Re: [PROJECT] "#Fazon" for development boost

Protocol
21

[quote=“peerchemist, post:20, topic:2726”][quote=“pillow, post:19, topic:2726”]Name
Descriptive and unique.
Lightweight Multi-platform Peercoin Wallet

Summary
Max 3 sentences.
Develop and deploy a secure Peercoin wallet that can be used on multiple platforms. The purpose is to provide the means to safely spend and receive peercoins with focus on ease of use.

Links
peer4commit or similar.

Description
Concise explanation or url with documentation.
Develop and make available, a wallet that programmed in HTML5. Keys should be generated (from seed) and stored locally. The application should be lightweight and not communicate directly with the network. Instead the application should use trusted nodes to do the heavy lifting. The idea is to create a wallet that is very easy to start using even for the novice user, unfamiliar to crypto currencies.

Benefit for community
Max one paragraph.
By making it easier and more available for new and existing users to transact in peercoins, we think this could help drive adoption.

Usage example
If not applicable leave empty.
User hears about Peercoin for the first time, is provided a link and a few seconds later has a wallet ready to be used.

Known blockers
If unknown leave empty.

Requirements and dependencies
Provide links when appropriate.
Requires access to a trusted Peercoin node API. Depends on Pycoin (http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=3201.msg30379#msg30379).

Prior work
What differentiates this from similar things? Provide links when appropriate.
To our knowledge, there are no other multi-platform wallets for Peercoin. There are many such wallets for Bitcoin, which could be used for inspiration. Electrum and Hive in particular, because they provide solutions for light-weight wallets and locally secured data.

Estimated cost or man hours
If unknown leave empty.

Additional comment
Please make sure it doesn’t fit under the headers above first.
If possible, add support for Peershares.[/quote]

I nominate this as final. This is how template for submission should look like.

Thanks pillow.[/quote]

Cool. :slight_smile:

If someone have any objections, please let it be known now so we can move ahead.

Now we have a template, an example of a “step” (pycoin) and a “goal” (wallet) (though that terms has been deprecated).

I guess the next step is to create a main index list that links all of the submissions . I think @peerchemist already did a good job at describing what the purpose (http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=3201.msg30164#msg30164) was, so maybe what’s left is to add a small HowTo submit guide and the acceptance process. Things like that.

Right?

EDIT: After that a possible way forward is to 1) generate the overview map and then 2) nominate an admin/manager 3) launching the thing by creating an official thread 4) getting people involved.

22

Maybe change the title “Description” to “Full Description.”

Also, should we create Peer4commit projects for each submission accepted into the main index thread? The donation pages would all be linked under the appropriate project listing in the main thread so investors could donate PPC to any project they find interesting. And if a developer comes along and completes a project in the list, they would win the entire reward. Or is there a better way to do this?

23

Done (changed in the version above)

I don’t know. I do think that a peer4commit project shouldn’t have to be mandatory for the submission. Either proposal is submitted first or peer4commit project is created and then project appear here?

24

[quote=“Sentinelrv, post:22, topic:2726”]Maybe change the title “Description” to “Full Description.”

Also, should we create Peer4commit projects for each submission accepted into the main index thread? The donation pages would all be linked under the appropriate project listing in the main thread so investors could donate PPC to any project they find interesting. And if a developer comes along and completes a project in the list, they would win the entire reward. Or is there a better way to do this?[/quote]

Well, first maintainers of the project should map all the submissions. With all the relevant data, so each can be presented to investors.

Problem is, if developers accepts some project… who would control it? It is possible that someone cheats on the project by taking the funds and takes the funds without any work. Projects can then be stuck in limbo where money is thrown at them and no work is done.

So I think best would be to allocate all the funds in single peer4commit project and then make payments from it to each individual completed project. Just like Marketing fund. So developers receive the money after work is done.

25

One other thing, there might be cases where we have technologies that we need but are not possible to run through peer4commit (that’s why I called the label Linkes “peer4commit or similar”).

26

I don’t understand. How can developers steal funds from Peer4commit if the person maintaining the roadmap index thread is also the person creating and controlling Peer4commit donation pages? It would be up to the thread maintainer to ensure that a development project has been completed and properly tested and working before giving out any rewards that were donated to that specific project.

I have to note that development is not my area, so I don’t know how complex something like this would be. It’s mainly the reason why I haven’t been that involved in this thread, besides time limitations. I fully support it though. Creating this roadmap is very important for all the reasons you listed in the original post.

27

[quote=“peerchemist, post:24, topic:2726”][quote=“Sentinelrv, post:22, topic:2726”]Maybe change the title “Description” to “Full Description.”

Also, should we create Peer4commit projects for each submission accepted into the main index thread? The donation pages would all be linked under the appropriate project listing in the main thread so investors could donate PPC to any project they find interesting. And if a developer comes along and completes a project in the list, they would win the entire reward. Or is there a better way to do this?[/quote]

Well, first maintainers of the project should map all the submissions. With all the relevant data, so each can be presented to investors.

Problem is, if developers accepts some project… who would control it? It is possible that someone cheats on the project by taking the funds and takes the funds without any work. Projects can then be stuck in limbo where money is thrown at them and no work is done.

So I think best would be to allocate all the funds in single peer4commit project and then make payments from it to each individual completed project. Just like Marketing fund. So developers receive the money after work is done.[/quote]

I’ve been thinking a little here. I kind of view this thing we’re doing here as not being a peer4commit overview map. On the contrary its a supplemental map over how different technologies depend on each other and what the purpose of those are. I could be a way for investors to find peer4commit projects to invest in, but it could also be nodes in the map that is out of our control (and therefor not possible to map on peer4commit).

I’ve got no real good example of this, but its an intuition that I got. I think it might have something to do with having refactored to many java projects, modularized to many hairballs and what not. There is a value of layering (separation) here I think.

EDIT: Just thought of something. Someone might submit a technology that they see value in and link the submission to a peer4commit project. As it turns out that peer4commit projects has other people depending on it and it changes so much, that it no longer fits what the OP was after. Now a new peer4commit project has to be created and the link in the submission could be changed accordingly. Since there were no hard-bindings/couplings i.e. the submission didn’t mirror the peer4commit project, this could easily be done. The original peer4commit project hearing about this (being notified of this change) perhaps decides to step up the game (perhaps to ensure more founds coming their way).

Do you see what I’m getting at here?

28

I don’t understand. How can developers steal funds from Peer4commit if the person maintaining the roadmap index thread is also the person creating and controlling Peer4commit donation pages? It would be up to the thread maintainer to ensure that a development project has been completed and properly tested and working before giving out any rewards that were donated to that specific project.[/quote]

So by having individual peer4commit for every submission you meant that manager of Fazon to be fundraiser?

29

[quote=“pillow, post:27, topic:2726”]EDIT: Just thought of something. Someone might submit a technology that they see value in and link the submission to a peer4commit project. As it turns out that peer4commit projects has other people depending on it and it changes so much, that it no longer fits what the OP was after. Now a new peer4commit project has to be created and the link in the submission could be changed accordingly. Since there were no hard-bindings/couplings i.e. the submission didn’t mirror the peer4commit project, this could easily be done. The original peer4commit project hearing about this (being notified of this change) perhaps decides to step up the game (perhaps to ensure more founds coming their way).

Do you see what I’m getting at here?[/quote]

If I understood you correctly… I don’t see why existing project can not be mapped and extra funded if there is interest.

30

By decoupling Fazon from financing models and projects, things and ideas that we’ve not thought of yet might still be able to fit within the scope of Fazon and the template be general enough to allow for this.

So I mean that neither the Fazon Maintainer nor the individual submission OP, would have to raise funds. If a link to peer4commit is not required we don’t have to deal with these edge cases later. Or if applicable there could be several peer4commit projects mapped to one submission.

Preferably there would of course be an easy to understand connection between the submissions to Fazon and peer4commit - but this way we won’t have locked ourselves into a box.

This way it will be up to the peer4commit project manager to raise funds. It might also be the case that the technology is financed through other means such as a Peershares company that has developed some kind of infrastructure that a lot of other technologies will depend on. These would still be acceptable since Fazon is mapping out the “Peercoin ecosystem” where part of it may be privately financed, part crowd-sourcing/donations. etc.

Was it easier to understand what I meant now?

EDIT: Existing peer4commit projects could be mapped. Probably that’s also a very good thing to start off with.

31

About this. It seems to me that you want each and every developer responding to complete the challenge to be self-employed with investors/community funds. Which is how we get to corruption.

32

About this. It seems to me that you want each and every developer responding to complete the challenge to be self-employed with investors/community funds. Which is how we get to corruption.[/quote]

Isn’t this how it already works in peer4commit? Did I miss something here?

http://peer4commit.com/faq:

On Peer4commit the fundraiser is not expected to do the actual work. His job is to collect funds and distribute them to the people who work on the project. He may for example reward commits on an open source project or pay a lobbyist.
33

@pillow

But Fazon could grow above peer4commit, and why limit it. Fazon could and should take care of Bounties, and look for wider range of developers/investors that may not be involved with PPC.

What if we need some small java library for something, as dependency. Really small library, like 200 lines of code. We propagate request all over the internet, advertising this and looking for someone to do it.
Random person A responds, and says that he’ll do it in 20min. He inits the git repo, we assign it to peer4commit and transfer the funds.
Few minutes later, we notice that funds are gone and there is new commit in the git repo.
Plain text file containing just one string: “suckers”.

This is why there should not be peer4commit for each submission (unless there is one already), for every other scenario project manager should be admin/moderator of the Fazon project. That person will represent community before developers, and will make sure that developers are paid fairly upon completing the job. Not the other way around.
Sorry but this can not be done trust-less.

34

Ok, I think I better understand what you mean now. I was thinking all along that Fazon was only about mapping technologies and not about allocating funds. Now when I actually understand what you are saying, let me see if I can break it down into chunks.

-
The Fazon manager would ultimately be responsible if resources were not spent in a good way or worse, if there were scam-projects that manager failed to see. I believe that the workload for managing Fazon would increase as the ecosystem scales up.

+
The good thing about a fund is that resources could be allocated quickly and directed where it was needed the most. The Fazon manager would also be able to do so because he/she has the overview.

±
Centralized control over funds is both good and bad. Its good if the manager makes good decision, bad if the manager takes bad decisions. The question is if the manager is better at doing this, then the community (investors/whales/devs by their own) and how this scales.

I can see the point of also creating a fund, so that resources could be directed where most needed. Personally I’m inclined to go with the more decentralized way of doing things, because I like it.

It’s pretty obvious that me and peerchemist have different views here and I don’t think either of us are right or wrong. This means that…

…the community should really make their voice heard here and add to the discussion. So hey, what say you all?

35

Maybe to clarify peer4commit a bit:
The fundraiser can create a project in peer4commit with or without funding. In either way the developer would not be able to ‘run’ with the money until the fundraiser has checked the code delivered. So there is no risk in transferring funds imo unless you transfer to dodgy fundraisers.

Regarding centralised funding, for the MF we have chosen for a centralised fund, but with voting for each proposal. This works as it was anticipated that most project wouldn’t be able to attract funding on their own.

For some development projects this would be the same, especially if they don’t produce a product for the end user but are just fulfilling dependencies for future products. Projects delivering something concrete for end user, might be able to raise funding on their own. For this type of project Fazon would only register it in the roadmap.

From what I’ve seen in the last months, I think the real problem is the lack of PM or senior developers in the role of fundraisers who can and want to actually check the work of other developers (or delegate) before releasing the funding. We have also seen that setting specific bounties for parts of the product of specific functionality generally works better than bounties for complete projects. However I think the bounty process has also its flaws. There need to be some clear rules who get the bounty at some point preventing people doing double work. The fundraiser should be clear about this upfront.

My 0.02 PPC

36

Thanks for the feedback Cybnate. Very interesting points you’re making about getting funding for projects that might not otherwise get funding.

Hmm, I was thinking… Would it perhaps be possible to create a Fazon “map” as one project and then a Fazon “fund” as a separate entity? By separating these two things, we would be able to both have the cake and it it too?

What do you think about that peerchemist?

37

[quote=“pillow, post:34, topic:2726”]

-
The Fazon manager would ultimately be responsible if resources were not spent in a good way or worse, if there were scam-projects that manager failed to see. I believe that the workload for managing Fazon would increase as the ecosystem scales up.

True, but I don’t see better solution.

[b]+[/b] The good thing about a fund is that resources could be allocated quickly and directed where it was needed the most. The Fazon manager would also be able to do so because he/she has the overview.

Also Fazon manager must be skilled enough to understand it all, and dedicated enough to learn something new whenever situation demands it.

[b]+-[/b] Centralized control over funds is both good and bad. Its good if the manager makes good decision, bad if the manager takes bad decisions. The question is if the manager is better at doing this, then the community (investors/whales/devs by their own) and how this scales.

But Fazon can have dual nature, decentralized and centralized. I’ve spoke of this before.
Community can vote on approach to each new project, if the developer is trusted and well know in community then it would be best to create peer4commit fund for his project and allow him to do promotion and fund-raising him self.

What is important, is to give developers that will come to Fazon just for the moolah a chance to do the work and get paid.
We should not force everyone to use peer4commit, or even learn what is Peercoin. This should grow beyond ideology.
Idea is get us (the community) what we need as soon as possible, and that means having an army of mercenaries that will temporarily join us for the money, not for ideology. And that is fine.

Naturally it is up to administrator/moderator of Fazon to decide the approach.
Maybe it is too early to design clear rules for all scenarios that might get along.[/quote]

38

[quote=“pillow, post:36, topic:2726”]Hmm, I was thinking… Would it perhaps be possible to create a Fazon “map” as one project and then a Fazon “fund” as a separate entity? By separating these two things, we would be able to both have the cake and it it too?

What do you think about that peerchemist?[/quote]

Why to separate them? Map will be there to show the layman what is going on, and to actually map the ecosystem.

The fund is nothing but a pile of money that will be used to fund the new projects and push up the old ones.

39

[quote=“Cybnate, post:35, topic:2726”]

Maybe to clarify peer4commit a bit:
The fundraiser can create a project in peer4commit with or without funding. In either way the developer would not be able to ‘run’ with the money until the fundraiser has checked the code delivered. So there is no risk in transferring funds imo unless you transfer to dodgy fundraisers.

I know that, and beside that I don’t see need for those small bounty type projects to ever touch peer4commit.

Regarding centralised funding, for the MF we have chosen for a centralised fund, but with voting for each proposal. This works as it was anticipated that most project wouldn't be able to attract funding on their own.

That is my plan too, but I would rely more on project manager then on community vote due to technical nature of the project.

For some development projects this would be the same, especially if they don't produce a product for the end user but are just fulfilling dependencies for future products. Projects delivering something concrete for end user, might be able to raise funding on their own. For this type of project Fazon would only register it in the roadmap.

Exactly for this, Fazon should have it’s fund and be independent of community vote. Fazon can handle this “light” type of projects behind the curtain and present the final product to community.
It is senseless to bother community to vote/decide should this 300 lines of javascript code be payed 100 or 120 PPC. That should be up to manager.

From what I've seen in the last months, I think the real problem is the lack of PM or senior developers in the role of fundraisers who can and want to actually check the work of other developers (or delegate) before releasing the funding.

The very idea of Fazon is to use few of us in community that can fill the role of “senior developer”/project manager and make push on wider scale.[/quote]

Thanks Cybnate.

40

[quote=“peerchemist, post:39, topic:2726”][quote=“Cybnate, post:35, topic:2726”]

Maybe to clarify peer4commit a bit:
The fundraiser can create a project in peer4commit with or without funding. In either way the developer would not be able to ‘run’ with the money until the fundraiser has checked the code delivered. So there is no risk in transferring funds imo unless you transfer to dodgy fundraisers.

I know that, and beside that I don’t see need for those small bounty type projects to ever touch peer4commit.

Regarding centralised funding, for the MF we have chosen for a centralised fund, but with voting for each proposal. This works as it was anticipated that most project wouldn't be able to attract funding on their own.

That is my plan too, but I would rely more on project manager then on community vote due to technical nature of the project.

For some development projects this would be the same, especially if they don't produce a product for the end user but are just fulfilling dependencies for future products. Projects delivering something concrete for end user, might be able to raise funding on their own. For this type of project Fazon would only register it in the roadmap.

Exactly for this, Fazon should have it’s fund and be independent of community vote. Fazon can handle this “light” type of projects behind the curtain and present the final product to community.
It is senseless to bother community to vote/decide should this 300 lines of javascript code be payed 100 or 120 PPC. That should be up to manager.

From what I've seen in the last months, I think the real problem is the lack of PM or senior developers in the role of fundraisers who can and want to actually check the work of other developers (or delegate) before releasing the funding.

The very idea of Fazon is to use few of us in community that can fill the role of “senior developer”/project manager and make push on wider scale.[/quote]

Thanks Cybnate.[/quote]

Peerchemist, the more I hear about this fund the smart I think it is. I really think we should create it. I still think the fund should be separate from this map though. Let’s see if I can put forth some good arguments for that now.

Perhaps one could argue that we here have a question regarding the purpose of the fund. Is the map a planning tool and communication tool for the fund? Or is the map a resource that is open to the whole community?

The way I look at it, if fund and map was fused, the fund would be able to use the map for planning purposes and edit the map to reflect the roadmap that the fund believes in. They would be able to use it as a “look at this roadmap, please donate so we can fund these projects”. I think this is how you think of it peerchemist, right? I think there is certainly something to this.

However, if they were run separately, then everyone would be able to submit to the map and all projects and technologies, even those the fund definitely do not want to spend money on, would show up there. Whales/Investors and developers that disagree with the objectives of the fund, would be able to use the map as a resource for identifying what they believe in and what they see is missing.

Do you see the difference? I think it’s more then the fund being just a pool of money. Either the map is controlled by the fund or the map is controlled by the community. If separated, the map would be open for everyone and be used as a resource for everyone. If fused it would be a tool for the fund.

I can see value in both alternatives and if we fast-forward into the future, I think we could actually see two maps. One map that is the funds vision of the roadmap for the Peercoin ecosystem and the other would be the communities vision.