I previously incorrectly assumed that readers of this thread would be aware of the recent history of sync performance.
At the time of completion:
pepper-sync provided the fastest spend-before-sync implementation available, see benchmark above.
That represented a 15x speed up for Zingo, and made it suitable for subsequent improvements (planned but not yet implemented as we ran out of funding).
That 15x performance enhancement cannot be evaluated solely in terms of its benefit to deployed products (i.e. the Zingo Family and consumers), since it brought additional value in the following ways:
(i) stimulated competition among existing sync engines
(ii) provided an novel open-source sync implementation lowering the bar to entry for new wallets
Since we upgraded zingo, zingo-pc, and zexcavator to use pepper-sync those tools are able to efficiently recover buried funds in some cases.
No tool is able to recover buried funds in all cases, and there are a range of different reasons some funds remain buried.
pepper-sync provides a foundation, representing the majority of the work necessary to solve most of those cases, on which we could add more value, including features that address most if not all of those cases.
In the future I really recommend you ask for market rates for your work. Can be a bit more, or a bit less, find the right balance. But this proposal is loony and most importantly, it’s disrespectful.
Respect is everything.
And btw, I greatly value the work of your team. So that’s not what this is about, just so we have this clear.
Thank you for clarifying. However I strongly disagree with the reasoning and don’t think this aligns with what the community anticipated from the new funding model.
It’s definitely true that YWallet has the fastest raw sync, and least ZCG/Dev-fund funding of any Zcash wallet that I am aware of! Perhaps its funded by the market valuation of Ycash.
On the other hand it’s slower than pepper-sync for spend before sync, and spend detection and spend before sync are MOST useful for recovery of buried funds.
I’m not clear on why use of an internal address should slow sync.
Obviously I want to persuade you that this approach is rational, but to do so, I think I need to better understand your position.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I would be happy to hypothesize about what you might be proposing, if you think pursuing that dialogue would be worthwhile.
I don’t mind one way or another. I’m here for the long term vision and the governance. What people in here think of me is not really something that keeps me up at night.
Now, take a moment to notice what you have told me says about you. You’ve quoted me saying that respect is everything and that I greatly value the work of your team, and you answered that I am literally useless here.
You went from an inspiring old school Volvo guy, to a grifter, the moment Zcash prices have increased. Apologize to the community anytime mate.
Vision and governance are critical areas where Zcash needs energy and contribution!
If you want to contribute to vision, and governance, you’ll have to do better that this:
I am not “naturally like” any “that”, and I did not invite you to reduce me to a label.
This also doesn’t help me reason about the proposal.
It is a second occurrence of an attack on the validity of my experience.
My experience was that both of the above distracted me from addressing the thought-provoking questions I was receiving from other folks.
I appreciate that @hanh@thowar2 and @chmod (and maybe others) have brought thoughtful commentary to this proposal helping me to refine my proposal.
We may well not win the vote, but from where I sit those interlocutors have done their best to strengthen our argument, by thoughtfully critiquing it.
I subscribe to the notion that governance and vision are skills that can be cultivated. I follow Agnes Callard’s position that free communication is the basic requirement for rational politics.
If that’s correct, then the dialogs on this forum are more or less good governance, and bullying statements are bad governance.
I recommend Agnes Callard’s “Open Socrates”, for anyone who’s serious about cultivating governance, and vision skills.
Okay. It was still fair for me to express my sentiment. “that” is a label for you? Goodness.
Yeah, referring to the proposal as “loony” probably wasn’t the smartest choice. Let me rephrase with something I can stand behind:
This proposal is crazy and most importantly, it’s disrespectful.
It’s crazy because you are asking for a crazy amount of money, for work that is far from being worthy of that amount. It’s disrespectful because we stakeholders have to review that non-sense and I personally do not appreciate this unfair attempt to take advantage of the dev fund.
Good. Some people may be more eloquent than others.
We’re flawed, all of us, in different ways. It’s fine, as long as we recognize those flaws and keep trying to improve.
I suggest you ask for a withdrawal of this grant request and submit it again next time with the initial USD equivalent ask. Humans still need to review and process payments once the poll is over, a withdrawal request could technically be accepted at this point. An attempt at self withdrawal prior to the results is going to be much better look than waiting for a potentially negative outcome of this poll.
Matter of fact, if you would do that, I would pledge to support that grant request next time.
Thanks for showing interest in my position. It mainly comes down to my gut feeling. As someone who has been a lurker in this forum for a while, I remember when people were discussing how long ECC/ZF could survive due to the falling price of ZEC. And now, we’re going to pay 2 developers millions of dollars just because the value of ZEC has increased in the last 2 months?
I believe we should stay cautiously optimistic, before we try to 6x payouts by defining “value”.
(1) we did not receive that amount of income while we were developing (that “cost” estimate is based on what those devs could have made)
(2) the payout would go to the Zingo Labs treasury where it would be managed by Zingo core developers and fund Zcash projects
If we received the grant the ZEC would be voted on by developers. We’re all focused on innovations that empower more people to access and benefit from Zcash. We have been for our entire history.
So no.. there was never an intention to pay 2 developers a lump sum…
Closer to the reality might be something like 10 developers for 20 months.
If there’s interest I can come up with a roadmap (though likely not in time for the vote) of the projects we’re pushing forward as best we can. Very close to the top of that list is ZEC recovery tools.
CAVEAT EMPTOR:
Readers of this thread might object to the relevance of the information I am presenting since I am not explaining the value of the completed innovation per se. Since at least one (maybe voter) is curious about this, I will respond here.
This is simply an unreal amount of money and I think it jeopardizes your entire team since it’s basically ensuring that your grant will not go through.
Do you plan to update it to be 4M since ZEC value is now double of what it was when you wrote the grant?
