What's new

Archived PIVX Dev April 2019


Core Developer
Staff member

Hey all, since there isn’t enough time to write up a proper proposal that can be discussed prior to network submission (less than 5 days till the superblock), this is all i have time to do.

This is a temporary replacement for the dev-fuel-4 proposal, in a rush, because of a last minute defund of the existing proposal without having anything else in place to pay to the core developers that are the heart of the PIVX project. Hopefully it will pass and the team will be able to continue working together, otherwise the lack of funding painfully, as any other human being that it’s not millionaire, will force most of us to look for other works.

If either this or the existing dev-fuel-4 proposal passes, we will continue with our original plan of crafting a proper proposal that can be sufficiently discussed in a reasonable timeframe.

So here is our cost breakdown:

Fuzzbawls - Core Dev & Team Manager: 6000 PIV
Furszy - Core Dev: 6000 PIV
Warrows - Core Dev: 6000 PIV
Random Zebra - Core Dev: 6000 PIV

Mrs-X - Budget Dev: 0 PIV (on leave)
BlondFrogs - Core Dev: 0 PIV (on leave)

Development Servers: 4575 PIV
100x testnet masternodes
2x testnet electrumx daemons
1x testnet faucet
2x testnet trezor nodes
2x mainnet trezor nodes

Total: 28575 PIV

vote yes:
mnbudgetvote many 5ac626e5ff8afcb3dd4325791ee4fb2bf8dfd160203d6ac20475cfd368819370 yes
Last edited:
Glad to see this new proposal!


The test net nodes are pretty much all Masternodes. Just barely over half of them are running 3.2. (70915) The rest are running 3.1 (70914) Is there another testnet or did we just test BIP 65 to ~ 50% only?

Q2: Also, running the testnet masternodes 'piggy back' on mainnet masternodes is easy since testnet is far less demanding on resources. I know @sparrow provided this service in the past, and could do it again. That would save $1,500 USD per month right there. Can we investigate that possibility to be more efficient with resources?

Q3: Also, I presume these costs were bundled, because they crept up over time. Is it fair to say these should be covered under a separate proposal next cycle? If not - why not?
Thanks for setting this proposal up. Looking forward to more amazing work by you and the dev team.

Would we have reports for which devs are responsible for what? And will you be the fund manager now for this proposal making you the dev lead as opposed to the previous one where it was someone else?

Thanks Fuzz
A1: all 100 testnet nodes are now running from the public master branch currently. 50 of those nodes are being setup to allow the dev team to directly adjust the repo and/or branch they build off of on the fly. Testnet's BIP65 changeover was done prior to any protocol bump, and BIP65 itself is protocol version agnostic.

A2: I'm sure there is an opportunity for cost savings. We didn't have the time to renegotiate costs or research alternative solutions that would need to be bought/configured/deployed without having a break in service.

A3: Similar to A2, there simply wasn't sufficient time do more than just confirm the current cost. Wither or not the server costs could/should be a separate proposal is something that could be discussed moving forward, but as far as this particular cycle is concerned, its bundled in.