What innovations would you like to see in Feathercoin?
-
Don’t know if it’s possible, but escrow transactions in the block chain might be neat. A case of a Hash-A pays Hash-B (in escrow) till Hash-C (3rd party) pays Hash-B or Hash-A any amount. whichever way Hash-C pays is which way the transaction goes.
-
Hi,
I’m not an expert, but I think, the most important thing in crypto-currencies it’s privacy, and Zerocoin should be great !
-
There is already too much work to do to get all the changes and upgrades that are already done in Litecoin and Bitcoin implemented for Feathercoin.
I think it is too early to be implementing potential new features, especially have some that are not viable and retain trust in the original coin vision.
Some features, I insist should be external or I believe would cause staff potential legal comeback.
It is wrong that they are not prioritised, before being offered as options. Particularly in view that some of these are these are known sand bags that would hold us down when we can fly and they can easily be implemented else where. Just because these are ideas for Feathercoin does not mean they should automatically be implemented in Feathercoin.
I’ve argued against the philosophy of some of these 'ideas; already, I would have wanted more of a discussion and member concentration on each issue before they were moved to vote on “implementation”
[b]where is the none of the above in Feathercoin, do it in another coin?[/b]
-
[quote name=“wrapper0feather” post=“52252” timestamp=“1389740758”]
There is already too much work to do to get all the changes and upgrades that are already done in Litecoin and Bitcoin implemented for Feathercoin.
[/quote]Could you say what work needs to be done right now?
[quote author=wrapper0feather link=topic=6894.msg52252#msg52252 date=1389740758]
I think it is too early to be implementing potential new features
[/quote]How long do you think until we are ready to innovate?
[quote author=wrapper0feather link=topic=6894.msg52252#msg52252 date=1389740758]
Some features, I insist should be external or I believe would cause staff potential legal comeback.
[/quote]Which ones are you concerned about in particular so we can take it in to account?
[quote author=wrapper0feather link=topic=6894.msg52252#msg52252 date=1389740758]
Just because these are ideas for Feathercoin does not mean they should automatically be implemented in Feathercoin.
[/quote]That’s correct. I see this as a discussion.
[quote author=wrapper0feather link=topic=6894.msg52252#msg52252 date=1389740758]
I’ve argued against the philosophy of some of these 'ideas; already, I would have wanted more of a discussion and member concentration on each issue before they were moved to vote on “implementation”
[/quote]I didn’t see this as a vote on implementation it is more a vote to see what the people in the community would like to see in our coin in the future. When you say you would have wanted more discussion, do you mean in private among the devs? Can you say why you think this isn’t a good idea to have with everyone?
[quote author=wrapper0feather link=topic=6894.msg52252#msg52252 date=1389740758]
where is the none of the above in Feathercoin, do it in another coin?
[/quote]You are right, I have now added something very like it as an option.
-
[quote name=“j_scheibel” post=“52224” timestamp=“1389732597”]
Don’t know if it’s possible, but escrow transactions in the block chain might be neat. A case of a Hash-A pays Hash-B (in escrow) till Hash-C (3rd party) pays Hash-B or Hash-A any amount. whichever way Hash-C pays is which way the transaction goes.
[/quote]There’s already multi-sig transactions available. There’s just no easy to use UI for making them with FTC.
-
cool, i’ll keep an eye out for it.
-
[quote name=“Kevlar” post=“52257” timestamp=“1389743884”]
[quote author=j_scheibel link=topic=6894.msg52224#msg52224 date=1389732597]
Don’t know if it’s possible, but escrow transactions in the block chain might be neat. A case of a Hash-A pays Hash-B (in escrow) till Hash-C (3rd party) pays Hash-B or Hash-A any amount. whichever way Hash-C pays is which way the transaction goes.
[/quote]There’s already multi-sig transactions available. There’s just no easy to use UI for making them with FTC.
[/quote]I would love to see multi-sig, it’s one of my favourite features. Could we get Sev on the case? What skills do we need, someone to do UI and then someone to implement it?
-
I’m jumping in a bit quick in case these votes gives excessive perceptions of what is possible to the uninitiated who haven’t read all the threads.
I’m really all out on making the tools available to members to be able to contribute as a high priority - before we ask people to sculpt stone with they’re bear hands…
-
1. Could you say what work needs to be done right now?
No, we need a work system where Task are input and voted on by the membership. Where there is a way members could ask for finance. Where multiple keys are available. Enable open web sites, train people on Github.
etc
-
2. How long do you think until we are ready to innovate?
When we have the infrastructure to support that the most effectively. At the current time Staff are being diverted between projects.
We are already innovating, we just need to automate that into the forum systems, employ and train the correct number of staff. The innovation is not as effective or smooth as it could be. We also deal with our problems in priority order. Lack of innovation does not seem one of them…
Build the foundations first.Also for the Devs/Admin level, there is the issue of trust to secure the network that trumps innovation as a primary objective at certain times. For instance in my mind, Feathercoin should be working on version 0.9 of the Client and discussing the recent Litecoin transaction fee ( after my own heart) changes with 0.8.6.1 (as Devs).
-
3. Which ones are you concerned about in particular so we can take it in to account?
For me personally, Zerocoin. I have argued again and again for an external mechanism, Like “Link” and “Flux” could do this for all coins.
I also think it is redundant anyway, because it will be easy to mix through all the coins. It is diverting our attention from potential as you pointed out Chrisj, bank attacks, ASICs, the next increase in members. etc…
i.e Just for us as Staff who have put our name to support the project, being safe here is important to me. Such a major change in the protocol would attract all the wrong attention, I am too ill for that, so it would force me out (as Staff).
I haven’t had time to look into the others items in detail, to see what their consequences might be and that is my minimum requirement to comment on the legal consequences or other possible pitfalls a proper mode of failure analysis would show up, or wether they are already in 0.9.
-
4. When you say you would have wanted more discussion, do you mean in private among the devs?
On the contrary, I want a better vote for the members, and have made a number of detailed posts on that subject.
That is to balance the vote that the Dev has in that they do the work and have the last word. Like Bushstar has with the software, to be consistent?
-
5. Where is the none of the above in Feathercoin, do it in another coin?
[quote]
Chris: You are right, I have now added something very like it as an option.
[/quote]As a physicist I can’t stand pseudo-scientific votes. Please do a course on voteing. I will as well.
For instance another fault is to vote Do you want apples oranges or gorrillas?
This ballet? does not democratise the members influence on the features of the network. They are already being discused so it is diverting. Those ideas are there for members to act on if they want an idea…
-
Hey @Wrapper as always you are very thorough and passionate in your response and I will give you a call in just a moment to make sure I have understood everything but for the benefit of the forum members here is what I am learning:
1. You’re saying that what’s wrong here is that we don’t have the right kind of system set up where people can take these ideas an implement them. There is also not a system in place to help train people on Github etc.
[i]I think this is a very good idea and we should set a system up like this.[/i]
2. Again you’re saying thta the forum system needs to automate staff duties as much as possible and allow for other staff members to come onboard to take some of the slack. Innovation will come from good foundations.
[i]Agree. Eg Bush should just focus on the client code and we should have someone else admin this site so that he doesn’t have to.[/i]
3. Your concern is mostly with Zerocoin which you feel could be dealt with as a 3rd party application reducing the liability on the Feathercoin team.
[i]Yes I quite agree, even with something like Cody Wilson’s Dark Wallet, perhaps? The vote was really just a way of gauging what people were wanting, it was the beginning of a dialogue rather than a final word. What’s important to me is that I know what the people on this forum are thinking, how we get there is still up for debate and I for one agree with your feedback on how we should deal with privacy on the Blockchain and I think it is likely that all being considered others would agree too.[/i]
4. Sounds like you’re looking for a more hands on and pro-active approach. This vote is more like a pole rather than anything constructive. It may give people a voice but it doesn’t give them influence, particularly as they may not even understand the true nature of what they are being asked to vote on.
[i]Again your insights are sharp. I would love to give people more of a hands on approach, in fact Tuck mentioned to me that he would like to see our client marked up in VS12(?) so that newbies could download it and learn it ELI5 style. (Explain like I am 5).[/i]
Ok let me give you a call now.
-
[url=http://youtu.be/B4DIJ2rp_u0]http://youtu.be/B4DIJ2rp_u0[/url]
-
=/ I am [i]disappoint[/i] that the (voted) majority would want BIP70 over a better solution than ACP for the coin.
Let me see if I can influence some votes …
Remember late last year when Bill Still and Max Keiser made Quark (nearly) a household name? Why was that?
[b]SECURITY[/b]All they talked about was “security” of the blockchain and how “secure” Quark was due to it’s many algorithms with dancey magical security. All they needed to hear was “more security” and apparently that’s all any non-full-time-crypto users needed to hear as well and they frolicked to the magical fairy land of more security and bought and bought and bought until their little tummies were all warm & fuzzy and Quark’s forum exploded with users and a new purpose.
So, my point is … the word “security” is important in the minds of “end users” and when Feathercoin is asked about their “security” we reply with “ACP”.
Not many know what ACP is, so they ask … and in every instance I’ve personally experienced the topic immediately changes to, “centralization” … “So basically you’re saying one guy controls every thing?”. This is not “security” in the minds of many, this is nothing more than control and control by one individual … and no one likes the sound of that (that’s why they’re into cryptocurrency in the first place for the most part).
I trust Bushstar (as much as I can trust someone on another continent that I’ve never met IRL), but why should someone else? I have faith that he has backup plans in case something happens while we’re under ACP. However, I don’t want to rely on trust, faith and backup plans when dealing with large sums of stored value (unless I am in control). ;)
Also, as a merchant I don’t really like the idea of doing business in a centralized currency … because that’s exactly what I’m attempting to get out of by getting into cryptocurrency.
I can’t put this as eloquently or as scientifically as Chris and Kevlar (too many brain injuries), but I hope I made a few of you think about the importance of getting rid of ACP before moving forward with any other “features”.
I’m sure someone will find my old post where I defend ACP’s use for the time being and that’s fine, because I meant it at that time. However, we now have the ability to remove ACP and use other options and ACP was supposed to be removed as it was nothing more than a crutch.
Do you guys/gals voting for BIP70 really want to move forward knowing you’re doing so under ACP’s crutch? Remove the crutch, remove the need for a crutch … THEN move onto other features is how I personally feel FTC should proceed.
-
[quote name=“Tuck Fheman” post=“52675” timestamp=“1389888321”]
=/ I am [i]disappoint[/i] that the (voted) majority would want BIP70 over a better solution than ACP for the coin.
[/quote]Great post. +1 rep.
-
Moved from … [url=http://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php/topic,6616.msg52662.html#msg52662]http://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php/topic,6616.msg52662.html#msg52662[/url]
[quote name=“chrisj” post=“52671” timestamp=“1389887908”]
Does Bush or any person or small group have the ability to control the network in any way? Does ACP have any more features than the control of depth or the off button?
[/quote]The forum had a lengthy discussion on that very question. Ultimately, did it matter what that thread decided?
Did it influence the opinions of those outside this forum or even a majority of this forum to see things other than what I stated above … that ACP is bad and/or ACP is a form of centralization and that’s bad. Have other dev’s not stated this as well in an effort to discredit Feathercoin in some way? Is it not a constant theme on trollbox and other forums when ACP and Feathercoin are brought up? Does it even matter if any one with a differing opinion considers their views as nothing more than FUD? If you are able to find someone outside this forum that thinks ACP still being in Feathercoin is a good thing (or that it ever was), did they then bring up the fact that it came from Sunny King and attempt to discredit Feathercoin in that way?
That’s what I see every where I go.
So to address your question, ultimately what does it matter when the perception of ACP is more damaging to the coin than the the [i]possibility[/i] FTC is protecting itself from with ACP? Especially when it was introduced as a temporary last resort and we now have other alternatives.
If we’re not going to remove ACP, we’d better at least change the name and market it better to convince every one else it’s a great ‘feature’ to be promoted and not a centralized crutch implemented because so many people hate FTC that they spend their time and money attacking the coin … because FTC has failed at doing that so far from what I see.
And as I understand it, ACP was temporary and was a last resort because a better solution could not be devised quickly enough. ACP was agreed upon (sort of) since it was a temporary solution and another solution was on the way and for no other reason as I saw it. Now we’ve had time to come up with another option and from what I’ve read we have other options, yet we still have ACP or we’re still sitting here having discussions where ACP is being defended like it’s still a necessity. When does this ‘never ending journey’ that was supposed to be temporary finally see it’s end or when can we at least begin talking about killing the dragon?
[quote author=chrisj link=topic=6616.msg52671#msg52671 date=1389887908]
The point is that the distributed network is our goal at the end of this never ending journey we are all on unlike the Banks whose sole aim to control. But we will never reach our goal if we are not prepared to make the hard choices on the way.
[/quote]Agreed. FTC made the hard choice to temporarily take on ACP and not go on a never ending journey with ACP. If we now have other options, why not implement them now? Why would we want to promote a crutch in the first place, much less continue life on a crutch? That was how ACP was described long ago, a temporary crutch.
-
[quote name=“Tuck Fheman” post=“52754” timestamp=“1389905076”]
Moved from … [url=http://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php/topic,6616.msg52662.html#msg52662]http://forum.feathercoin.com/index.php/topic,6616.msg52662.html#msg52662[/url][quote author=chrisj link=topic=6616.msg52671#msg52671 date=1389887908]
Does Bush or any person or small group have the ability to control the network in any way? Does ACP have any more features than the control of depth or the off button?
[/quote]The forum had a lengthy discussion on that very question. Ultimately, did it matter what that thread decided?
Did it influence the opinions of those outside this forum or even a majority of this forum to see things other than what I stated above … that ACP is bad and/or ACP is a form of centralization and that’s bad. Have other dev’s not stated this as well in an effort to discredit Feathercoin in some way? Is it not a constant theme on trollbox and other forums when ACP and Feathercoin are brought up? Does it even matter if any one with a differing opinion considers their views as nothing more than FUD? If you are able to find someone outside this forum that thinks ACP still being in Feathercoin is a good thing (or that it ever was), did they then bring up the fact that it came from Sunny King and attempt to discredit Feathercoin in that way?
That’s what I see every where I go.
So to address your question, ultimately what does it matter when the perception of ACP is more damaging to the coin than the the [i]possibility[/i] FTC is protecting itself from with ACP? Especially when it was introduced as a temporary last resort and we now have other alternatives.
If we’re not going to remove ACP, we’d better at least change the name and market it better to convince every one else it’s a great ‘feature’ to be promoted and not a centralized crutch implemented because so many people hate FTC that they spend their time and money attacking the coin … because FTC has failed at doing that so far from what I see.
And as I understand it, ACP was temporary and was a last resort because a better solution could not be devised quickly enough. ACP was agreed upon (sort of) since it was a temporary solution and another solution was on the way and for no other reason as I saw it. Now we’ve had time to come up with another option and from what I’ve read we have other options, yet we still have ACP or we’re still sitting here having discussions where ACP is being defended like it’s still a necessity. When does this ‘never ending journey’ that was supposed to be temporary finally see it’s end or when can we at least begin talking about killing the dragon?
[quote author=chrisj link=topic=6616.msg52671#msg52671 date=1389887908]
The point is that the distributed network is our goal at the end of this never ending journey we are all on unlike the Banks whose sole aim to control. But we will never reach our goal if we are not prepared to make the hard choices on the way.
[/quote]Agreed. FTC made the hard choice to temporarily take on ACP and not go on a never ending journey with ACP. If we now have other options, why not implement them now? Why would we want to promote a crutch in the first place, much less continue life on a crutch? That was how ACP was described long ago, a temporary crutch.
[/quote]+1Rep Tuck this is a very thought provoking post. For what’s it’s worth as a none tekkie (Bottom of the food chain with no voice) you have my vote.
-
ACP was one of the biggest concerns I had with ftc when initially looking into which crypto I saw to have the greatest potential.
I understood why it (ACP) [i]was[/i] necessary.
But as I understand things now, seeing the development of LINK and FLUX, I trust that there are other options now.
If ACP could be traded out for something decentralised, it would give ftc an edge over any other coin.
I believe that our two greatest assets are Community and Innovation.
As much as there are many awesome idea’s to implement, maybe, it is time to move Feathercoin into the post-ACP stage of it’s life before focusing on anything else in regards to innovating the coin itself.
