Topic: Slimcoin | First Proof of Burn currency | Decentralized Web - page 23. (Read 137085 times)

i have some ones



but i think it's not critical

Do you guys have a problem with a lot of orphans in the last a few days? I have confirmed blocks, but after some time all are going in orphans

The guy you are indirectly mentioning among those invested in some large amount of SLM is me.
I did so recently because I've seen a prospective for this coin. Maybe I was wrong, I did many mistakes with the crypto.
I agree with you that even if my approach to the issue solution may be wrong it doesn't make to go the issue away, so we'd need to find the right path or to give up with this coin.
Speaking about the low-cost developers, I think I know where to find them and I can consider investing into this idea but it would be even better to have at least a small pool of investors for this project.
What I don't know, and you expressed it very well, is how to manage the workflow in order to get a quality result. I presume that a senior developer should set up the goals and the rules of rewrite and then checking step by step the work done. But I don't know any senior developer that could do this work. I'm seeing you did almost all the improvements of the code in the last years, so I presume you are the person that could be able to do it, but of course I don't know whether you might be interested in.
Speaking about how lucrative could be launching a new coin vs working on the old one I think that there are some pro et contra in both approaches.
The old coin has some community, its name is known, there are exchanges where it's possible to trade it and so on.
IMHO launching a new coin the investor would face many unknown issues to solve. One of which is the quality of the people that would be attracted by that project.
By other hand the developer's prospective is not very different from the investor's one, to some extent. The developer, even when he is offered a good salary, is investing his time, his creativity and his wit into the project. So if the project doesn't make sense for him it would be difficult for him to participate. Whereas if the idea that is behind the project seems valuable to him he may decide to invest some time to see its results.
That's why I think that we need to make an extensive brainstorming to see what ideas are available for this project.

May I gently discourage such ungrounded off-the-cuff personal speculation, it tends to muddy the waters for others and takes time and effort to dispel.

Several community members have already put a lot of personal time and effort into exploring this route without even a hint of success. I'm not aware of such a pool of low-cost developers, (not that the apparent going rate of around 2% of the distro is all that low-cost) so it'd be down to you, as the proposer of such an initiative, to identify a candidate team and research the development schedule, costings --- and management --- and then present a worked-out initiative for community support. The inconveniently problematic issue of software project management tends to get completely ignored - but the need doesn't go away, these are real-life tough problems and some idea of a detailed solution needs to be developed in advance.

The other massive showstopper is that the community does not have access to adequate fiat resources to fund such a project. Even something as basic and crucial as funding the chainz block explorer is done on an ad hoc, personal basis. I stumped up for the last six months' hosting which is due to expire in a couple of weeks.

To get some sense of the ground-floor issues of open source software systems management, you could have a go at drumming up some BTC support for continued chainz explorer hosting. Judging by the activity of the top wallets, there are some active holders of significant quantities of SLM (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/slm/#!wallets) who should be motivated to take vigorous steps to protect their hodlings - unfortunately they seem oblivious to anything other than how many SLM they hold and are apparently careless of the actual worth of the tokens.

Who's the "we" that has the technical capacity to do this? Unfortunately, from a developer's perspective, it's both socially and economically unattractive in terms of personal time/effort vs ROI, it would be much more lucrative to simply launch one's own coin.

Cheers

Graham

Maybe we can hire a team of low-cost developers to make the raw rewrite and then review and test the new code?
Another idea might be to seek a cooperation with an University to make the rewrite.

Maybe we should considering to split apart from their path and to begin developing a fully independent project?

Unfortunately, restitution can't be automated, has to be done painstakingly by hand. There's over a hundred files of source code involved so we're talking a few days' work. And that's just to re-style the code. I estimate that actually handling the merges up through 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7 versions of Peercoin would take several weeks/months.

Peercoin 0.5 had three/four versions but descriptive summaries are hard to find (https://discuss.nubits.com/t/merging-peerunity-with-peercoin-v0-5-2/3628):

Peercoin 0.6 Release notes: https://medium.com/peercoin/peercoin-v0-6-release-2831fb4394ad

Peercoin 0.7 Release notes: https://medium.com/peercoin/peercoin-v0-7-released-e4a5d4b3e517

Peercoin 0.8 Release announcement https://talk.peercoin.net/t/team-update-32-peercoin-v0-8-codename-mantis-release-announcement-upgrade-deadline-october-1st-2019-hard-fork/9515 (completely out of scope for Slimcoin atm)

Crucially, whilst the Slimcoin codebase may be directly derived from Peercoin, the respective communities and their ethos differ appreciably: https://www.bdratings.org/l/peercoin-an-old-tardigrade/

Cheers

Graham

I wouldn't like to appear too naive. But still, how much effort/time would it cost to change the coding style into a more suitable one?
What solutions may be considered to get rid of this issue?

P4Titan's idiosyncratic choice of coding style (https://github.com/slimcoin/slimcoin/blame/master/doc/coding.txt) is a major obstacle for anyone trying to merge/upgrade from Peercoin. The git-merge algorithm is unable to cope with the excessive number of discrepancies introduced by the resultant whitespace and syntax mangling. Just try merging Peercoin 0.6 into slimcoin-develop and you'll experience the scale of the problem for yourself.
 
Cheers

Graham

In such case we need to think a strategy to find him, first of all, and then to offer to him something he'd be interested in to begin working with us.
What do you think?

Ah, I thought you were referring to some bug. But this is a more general issue. SLM is currently not only far away from PPC 0.8.3, as it's currently mainly using PPC 0.5 code with some ports from 0.6.

Would be extremely helpful, yes.

Few posts ago Gavrillo777 has mentioned an update done by PPC we are not in line with.

If we don't have c++ developers and they are needed it's unavoidable for the success of SLM to find someone who helps us steadily, or?

Unfortunately, if the donation account holder doesn't cooperate, this is impossible if we don't change the PoD model completely. Confirmed transactions, be it to donation addresses or to others, are irreversible. And for PeerAssets and similar token mechanisms, to track them, the transactions must be confirmed.

One could try to build something with multisig addresses and contracts, but that would be much more complicated.

Can you point me to the issues you mean? If that are simple GUI issues, I can look at it. Also, I saw Graham posted at Discord that he's testing something (I'll look at that later, and try to connect to Testnet). But to solve networking bugs unfortunately my c++ skills are not enough (I saw someone complained at Discord that he had no network connection).

Agreed. I think PoB will become popular once the price of SLM begins climbing up again.

PoB is better than PoS and BTC mining but not so convenient as Masternoding at the moment. However once the badly coded Mastenode's coins are gone the ROI of Masternoding will reduce itself more and more, people will begin looking for a better profitability and then they'll discover SLM again. And by other hand PoB doesn't require so much work as Masternoding.

So I agree to let PoB as it is. Maybe we can implement the withdrawal feature for PoD, so people would feel more free to "donate"?

In any case the most important thing right now, in my opinion, is to fix all the issues people are mentioning here in order for everybody to have a positive experience with SLM since the beginning. If not people won't invest into SLM.
Do we need additional developers to reach this goal?

I am back home, I'm having currently some issues with my VPS hosting my Slimcoin full node but I hope to resolve them soon. So I can again look at the proposed token concept and propose a solution based on Peerassets or other existing technology (which could then transformed in a sidechain).

However, I want to clarify that I'm only interested in Slimcoin because of the proof-of-burn feature, and so I will always vote against it to be removed or transformed into a feature where "burnt" coins can be recovered. There are multiple coins out there which offer similar features (masternodes/PoS coins), so Slimcoin would lose its only USP.

I'm glad to hear I'm not alone in my wish 

I’d love to buy 1M SLM at 5 sat myself ) Unless other coins I’m interested in drop twice in price I don’t think I’ll be selling SLM less than at 10 sat.

Hi @dzarmush,
my orders are on Freiexchange, but if the situation remains as it is without anybody interested to discuss the issues and the ways to solve them I think I'll stop investing into SLM at some point. So hurry up :-p

I wanna buy some other coins that are down a lot lately, anybody's interested in buying 1M SLM?

Poke them with a stick in the troll box, helped for me every time I did (also recently before I closed my account there).

I wonder how do they think we're supposed to withdraw anything considering Nova disabled SLM withdrawal again.