[MF] Paper Wallet Tutorial Video

Super3, this is a good idea. What video topics do you have in mind?

[quote=“river333, post:11, topic:2982”]Maybe a way to avoid confusion with this is to add a note to the submission template such as: “If your proposal is directly related to an existing project, for example those already funded on http://peer4commit.com/projects, then please contact the developer(s) of that project before applying to the marketing fund.”

So in this case, Chronos could contact super3 and TheWildHorse, and/or FuzzyBear if he wants the guide+video on wallet.peercointalk.org instead. If they are in favor then they should be willing to discuss payment for it out of their own funds.

If they are not in favor of it, then Chronos could decide whether to return to ask the marketing fund. The community voting would now be much better informed about the situation and may still choose to fund it if they feel it is worth it, being aware that it may not be published on the website.[/quote]
FuzzyBear and TWH have not responded to PMs. Super3 looks not to be in favor of this project. Therefore, I propose that we move forward with discussion and voting as a [MF] marketing proposal. Open to everyone’s thoughts.

Thanks!

I don’t fully understand the position regarding the website fund - cannot Super3 be swayed by a community consensus?

If for any reason that is not possible, I agree that we should move forward under the Marketing Fund

I think that this is a problem that may keep occurring. We could have a situation where many things, possibly not strictly related to marketing, are submitted to this fund just because it is easier, while other funds that are probably more suited remain idle. The system we have for updating peercoin.net seems to work well for big updates such as the recent overhaul, but isn’t great for smaller updates such as this.

Anyway, Chronos, if we do end up using the marketing fund, maybe the proposal should be updated to make it clear that it will not be published on the website? Also, do you think the page of content is still beneficial if it will not be displayed anywhere? Thanks

Yes, the content would still be beneficial, but less so. The video could certainly still be used as a tool for educating new Peercoin users. However, it would be most effective if also hosted on the website.

The current Peercoin.net wallet page at http://peercoin.net/wallet has a link to a paper wallet generator, but it jumps to another website without explaining how to use this style of wallet. Adding the proposed video to this part of the website would go a long way towards making paper wallets feel safe and reliable to new users.

River, I don’t follow this - which website? Peercoin.net or wallet.peercointalk.org?

As I see it, there are three options:

a) the current wallet page (with the four wallet options) has a link to wallet.peercointalk.org. The new text and video is added to wallet.peercointalk.org

b) the current wallet page (with its four wallet options) has a link to a new dedicated paper wallet page (within peercoin.net) which houses the new text, video and link to wallet.peercointalk.org

c) recreate the wallet.peercointalk.org interface on a page in peercoin.net

I assume c) is not being considered, so it is either a) or b). I prefer b), with a return link on wallet.peercointalk.org back to peercoin.net (“For information on creating and using your paper wallet, click here”)

Honestly I see another option where a link to the video is provided on both peercoin.net and wallet.peercointalk.org.
But that is not the issue. The issue is which fund is appropriate as both pages have their own funds but are not interested or run quiet which is a bit dissappointing.
The question is now should we default to having this paid by the Marketing Fund. We are getting a bit of so called scope creep here.

The only way to find out is just to start the voting OR voice our concerns to the people concerned (super3 and FuzzyBear) and hope on a response.
There is another option I’m not too keen on at this stage and that is setting up a competing fund for peercoin.net based on the same governance principles as the Marketing Fund.

Hi, Cybnate

I feel certain in myself that, if we have paper wallet video/text, the only consideration in deciding its location is what is best for it. If we put it in the “wrong” location because it is the “right” fund, then we compromise the objective

However, I do not think this is actually the issue. Although it is clear that the website fund should be for improvements to peercoin.net, it does not conversely follow that the marketing fund is for wallet.peercointalk.org

Whether the paper wallet video/text goes on peercoin.net or wallet.peercointalk.org does not make it any more (or less) a tool of marketing

So, the question as to which fund, and which page, are separate topics

I accept the principle of not using the marketing fund for using something that is not (arguably) marketing - if you and River feel that the video/text is not within the remit of the marketing fund, then the marketing fund should not be used. It is not resolved by moving the video/text to wallet.peercointalk.org, since the purpose of the video/text will not have changed

I noticed that, a few posts ago, Chronos expressed interest in some of super3’s more technical pages, so perhaps a quid pro quo could be suggested? Chronos could agree super3’s ideas so long as super3’s supports Chronos’ idea? A balanced use of the website fund between technical and layman’s pages would seem a very desirable approach

If that fails, we can discuss again the Marketing Fund

P.S. Keep in mind that super3’s delay in replying may be simply because he is snowed under with Storj.

Hi all, sorry for my delay in replying on this thread had a few internet issues but having just done some work on http://wallet.peercointalk.org I feel this proposal is a great idea as I have been PM’d recently by a new peercoin user on the differences between wallets listed on peercoin.net.

I feel a video explaining the differences between a paper wallet generated from http://wallet.peercointalk.org/ and a wallet from running the Peercoin client and how to set up a paper wallet would be a great start.

I feel the http://wallet.peercointalk.org/ offers more than just a paper wallet though now and features like BIP38 Encryption, printing out wallets, pdf exports, merchant bulk wallets etc are some additional features that need explaining and showing how to use.

I feel there should be a link to http://wallet.peercointalk.org/ on peercoin.net and a link just below to the video explaining paper wallets on http://wallet.peercointalk.org/ but no more really on peercoin.net, funds on peercoin.net should not really need to be used / needed for this.

A link to the video should be added to http://wallet.peercointalk.org/ and through the course of working out the video and playing with http://wallet.peercointalk.org/ I would hope the video author or people who use the site will make suggestions for more explanatory text to be added to http://wallet.peercointalk.org/ and this can be done in commits directly to the repo or people can PM me text and I can look to add it in / start a thread here and help improve http://wallet.peercointalk.org/ more as the site is offered in multiple languages and the video I take it will only be made in English.

Fuzzybear

Thanks for your response. I think I agree that it would only be a link on the peercoin.net website and therefore not really appropriate for the peercoin.net fund to support this.

However there is also a wallet generator fund here: http://peer4commit.com/projects/3 looked after by yourself.
Wouldn’t it be appropriate to fund the instruction video for this wallet generator as proposed from this fund?

[quote=“Cybnate, post:29, topic:2982”]However there is also a wallet generator fund here: http://peer4commit.com/projects/3 looked after by yourself.
Wouldn’t it be appropriate to fund the instruction video for this wallet generator as proposed from this fund?[/quote]
That is kind of what I am driving at when I say "more explanatory text to be added to http://wallet.peercointalk.org/ " I feel that the video / thread discussions will come up with some better text and user experience results that will require an update of the main website, and additional translations added etc thus the project funds at http://peer4commit.com/projects/3 will be used for those updates.

To fund the video completely from the funds I am reluctant to do so as I thought that was what the marketing fund / proposal was for? The funds on the Peer4commit project are for the code development primarily imo. As this proposal is very specific to the site I am happy to see some of the funds on peer4commit used to support the project, but it is my opinion that as a result from the video’s discussion I will be receiving pull requests for updates to the text or wording etc on the site. This will suddenly make the video look dated or out of date hence my initial feeling that the video should be clarifying the different types of wallets you can use, an explanation of paper wallets leads the peercoin user to the site http://wallet.peercointalk.org where you can generate many different types of wallets. There are other wallets out there (I am working on the Peercoin Armory wallet at the moment) and those may need a video explaining them and what they are.

I think there are 2 things here.
1 What is the wallet
2 How to use / setup the wallet

The problem we have is this… Code is maintained, updated and how would the video be? say if brain wallets actually turned out to not be reliable at all anymore and was removed or a new type of wallet added? (split wallet was recently added to http://wallet.peercointalk.org for example) how does the video get edited then? Video’s are great for bringing some clarity to the user in their experience on the site but I feel that the site should be more self explanatory if people are not sure how to use the wallets and hence content should be added directly to the site as it is. This way the site is updated with most recent info, allowing ease for multiple languages to be added etc etc .

That said though if you are having trouble raising funds for the video or conflicting interest in the use of funds from the marketing fund then you are only after 200 ppc or so, so I am sure we can use some funds from the project or sort out something.

Fuzzybear

I agree that is good to provide more explanatory text on the wallet website itself. A video is surely limited in flexibility, but when scoped clearly it will be clear what it cover and what not. When something new becomes very popular it can added later as a separate video or some text instructions can be provided alongside the video or edited in.

Regarding the focus is that we are trying to sell Peercoin as a coin. Instructions and manuals for specific services is a bit of a grey area when it goes beyond how to use a standard wallet.
As these are specific kinds of wallets and attractive for a wider group I’m ok to propose a 50/50 deal between MF and development fund as we have done before for the website. Keen to hear what @river333 thinks about that.

Also interested to hear @chronos his thoughts around providing more text based instructions alongside the video. What does it mean for the cost etc.? And also some feedback regarding the proposed increase the scope of the video to all the wallets types available even if it is only mentioning them where they could be used for and what the advantages and disadvantages are.

Personally I would also like to see a bounty built into this proposal for the subtitles in the video for e.g. top 8 languages (or at least the languages now available on wallet.peercointalk.org). But maybe I’m overasking now.

So am I correct in saying that the consensus seems to be to simply have links on both websites that link directly to the video on youtube?

If that is the case, then if the proposal is updated to reflect this then we can possibly start voting.

Basically the problem I had with this proposal was that it states its goal as being to create content for peercoin.net. I don’t think it makes sense for the marketing fund to be used to create content or develop things for other projects. This just makes it complicated because the leaders of other projects may not be in agreement with these changes, as was actually the result in this case. Hypothetically, if I wanted to make changes to Peerbox for example, I wouldn’t submit a proposal here without consulting peerchemist, I would go directly to them to ask first.

If the proposal is for something independent of other projects, then sure, it can be submitted to the marketing fund. So if Chronos changes the proposal to make it clear that it is simply to create a video on paper wallets, but removes the parts where it says that is being created for peercoin.net, then I don’t have a problem with it.

A couple thoughts:

Fuzzybear is very wise to bring concerns about a video going out of date. Once a video is produced, it is quite difficult to make changes to it. If it later needs to be significantly updated, a better route would most likely be to produce it again. However, if we prepare the scope carefully, the content will hopefully be relevant for a long time.

The original [MF] project quote (for $210) is for the following content. I specifically chose this scope because it is the primary use case of the average newcomer to Peercoin.

[quote=“Chronos, post:1, topic:2982”][ul][li]How to use http://wallet.peercointalk.org/ to create a Peercoin paper wallet[/li]
[li]How to load a paper wallet by sending Peercoins to its public key[/li]
[li]How to redeem the private key from a paper wallet using Peerunity[/li]
[li]Best practices for the use of paper wallets[/li][/ul][/quote]

It sounds like we have a lot of other potential content, such as BIP38 encryption/decryption, brain wallets, split wallets, merchant bulk wallets, vanity wallets, etc.

Putting all of this various functionality into one video might be overkill for the viewer. Imagine, as a new user, that you want to learn about Peercoin brain wallets, best practices when using them, and how to spend PPC from them. Would you rather watch a 5-minute video covering exactly what you want to know, or jump to the middle of a 30-minute paper-wallet lecture? To me, the former is definitely more approachable and user-friendly.

This makes me think that we should perhaps produce multiple videos, as follows (with my bid for each video):

[ul][li]Paper wallets w/BIP38 (the current proposal updated to include BIP38) $220[/li]
[li]Vanity wallets $80[/li]
[li]Brain wallets and best practices when using them $100[/li]
[li]Split wallets $80[/li]
[li]Merchant bulk wallets & how to use them (moderate length) $220[/li][/ul]

Each of these videos could be linked to or embedded from wallet.peercointalk.org, so a 50/50 split between the walletgenerator fund and the marketing fund makes sense to me.

The quality of the videos would be similar to those already on peercoin.net. Open to everyone’s thoughts.

I’m not sure, maybe if Fuzzybear and others think this is the best option, but I’m not keen on doing this everytime. It might be better to come up with some rules instead of having this problem repeating itself.

I have been thinking it might be a good idea to revisit Peerkaizen’s translation department idea: http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=3180.0

If someone is willing to manage it, we could have a dedicated fund that covers all the different things that can be translated. At the moment this process is too decentralized, it might be more efficient centralized :))

[quote=“Chronos, post:33, topic:2982”]This makes me think that we should perhaps produce multiple videos, as follows (with my bid for each video):

[ul][li]Paper wallets w/BIPS32 (the current proposal updated to include BIP32) $220[/li]
[li]Vanity wallets $80[/li]
[li]Brain wallets and best practices when using them $100[/li]
[li]Split wallets $80[/li]
[li]Merchant bulk wallets & how to use them (moderate length) $220[/li][/ul][/quote]

Just curious how you are coming up with these quotes. What are the expenses, or is it to compensate your time? How do you measure that?

[quote=“river333, post:35, topic:2982”][quote=“Chronos, post:33, topic:2982”]This makes me think that we should perhaps produce multiple videos, as follows (with my bid for each video):

[ul][li]Paper wallets w/BIPS32 (the current proposal updated to include BIP32) $220[/li]
[li]Vanity wallets $80[/li]
[li]Brain wallets and best practices when using them $100[/li]
[li]Split wallets $80[/li]
[li]Merchant bulk wallets & how to use them (moderate length) $220[/li][/ul][/quote]

Just curious how you are coming up with these quotes. What are the expenses, or is it to compensate your time? How do you measure that?[/quote]
The quotes are based on my time to research, outline, film, and edit each video. In general, the length of the video is the leading factor in determining the price.

The first video is this current proposal being discussed at $210, plus $45 to include BIP32, minus $35 because the written website content has been moved out of scope. The other four videos are ideas for consideration, depending on Fuzzybear’s plans for the wallet generator.

I think we have a proposal worth voting for.

@Chronos would you care to integrate the latest additions into the OP before we start voting?
Regarding the funding; the assumption is that we do a 50/50 deal with @Fuzzybear’s wallet fund.

I have updated the opening post to remove the website content portion, and to add BIP38 encryption/decryption, as discussed. The proposed work now consists solely of the video production, which can be embedded or linked to from either the website or the wallet generator (or both). The final version of the proposal is quoted below. I believe we are ready for voting. Thank you!

[quote=“Chronos, post:1, topic:2982”]Contact Information
I am Chronos on Peercointalk. You can reach me by PM on this forum, or by email at chronos.crypto at gmail dot com.

Submission date
Tuesday, Oct 14th, 2014.

Summary
Produce a tutorial video for the recommended steps to create and consume Peercoin paper wallets from http://wallet.peercointalk.org.

Details
The current Peercoin.net wallet page at http://peercoin.net/wallet has a link to a paper wallet generator, but it jumps to another website without explaining how to use this style of wallet. I propose to improve this abrupt transition by producing a video to cover the use of paper wallets.

The proposed video walks the user through the following:

[ul][li]How to use http://wallet.peercointalk.org/ to create a Peercoin paper wallet, including BIP38 encryption[/li]
[li]How to load a paper wallet by sending Peercoins to its public key[/li]
[li]How to use http://wallet.peercointalk.org/ to decrypt a paper wallet that has been encrypted with BIP38 encryption[/li]
[li]How to redeem the private key from a paper wallet using Peerunity[/li]
[li]Best practices for the use of paper wallets[/li][/ul]

The need for this content came to my attention when reading this recent Reddit post, in which a website visitor was unable to find this information on the Peercoin.net website. I believe that the addition of this tutorial video would improve the Peercoin.net website.

Target audience
All visitors to Peercoin.net who are interested in learning more about secure, long-term storage of Peercoins.

Budget
The bid for this project is $220, with the funds source split 50/50 between the Marketing Fund and the Peer4Commit WalletGenerator fund controlled by FuzzyBear.

Deadlines
Content and video will be completed no less than ten (10) days after voting is concluded.

Metrics
No specific metrics are tied to the completion of this project.

Funds management
Payment for this project can be sent to the Chronos Crypto account at Peer4Commit.

Thank you for your consideration![/quote]

Chronos

An excellent proposal. I notice that you have added BIP38 encryption to the main video, rather than a separate one. Originally, you were against its inclusion - can you say what changed your opinion?

Should your deadline say: not “more” than ten days (you say “less”). It is important that you have sufficient time

I vote: yes

I vote yes :slight_smile: