Quote from: bigj on November 07, 2015, 01:08:23 PM

Quote from: americanpegasus on November 06, 2015, 11:11:24 PM

Quote from: languagehasmeaning on November 06, 2015, 10:23:04 PM

Do you agree that the dev bounty amount should not not be in question (or is probably too low)?

I agree with you that a new incentive structure would be preferable and it should be created if we can reach a consensus.

My issue is not with the amount. It is that the bounty is built into the protocol level. I believe (and I believe others will believe) that developer funds and project bounties should happen a level above the protocol, on a social layer - no profit/compensation mechanisms should ever be baked into the protocol itself.

As well I am concerned about the nature of this fund. Is this a stash specifically for the head dev that he claims as his own? Or is it a war chest that has been pledged to incentivize development now and in the future?

Let me be clear that I have a favorable opinion of Boolberry, respect their technical development of the Cryptonote protocol and include them in the short list of not just valid Cryptonote projects - but valid "alt" coins. I just wish some things were different, and I think it would benefit their long term adoption.

100% agreed. The social layer is the only layer suited for this kind of things. This is probably one of the things that kept BBR from flying...

You do not think that current possibility to opt-out from contributing to development is enough?

IMO if anything few more stuff should be at the protocol level, one of them being kind of incentive to run a BBR node. Perhaps as a second (now node operator) fee that node operator can take for providing services to SPV wallets, if this could not be gamed to bloat the blockchain too cheaply.