Menu
What's new

Archived Ale PIVX dev (December)

A

Alessandro Rezzi

Pivian
Code: 
Name: Ale dev December
Term: 1 Cycles
Cycle Amnt: 30,000
Total Amnt: 30,000
Author: Alessandro Rezzi
Receiver: Alessandro Rezzi
Address: DP91drj7qc7FrPRwdaKi1wdsqrEt9zJthv
Created: 8-11-2023
Status: Active
Vote Hash: 49b8a6353c4e254010b5e8b0ff1c3463d6196f27f6e29f3bf361b75be9607f87


Proposal info:

This proposal will cover my development cost for the month of December. It covers only one month since on January/February I will be again busy with my last university exam session. With respect to the last month I am asking for 2,000 less PIVs since the price is up again and I will be working both on MPW and on core wallet. (hopefully, see the section on core wallet update...)

Last proposal update:
In the last two cycles I ended up working almost only on MPW where I completely redesigned the wallet/network system and began working on shielding, a list of important PRs are:

Wallet refactor:
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/197) and (https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/200):
Where I decoupled the concept of wallet from the "lower level" concept of MasterKey.

Mempool v2:
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/201):
Where I designed a super solid new mempool system that solves all the problems users had with balance duplication.

Net network model:
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/219)
I implemented a new network model where all history of the wallet is synced. Main advantages are that with this PR: huge wallets with even 50k+ transactions can be loaded and used without any problems, network requests to blockbook are almost reduced to 0, sync time is overall much faster and also the old cold stake bug is solved, see
https://www.reddit.com/r/pivx/comments/16s0k4u
for more info.

Transaction Database
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/235)
Creates a database for transaction in this way MPW will ask blockbook only once for the full history, then everything is saved on DB and loaded when necessary.

Shielding:
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/244) This is co-authored with Duddino, and adds shielding support to MPW. So far we are doing great and will try to finish within the end of November, as promised in my last proposal. Apart from the pull request on MPW I have also done some work on the shielding rust library:
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/pivx-shield/pull/60) Add view only mode, which is a way to see your balance and generating addresses without having the authority to spend anything;
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/pivx-shield/pull/61) Changes a bit the way in which the lib save and loads its instances.



Then a list of very good features but not so important PRs are:
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/233) Add a coin lock system;
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/234) Make wallet ignore immature transactions that cannot be spent yet;
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/232) Add a log out button and encourage encryption on wallet creation.



Finally a list of trivial PRs and mostly trivial bug fix:
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/248) Fix the flow to change password;
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/252) Fix a small transcation database bug;
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/253) Fix a small bug in translations;
(https://github.com/PIVX-Labs/MyPIVXWallet/pull/247) Fix a small bug in the flow to encrypt the wallet.



Core wallet update:

I have also worked a bit on the core wallet, where I opened a couple of pull requests... Sadly at the moment is very difficult working and pushing forward with a new release since everything takes way too much time, just to give some examples:
(https://github.com/PIVX-Project/PIVX/pull/2885): This PR was opened on september 9 and closed on september 29, literally had to wait 20 days for reviews to a dash backport...
(https://github.com/PIVX-Project/PIVX/pull/2884): Opened on september 9 and is still unreviewed after 2 months
(https://github.com/PIVX-Project/PIVX/pull/2889): Opened 3 weeks ago and still there unreviewed

And these are minor PRs that can be merged literally in a day or two, you can imagine how long big PRs like shield staking and shield masternodes will take just to be reviewed... Usually PRs are built one on top of the other so working at this pace is almost impossible. This happens because devs are busy with other tasks/ might not have the skills to review a particular PR, I think that a good solution would be adding to the team at least one new c++ developer that would work only on core wallet, so we can speed up with reviews and new features.

What I will do in the next cycle:

The priority is finishing shielding on MPW (as I said hopefully before the end of November) and then I have a big list of TODO for both core wallet (basically the same at the last proposal) and MPW (where I mainly want to continue working on network and the new wallet model). Another task that I have in program is implementing cold staking for ledger. But of course I cannot do everything in 1 cycle and I will pick a particular task after MPW shielding.
 
Last edited:
Re: "I think that a good solution would be adding to the team at least one new c++ developer that would work only on core wallet, so we can speed up with reviews and new features."

That is a good idea. However, seems like someone wants to make it even harder to get reviews done, and bring Core development to a halt, by voting down the other proposal.
 
Eric_Stanek said:
Re: "I think that a good solution would be adding to the team at least one new c++ developer that would work only on core wallet, so we can speed up with reviews and new features."

That is a good idea. However, seems like someone wants to make it even harder to get reviews done, and bring Core development to a halt, by voting down the other proposal.
Click to expand...
Adding a new c++ dev would be great but if current people are not pulling their weight which by the comments form allessandro seems to be the case this needs to be sorted out.

Funds are always limited so cutting back on payments to those not pulling their weight would be a start, to then use those funds for c++ people who can review code but not do as much coding.
 
An internal open review of peoples work to pay ratio with all parties involved and the community to comment would be a great way to discuss these problems.
 
@Gerrald Competition is good for business, and good for PIVX too. But, that means ADDING to the team first. So, let's get the additional C++ developers first, and then those that don't pull their weight will have to adjust. Doing it this way means we keep moving forward, albeit at a slower pace than with additional C++ developers. Plus, that allows for the 'brain dump' of the huge amount of knowledge the dev team has, to the additional C++ devs. Ideally, they all find their place working for PIVX, at a price level the DAO agrees with. But, if some devs get pushed out in that process - it is what it is.

Not sure how we can learn to trust new C++ devs, without at least a skeleton dev team to work with them and vet them. Without that dynamic, new devs could kill PIVX.
 
Eric_Stanek said:
@Gerrald Competition is good for business, and good for PIVX too. But, that means ADDING to the team first. So, let's get the additional C++ developers first, and then those that don't pull their weight will have to adjust. Doing it this way means we keep moving forward, albeit at a slower pace than with additional C++ developers. Plus, that allows for the 'brain dump' of the huge amount of knowledge the dev team has, to the additional C++ devs. Ideally, they all find their place working for PIVX, at a price level the DAO agrees with. But, if some devs get pushed out in that process - it is what it is.

Not sure how we can learn to trust new C++ devs, without at least a skeleton dev team to work with them and vet them. Without that dynamic, new devs could kill PIVX.
Click to expand...
Good discussion going on in labs discord if you want to come chime in. Be good to move past all these seperate groups so we don't have to repeat things multiple times.
 
Would be good to capture thoughts here. You yourself said not all MNOs are in Discord.
Would also have been good to not get kicked out of the main Discord, so that we could have the discussion there.
In other words, your logic is continuing to divide the Community.
One day I hope you will change.

Note. There is nothing wrong with discussions happening in the Labs Discord. But, the DAO is bigger than just Labs, and as such, anything you want the MNOs to hear, should be here.
 
My thoughts have already of been said.

I'd like all devs to chime in and discuss each others work and worth as they are the only people who are right in the heart of it to know what's going on. What myself and others can see is pull requests and what is posted here or in the discords we are in.

Masternode owners should have access to all places of discussions. I'm sure Jeffery and others are sick of having to repeat themselves constantly every cycle. If only censorship of others views wasn't so apparent in the first discord.

Labs has been a breath of fresh air. Uncensored and no arguments just discussions even tho there are multiple views of how things should be done.
 
@Gerrald Only censorship in the main Discord, aside from scammers and trolls, is convos discussing Covid or Politics, or, as in your case, for being 'That guy' who causes constant strife, damaging the Community.

You didn't get booted because of your views. Many there have the same views as you, and they were never even considered to be banned. Frankly, I can say that, without even know what view(s) you are talking about. That proves my point.

I'm glad you are able to not get yourself in the same situation in the Labs Discord. Since it is not the 'Face of PIVX' as far as Discord goes, it does indeed enjoy more liberties and freedoms. People who first join PIVX via the main Discord, won't see the F-bombs, and unprofessional behavior etc. That's good for PIVX.
 
Eric_Stanek said:
@Gerrald Only censorship in the main Discord, aside from scammers and trolls, is convos discussing Covid or Politics, or, as in your case, for being 'That guy' who causes constant strife, damaging the Community.

You didn't get booted because of your views. Many there have the same views as you, and they were never even considered to be banned. Frankly, I can say that, without even know what view(s) you are talking about. That proves my point.

I'm glad you are able to not get yourself in the same situation in the Labs Discord. Since it is not the 'Face of PIVX' as far as Discord goes, it does indeed enjoy more liberties and freedoms. People who first join PIVX via the main Discord, won't see the F-bombs, and unprofessional behavior etc. That's good for PIVX.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there is alot of people who would disagree on the censorship so lets agree to disagree.
 
Sure. We can do that. Or, you can tell us which view(s) you think caused you to be 'censored'. But, you won't be able to - because that never happened.

Re: "Masternode owners should have access to all places of discussions."

I agree with this 100%. But, they should not be allowed to use that right, as permission to misbehave, spread FUD, and divide the Community.

Further, there is nothing wrong with private discussions either. This is a Privacy focused project after all.
 
Eric_Stanek said:
Sure. We can do that. Or, you can tell us which view(s) you think caused you to be 'censored'. But, you won't be able to - because that never happened.

Re: "Masternode owners should have access to all places of discussions."

I agree with this 100%. But, they should not be allowed to use that right, as permission to misbehave, spread FUD, and divide the Community.

Further, there is nothing wrong with private discussions either. This is a Privacy focused project after all.
Click to expand...
Haven't got the time or patience to bring up the old shit again. The main problem is how you see the dao. The votes control the funds which controls the direction of pivx.

You have access to the discord if you want to show some evidence for anyone who even cares of where I ever was trying to spread fud. But I still stick by that. Look how this months proposals have changed. A core dev currently is not getting funding and discussions are taking place in labs where it should be happening all as one group.

People are not using the forum so most will never see this.
 
Re: "The main problem is how you see the dao. The votes control the funds which controls the direction of pivx."

You have it partially right. Glad to see you are moving in the right direction.

Yes, MNOs vote and control the flow of funds. But, let's look at the effort required to change the Staking/Masternode Rewards. That took a huge amount of discussion, and more than a calendar year, and did NOT even have a MNO Vote. That's absolute proof, that the DAO = MNO + Community consensus. This is what I have always been saying. So far, you have refused to accept that the Community is part of the DAO. Not sure why. It can't be more obvious.
 
Re: "Look how this months proposals have changed. A core dev currently is not getting funding ..."

OK. Not sure where you are going with this. 95% of the time, you vote the same as me, while complaining that your votes don't matter. Now you are pointing out your votes matter. I'm just shaking my head. You aren't making any sense.
 
Re: "People are not using the forum so most will never see this."

True. But the forum is not meant for general discussion. It is meant for capturing specifics related to the proposal.

Please add the outcomes of the private discussion in the appropriate forum proposal post, so all MNOs are aware and can vote accordingly.

I'm gonna stop now. We're hijacking this proposal.
 
All you guys do is hijack all of the proposals with your 2 cents. Both are guilty of disgruntling the devs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top