ok you want to get a formailzed definition - you don’t question that it works - thats fine and that can wait till alpha
2 Likes
For good reference, this concept of the effective close group has been implemented in routing and I argued the Rust deliverables at the end of last summer depended on this subtle redefinition of “the close group” as the “effective close group”
I was asked, despite my initial refusal, by David late Spring 2015, to look at routing and to the best of my abilities help push it forward. That is what I did. I worked at maidsafe with the implementation first for more than 75 hours per week, and in the remain 25 I worked to formalise so that I could write a better implementation.
This is exactly why I title it “tough love”, because I have given my blood sweat and tears to push our project forwards. And I have every intention to keep pushing it forward.
with all due respect - that is perfectly fine - but i don’t see how this helps the project right now …
btw - i very much appreciate you still love our safenet while you work for an ethereum fork 
that shows me that the others can’t be “the ultimate solution” but only fitting for special purposes [as every solution except 42] 
as you said [quote=“benjaminbollen, post:19, topic:9650”]
We are not in a rush here.
[/quote]
let’s first get to alpha and then we can focus on a better formalization that helps explaining the network and showing why it works
I work for permissioned blockchains, which contrary what many will think, is for me the best way to keep pushing this field and the innovation forward. And yes I have a lot of respect for the Ethereum foundation, the community and equally Ethcore. I do not understand how this is seen as a “derisive comment”;
Different opinions here: I think it is worthwhile to have a solid logical basis to do an implementation on.
yeah - it’s just another approach … (but since electical engineers have been working for many many years with some equations before someone was able to prove the mathematics behind them … i sometimes prefer the not-100%-top-down approach)
1 Like
I explicitly question that it will work without opening up the project proposal to critical review.
1 Like
Do you have a technical argument that the network won’t work?
3 Likes
This was not a charitable donation you made - your time - was it? Are you a philanthropist? I assume you were paid for your efforts so this chest pumping bravado is bullshit. You have much to thank David Irvine and team for and this is not the way to do it.
When you left MS David and the team publicly respected your decision and wished you well.
Show a little respect. You had a great reputation. That’s questionable and you should be concerned that it carries through to your existing and future employers.
1 Like
If you want we can start a person-bashing thread where you can throw all your swings you want at me. let’s keep this one to technical discussions
6 Likes
he first has to catch up with the current developments … give him the time to read the links david gave him if he discovers a point that should be improved our network becomes more robust =)
thank you @benjaminbollen for investing your time into this project again but i’m afrait you will have to read the links david provided yourself i can’t give you a quick summary cause i don’t know as much about the source as you do … (or even about rust/programming/the english language/logics…)
4 Likes
No, quite the opposite. I would not be re-engaging here if I did have such an argument.
The opposite is true, I can see the SAFE network working, but the road to that goal is not easy, and I have argued and argue again that we can improve our likelihood of succeeding by making solid logical arguments as we move forward with small steps.
1 Like
LOL. And then post commentary?
Look, his issue isn’t technical, it’s (for want of a better word) meta-technical. He takes issue with the way the devs approach their job.
2 Likes
My issues are techincal;
and I DO take issue with the way this project is led, as it just asked for a refinancing. Why wouldn’t we question the progress up to this point.
Show me the bashing. Your efforts were/are no more important than anyone elses. Were you paid for your efforts? You were. Is there an unwritten code of conduct for devs with respect to the inner workings/struggles of a startup? Should anyone that engages you in the future be concerned about your conduct post employment? You betcha.
1 Like
My behavior is very respectful and I will show anyone these current threads.
The crowdfund underperformed greatly, they made the best of what they had, and it is not uncommon for engineers to underestimate the time for projects.
On the basis of my own experience in the testing process (that progress is being made), as well as a bit of the “benefit of the doubt”, I consider that a sufficient explanation for the current circumstances than your claim that their fundamental methodology is at fault.
1 Like
Again, let’s reserve this thread for technical discussions, because I do want to build a working implementation. Question my motives all you want, I am posting here open and exposed under my own name with my faults and my credits. All I’m asking is that we can focus some threads on technical discussions.