If you're not incapable of developing, why you are making random git pulls from BBR and inserting them into XMR without an idea of what the code actually does? Semi-capable might of been a more appropriate word.
I was responding to "slapper" who said: "we all know you are not a developer". There was no "more appropriate word" - he said something, I responded, fin. I have no idea why you're jumping on the bandwagon and misinterpreting my response to him, but hey, it's a free world;)
Actually, How did that gaffe slip past extensive peer-review by a team of no less than seventeen experienced XMR developers?
Unless it wasn't actually reviewed and you have unfettered access to the repo.
The decision was indeed taken by the core team to merge that. As you say, it was a long day, and we were fried.
Why did it take a developer of a competing project to point out your mistake so you can revert it?
It didn't at all. His post on Bitcointalk and the revert are not related. It was caught on #monero-dev (as one would expect when something is pushed to staging and causes an issue) -
[2014-09-24T23:02:33+0200] <otila> 2014-Sep-25 00:01:56.528495 [P2P8]coinbase transaction spend too much money (14.336009159350). Block reward is 14.332489999244(14.130220173955+0.202269825289)
[2014-09-24T23:02:36+0200] <otila> 2014-Sep-25 00:01:56.528601 [P2P8]Block with id: <450775fe7c413c32a6869eac58b074c4b93ae7597d0f11b071a88fc77465ca5e> has incorrect miner transaction
[2014-09-24T23:07:52+0200] <@fluffypony> what distro, otila ?
[2014-09-24T23:08:21+0200] <otila> I am lagged.. fedora 20
[2014-09-24T23:10:16+0200] <otila> it was maybe waiting tcp/53
[2014-09-24T23:11:11+0200] <@fluffypony> that's weird, it should fall back hardcoded seed nodes if it can't get dns seeds
[2014-09-24T23:11:17+0200] <@fluffypony> good use case to test for, though
[2014-09-24T23:12:25+0200] <otila> at least it does not notice if tcp/53 is connection refused
[2014-09-24T23:16:39+0200] <otila> stuck in do_handshake_with_peer when I exit, I get only "[node] Stop signal sent"
[2014-09-24T23:19:59+0200] <@fluffypony> welp
[2014-09-24T23:20:02+0200] <@fluffypony> I see it otila
[2014-09-24T23:20:32+0200] <@fluffypony> guess I'm reverting 014708fe71c1379af281ca9ac17e82c159e98e6dCaught and reverted within 30 minutes of being pushed to staging. It's a mistake, it happens, move on.
However it's a point made by zoidberg that if the XMR developers don't fully understand the commits they are implementing and just add features willy nilly from other project some damage could of been done. Malicous backdoor could of been inserted into the XMR this way.
We've only had the codebase for a few months. A slocount of just the src folder (excluding tests and epee) is 16310 lines of just cpp code. That's over and above the cryptography. It's a lot to grok and come to grips with. Nonetheless, we do not merge commits "willy nilly". This was done in a rush because we *do* respect CZ (which is apparently not mutual), and if he says that there's a major CN bug and is urgently contacting exchanges we are going to see the commit (which appeared to fix a varint overflow issue) and assume that's what he's talking about. You cannot take this single incident in isolation (given the circumstances) and extrapolate out from there.
I see you making not so subtle insinuations that crypto_zoidberg is a glorified code monkey, If it wasn't for CZ there could potentially have a mtgox like situation on our hands with poloniex, you should be more respectful about background works. He has done some hand-holding on a number of occasions and you know it well. I actually checked out your git commits. Majority of them are version bumps, string replaces & single line additions. seems if zoidberg role is code monkey your role is secretarial duties- you are assigned to brush up on the verbiage and misc typos, But I suppose you prefer the role 'architectural visionary' or 'creative director' and consider pushing out code something mostly below you, but something you do to keep you occupied whilst you are having a morning croissant or on the shitter maybe?
I'm pretty sure the majority of my more recent commits are CMake related, so I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.
Someones been practicing their best Jony Ive impression
. I agree with what you said about code volume being a useless metric. Anyone can hire 10 freelancers from bangalore. The only reason it was added to infographic was I heard someone ask if the project was dead due to lack of activity?? So the clear numbers are shown to demonstrate neither projects are stagnating, clearly the fact BBR has less cooks in the kitchen doesn't mean the broth is being cooked slowly, nor is the quality suffering.
That person's obviously an idiot - I don't think BBR is stagnant on any level. I understand why you included it - my response wasn't to you or to the information in the infographic, it was to "slapper" bordering on hero worship because he thinks LOC is an indicator of anything.
True innovation starts with: Taking the time to develop an intimate understanding of the codebase you are working with, so you are unrestricted to expand freely without worry.
When have we had the opportunity to do so? We didn't decide to fork Monero, thankful_for_today did. We ended up with it because thankful_for_today wanted to do stuff the community rejected, and we sort-of fell into it. Had we come together as a group and said "oh hey guys, we should create our own CryptoNote coin" I can fully agree with what you're saying. But that isn't the case and that isn't the situation, so we're incrementally refactoring completely undocumented code, building up an understanding of the cryptography (see the Monero Research Lab publications, for instance), and still adding functionality.
Example: auditing the Proof-of-work so it's not blatantly crippled upon launch. A third party good samaritan had to step in to fix Monero's initial borked code, Hardly inspired confidence in the 'real' team. He had this to say:
The good samaritan that is a member of the Monero core team? I even mentioned he's a member of the Monero core team in my previous post - you must've glossed over that:) In other words, thankful_for_today gave us the blatantly crippled code. When we (the core team, although very much in its infancy and only loosely affiliated at that stage) realised that we fixed it.
That vote was indeed rigged by thankful_for_today and the army of BCN sockpuppets, which is precisely one of the arguments the pro-emission-change users have raised. We (the core team) didn't choose the emission curve. If we don't change it then it is out of respect for the social contract, and not for lack of desire.
True innovation starts with: Designing a novel memory-hard blockchain based Proof-of-work function from scratch that's many times faster than the vanilla cryptonight PoW adopted in XMR, yet provides the same level of ASIC resistance. Something which the Monero developers admittedly tried to deny due to lack of understanding until they were educated
by an authority on the subject BBR synchronized from scratch
20x faster than XMR. The difference will be smaller on usual day with same transaction flow but it's undeniably and provably faster
You're again assuming that we decided to do this from scratch. Nonetheless, inheriting it does not mean we're bound to the PoW. We have already indicated publicly that we are actively pursuing alternatives as a low-to-medium priority.
True innovation starts with: Designing your cryptographic constructs with the future in mind. In an eloquent and frugal way BBR allows the network particpants to not take onboard more than they need to. The blockchain can be easily pruned, drastically reducing bloat. BBR is already a leader in terms of disk footprint- (5x smaller) such feature only serves to increase the gap.
Pruning the ring signatures also means that the older part of the chain can no longer be fully verified. There are additional risks that one can intuit that have driven us away from looking at that as a solution. At this juncture we don't feel the need to deal with the blockchain size, although we will tackle these hard problems before it becomes an issue.
we could go on, BBR baked in alias support, XMR devs dismissed it as a gimmicky feature, now they are adding in Aliases themselves
On the contrary, BBR's aliasing has a host of problems (such as: what if you lose you private key? how can you reclaim your alias, or are you expected to now tell everyone it's changed? and once there are a hundred variants of "Bob", I still need to have an address book that tells me that Bob Simons' alias is bob1982_waffle and Bob John's alias is bob-the-builder...how is that better than just having their actual addresses in my address book? and in both of these events, how is it *any* better than just having the address?) Instead of going with something that had been done, we developed an aliasing system that *every* cryptocurrency can use, including BBR and Bitcoin, that does not have the problems described. Perhaps you'll want to familiarise yourself with it first before assuming we've just "added in aliases" -
https://openalias.orgXMR community balked at the '1% tax' only to find themselves brainstorming for fundraising ideas for development funds now
BBR was built on a concrete foundation. This was a project dreamed up from scratch. Every detail was planned.
BBR is based on the same code as we are. Bugs that affect us typically affect them and vice-versa. It's not dreamed up from scratch on any level. CZ did absolutely create a brand new PoW, and I'm not knocking the work he has done, but he most certainly did not start from the design phase and bring it to fruition.
XMR was not designed from scratch, it was cloned from another questionably shady developer, warts 'n all.
Some of the flaws have been polished out. There will be continued polishing but there are certain aspects such as the poor emission rate which will never be fixed. Because it was not their creation they do not have the luxury of choosing ideal parameters. Therefore it's built on a sandy foundation which is being retroactively strengthened but it will always remain less than ideal.
I disagree - as our understanding of the codebase grows and we continue to incrementally refactor it we will eventually create a polished diamond out of the coal we have.
Maybe part of this is referring to Monero's ongoing work on moving blockchain out of RAM, or the work on outsourcing wireframe mockups to your unreleased, groundbreaking, this-changes-everything GUI that will allow auntie mabel to easily manage her ring-signature based cryptocurrency portfolio
Huh? No. I was using it to demonstrate to slapper that more goes into development than just code, and it denigrates the efforts of those other domain experts if you focus solely on the code monkey(s).
Meanwhile I have tested a fully functional, clean and intuitive GUI released long ago by BBR; introduced without a whole lot of prior fanfare
I have tested and confirmed blockchain.bin dataset has been reduced in real life. The update was just pushed out, not with a ton of hand waving in advance. None of these are 'innovations' which are being slated for future release or hypothesised about in missives. They just get added then moved onto the next.
It's not fanfare to show WIP.
Seems if we make an analogy Monero developers stole brought a phone and now just getting acquainted with learning how to use it as they go,while proclaiming they are masters leading the way whilst BBR developers already clearly familiar with the functions and keep mostly low-key just making updates- not so much talking but the work rate is high. . There is nothing wrong with this but you are liars to imagine you are the only ones innovating in this space.
With XMR all it ever is is 'ongoing work' more premature assured congratulatory self-pats on the back and more hubris eminating from core team. You can smell the superiority complex a mile off with you guys..the air is just thick with smug You seem to believe you've achieved enough critical mass to have won the race before it's even really started. The best part of avoiding the Monero circlejerk not having to deal with a community of insular elitists. You guys embarked on an orchestrated smear campaign to throw every other competing cryptonote coin under the bus and I have some pretty damming evidence including internal conversations implicating some of the more senior XMR community members in what (even to a casual observer with no skin in the game) is undeniably dirty tactics. As someone else put it some of your PR schemes would make goebbels blush. Rest assured I will elaborate on that when the dust starts to settle.
We never said we were the only ones innovating. You've taken my response
which was directed solely at slapper's troll post wherein he insults me and turned it into some sort of attack against BBR. My post was a defence of myself, nothing more. We want to work *with* CZ, not against him, although I am personally saddened and upset by his post that was simultaneously elitist and personally insulting (funny how you seem to see the same qualities in us - I hope your faith in CZ isn't clouding your ability to objectively see that).
