August 24th: gearing up for launch

richyjames wrote:

Phore team are ready to have a meeting on Tuesday with the members wanting to participate in the launch, lets set up a group chat on here
ok just added myself to the launch channel, those of you inclined do the same
This is hopefully shaping towards a very fair and open start to a chain, not aware of any masternode coin set up with this level of community involvement at each step.

moonshot will come in today and assist the process of directing what needs doing. Probably take a couple of days of telling everyone how we need to carry this out.
Graham also will also remind us that he mentioned the disbursal script so will need his instruction on what to do in regards to that.

Also need the dnsseeder set up on the domain today, or maybe on helium labs, I do not know how to do it but im sure some of you guys know so thats the Job of the day
Helium labs domain seems the candidate to put that on, so lets see if that can get done today.

gj wrote:

The object of the PoW period is to bridge the block generation gap between block 0 and block 100 - when all the balances mature and start to stake, generating hashes to secure the ledger and mint new blocks. Group members who engaged directly in the launch preparations were i) aware of the issue and ii) able to hold better-informed discussions. The general consensus was that despite an increased risk of DoS disruption, principles of transparency pointed towards a publicly-accessible PoW period rather than one conducted in private. If it all does go pear-shaped, just call a halt to it and start again. Bear in mind the practicalities - no-one's getting any fiat out of this exercise until Cryptopia are satisfied.

richyjames wrote:

Once the group has finished with the alchemy finalised the code, I email nadar and we try get cryptopia running 2 weeks after we begin.
Cryptopia will take time to review and take live on their platform. Probably will be around 14 days to get to that point. The block reward is 1HLM during this period. This seemed a reasonable period to make sure we are stable with the number of nodes on the network and go through the POS change over.

Have sparked up conversations today in regards to this notion of staff in regards to helium. What can staff roles looks like, what is the correct way to describe someone working for a decentralised group, how can they perform the role. What should they be paid. What is the communication model.
This is in regards to Co-ordinating how we progress rather then the marketing role.

Have asked for consultation from graham on such a role, and how the treasury see it, so hopefully Teela and Rhino would offer their advice on the topic also.
Helium is incredibly time consuming, and I dont want to be making any decisions personally on the groups behalf. There most likely needs to be someone on call for dealing with exchanges, dealing with the phone call at 3am when the chain has an issue. Would probably be advisable to get someone with a track record of experience or long history in this group that understands how we operate.

Also whilst in this area will mention in regards to developers I think faetos has shown real commitment to the group and should be compensated for the time he spends on this role if it continues on an ongoing basis.

gj wrote:

I'm being idle here, reposting from #launch ... Julian has correctly questioned the completeness of my implementation of the part-disbursal of the public ledger via genesis block transaction as potentially falling foul of specific stanzas of code that either explicitly ignore genesis block tx or perform tests that will fail if block height = 0, he was kind enough to provide a couple of examples immediately, off the top of his head. Okay, I fixed them but his point still stands and I can't refute it, merely respond - i) by creating a branch with that implementation stripped out of the genesis block (necessitating a restart) and replaced by a straightforward block 1 premine of the public ledger balance, the disbursal of which is effected by a pre-published script and ii) presenting a choice to the community: "too risky" vs "worth the risk". I created a Pull Request, it's ready to go: https://travis-ci.org/heliumchain/helium. Unless there's rioting in the streets at the idea, I'll be pushing the Accept button after a suitable pause for thought. It's too risky for what it brings.

more laziness: "the change doesn't really impact what's being tested here, so when this trial run completes successfully, there's no impediment to a launch."

After accepting that PR, the next in line is the extension of Slacker's clean-up of the GUI, removing extraneous references to zerostuff.

rhinomonkey wrote:

Thanks GJ. Sounds like we will only have to restart the chain one more time and then we’ll be ready to go! No qualms on my part to restart with the fixed disbursal.

richyjames wrote:

This was initially earmarked to iron out any issues, which has served its purpose. As we have the branch ready thanks to graham, would be advisable to run it. Then when it begins I can email cryptopia and the rest is history.

General note: read up on #launch for current events regarding launch development (too much and to detailed to share here)