API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
maskekar

Ellaism Dev Meeting 14/04/2018

maskekar
Apr 14th, 2018
285
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 24.95 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:03 PM
  2. @here Our development meeting this week starts now. If you have anything to discuss, please raise your voice!
  3.  
  4. Regarding development, I needed to deal with some personal issues so not much update, but we have something planned for the short term:
  5. 1. Tipping and bounty system based on smart contracts -- we're going to borrow some code from Ethereum to get this done.
  6. 2. Proof of concept sidechain on Ellaism. This will be done using a stargate through parity-bridge.
  7. sc0rp1on - 14/04/2018 at 11:06 PM
  8. !rsvp
  9. RSVPBotBOT - 14/04/2018 at 11:06 PM
  10. @sc0rp1on You have RSVPed to Weekly General Development Meeting on Saturday (14 April) 4pm UTC. Remember to be there!
  11. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:08 PM
  12. I'll be here to answer questions if you have any. In the mean time, I think @Towd @limax we need to finalize the Community Fund bootstrap. I think things we need now:
  13.  
  14. 1. All verification status: have signers either verified to be long-term or non-anonymous?
  15. 2. Wallet addresses from all signers. Please try to create this as a standard keystore format and keep multiple backups.
  16. 3. If you're verified to be non-anonymous, please provide your real name and any public info of you. If you're verified to be long-term and decided to remain anonymous, please provide a name you want to be called, and proof that you have been in Ellaism early.
  17. 4. Please also get a short tagline/bio of you. For example, you can state your involvement in Ellaism.
  18.  
  19. After that we can start the technical setup, and I expect that to be fast. :smiley:(edited)
  20. Towd - 14/04/2018 at 11:08 PM
  21. Limux and I have compiled a pretty comprehensive list of signees for the new community wallet. We have verification from almost all the members newer members. I have had a request to keep the information private. I think this is fine, however, I should probably share it with Ellaismer, or someone else as a backup.
  22. If we'd prefer short term members be public, then I think it's probably easier to just remove a couple of people from the list.
  23. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:09 PM
  24. @Towd Hmm okay but do we mind to publish non-anonymous members' real name?(edited)
  25. Kimi Sian-Yu Chen - 14/04/2018 at 11:09 PM
  26. i am here
  27. terra-pescado - 14/04/2018 at 11:10 PM
  28. Ella store is live, first item is here. I'm running a contest alongside to celebrate!
  29. Towd - 14/04/2018 at 11:11 PM
  30. Some of the short term people don't mind publically revealing their identity, but its a sensitive thing for a couple others. I don't have a problem with that, but I think the information should be held confidentially by a couple people.
  31. terra-pescado - 14/04/2018 at 11:11 PM
  32. I sent a pic of my drivers license to towd, he can share that with ellaismer if needed.
  33. Kimi Sian-Yu Chen - 14/04/2018 at 11:12 PM
  34. i am planning design a roadmap viz for ella
  35. Does ella have some timeline i can refer ?
  36. sc0rp1on - 14/04/2018 at 11:13 PM
  37. 1. Tipping and bounty for?
  38. 2. Can you please elaborate about POC?
  39. 3. I personally think short term members should be publically known. They might decide to do 'you know what'
  40. 4. Have we reached any conclusion about the ASICs?
  41. Towd - 14/04/2018 at 11:15 PM
  42. One other thing, I want to bring up. I currently have a couple groups with multiple signees. This may be overkill though. But it gives us some options to fill the 9 slots. I'm posting the updated list in the #comfund-bootstrap channel if people would like to check it.
  43. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:16 PM
  44. @sc0rp1on
  45. 1. A general tipping and bounty system, for anything related to Ellaism.
  46. 2. Basically a stargate -- we have a PoA sidechain, and there'll be a ERC20 token that you can interact back and forth with Ellaism main chain.
  47. 3. I actually agree on that point, but probably this needs some discussions. I think it needs at least the real name -- and any already public info regarding the signer would be a plus.
  48. 4. No not yet.
  49. @Kimi Sian-Yu Chen We don't have timeline... I can write something for you if you want. The ANN would also be of some readings regarding the history.
  50. Kimi Sian-Yu Chen - 14/04/2018 at 11:18 PM
  51. @ellaismer ok, i think i need it
  52. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:19 PM
  53. @Towd What's the status for @limax and @Ella-Miner?
  54. limax - 14/04/2018 at 11:19 PM
  55. I don't have any problem to have my identity verified
  56. sc0rp1on - 14/04/2018 at 11:20 PM
  57. What sort of proof do I need to submit for verification of being long term/
  58. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:20 PM
  59. @terra-pescado I don't think it will need driver license of something like that. But if you can publish, for example, your Twitter/Facebook url or your personal blog or any of your public info, that would be enough.
  60. Towd - 14/04/2018 at 11:20 PM
  61. They both only want to sign if they can stay private. If we want to share names publically, I should check with the short term people regarding identity. I know most of them don't mind, but few wanted to keep their information private.
  62. limax - 14/04/2018 at 11:20 PM
  63. @Towd :arrow_up:
  64. terra-pescado - 14/04/2018 at 11:21 PM
  65. @ellaismer already did drivers license to Towd. But I'll do Facebook for public if needed
  66. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:22 PM
  67. @terra-pescado Cool. Thank you.
  68. Towd - 14/04/2018 at 11:22 PM
  69. I don't know if it hurts just to maintain a list that is held by a couple people. I personally don't feel that people's names need to be made public. In most of the cases the short term signers have been with us since January compared to some of the long term members who are only a couple months older.
  70. terra-pescado - 14/04/2018 at 11:23 PM
  71. Plus I think public identity helps ease minds with swag store.
  72. So people don't think they are sending Ella to some rando
  73. Towd - 14/04/2018 at 11:24 PM
  74. For verification, I have facebook and linked-in links. And was able to get email verifications. Yes, and Terra-pescado sent me his ID.
  75. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:27 PM
  76. @Towd I would just worry about what happened to our old wallet. If a person hasn't been here for long term or is non-anonymous, if he/she quits, nobody would be held responsible.
  77. And the problem with holding the list private is, well, who/which group should be holding the list? And how do you gain trust from people outside of this list?(edited)
  78. Towd - 14/04/2018 at 11:30 PM
  79. Well, I think as the list develops people will become long term members. The short term thing is more of a one off as we develop the list. Just looking at it, we have 5 short term signees and 4 long term currently. I believe we'll lose 2 of the signees if we want to share public names. This doesn't count limax or Ella-miner.
  80. So, that would take us from 9 currently verified to 7. But I should double check.
  81. Really though it would take us from 11 to 7 counting Limax and Ella-miner.
  82. sc0rp1on - 14/04/2018 at 11:32 PM
  83. Limax just said he is okay with being public I guess
  84. Nulligun - 14/04/2018 at 11:33 PM
  85. The anonymous thing makes me very uncomfortable. I'd be willing to share FB, Linked-In etc if you need a signer.
  86. Towd - 14/04/2018 at 11:35 PM
  87. Well, to my mind, they are not anonymous if we hold a record of their identity. But if we would prefer a public identity, I think we can still complete the list for the wallet. We may just need to remove any multi-sigs beyond the Dev group signature.
  88. That's fine for me as the multi-sigs were adding some complexity, possibly unnecessarily.
  89. limax - 14/04/2018 at 11:36 PM
  90. Actually if we will start working on team page all names can be public (except Core)(edited)
  91. This can be good for exchange listings also
  92. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:37 PM
  93. @Towd We need to make a decision on this soon. My suggestion would be to get those 8 signers (including @Nulligun) onbroad first. Later if we want to include other people, it's always possible to change the list and/or add new multisig groups, once other anonymous people have proved to be long-term.
  94. @limax Yeah and I haven't got any person's info on team page yet. If you're a leader, please post a short tagline of you. For that you can remain anonymous. :smiley:
  95. terra-pescado - 14/04/2018 at 11:38 PM
  96. Agreed for the exchanges, some require core dev info right? Or 10% shareholder?
  97. limax - 14/04/2018 at 11:40 PM
  98. @ellaismer I can start working on that list
  99. Towd - 14/04/2018 at 11:41 PM
  100. I'll verify that people don't mind having their identity revealed today. Let's set a date to get the wallet set up. I'm sure we'll have the necessary signature. We may just lose a couple, but we have more than enough.
  101. sc0rp1on - 14/04/2018 at 11:41 PM
  102. @ellaismer I think it is better to have odd number as signers. It's easier to take a decision that way
  103. terra-pescado - 14/04/2018 at 11:42 PM
  104. @sc0rp1on yep
  105. Towd - 14/04/2018 at 11:43 PM
  106. Yes, the current plan is to have 9 signing groups with 5 signatures to unlock.
  107. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:46 PM
  108. @Towd And I would only need the signers' wallet address to bootstrap the fund. So just a recap of what we need:
  109.  
  110. 1. For identity-verified people: real name, and (recommended but optional) a public link of you.
  111. 2. For long term people: what you want to be called, and a short description/tagline for how you get involved.
  112. 3. Wallet addresses of all signers. Please make backup of the private key.
  113.  
  114. Things should go really fast once we get those in place.
  115. sc0rp1on - 14/04/2018 at 11:46 PM
  116. We will need to share the private key?
  117. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:47 PM
  118. NO.
  119. terra-pescado - 14/04/2018 at 11:47 PM
  120. Is it our own Ella wallet? Or make a different one?
  121. sc0rp1on - 14/04/2018 at 11:47 PM
  122. I thought Towd needs to make backup of the PK. LOL
  123. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:47 PM
  124. @sc0rp1on You need to provide a normal Ellaism wallet address. And please keep the private key only known by yourself...
  125. Towd - 14/04/2018 at 11:48 PM
  126. @ellaismer Alright, I'll collect the data.
  127. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:48 PM
  128. @terra-pescado Yes, just one of your own Ella wallet address.
  129. terra-pescado - 14/04/2018 at 11:48 PM
  130. Ok, just just make a new wallet just for signee use.
  131. Not our personal wallet
  132. Like the one I keep all my Ella in
  133. Gotcha
  134. EllagramBOT - 14/04/2018 at 11:49 PM
  135. JayGatsbys: Hi
  136. terra-pescado - 14/04/2018 at 11:49 PM
  137. Hey jay.
  138. EllagramBOT - 14/04/2018 at 11:49 PM
  139. Jumpy1971: hi
  140. maskekar - 14/04/2018 at 11:49 PM
  141. @ellaismer i cannot recommend publishing real names on internet, it put too much burden. For example: If this coin has a problem, then anon can simply run away.. meanwhile the one who get published get screwed up
  142. terra-pescado - 14/04/2018 at 11:50 PM
  143. Hey Jay, can you share in telegram with other Ella people that the swag store Is open and the first item has arrived, plus that I am running a contest. :)
  144. EllagramBOT - 14/04/2018 at 11:51 PM
  145. JayGatsbys: We see it now here the things you say(edited)
  146. JayGatsbys: We could pin something
  147. terra-pescado - 14/04/2018 at 11:51 PM
  148. Ok, cool. Thanks
  149. You can copy pins from swag store if needed
  150. limax - 14/04/2018 at 11:53 PM
  151. @maskekar Then we should limit the signing rights only to long term members
  152. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:53 PM
  153. @maskekar Though anon people can always "run away". But if they're long-term, that also forms an identity that people cannot simply get away.
  154.  
  155. I think the thing we tries to do here is to make sure signers are considered "responsible". If the coin has a problem, then it's not the signers' fault and involvement shouldn't get any bad press. But if there's abuse on the Community Fund, then people would know who caused it.
  156. EllagramBOT - 14/04/2018 at 11:54 PM
  157. Jumpy1971: I agree with ellaismer
  158. limax - 14/04/2018 at 11:54 PM
  159. @ellaismer history proved that long term is not the same with responsible(edited)
  160. ellaismer - 14/04/2018 at 11:55 PM
  161. Hmm I agree, but I don't think we currently have a better way to deal with that.
  162. sc0rp1on - 14/04/2018 at 11:56 PM
  163. @limax I think what ellaismer want to states is that everyone knows who those long term people are if they cause some problems and they will always be known even with that alias. However, it is not really true with the short term people.
  164. maskekar - 14/04/2018 at 11:56 PM
  165. @limax @ellaismer i think it's just personal issue i guess. It's fine, i think y'all had enough signer
  166. limax - 14/04/2018 at 11:56 PM
  167. I know the real identity of half of old signers
  168. So what?
  169. maskekar - 14/04/2018 at 11:57 PM
  170. @limax know if different from "publishing"
  171. limax - 14/04/2018 at 11:58 PM
  172. I know. I'm just pointing to a real problem
  173. The identity published or not, verified or not means nothing
  174. limax - 15/04/2018 at 12:00 AM
  175. The involvevment of the signers in the community and trust will do more than the real identity
  176. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 12:01 AM
  177. @limax I understand it's not a perfect solution, but we don't currently have better way to deal with it.
  178. In the future, we should really consider moving to a donation governance contract so we need to trust no one. :laughing:
  179. But for now, we probably still need to continue to use the non-perfect multisig system.
  180. limax - 15/04/2018 at 12:02 AM
  181. Then I propose to keep only old term signers and add signers when they prove that are long term
  182. Or they are trusted enough
  183. The number is not important this way
  184. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 12:04 AM
  185. @limax Personally I would consider people to be "trusted enough" if they agree to publish their real names. And we do have many of them involved in Ellaism a lot lately.
  186. limax - 15/04/2018 at 12:06 AM
  187. Publishing real names will not do anything good
  188. maskekar - 15/04/2018 at 12:06 AM
  189. @limax it's fine, just let the one who are willing to do that as a signer
  190. limax - 15/04/2018 at 12:08 AM
  191. We cannot use two ways of measuring things(edited)
  192. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 12:09 AM
  193. Yeah and as you mentioned. It's also not feasible to completely trust long-term people (like what happened to the old wallet).
  194. (And just wonder, if anyone has anything else you want to discuss, please let us know! Otherwise the meeting might be closed soon you know it!)
  195. terra-pescado - 15/04/2018 at 12:11 AM
  196. Why don't we keep current multisig. When community fund reaches a set amount we move to donation governance contract.
  197. limax - 15/04/2018 at 12:11 AM
  198. To be a signer for community wallet is not something like a distinction. Is just responsability and signers are doing a favor to the community
  199. They need to be protected like anyone else
  200. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:12 AM
  201. I've put together a new comfund list of signees and posted in the #comfund-bootstrap. I just need to get verification from @psdev regarding his identity.
  202. If you are on the list please send me the information requested by Ellaismer above and DM me. I'll post a copy on #comfund-bootstrap. Thanks!
  203. limax - 15/04/2018 at 12:14 AM
  204. Just for the record I'll be off that list
  205. psdev - 15/04/2018 at 12:14 AM
  206. it is already easy for anyone to find my name from my username
  207. with a little searching
  208. or do a reverse google search of my image
  209. but I don't like the idea of two types of signers
  210. anon and not
  211. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 12:18 AM
  212. @psdev I would also hope we have better solutions. But please understand the two groups are not different -- it's just "verification status". We would hope everyone to publish their real names, but we all know that's not possible. So if people have been here for a long time, I think that's okay.
  213. limax - 15/04/2018 at 12:19 AM
  214. Is not
  215. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:19 AM
  216. Alright, I have a finalized list. Please get me your wallet addresses, and if you are a long term member, we'd like a short statement regarding how you found the Ellaism project. You can DM me with the info.
  217. psdev - 15/04/2018 at 12:20 AM
  218. Yeah, I guess i'm off the list then. No worries
  219. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 12:23 AM
  220. Hmm @psdev @Towd can we discuss? I would hope we don't drive people away because of the anon issue.
  221.  
  222. I read the list, if we get all non-anon people, that would still be 6 currently? Or how about we make the community fund completely non-anon? Dev Fund will need to be excluded -- we have one signer there with real identity, but I'm anon.
  223. EllagramBOT - 15/04/2018 at 12:24 AM
  224. JayGatsbys (in reply to @ellaismer): And same country maybe
  225. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:24 AM
  226. Everybody's situation is different. Some people prefer their anonymity, some are very social and spend a lot of time in social media and are not bothered by sharing that information.
  227. terra-pescado - 15/04/2018 at 12:24 AM
  228. I gotcha
  229. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:24 AM
  230. I personally don't think we should be sharing people's private information publically as a requirement.
  231. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 12:24 AM
  232. @Towd Yeah I agree. We should only share already public information.
  233. EllagramBOT - 15/04/2018 at 12:25 AM
  234. JayGatsbys (in reply to @ellaismer): They still wont work with us on that problem with the old wallet?(edited)
  235. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:25 AM
  236. I think verifying identity for short term people is enough. We can then hold that information in a small trusted group of accounts. Possibly all the signees. But it is not necessary to make it public. We'd get more redundant signatures that way as well.
  237. Well, I mean people's Linked In or Facebook account is private information to me if they'd rather be anonymous. I consider identifying information private information.(edited)
  238. EllagramBOT - 15/04/2018 at 12:26 AM
  239. JayGatsbys (in reply to JayGatsbys): Sorry i read 50% here atm
  240. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:26 AM
  241. For myself, I have a Facebook account for work, but I'm not ready to share that here.
  242. If necessary, I can do that with a few trusted people. My name is uniquely identifying though, and it would be very easy for someone to find my home address once they have my name.
  243. That kind of thing makes me uncomfortable.
  244. So that's why my thoughts were that we could just hold onto people's identity and store it with a few long term people for the record. But we didn't need to share it publically.
  245. EllagramBOT - 15/04/2018 at 12:29 AM
  246. JayGatsbys: I know some peoples of other Crypto that shared their name. Maybe stupid what i say here dont know.(edited)
  247. JayGatsbys: And are Developers of well know crypto projects who maybe want to do this signing. Maybe we pay them some for doing this.(edited)
  248. clarkso (in reply to JayGatsbys): Need help with ellaism
  249. JayGatsbys (in reply to clarkso): Hello
  250. almuntje (in reply to @Towd): Yes
  251. almuntje: Also long term people is a good idea with no id
  252. JayGatsbys: AI maybe we ask some peoples from other coins
  253. JayGatsbys (in reply to almuntje): No they just talked about this here. It is not enough.
  254. almuntje: For the moment
  255. JayGatsbys: Those who left last time where also long term(edited)
  256. almuntje (in reply to JayGatsbys): Yes, could be an idea
  257. JayGatsbys (in reply to almuntje): Peoples like DrThee maybe
  258. JayGatsbys: Techadept
  259. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 12:34 AM
  260. I think the problem here is that we are trying to set up the Community Fund as a fund to manage donations. If we make people uncomfortable, then that will drive people away from donating to this project, which is bad. So I suggest we discuss this issue more in-depth, maybe find another time, when we're better prepared. And it would be really great if people can share about what part of the anon/non-anon makes you uncomfortable? Do you think all signers should be non-anon? Or should be anon?
  261.  
  262. And by the way, yes, I think using real name on the Internet is common. My real name is also well-known in the other crypto I work on. I'm only not able to share it here because of work-related issues.
  263. EllagramBOT - 15/04/2018 at 12:35 AM
  264. JayGatsbys: They wont screw us im sure
  265. almuntje (in reply to JayGatsbys): We can explore this option. But what Ellaismer says sounds logical
  266. JayGatsbys (in reply to almuntje): Yes also work related can stop people to sign
  267. almuntje: You can talk with Dr. Thee. If he is open to this, why not
  268. limax - 15/04/2018 at 12:38 AM
  269. @ellaismer Do you think that a possible donor will think about who is the signer of the fund or it will think first about who is Core?
  270. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:38 AM
  271. Yes, I think privacy on the internet means different things to different people. And different people have different levels of comfort about sharing their private information. That should be respected though. I personally think we are trying to build in enough redundancy that we don't need people's public identity to build trust. I still suggest we move forward, but keep people's identifying information private since that was just I originally thought to verify people initially to act as a signee.
  272. At least just for people who have been here less than 6 months.
  273. limax - 15/04/2018 at 12:39 AM
  274. Donors are not investing in signers
  275. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:40 AM
  276. With 9 signee groups selected from across the community, I hope we will not have a repeat of what happened with the old community wallet. We can then verify the status of the signees at a regular interval and update it as needed.
  277. EllagramBOT - 15/04/2018 at 12:41 AM
  278. almuntje (in reply to @Towd): Yes, good thinking
  279. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:41 AM
  280. While we ponder this, I will share my hypnotic spinning ELLA logo.
  281.  
  282. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 12:42 AM
  283. @Towd Is it still 9 now? I think @psdev said he/she doesn't want to be on the list if some of the members are anon?
  284. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:43 AM
  285. Without psdev we're down to eight.
  286. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 12:45 AM
  287. @Towd I think it maybe best to postpone this to a later time. We can discuss this just in #comfund-bootstrap or in the worst case, next dev meeting. I'll continue to get all technical stuff so once we agreed on the list, the multisig should be immediately ready. And I'll also try to explore some crypto stuff to see whether we have a crypto-provable way to gain trust.
  288. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:45 AM
  289. As a distributed crypto project, I think we should work to build trust in the community wallet without requiring identifying information. With enough signatures, I think that should be possible.
  290. limax - 15/04/2018 at 12:46 AM
  291. @Towd you don't have @zenrobot on the list
  292. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:46 AM
  293. @ellaismer I do think it is an important issue. So I'm fine with discussing further if we need to.
  294. @limax I took zenrobot off the list when we needed to make information public.
  295. limax - 15/04/2018 at 12:48 AM
  296. He is long term
  297. Al - 15/04/2018 at 12:48 AM
  298. Longer than I am
  299. limax - 15/04/2018 at 12:48 AM
  300. And supporting the network with 8-9 nodes I think
  301. Towd - 15/04/2018 at 12:48 AM
  302. Oh sorry. Then we are at 9 signees.
  303. My mistake. We have a complete list then if we want to get started building the wallet.
  304. I think we should and we can discuss private vs. public info in the #comfund-bootstrap.
  305. But we should do a fund raising drive and start doing some contests and such ASAP to raise awareness.
  306. terra-pescado - 15/04/2018 at 12:52 AM
  307. thats what im trying to do... lol
  308. 3 in 1
  309. maskekar - 15/04/2018 at 12:53 AM
  310. @ellaismer well one reason of anon genesis is to prevent intervention.. if satoshi true identity is published, maybe he will get kidnapped or blackmail (other crazy stuff) to introduce backdoor / alter code / something else.. Maybe after we get big (hopefully) and have trillion of dollar collected in these multisig address, our discussion will be different.
  311. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 12:54 AM
  312. @Towd So what I'm thinking about is this: we take advantage of n-of-m key encryption (secret sharing) in crypto.
  313.  
  314. So first, we have at least half of the signers to have their identity public -- they publish their real names and a thing related to them. Let's call them group A. For example, let's say there're 6 (as we currently have). For the 4 people who only want their identity to be privately known (let's call them group B), we use secret sharing to encrypt a proof of their identity (including their real name, etc). The keys are held by the 6 members whose identity is already known. With that, to decrypt the proof, it needs a threshold of keys -- let's say it's 4. So we consider:
  315.  
  316. 1. If any of group A members abuses the fund, their identity is already known publicly. qed.
  317. 2. If any of group B members abuses the fund, their identity is known by the group A members. In this case, the group A members can publish the decryption key. Once we get 4 of them, the abuser's identity would be revealed. qed.
  318. terra-pescado - 15/04/2018 at 12:55 AM
  319. by that time all will be long term, i say hold identity private, once that person shows trust it can be discarded
  320. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 12:55 AM
  321. So the property of this is that a) several members can remain private, and b) their identity can be revealed if found out abusing.
  322. EllagramBOT - 15/04/2018 at 12:55 AM
  323. JayGatsbys (in reply to @Towd): We need a solid way before doing anything.
  324. JayGatsbys (in reply to @ellaismer): Yea
  325. terra-pescado - 15/04/2018 at 12:57 AM
  326. @ellaismer that works
  327. EllagramBOT - 15/04/2018 at 12:58 AM
  328. JayGatsbys (in reply to @ellaismer): :thumbsup:
  329. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 1:00 AM
  330. I guess let's close the dev meetings for now, though. :laughing: It has been 2 hours.
  331.  
  332. I still need to prepare the actual algorithm and an implementation for us to do this. Might take some time, but please let me know if you like this or not. And let's continue the discussion in #comfund-bootstrap!
  333. !rsvp set-date 21 April
  334. RSVPBotBOT - 15/04/2018 at 1:00 AM
  335. RSVP date set to 21 April.
  336. ellaismer - 15/04/2018 at 1:00 AM
  337. !rsvp clear
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!