Voting Closed: Disbanding Select P4C Projects & Reallocating Dev Funds

General
1

Voting Closed:
After almost 3 weeks, no one else has come forward to claim these projects. Since a long time has already been given to voice opposition, we will settle this by giving a short 3 day voting period.

After some discussion, the following project funds WILL NOT be reallocated:

  • PyBitmessage
  • Peershares
  • Roll Your Own DAC
  • PeercoinBlockExplorer

The following projects WILL have their funds reallocated if the community votes to do so…

That is a total of 10,059.40 PPC that will be reallocated, 75% to PeerAssets and 25% to PeerKeeper.

Voting Rules:
Please vote yes or no. Your membership on this forum must be at least a week old and have at least 2 posts prior to the beginning of voting. This is to prevent fake accounts from affecting the voting. Voting ends late Sunday.

We’ve been talking on peercoin.chat about ways to raise more funding for our main projects that will help push Peercoin forward. We decided first to take a look at the current funding we already have on Peer4commit.com. We’ve taken a look through the list and selected various projects that we feel are no longer relevant. Together, these projects total up to 16,303.48 Peercoin.

The largest projects we have in the Peercoin ecosystem today are PeerAssets and PeerKeeper. Both projects are starved for funding by the community, even though these projects offer the best hope of returning Peercoin to its former glory. Peerchemist and Hrobeers have both agreed that they think the funds should be split, with 75% going to PeerAssets and 25% going to PeerKeeper.

We would like feedback from the community on whether you also think this is a good idea, or if there are any projects you believe should not be cut. The projects that have been selected have been deemed hopeless or no longer relevant and the funds are simply sitting on Peer4commit collecting dust. I personally believe we should use the funds and inject them into these two projects as they are the best chance we currently have of creating new use cases and bringing demand back to the Peercoin network.

Here are the projects that we wish to cut. There will be 2 weeks to post feedback on this before a decision is made…

2

Do it. If there’s no activity on the other projects and they’ve been deemed obsolete there’s certainly no point in keeping them there.

3

Since I originally proposed having this website (though Fuzzybear is the fundraiser) I would just like to mention that I would be in favour of reallocating this fund.

4

I think it is a good idea to focus on PA and PK. So do the cut.

5

Obviously the person in charge of the particular fundraiser gets final word on the allocation of funds.

One question:

How do we know some of these projects (like Skyhook ATM) haven’t been abandoned? It is the simple fact that not enough funds have been raised yet to entice a programmer to get involved.

Rather than list the projects the way you’ve done, it would be much better to do it this way:

  • OmniWallet - 5,092.60 — the reason why is this xyz blah bla blah

  • PeercoinArmory - 3,574.35 — we want to cut this because def ghi blah blah blah

  • Peershares - 2,438.19 — this project is no longer useful because fhdhs shdhdhd dhd

etc, etc. This way we can understand the reason on a case-by-case basis and make more informed decision.

6

Peerchemist is the one who went through the list. He could tell you more about why he chose each one.

7

I don’t think Bitmessage should be cut. I have no opinion on the other projects.

8

@sandakersmann

Okay, if you please so PyBitmessage can remain. I must inform you that project is at it’s deathbed and is almost abandoned. 30 something PPC will not amount to much, so keep it.

@ppcman

Each of those projects has been inactive for two years. Even without that fact, projects listed do not provide much use for Peercoin ecosystem or are to be replaced by better tools. For example PeerAssets project + PeerKeeper cover the use cases of OmniWallet and Peershares.
As for Skyhook example, it just seems hopeless. (and development has been abandoned anyway: https://github.com/josephyzhou/skyhook)

9

makes sense to me (to reallocate the funds +1). abandoned peer4commit projects always made me a little sad any way :.( prime4commit :sob:

plus, [member=32827]hrobeers[/member] and [member=30983]peerchemist[/member] have been working pretty hard already and maybe deserve it :slight_smile:

10

A rolling stone gathers no moss.

11
  • Peershares - 2,438.19
  • Roll Your Own DAC - 1,987.22

Are two projects i would like to see kept.

Peershares for in its’s own right and reason that it is a fork of Peercoin and certain elements of the repo benefit from being updated etc and any funds there should remain to distribute to people who work on it.

Roll Your Own DAC - is something I have worked on for quite a bit in the past and would like to get something out, no funds means i throw away my effort and def will not finish it.

Fuzzybear

12

[quote=“FuzzyBear, post:11, topic:4082”]- Peershares - 2,438.19

  • Roll Your Own DAC - 1,987.22

Are two projects i would like to see kept.

Peershares for in its’s own right and reason that it is a fork of Peercoin and certain elements of the repo benefit from being updated etc and any funds there should remain to distribute to people who work on it.

Roll Your Own DAC - is something I have worked on for quite a bit in the past and would like to get something out, no funds means i throw away my effort and def will not finish it.

Fuzzybear[/quote]

Sorry to be frank, but Peershares is a dead project. It is going nowhere. With final death of Nu and B&C and that code rotting there for two years I do not think it will see another use.

Roll your own DAC and Peershares will get obsoleted with PeerAssets/PeerKeeper. It will be far easier for the user as well.

Think about it some more, please.

13

I agree. Why don’t we bank roll the projects with momentum and help bring exposure to the cause. If we can increase market cap 5x, replacing the value of those ppc for peershares will be easy. It’s just good business at this point.

14

[quote=“peerchemist, post:12, topic:4082”][quote=“FuzzyBear, post:11, topic:4082”]- Peershares - 2,438.19

  • Roll Your Own DAC - 1,987.22

Are two projects i would like to see kept.

Peershares for in its’s own right and reason that it is a fork of Peercoin and certain elements of the repo benefit from being updated etc and any funds there should remain to distribute to people who work on it.

Roll Your Own DAC - is something I have worked on for quite a bit in the past and would like to get something out, no funds means i throw away my effort and def will not finish it.

Fuzzybear[/quote]

Sorry to be frank, but Peershares is a dead project. It is going nowhere. With final death of Nu and B&C and that code rotting there for two years I do not think it will see another use.

Roll your own DAC and Peershares will get obsoleted with PeerAssets/PeerKeeper. It will be far easier for the user as well.

Think about it some more, please.[/quote]

“Peershares is a dead project” & “death of Nu and B&C”

I have not followed Nu too much since i left the dev team, can you point me to where the issues arose please and why these died? I have implementations of peershares and would like to know if it was a model problem with Peershares or just the Nu pegging against the USD?? as that is a Nubit issue NOT Peershares.

If you are going to move donated funds to projects I feel we need group consensus here, explanation and details. This has the potential to do more damage as people might have donated to projects they want to see maintained and if we just shuffle funds round as we see fit then why should there be any trust in the members in the community?

Using PeerAssets/PeerKeeper as the answer to make all these old code bases obsolete… I get the feeling the desire is to push the funds into these peer4commit projects. What is to stop that repo just sitting at a dead end once the funds have been moved there?

If it is deemed such a worthy project then why have people not donated to it’s development and peer4commit project? or is this as i fear a case of people NOT having any funds themselves to donate to development and hence when development stagnates on a project (as price of PPC falls and makes development not as viable, the project is considered dead and then and the next golden egg is hunted for to send the PPC price but that project can stagnate just as easily.

Fuzzybear

15

Be my guest. The way to do that is to buy PPC, and donate direct to those projects you want to see keep momentum. The answer is not to move funds donated to other projects to achieve this. The people who donated funds to the projects chose to do so as they at the time wanted to see those projects developed and maintained. Just because there is little public activity does not mean that all donators have lost interest or would be happy with us using funds for projects as we see fit in my opinion. Seeing a community do that would encourage me NOT to donate to any more projects for development as I could not be sure what I was donating to. This could reflect quite badly on the community is my thoughts.

Fuzzybear

16

Fuzzybear,

I do donate ppc to the projects. I understand what you are saying however there is a significant amount of stagnation with respect to prior projects because many people left. We need to attract more development and having funds sit at idle does nothing.

17

[member=1]FuzzyBear[/member]

We respect that people invested in peershares and as long as the devs are reachable and oppose relocation of the funds, it shouldn’t happen IMO.
This open discussion is exactly to figure this out, so I guess the peershare funds won’t be touched.

On the other hand, some projects are clearly obsolete and their devs disappeared, I guess you agree that those funds can be used more efficiently to serve the community.

I’ve been playing with peershares and roll your own DAC. It thought me a lot about how to operate a blockchain and the internals of peercoin. I really appreciate that. The project definitely has had great value!
However, I tend to agree that no DAC operator should be capable of securing it’s chain by upgrading and hard forks. This is all too risky and complex.
Therefore I agree that peershares has no real future.

But I agree that these funds should not be touched as long as there is no full consensus on it in the community.

Please do not feel attacked, this discussion is opened with the best intentions.

18

Hello hrobeers,

Many thanks for your input on this thread, I have to say that yes I feel attacked on many lvl’s in this forum lately and your reply is the first I feel that is actually trying to generate a discussion on these topics as opposed to people just stating their opinion and trying to drum up enough support to out shout anyone else’s thoughts on the matter. Or just pushing ahead with something as it is what a few have decided to do in the private chat forums amongst themselves.

I am interested in your reason for the no future of peershares? “DAC operator should be capable of securing it’s chain by upgrading and hard forks.” How is this different to any other blockchain?
Has something changed in how Nubits was updated and that is what people are refering to as the clarity on the limitations on Peershares? Everyone was massively pro peershares before with Jordan Lee pushing dev on it, now seems no one sees a future for it? Genuinely just interested here as yes i have vested interests in peershares instances.

Yes I completely agree some projects have become clearly obsolete and their devs disappeared, I guess you agree that those funds can be used more efficiently to serve the community. If there is no one opposed to moving the funds. i must state that in my view, even if just 1 person votes against the transferring of the funds then they should not be moved.

Fuzzybear

[quote=“hrobeers, post:17, topic:4082”][member=1]FuzzyBear[/member]

We respect that people invested in peershares and as long as the devs are reachable and oppose relocation of the funds, it shouldn’t happen IMO.
This open discussion is exactly to figure this out, so I guess the peershare funds won’t be touched.

On the other hand, some projects are clearly obsolete and their devs disappeared, I guess you agree that those funds can be used more efficiently to serve the community.

I’ve been playing with peershares and roll your own DAC. It thought me a lot about how to operate a blockchain and the internals of peercoin. I really appreciate that. The project definitely has had great value!
However, I tend to agree that no DAC operator should be capable of securing it’s chain by upgrading and hard forks. This is all too risky and complex.
Therefore I agree that peershares has no real future.

But I agree that these funds should not be touched as long as there is no full consensus on it in the community.

Please do not feel attacked, this discussion is opened with the best intentions.[/quote]

19

It is not different to any other blockchain. Peershares is by far the easiest way to get your own chain running.
Please note that this is just my opinion and I respect it if you disagree.

But IMO a DAC should NEVER run it’s own blockchain.
A blockchain is only a small part of a DAC.
It is used to get agreement about the timeline of happenings.
A DAC should use an external chain for this, just as you use an NTP server to sync your computer’s clock.
All other logic should be built to use the chain for consensus on timeline, and not for other purposes like the peershares networks are doing.
It’s about leveraging what is out there instead of running your own. DACs should focus on their core business, not on keeping their chain running.

How many peershares forks are running without counting the ones created by the peershare team?
I started one, but it’s not running anymore. I’m interested in hearing more stories.
But I’m a professional C++ software developer and even I thought the complexity was not worth it.

I totally agree that we should reach 100% consensus before relocating funds.

20

[quote=“hrobeers, post:19, topic:4082”]How many peershares forks are running without counting the ones created by the peershare team?
I started one, but it’s not running anymore. I’m interested in hearing more stories.[/quote]

From my understanding, there are none. Nu and B&C were the only ones. Augeas is a brand new fork, but the only reason it exists is because Jordan Lee was found out to be a scammer and now owns over 51% of the network. Nu is dead because of this, as he now has the ability to perform a 51% attack on the network, plus he can pass any motion he wants by himself and increase the supply at will.

Also, since it looks like he will most likely refuse to hand over B&C dev funds to shareholders, B&C will most likely also be dead. Nobody knows what kind of network Augeas will become. I have also notified them about PeerAssets in case they decide to give up on Peershares.

Basically, Nu and B&C have exposed the flaws of the Peershares model. People didn’t realize these flaws a couple years ago, but they do now. Somebody can own 51% of a corporation in real life and can make whatever decision they want and have total control, however there is no comparable history/security that can be attacked in real life. That is one of the major flaws with Peershares.

A 51% attack can’t be committed with PeerAssets, as the security of the network is instead being handled by Peercoin. Peercoin itself would need to be compromised in order for that to happen. Distribution will no longer be a vital part of security with PeerAssets.

Plus there is the fact that blockchain security experts like Sigmike can be expensive to hire in order to do security patches for the network. As hrobeers said, DACs should only have to focus on their core business, not worry about all these other security issues and how to fund blockchain upkeep.