oh, and we are talking about the purchasing power of current 1MM$, aka all that matters). I hope im wrong but common sense applies to what I said. We are too late to the party. If you are wealthy in BTC, IMO, sell as soon as it gets to 5 figures but be aware of the risk you are taking by not selling now.
PS: If there is a big crash in Bitcoins before a big crash in FIAT, I dont think no one is going to take Bitcoins for real anymore.
You're not even a bear. $10,000 is just as possible as $1000 and while it's not a certainty if you look at the political climate there is nothing to stop it from reaching $10,000 next year. I don't know how long it will take for a Bitcoin to be worth $1 million and I doubt the Bitcoin will be first to reach that price. I think Mastercoin will probably reach $1 million before the Bitcoin does because it builds on top of Bitcoin but in my opinion it's only a matter of time. Block reward halving, difficulty, scarcity, utility, all work in it's favor. |
|
|
|
pipe dream. other crypto currencies would pop up, which would bring down BTC value.
blockchain confirmations take too long for BTC to be ubiquitous.
A lot of you underestimate the size of the global economy. There are hundreds of trillions of dollars which can flow into Bitcoin or the others like Bitshares, Mastercoin or Colored Coin. 1 million dollars is not as big of a deal as you all seem to think. I think $500,000 is realistic and even $100,000, but 1 million is also realistic and its just a matter of how long it will take to reach it. or maybe you tend to believe the things you want to be true. if BTC explodes and becomes ubiquitous, i am certain there will be other cryptocurrencies in the market.. and that would dilute the value of BTC down a bit. there are still issues with BTC that we don't know will be panned out. hypothetically if BTC were 1 million dollars, that would be a major shift in the way the world works. There will be other cryptocurrencies like Mastercoin and protoshares which could be worth much more than a Bitcoin in price. Mastercoins could go for millions of dollars each in the future. Just because you cannot fathom the possibility it does not make the math of it incorrect. Do due diligence. Find that 1 million dollars is really not a lot of money when the market cap is in the hundreds of trillions. |
|
|
|
Or it could start getting banned in every country kind of like how online gambling got banned in the US. I highly doubt any country will allow a massive underground alternate currency to be traded w/o any kind of regulation. And that would also mean massive drug, sex, and crime trafficking because its anonymous, a lot more than there is now.
Ubiquitous and decentralized then it is impossible to ban. You cannot ban me from betting on a sporting event with my friends using my word of mouth. You cannot stop me from making any bet I want to make with my speech. Now that my speech is global and I can embed it into any electronics device you simply cannot do shit to stop me from that. And if you stop me, the next version will be even more ubiquitous and decentralized until it's in everyone's clothes. |
|
|
|
pipe dream. other crypto currencies would pop up, which would bring down BTC value.
blockchain confirmations take too long for BTC to be ubiquitous.
A lot of you underestimate the size of the global economy. There are hundreds of trillions of dollars which can flow into Bitcoin or the others like Bitshares, Mastercoin or Colored Coin. 1 million dollars is not as big of a deal as you all seem to think. I think $500,000 is realistic and even $100,000, but 1 million is also realistic and its just a matter of how long it will take to reach it. |
|
|
|
If you want to earn good profits buy bitcoins now and forget them for a month or 2.
Another ride is coming soon and you wont be able to buy bitcoins at more cheap prices.
We are headed to $5000 by summer and $10,000 by fall 2014. Yeah I would say definitely don't sell because it would be one of the dumbest mistakes of your life. Keep your coins and only spend them if you have no better option. You have to eat food and pay bills, but you don't need a new car. |
|
|
|
It is rising as fast as it is only because transacting in it is terribly disincentivized (which is the complete opposite of what it claims).
You can't spend it easily, and you can't change it back into fiat easily. Once people who bought in figure this out, what else is there to do but hold it?
And this kicks off the recursive bubble process:
People don't want to spend it because they'll lose out on market gains. When I say 'spend' i am also referring to buying fiat with it, not just goods.
No spending = supply bottleneck #1, causing it to become harder to buy, making it in higher demand, reducing incentive to spend it even further, bottlenecking supply further still, raising value, etc. Inflate the balloon.
Not only do people not want to spend it, it is exceedingly difficult do when you do. I am not talking a handful of token "look at me hop on the bitcoin fadwagon, gibe me free press coverage nao thx" pizzas and subway sandwiches and VPN accounts here, i am talking real consumer economy-driving spending.
And wait till mom and pop average figure out how hard it is (if not impossible) to get any hard cash funds out of any exchange (i am looking at you, Mt.Gox, with your 7 day email response times), particularly US$, and most acutely when they *need* it back for holiday shopping. Cue flood of evening news hit piece stories on the long faced sad sacks and bag holders who are astonished to find that they can't buy their family Christmas presents because their bitcoin 'bonanza' is useless as a means of practical day to day commerce.
I suspect that up to half of the apparent "popularity" of Bitcoin the past 4 weeks or so, is entirely due to the friction of moving funds in - and especially out - of Bitcoin.
And when the upper middle class to wealthy Chinese who only care about Bitcoin as a means to move RMB out of china into USD under the radar, find out just how much of a pain in the ass it is to turn it into USD, their support is going to disappear in a puff of panic.
I believe in the underlying concept of bitcoin but I am getting the feeling it is going to die from over exposure before it is ready to handle the attention.
If you don't need something you shouldn't buy something. STOP WASTING THE WORLDS RESOURCES. And get richly rewarded. |
|
|
|
What do you think?
It's so funny to think that we are living a time where anyone with couple of hundreds dollars can just choose to be millionaire in a couple of years.
EDIT: And I am talking 1 million in todays dollars.
I say by 2018. |
|
|
|
so, i'm not that old, about 13, i don't have a job and i don't have a lot of savings to invest.......
after a huge amount of research, and in a moment of madness i withdraw from my college fund, which is technically mine although its my parents who pay into into it.
i've managed to buy 12 bitcoins. i'll be holding these indefinitely, even if the btc price drops 90%. no trading, although i may sell x amount to cover my expenses if things go well.
please reassure me i've done good?
and is 12 btc a good position?
and no lectures.
thanks
You're in an excellent position. You have more Bitcoins than many of us here and the average human being will have less than 0.1 Bitcoins in their life. Whether Bitcoin goes up to $10,000 or $1 million you will be in a better position. In the long run it may very well have been a good investment. I would recommend any (adult) friend to consider buying right now.
Since you are a minor, lectures are not optional:
[lecture]
You should have convinced your parents instead of doing it behind their backs. Would I have been your dad, I would have been mad and proud at the same time. These kinds of decisions are for adults. Period.
[/lecture]
Yeah just like we should have convinced our governments instead of doing it behind their backs? I think the kid has balls. Sometimes you gotta make a decision for yourself for your own sake, your own happiness and your own future. This even applies to kids. He should tell his parents about it 6 months down the road when the price is up and he has secured it beyond their reach. |
|
|
|
Secondly, if a dev wants to reduce his exposure to crypto he can immediately sell his MSC for fiat, in the very moment he got paid. What's the problem?
The problem is that you're assuming MSC is more liquid than it is. If you want to sell your MSC, you need to find a buyer, which isn't always easy, and even if you do find a buyer, he may not want as many Mastercoins as you are selling, in which case you may have to lower your ask price. Reversing your remark would be better: If a dev wants to increase his exposure to mastercoin he can sell his fiat for MSC. This is surely much easier than selling MSC for fiat. I don't know how many times it needs to be proven that we're going "all in". If the goal is to attract good developers, irrespective of whether *they* are "all in" or not, they should be paid in fiat, or at least BTC. I think its better to pay developers in MSC and to have the foundation hold MSC. It's a lot easier to trust a foundation or company which uses it's own product than the foundation or company which uses some other product internally. Ideally you want developers who really believe in what Mastercoin can become rather than speculators who just want a quick buck. I think it should be MSC or fiat for developers but not BTC, not LTC, or PTS. Imagine how awkward it is if the Bitcoin foundation paid people in Litecoins. |
|
|
|
Let me get this straight, JR won't quit his job unless he's worth $100M,  . After btc rally last week I guess many of us here are already millionaires, real jobs are getting less and less relevant, we should be doing this for passion. Yeah right man lol. I wish I were one of these millionaires. I'm sure some people here have 1000 Bitcoins and good on them if they do. When 100 Mastercoins are worth 1000 Bitcoins a Mastercoin will be at 10:1 to the Bitcoin and even then I don't think most people would sell their Mastercoins. Mastercoins are worth millions each and to sell them now would be in the most simple terms excruciatingly stupid. |
|
|
|
Let me get this straight, JR won't quit his job unless he's worth $100M, . After btc rally last week I guess many of us here are already millionaires, real jobs are getting less and less relevant, we should be doing this for passion. My wife doesn't care one fig about internet money which isn't in our bank account. That's the real hurdle. The other half of the problem is I don't want to sell MSC at today's prices. I think I have found the ideal solution though, which I just posted in David's thread about project money this morning: I think perhaps it is time to convert more of our BTC to MSC. I'd rather have MSC in a rainy day fund than BTC anyway. As you say, giving away BTC attacts people more interested in BTC, and I'd rather the foundation hold MSC than BTC. Here's my crazy proposal: 1) Keep only the 1000 BTC we've already moved into offline wallets 2) Use the remainder of our BTC to purchase MSC over the next few months on the distributed exchange 3) Pay all future bounties exclusively in MSC 4) Keep half of our MSC money for a rainy day and/or future distributed bounty system 5) If our rainy day fund becomes excessive, we can always vote to lower the ratio later I realize that this would potentially make all of our existing investors absurdly wealthy, but, well, the stated purpose of the Mastercoin Foundation is to serve the holders of Mastercoins, and I'm having a hard time seeing this course of action as anything but a huge positive for them, as long as we do it transparently and over a long enough period of time that nobody who wants to sell to us is left out. Also, MSC prices would probably go up to the point where I'd sell 1% and quit my job to work on MSC, which I hope would also be in the best interests of our investors. If you guys think that's a good idea, please go there and help me convince the board that: 1) It's not market manipulation, it's a stock buy-back over a long period of time, with complete transparency 2) It doesn't make MSC more centralized, because we'll be giving this money away in bounties rather quickly Thanks! Interesting plan to ponder upon... I think this would have a much greater effect if there were ways for new money to get into MSC after the buyback process is over. Demand for MSC has to stay high. One mistake I think we shouldn't make is the mistake Bitcoin is making where people believe you can only buy 1 whole BTC at a time. MSC should be priced in such a way that people are most accustomed to buying fractions. So what is the lowest unit of an MSC going to be called? We should give that lowest unit a name and price all Mastercoins in those units on all exchanges which follow the standard. The lowest unit for Bitcoin is a satoshi but the Bitcoin exchanges are making a huge mistake by pricing everything like 1.0 -> 0.0000001 when they should just say it's 100,000,000 satoshi. So if a whole Mastercoin is 100,000,000 units then we need to be selling in the hundreds of millions of units of Mastercoin for psychological purposes. That is my suggestion and I hope people understand the importance this change could have. |
|
|
|
The Mastercoin Foundation asked me to review the candidates and select a "Smart Property Lead / Evangelist". I want to thank all the people that applied for the Mastercoin Foundation Smart Property Lead position. I was glad to talk with each of you individually and hear how passionate you are for contributing to the Mastercoin open source project. After much consideration I've selected Taariq Lewis for the position. Many of you might recognize Taariq from his interview on CCTV. He is passionate about Bitcoin and developing one of the first projects on top of the Mastercoin Protocol smart property feature. Taariq will be serving at the point person for the Smart Property feature in the sense that he will be talking with other developers that want to build on top of the MSC protocol smart property feature, gathering community input, and bridging a dialog between the awesome developers coding it up and those that want to use the feature. Here is his Linkedin profile to see his back ground: www.linkedin.com/in/taariq Preferred channels: Email: taariq.lewis@gmail.com Phone: (646) 479 - 6098 (Yes I asked if I could post these publicly) Thanks again to Taariq for offering his valuable time serving the community in this position. David A. Johnston Mastercoin Foundation Board Member Great news. Congrats Taariq. Thanks for the congrats! I've just spent the last 3 hours reading EVERYTHING on Mastercoin's amazing growth. Wow! Congratulations Taariq! This might be too soon, but I'm interested what are the first/next steps for the near future (e.g. 1-8 weeks)? Also I'd be interested in hearing if you have any thoughts yet on how could you keep us informed on how things are going? I see communication in general as a huge challenge in the Mastercoin program currently; the best way to try to keep yourself up to date on the status is read the 100+ page "Exodus address" thread. This of course is a natural side-effect when you have hardcore engineers running a project, but I wish you'll keep communication towards the community a priority, and set a great example for the other sub-projects. Congrats again! How about an official twitter account for us to follow? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
