Peercoin.net: Developers

The “Developers” page is now ready for review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10QTxByQvCZjDR8INDqrFJTg5p8HnI7JRV7u8rGYX4So

The covers the planned enhancements for v0.5, plus Peer4Commit as a way for the reader to get involved. Is there anything else that you would like added?

Open to feedback!

Hot wallets are at a greater risk of a virus stealing their coins,
I would say: an attacker or mallware?

Besides that, I really like the text! Great work.

Good feedback, thanks. I have changed “a virus” into “malware.”

Maybe adding a link to the Fazon thread? Or just mentioning this?

Chronos

A few comments on the text:

I like the term “Core Protocol”, but you need to explain that this is the client. Perhaps you could do this by inserting four words (underlined):

“The next edition of the core protocol, version 0.5 of the Peercoin wallet, will contain the following features”

Regarding the Cold Wallet Minting paragraph, I suggest changing “Today” to “Presently” or “Currently”.

In the final sentence, I don’t see a need for the word “entirely”. Offline means offline

Regarding the following pragraph:

Optional Checkpointing
Today, the network uses centralized checkpointing to protect against attacks. The need for this security decreases as the network grows, so the next version will make these checkpoints optional. A future version will entirely turn off checkpoints by default.

I think the second sentence needs further explanation: optional for whom? What are the implications for an individual user who opts out, compared to one who does not?

Regarding the third sentence (“A future version …”), when you say “entirely”, do you mean that checkpoints will be removed? Or merely that all checkpoints will be turned off by default (but that they can be turned on again). If the latter, how does this future version differ to the one described in the second sentence?

Peercoin Ecosystem
Would you like to be paid to get involved in Peercoin development? Now’s your chance!

I feel involvement must come first, so would amend this sentence to: “Would you like to be involved in Peercoin development and get paid for it?”

At the risk of nitpicking, “Here’s your chance!” sounds better to me than “Now’s your chance!”

(I am still not keen on exclamation marks!!!)

“Think up a new project …” sounds a bit colloquial - how about “Devise a new project …”

Thanks for all the feedback, Robert. I’ll integrate it shortly.

I wanted to comment on this:

It seems that much of your feedback reflects on the fact that the proposed content is a bit more colloquial, overall. I sometimes use contractions and exclamation marks, e.g. “You’ll love it!” The most correct and proper writing would never contain this.

So, I want to ask the broader community in general: what level of casual writing would you like in the site? We can make it more formal, as Robert proposes, or more laid-back, keeping a few contractions and exclamation marks.

Thanks for your feedback.

[quote=“RobertLloyd, post:5, topic:2777”]Chronos

A few comments on the text:

I like the term “Core Protocol”, but you need to explain that this is the client. Perhaps you could do this by inserting four words (underlined):

“The next edition of the core protocol, version 0.5 of the Peercoin wallet, will contain the following features”

Regarding the Cold Wallet Minting paragraph, I suggest changing “Today” to “Presently” or “Currently”.

In the final sentence, I don’t see a need for the word “entirely”. Offline means offline

Regarding the following pragraph:

Optional Checkpointing
Today, the network uses centralized checkpointing to protect against attacks. The need for this security decreases as the network grows, so the next version will make these checkpoints optional. A future version will entirely turn off checkpoints by default.

I think the second sentence needs further explanation: optional for whom? What are the implications for an individual user who opts out, compared to one who does not?

Regarding the third sentence (“A future version …”), when you say “entirely”, do you mean that checkpoints will be removed? Or merely that all checkpoints will be turned off by default (but that they can be turned on again). If the latter, how does this future version differ to the one described in the second sentence?

Peercoin Ecosystem
Would you like to be paid to get involved in Peercoin development? Now’s your chance!

I feel involvement must come first, so would amend this sentence to: “Would you like to be involved in Peercoin development and get paid for it?”

At the risk of nitpicking, “Here’s your chance!” sounds better to me than “Now’s your chance!”

(I am still not keen on exclamation marks!!!)

“Think up a new project …” sounds a bit colloquial - how about “Devise a new project …”[/quote]

I agree with most of this feedback. About your questions on the checkpoint opt out, I’m not sure if we know the answers. Has Sunny ever explained any of this? Also, I believe “Create your own project…” sounds better. Should “towards” have an “s” or no?

[quote=“Chronos, post:6, topic:2777”]Thanks for all the feedback, Robert. I’ll integrate it shortly.

I wanted to comment on this:

It seems that much of your feedback reflects on the fact that the proposed content is a bit more colloquial, overall. I sometimes use contractions and exclamation marks, e.g. “You’ll love it!” The most correct and proper writing would never contain this.

So, I want to ask the broader community in general: what level of casual writing would you like in the site? We can make it more formal, as Robert proposes, or more laid-back, keeping a few contractions and exclamation marks.

Thanks for your feedback.[/quote]

I think it’s ok to keep a laid-back feel, but we need to keep some level of professionalism. For example, this sticky thread that FuzzyBear has in the Welcome Board is funny to me, but I’ll still be removing and rewriting it because we need to present a certain professional image. I think maybe there needs to be a balance.

Haha, that post is definitely casual! I’m sure RobertLloyd would have a thing or two to say if I wrote the entire site in that manner. :))

Yes, we need to put Fazon between core development and peer4commit. Maybe we shouldn’t use the name Fazon, but have a title that says “Help us Map Out the Peercoin Ecosystem” or something like that. We should link to the Fazon thread and the interactive development map when Peerchemist finally has it up. Maybe this could all be added in later when it’s ready.

One other thing, I believe Peer 4 commit is only one word, like Peer4commit. I’ve never seen anybody separate it like that before.

“Add later” is what I was thinking. Fazon is really new, and just now getting mapped out, so I’m not sure if it would be a useful resource for new visitors (yet). Peer4Commit is nice to promote, because the projects already have funding, which motivates devs to jump in. Perhaps we should add Fazon when funding starts to come in for it.

I can go either way on this, whichever people prefer.

All feedback on the written portion is now integrated, which lead to a few small changes. The document is now up-to-date.

I had not noticed that post by Fuzzy - I shall get onto him straight away

It’s Peer4commit, not Peer4Commit.

Use lowercase for units.

Example: “I have 200 peercoins that I hope will be enough to buy me a private jet when Peercoin has reached the moon.”

Cheers!

[quote=“jooize, post:15, topic:2777”]It’s Peer4commit, not Peer4Commit.

Use lowercase for units.

Example: “I have 200 peercoins that I hope will be enough to buy me a private jet when Peercoin has reached the moon.”

Cheers![/quote]
Thanks. I’ve integrated both of these suggestions.

Requested changes have been included and will be published in Revision v3.5 of the Peercoin.net project.

...because the spending keys cannot be kept encrypted during the minting process.

Is this correct? I thought that the reason it is less secure is simply because a hot wallet is online and so obviously more open to attack.

Edit: To clarify, I mean is it the primary reason for greater risk of malware? I’m wondering if it could be phrased better, at the moment it makes it sound like you can’t keep your wallet encrypted.

Also, it is only a minor thing, but it might be better to say things are “planned” for future releases, rather than saying they “will” be in them.

Is it possible to get a response to the above post, or has this page already been finalized or something? I just don’t really agree with implying wallets can’t be encrypted on a promotional page. If it is a problem, then it should be linked to a full explanation in a wiki or somewhere, not just a single sentence that can be interpreted in any manner.

River, I do currently believe the spending keys cannot be kept encrypted during the minting process. As I understand it, Unlock for Minting Only does protect against another person walking up to the computer and withdrawing the coins, but I think malware that is running in memory on the device could still read the private keys.

Is this correct?