The Flipstarter number of pledges limit has to go. Yesterday. (Title EDITed)

Infrastructure
#4

It’s a great thing I agree. Be careful what you wish for / demand. That’s how splits happen.

I think it has to go in the next upgrade, we should make it a priority.

Too late for the next upgrade by the process that is being followed so far. Some limit changes were proposed but they weren’t pushed ahead. Don’t see why that can’t improve in the next upgrade if someone makes the case for it.

The process is not arbitrary. It explicitly exists to avoid splits by establishing a process in place of dictatorship. Break it for non-existential reasons at the future’s peril.

If size of a single transaction is the problem, then it should be possible to stretch the fundraising automation over multiple transactions (best would be unlimited number) so the minimum pledge limit is completely gone.

As uname mentioned, it’s possible by coming from a different angle, p2sh. Pushing for emergency protocol changes isn’t a good angle IMO.

If somebody is willing to code it, I will contribute some of my BCH to this great cause. But it’s best just to make a Flipstarter (sic!) to raise funds for it.

That’s awesome and I really respect it. The bottleneck is more ownership and organization. If I see a way to apply your support, I will bring it to your attention. Although not a long term solution, there are straightforward custodial solutions to the problem also which I think you may see in the near future.

1 Like
#5

Duh, obviously not the May upgrade, I am talking about the autumn upgrade or 2023 upgrade.

I am a programmer too (regrettably I have no time to code) so I understand how these processes work.

It’s a great thing I agree. Be careful what you wish for / demand. That’s how splits happen.

Relax, in general making Flipstarter amount pledge biggersmaller (EDIT: obvious stupid mistake) is not going to cause a split. Unless of course somebody rushes too much and breaks something.

But still would not cause a full split. Just a medium-sized crisis.

Generally, splits happen when the community is highly divided about something and usually when there are also enemy actors in our ranks.

Neither is the case.

Everybody wants Flipstarter to work better and I have detected no high-ranked enemy actors (I have few candidates of course, but they don’t have enough standing/reputation to do anything) in our ranks at the moment, so we should be safe for the time being.

#6

Glad you were talking about 2023 May. There is no 2022 Autumn. We’ll have to agree to disagree about the risks. In any case, I think the p2sh method would work without any contention at all so if you are interested in hiring someone to organize and execute an upgrade, I’d be happy to talk with them.

#7

I made this fork that lowers the minimum pledge amount to US$1.00.

afaik, the only downside is if you get over ~650 pledges (iirc that’s the tx limit size), you can only take the top ~650. basicaly, the lowest txs (dust) would have to be reclaimed by their pledgers.

i’ve tested Flipstarter Too on several https://causes.cash campaigns of my own and it indeed worked as expected.

and fwiw, https://smartstarter.cash (for SmartBCH) has NO minimum pledge amount.

2 Likes
#8

Well I approve of your effort, however this is not what this thread is about.

The transaction limitation is still in place, so this does not solve anything.

and fwiw, https://smartstarter.cash (for SmartBCH) has NO minimum pledge amount.

This adds another layer of abstraction so will not be good enough for crowdfunding for normal people (who are not very into crypto). Not convenient enough.

Even normal Flipstarter is already pretty complicated. Will a Joe Sixpack do it without being instructed? No. Will your grandma do it? No. They will only learn once they have to and they care, it takes huge effort from them.

But no way in hell they are going to learn how to move BCH to SmartBCH and then use SmartStarter just to donate to some cause. This is just not happening.

SmartStarter is only an alternative for people who are already very into BCH and crypto and smart contract/token stuff.

#9

hi, I’ve successfully demoed a solution which enables an unlimited number of participants!
There’s a big gap between working demo and actually upgrading Flipstarter tho :sweat_smile:

#10

Nice!

I will tip you on reddit if I can find your topic.

EDIT:

Unfortunately can’t tip you on reddit. Is there any way to use chaintip here perhaps?

#11

It DOES in fact solve the “minimum pledge” amount issue. $1.00 is an arbratrary value that I picked, but it could “practically” speaking be $0.01.

But you are correct, it does not solve ALL issues. However, I can’t say that I see the 650 pledge limit as a “major” issue, unless in the context of “mainstream” adoption, in which case I agree with you there.

Your solution is quiet nice indeed! :+1: I have to admit, I know very little about how to actually utilize the new “Native Introspection”, but I can say this is the first time that it’s usage has made any sense to me, lol

@MathieuG I am curious as to how would manage the “race condition” of 2 or more simultaneous pledgers modifying the contract’s state (in the same block)? Also, how does one go about “canceling” a pledge with the “rollback” technique you’ve demonstrated?

Looking forward to May 15th for when all this new functionality can go LIVE! :raised_hands: :rocket:

#MakeBitcoinCashAgain

Cheers!
Shomari

1 Like
#12

This is not what I am talking about.

The total amount of pledges is still the same, which means this makes the problem worse.

Now, the biggest donors will not be able to donate if/once the limit runs out.

Flipstarter creators decided this way (BIG → SMALL) on purpose, you know. It was done wisely, with a lot of thought, clearly.

This is not what you are doing now, your answers are highly redundant and not helping but deepening the issue.

#13

What he did to solve the issue of preventing big donors coming in late, is to take and store any number of pledges, then check the 650 highest value pledges and see if they fullfill the campaign. If they don’t, ask the next person to pledge more then the lowest of the 650 highest pledges, as to raise to overall of the top-650.

It technically works, but it leaves low-value pledges to be unused, which means people are expected to revoke their pledges after the campaign is successful.

It’s a good bandaid, but what’s really needed is to make use of the native introspection upgrade and move the entire thing to an on-chain contract where you can automate all the things, and where you no longer need a plugin to pledge, and where the minimums are negliable.

1 Like
#14

that’s not how ANYONECANPAY works. you are allowed to choose which inputs to include in the final transaction.

YES!

that’s all. nothing more, lol

either i don’t understand or maybe you don’t understand. the title of your post is “The Flipstarter minimum pledge amount has to go. Yesterday”. My solution does just that. You can technically lower the pledge limit to the BCH “dust value”, which is probably a fraction of a penny. but is that a “practical” pledge value?

I took the time to create that solution simply because I felt it offered a “practical” (albeit temporary) fix to the “minimum pledge” issue. Do you not agree?

Shomari

1 Like
#15

Great, and you shouldn’t be allowed to in this case.

Once you throw out some of the donors without explaining it upfront, they will get angry.

So it is understandable that Flipstarter authors chose to just limit smaller contributions instead. This solved the problem of confusion.

Point taken. I should have used a different title.

However in my post I explain what I meant and what you did is not that.

I have edited the title so I can be more clear. I hope we have this issue solved now.

So now, please stop suggesting useless workaround solutions that leave the limit in place and just move the problem elsewhere (from smaller donors to bigger donors).

#16

“useless”?
i’ve solved the problem you stated, albeit before changing your title.

you’re being very disrespectful.
i have zero tolerance for disrespect.
i’m done here.
take care.

#17

Completely and utterly. Actually, worse than useless. Because it makes the problem worse.

What you have done is read the title and not the rest of my post.

I clearly explained what the problem is in the rest of my post.

You tried to solve the problem and you failed, then you kept claiming you solved the problem despite not solving anything, burdening other people (big donors) with the same problem instead.

If stating a fact is disrespectful, then screw it, this is how it’s gonna be.

I am not a nice or polite person on the Internet. I am a “get to the point” type of person and his is how I will remain.

This is quite disrespectful of you.

Due to the freedom of speech, I have a right to like or dislike anything you produce. You not tolerating my freedom of speech is very disrespectful to me.

Not everybody in the world will like everything you produce, and not everything you produce will be a good solution, this is just how life is.

Deal with it.

#18

If here’s two txs spending the same contract UTXO, it’s the same as with any double spend: after one block one transaction will be confirmed and the other rejected. There is no incentive to try to doublespend an old contract state so you would just get the latest (possibly unconfirmed) state. The chances of two people pledging within 5 seconds of each other is very small and with doublespend proofs the pledger can be notified and repledge to the latest contract state.

Also, how does one go about “canceling” a pledge with the “rollback” technique you’ve demonstrated?

You can’t cancel anytime like you can with the current setup, pledges are only canceled if they are refunded at contract expiry.

2 Likes
#19

@ShadowOfHarbringer so your beef was with the number of pledges, not with limitations of amount of each pledge. Ok.

If I read it right, @nyusternie 's solution has the same number limit, but allows for the flexibility in reaching the target (higher-in lowest-out) by replacing lowest amounts with higher ones, and doing that until the target is reached. It can be done by replacing the smallest amount with a single fat check, or multiple smallest ones with multiple bigger ones.

That’s it. I see no need for strong language here. His solution does what can be done with current architecture, we’re free to use it or not use it, it’s a free market of solutions, and I’m grateful to solution providers even if we may disagree on how good the solution is. I wouldn’t want to scare off a person who’s capable of producing such a solution. Besides, there are other P2SH solutions relying on introspection in the works that can chain together multiple TX-es, achieving what you want - removing the limit on the number.

3 Likes
#20

Yeah I admit I was a little unclear in the beginning.

However I explained the problem in detail later and despite that, the other guy kept pushing and forcing his solution onto everybody even now he should know better because it doesn’t work.

#21

You do have a point, however I can’t really stop being a to-the-point person, being to the point got me where I am right now.

Without being straight to the point person, I would never even get interested in Bitcoin Cash.

I just say how it is and I don’t give a fuck. I think people like me are also needed in the society.

I believe that without people like me, every community and every society would inevitably down-spiral into circlejerking and/or head-patting.

1 Like
#22

exactly! :+1:

it’s obvious to me that @ShadowOfHarbringer doesn’t understand how ANYONECANPAY works and is mistakingly thinking that it would exclude TOP donors, which is 100% false.

2 questions:

  1. how many times has a Flipstarter campaign come even close to reaching 650 pledges?

  2. how many potential Flipstarter pledgers have wanted to contribute to a campaign (even a nominal $1.00 amount) but couldn’t because the minimum pledge amount was too high for their budget?

my “practical” solution 100% solves the 2nd problem, just as long as the number of pledgers doesn’t reach 650. so it IS NOT for the mainstream (wouldn’t disrupt say GoFundMe), but would help serve the needs of the Bitcoin community quite well, which was entirely my goal.

@bitcoincashautist i greatly appreciate your kinds words. I’m very aware of the toxicity throughout the Bitcoin community. it no longer affects me, so no worries, I can’t be “scared off”, lmao. Bitcoin is my home and I’m here to stay.

and thanks so much for the chaintip :pray:t2: not sure if my reddit reply to you made it thru

Cheers!
Shomari

2 Likes
#23

I think we already cleared the misunderstanding, don’t provoke him again pls :sweat_smile:

Shadow is certainly an outspoken individual but I wouldn’t go so far to call him toxic although I understand why you would feel like that.

Agreed, I hope we can make peace here :slight_smile:

1 Like