You are apparently oblivious to your implicit assumption that an honest dev is also, apparently by magic, a capable dev. Open Source isn't about the dev's integrity, it's about being able to ascertain the correctness of the implementation. No-one of consequence gives a monkey's fart about whether the dev is as straight as a die or as crooked as a corkscrew, it's all about whether the code does the job it's supposed to.

That's risibly simplistic, you are clearly unaware of the nonsensical nature of your argument. You need to address your profound unfamiliarity with the domain of FOSS licencing, only then will you be in a position to mount a coherent argument. I suggest you start with the wikipedia entry for FOSS.

I presume you are referring to Dan Metcalfe. I've no idea why you chose to introduce that irrelevance but I regret to advise you that you've strayed well out of your depth and that has led you to make unforced errors:

1. I'll thank you not to insult my intelligence by offering me a vacuous guarantee that you patently have no means of securing.

2. Your choice of offensively patronising tone is unfortunate, it lends a keen irony to the fact that you have just embarrassed yourself, assuming you have any such sensibility. Earlier today I submitted a PR containing several fixes to the BlockNet code that had apparently slipped atcsecure's notice: https://github.com/atcsecure/blocknet/pull/2.

3. I'll leave you to reconcile the above fact with your claim of brilliance.

We can continue this discussion after you've acquired some basic factual knowledge about FOSS principles and practice.

Cheers

Graham

I've been working on a possible scorecard, just for sh*ts and giggles:

http://minkiz.co/posting/


Cheers

Graham

https://github.com/bitwhitehat/bitr/blob/master/INSTALL <- Orthocoin? Really?

You probably want to address the hard-coded Orthocoin stake modifier checkpoint that you neglected to change:

https://github.com/OrthoCoin/orthocoin/blob/master/src/kernel.cpp#L20
https://github.com/bitwhitehat/bitr/blob/master/src/kernel.cpp#L20

and fix the string length error that you introduced:
https://github.com/bitwhitehat/bitr/blob/master/src/qt/guiutil.cpp#L132


Cheers

Graham

I set up something more concise and (I hope) thought-provoking; it is the latter that is the main objective, as it has be done on a case-by-case basis.

DYR-scored checklist:

http://minkiz.co/posting/

Observations, corrections, loud hoots of laughter, all welcome.


Cheers

Graham

Indeed. I'd be very surprised if it were otherwise.

“The model is based on physical principles of electrical current flow and implements insights from the function of the neural networks of the brain to create a unique ecosystem where information is directed to where it will be appreciated and utilized well.”

Don't tell me, let me guess - you revitalised the dilithium crystals by re-routing the primary energy conduit through the secondary phase frequency transformer, dintcha?

Cheers

Graham

And that's precisely what we see: incoherent waffle and confused hyperbole larded with weasel words. Allow me to illustrate ...

Stopping briefly to acknowledge an insult to the reader's intelligence ...

“Downloading and installing a cryptocurrency should not require a degree in computer science.” News at 10 ... it doesn't.

... we carry on to the “Marketing” section which contains some ill-concealed wriggling around to avoid making an actual commitment to spend fiat ...

These two media require fiat:
“Placing ads in technology and financial related magazines will allow us” <- no specific commitment
“Radio advertising will provide us” <- no specific commitment

These two don't:
“At least two press releases will be issued each month” <- countable
“We will conduct monthly webinars and offline workshops” <- countable

What's amusing is that it's just so obvious. In places, it even drifts off into pure fantasy:

Irrespective of anything to do with leopards and spots, the text in the ANN is worryingly vague about important commitments. Personally, I would expect any new-leafer to take great pains to demonstrate their newly-claimed trustworthiness by being absolutely crystal-clear about exactly what investors will get in return for their money. Not the case here, perhaps old habits die hard.

Cheers

Graham

Sorry, I posted the issue as soon as I learned of it.


It's a p2p network with an existing community, so I guess you mean “work with the community on further development” rather than “dictate the future movement”.

Cheers

Graham

Useful contribution, ta muchly.


There's some fuzziness here and a bit of imaginative reconstruction. According to the author's narrative, this was after Bitcoin had been launched but before any altcoin was. Altcoin as a category label is an acknowledged abbreviation of “alternative-to-Bitcoin”, so we're being invited to believe that somehow they were called altcoins before the phenomenon actually occurred.

My jaundiced view is that “reasonably assumed” == “never actually examined the assumptions” and the flowering of a profusion of altcoins was a surprise only to cryptographers.

Bitcoin, as the author observes, isn't a pure cryptographic cryptosystem, it overcomes some specific practical limitations of cryptography by borrowing from economic models of behaviour in order to present a candidate practical implementation of a complete cryptosystem. The introduction of economic models of behaviour has had two consequences. Firstly, cryptography is no longer high priest but CTO to economics' CFO. Secondly, the gap between the disciplinary boundaries allows the emergence of differences in disciplinary opinion and challenges to the pertinent underpinning assumptions of both.

The stage is set: finding another goldfield workable tradeoff between the crypto and the economics could potentially be as lucrative, if not more so, than Bitcoin; everyone knows the broad area where gold is likely to be discovered such a tradeoff might be found but the precise location implementable values are as yet unknown; mining equipment is readily available; exploration costs can be shared, defrayed or even turned into a profitable venture via any number of previously-developed get rich quick business schemes.

Interesting read.

Cheers

Graham

No, I didn't get that. Thanks for enlightening me, it reduces the inexplicability of the choice.

Cheers

Graham

Updated.

http://minkiz.co/exchange

Cheers

Graham

I find it useful to keep reminding myself that the map is not the territory and the bitcointalk/github account is not the person.

Co-incidentally, I encountered some interesting relevant info, thought I'd write it up and share it with the discussants here ...

BlockNet is a straightforwardly-rebranded git clone of BitSwift. By “straightforwardly-rebranded”, I mean that, apart from some minimal changes to parameters, the rest of the changes are to the strings carrying the coin's name. This string replacement is often crude, fuzzily focused and inadequately constrained.

Fuzzy focus in BlockNet revealing BitSwift origin https://github.com/atcsecure/blocknet/blob/master/COPYING#L1

The current construction of BlockNet's heritage trail as AGS, DRM, HACK is incomplete and should read BITSWIFT, AGS, DRM, HACK

As a cloneparent, BitSwift itself is a straightforwardly-rebranded git clone of AegisCoin, as revealed by the dog's breakfast that the AegisCoin dev has made of the original carsenk <spit> clone with s/DRM/AGS/g and which, like a treasured family heirloom, has been faithfully preserved all the way down to the BlockNet code:

Example of inadequate constraint inherited from inept ancestor dev https://github.com/atcsecure/blocknet/blob/master/src/addrman.cpp#L9

AegisCoin itself is a clone of DreamCoin, a Carsen Keck <spit> device. The original carsenk <spit> github repo is long gone but I made a fork at the time and the code testifies that the Korean hackcoin dev (who, to give him his due, had successfully created a “best-of” coin which is still prized today) was justified in accusing Carsen Keck <spit> of crass ineptitude:

https://github.com/gjhiggins/dreamcoin/blob/master/COPYING

BlockNet, presented for ICO in Nov 2014, is basically a degraded copy of 6 month-old hackcoin and the identifiable descendants that populate the family tree have all turned out to be black sheep. Using this foul heritage as a foundational codebase for an ambitious project is an inexplicably odd choice for a reputedly savvy dev.

It may be that the choice of initial commit is irrelevant - some devs adopt the tactic of simply obliterating the original commit with a later monolithic commit or even ignoring the open source code entirely and pursuing a V2.0-binary-only release policy, spuriously argued as aimed at protecting IP.


Cheers

Graham

Yes. A two-condition rule: one post a month or, after a longer period, an enquiring “Hey dev, is this coin dead?” post receives a response within a week.

The Chaincoin dev's post history is a good example of why the existing rule #1 is unrealistic in practice.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=198935;sa=showPosts

Mooncoin is a classic example of absentee dev and live coin where rule #1 is mostly irrelevant.


It's not all that different for a coin without a premine, as many devs of zero-premine coins will tell you.

Cheers

Graham

... 19 days elapse ...


Rule #1 holds devs to make at least one posting a week.  “unfortunately just now I have less  time for do that” and 19 days between posts suggests that you might want to consider relaxing the time constraint now that you have discovered for yourself that it is rather unrealistic.

Cheers

Graham
 

First things first, indeed, sigh.


Cheers

Graham
 

Pool? Dunno about pools. Is OShBit still running one?

Difficulty is only 0.04131510, could mine from the wallet.


Cheers

Graham

fwiw, I have a Chaincoin block explorer on:

http://minkiz.co/abe/ (summary, # of coins)

http://minkiz.co/abe/chain/chaincoin (recently-mined blocks)


Cheers

Graham

You, as a club member whose identity I can rely on, can tell me, (as another club member), that you control the S4VV4S bcttalk a/c. I would have little reason to doubt that as a fact and even less reason to promulgate it.


I'll stick around, sure but I reckon that the group will struggle for coherence while the objectives are so vague (“some sort of brotherhood or fellowship or some masonic group about bitcoins or cryptocurrencies”) and there's a consequent lack of clarity of vision. The end result is that people are uncertain about precisely what they're signing up to.

The notion of primacy=rank and an exclusive set of “founders” is fatally flawed as it will effectively ossify the incumbents in place. Any properly egalitarian group would start from a single status (member), have an initial vote to determine the club officers and be able to rely on a well-defined process for progressing through the ranks for those who join later and have the inclination to do so. A group needs to be at least capable of fluidity in order to be able to accommodate the inevitable changes in the collective requirements of the membership.

We used to be members of Bristol Corinthian Yacht Club, they've been around since the 1930s and, in common with many small, organic, semi-formal groups, they have a set of documented procedures for easing the flow of people in and out of positions of responsibility.

I'd be quite surprised if there isn't a richesse of sources of templates for setting up and administering online groups, which basically already embody a set of best practices for the task.

The main issue for me is the lack of clarity of objectives and a certain lack of purpose; it seems to have developed more along the lines of “Hey, we could start a club” as opposed to “Hmm, we really need to set up an objective group that can foster users' interests by making supported, canonical pronouncements on best practices in a variety of operational aspects of cryptocurrency” (as an overly verbose example off the top of my head).

I recommend starting with the construction of a manifesto that describes plainly and clearly the aims of the group and what people can expect from membership. We constructed one for us and our clients and found it to be a challenging but ultimately satisfying exercise: http://www.higginsandmacfarlane.net/manifesto

Cheers

Graham

The pseudonymous account that we engaged with last month could have been sold and be under the ownership of an entirely different person today. This awareness does moderate the degree of my interaction with other bcttalk subscribers.

The rules should state that pseudonyms are unacceptable and that applications for membership will only be considered if a verifiable real world name, address and contact details are provided.

Not that I expect anyone to care but I wouldn't even consider being a member otherwise. We're business professionals so we publish our full contact details and VAT registration number, not just because EU consumer regs specify it but primarily because we respect the intelligence of our clients, current and prospective.

http://minkiz.co
http://www.higginsandmacfarlane.net
http://www.higginsandmacfarlane.com


Cheers

Graham

Drop the pseudonyms.


Cheers

Graham

Clueless ANN poster forgot what units he used (VOLC, not VOLK):

https://github.com/Volcanocoin/volcanocoin-master/blob/master/src/qt/bitcoinunits.cpp#L37

The distinctive spelling error is revealing:

“is a new crypto currency with the following Specifiactions;”

https://github.com/search?q=%22with+the+following+Specifiactions%22&ref=searchresults&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93

Another candidate for the Minkiz annual “Hapless dev of the Year” award, 1st prize - a github a/c with a ready-forked Bitcoin Core 0.9 and a heavy slap round the back of the head accompanied by a vigorous community chorus of “Put some bloody effort into it, sunshine.”


Cheers

Graham