C++ Dev Wanted

[psztorc]

toast (of Bitshares) is working on this project in his spare time, and would like "an experienced C++ programmer" help him bang out a Truthcoin version over the next few days.

Message me or reply to this forum post if you can collaborate, or want more details.

[zack]

Why is C++ a goal?
If toast is doing this, then why is psztorc making a thread about it?
What exactly does "bang out a Truthcoin version" entail? I can't think of anything that would fit into "next few days".

[psztorc]

It isn't.
Because I'm trying to help people who want to work on the software.
You'd have to ask him, but my understanding is that he wants a simple (non-svd-voting) version for the bitshares community to play around with and get excited about.

[psztorc]

I'm pleased to announce that someone has taken on (and succeeded? ) in the challenge of getting some C++ on the ground.

Check out https://github.com/psztorc/Truthcoin/tree/master/cpplib

[alexkravets]

IMHO,

Truthcoin should just join Bitshares gang and become a DAC on top of the BitShares toolkit.

For the concept to reach scale, a good UI and lots of other minutia will be required, that doesn't seem to be the TruthCoin creator's forte :-)

This necessitates that a real dev. team (starting with a C++ guy to help create a foundation based on the Bitshares toolkit) followed by entire start-up's worth of other people hired eventually.

The model to emulate as an example of success would be Ripple Labs behind Ripple.

Doing a real start-up of course requires an economic model to incentivize investors to come out of the woodwork to fund it (I could join in :-)

So what would be an "incentive-compatible" economic model for TruthDAC ?

[psztorc]

For the concept to reach scale, a good UI and lots of other minutia will be required, that doesn't seem to be the TruthCoin creator's forte :-)

This necessitates that a real dev. team (starting with a C++ guy to help create a foundation based on the Bitshares toolkit) followed by entire start-up's worth of other people hired eventually.

The model to emulate as an example of success would be Ripple Labs behind Ripple.

Wouldn't you say that Bitcoin is the example to emulate? And Bitcoin didn't have any of these things, no startup, no "good UI", no minutia, no investing. Lately, I've been thinking that this is a major reason for success: not beholden to any investors or partners, Satoshi was able to achieve a powerful network effect by giving the coins away to anyone willing to support the network by mining. Premining any amount of coins would have introduced arbitrary and non-unique featuers, which could have resulted in confusion and discoordination (failure to achieve required network effect).

Doing a real start-up of course requires an economic model to incentivize investors to come out of the woodwork to fund it (I could join in :-)

So what would be an "incentive-compatible" economic model for TruthDAC ?

Have you seen the presentation draft thread?

Lately, I have been thinking that I will need to give away both the CashCoins and Votecoins. The network effect is the singularly most important implementation detail. I'd rather own 2% of something important than 50% of something useless.

[psztorc]

The biggest problem with choosing the Bitshares toolkit over the existing Bitcoin blockchain, is that the Bitcoin blockchain has been running securely for years with a billion dollar market cap. We therefore know it must be very secure.

Software bugs are a fact of life, they will be in the toolkit which means that people will experience problems (lost funds, blockchain reorgs). Are these problems worth the features of the toolkit.

We also know that "Bitcoin Core" already works with all Bitcoin merchants, the entire Bitcoin community, and all developed Bitcoin software!

That's a lot of reasons to just modify the existing Bitcoin software, don't you think?

[martinBrown]

We also know that "Bitcoin Core" already works with all Bitcoin merchants, the entire Bitcoin community, and all developed Bitcoin software!

That's a lot of reasons to just modify the existing Bitcoin software, don't you think?

Modifying the existing bitcoin software will create new bugs, especially for more complex transaction types / opcodes that truthcoin would need (votes, markets, etc). Alt-coin forks don't inherit the same security / reliability guarantees as the official bitcoin codebase.

A toolkit is a modular codebase with interface functions designed as a flexible base for versatile addition (assuming you're not mucking about in the interface implementations). If you fork a legacy codebase you'll probably be modifying brittle code, "fragile base classes" that were never meant to be flexible. That might be even more worrisome than using a newer toolkit which is designed for flexibility, though not as well-tested.

[darkmatter7]

The network effect is the singularly most important implementation detail. I'd rather own 2% of something important than 50% of something useless.

I agree with this statement.  I think that there may be no simplistic solution.  I do think that it may make sense toward achieving the aforementioned network effect to do a purely spin-off (trustless 1:1 proportional distribution) of Cashcoin to BTC holders, however VoteCoin distribution may require more complexity.  VoteCoin distribution needs to be an algorithmic solution to the problem of recruiting the most viable oracles which is a problem that is not necessarily aligned with the natural selection that occurred over the course of BTC distribution to date.  I will work on proposals for potential VoteCoin distribution mechanisms.