| 20 Jul 2018 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] To be honest I don't know | 10:33:25 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] It for sure is a bold move to strip away the GUI from the client | 10:34:10 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] It'll be interesting to see if it creates the "natural selection" they are hoping for (survival of expert users) | 10:35:34 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/hypernoob] Eth is supported by many wallets. Losing one isn’t a big deal | 10:47:46 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/snr01] I really think ticket splitting should not be cli only. One of the advantages of it is that it allows new, tiny users to participate, learn about staking, and hopefully get more involved and want to have more at stake. The people who have 10 DCR are not likely to attempt using cli, but I think would be likely to try ticket splitting if it's made easy enough... | 10:53:08 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] That's exactly the point | 11:04:46 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] Do we want people without any CLI knowledge (or at least the willingness and ability to learn it) to decide on the future of Decred? | 11:05:59 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] It's an open question | 11:06:57 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] I have no srrong opinion on this | 11:07:10 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] I have no strong opinion on this (edited) | 11:08:14 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/hypernoob] Even if ticket splitting can be easily done in the GUI it’s unlikely those “uneducated stalkers” will hold a huge stake | 11:08:28 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] That's true | 11:08:44 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/matheusd] Trying to restrict participation by imposing technological hurdles is a losing proposition anyway (and wrong IMO). It's just begging for someone to come along and offer the service without being principled about it (eg: split ticket service where the provider holds the funds). It's much better is to align the incentive structure to get the desired outcome (better decision making by having skin in the game). | 11:14:41 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/snr01] @hypernoob i dont think it's about holding a *huge* stake, but more about getting involved... and then spreading the word to others in the same position. I've told people about DCR, and they have purchased small amounts. That's easy to do, and low risk when you are talking about a handful of dcr. Convincing someone to stake is another matter entirely... that's asking them to commit about 7k USD, which for most people is significant. I wouldn't even try to convince people of that, since it's a good way to get people pissed off at you when it temporarily loses half its value. Convincing the guy who bought 5 DCR to try staking it on the other hand? That's low risk for him, low risk for me, and then it's much more likely that person either starts investing more in DCR (even less than a ticket), or starts telling his friends about it. | 11:40:02 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] Regarding network participants, quantity has a quality of its own | 11:51:38 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] i see no reason to impose barriers, per matheusd's comment | 13:06:16 |
| 23 Jul 2018 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/bee] Isn't it a bit hilarious that they want to position as "more core" software that led to a loss of $30m and freez of $250m | 18:54:19 |
| 31 Jul 2018 |
|  jz joined the room. | 17:28:43 |
| 2 Aug 2018 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] moving to here from #marketing discussion about clearances | 13:50:41 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] what i've suggested is the idea that individuals must receive a 'decred clearance' in order to work as a contractor or subcontractor for the project | 13:51:21 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] this would be a per-subdomain process, e.g. devs approve new devs, designers approve new designers, etc | 13:51:59 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] @decoy @Richard-Red | 13:57:05 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] if you're at all familiar with general contractors and construction projects, that is how i would expect most proposal-based projects to run | 13:57:50 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] there is a projected draw schedule, total budget, and milestones | 13:58:09 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] i think a reasonable approach is to have draws be strictly for work performed, but milestones could correspond to an additional bonus payout | 13:59:01 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the idea of a clearance process is based on my experiences with various individual and corporate contractors over the past 1.5 years | 14:02:03 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the problem i've encountered is this - how do we determine if someone who shows up and is interested in working on the project or has been brought on by a corporate contractor have the necessary skills to improve decred? | 14:03:56 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the corporate contractor situation is really what cued me to think about a clearance process. in the absence of such a process, a corporate contractor could just hire a bunch of incompetent people to complete tasks, which has serious ramifications for quality of project deliverables | 14:06:16 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] this is also a very common practice in the context of software dev, e.g. hire a team of low quality devs to churn out some product, quality be damned | 14:08:10 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/lukebp] wouldn’t that ruin the corporate contractor’s reputation with Decred though, and kill any chance of them getting future proposals approved | 14:11:18 |
