Ooh, what if there was a bot that had some unit tests, and then gave BTC to whomever writes code that passes all those tests?
Earn $4 in bitcoins for any commit to sferik/t, a command-line Twitter tool
91–100 of 121 posts
Re: Earn $4 in bitcoins for any commit to sferik/t, a command-line Twitter tool
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin provides anonymity in the way that it doesn't anchor its addresses with your real life identity. Yes, the addresses are public, but there isn't a way to prove who's who according to addresses alone. Unless of course you publicly attach your identity to one.
It's pretty easy to track coins through transactions and link them to an IP, unless the user knows about this and takes care to prevent it.
An IP address is light-years from a real-life identity. Without a warrant, there's not a chance of figuring out even the account holders name-- which could be different from the person who actually performed the transaction. It could be a neighbor, a friend, a roommate, anyone else who ever had the wifi password, the possibilities are endless.
Re: Earn $4 in bitcoins for any commit to sferik/t, a command-line Twitter tool
#93So could I add comments from junk accounts and earn $4 in bitcoin? I'm not sure I'm following the logic here... and what prevents highly unethical behavior.
In order to actually earn the tip, the project mantainer (sferik) has to merge your commit.
If you provide a value-less commit, they'll just ignore it, and you'll get no money.
If you provide a bunch of value-less commits, they'll probably get annoyed.
If you provide a commit worth merging in to the project, they'll likely commit it, and you'll receive the tip.
Re: Earn $4 in bitcoins for any commit to sferik/t, a command-line Twitter tool
#94A 5% fee to sponsor a project seems a little excessive. I'm still a top sponsor on http://coingiving.com/
Re: Earn $4 in bitcoins for any commit to sferik/t, a command-line Twitter tool
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm... Do you mean to allow the merger to specify the value of the commit? E. g. by default it could be 1%, but merger can make it smaller if commit is not very valuable. Sounds like a good idea, thanks!
Yep, that's what I was imagining. And perhaps projects would publish any guidelines they end up going by for what commits could be worth.
Interesting idea. Here's a twist: what if the committer could set the value of their commit instead? Social pressure would dictate that most people would not overreach. Then those who make small but useful commits could recognize in advance their minor nature. This is essentially a kind of honour system.
Re: Earn $4 in bitcoins for any commit to sferik/t, a command-line Twitter tool
#96The problem with this funding model is that it encourages fluff pull requests, such as this one: https://github.com/sferik/t/pull/138/files . If there was no financial incentive, I would probably merge it but now I'm questioning the motivations of the committer. If I merge this, it means there will be less money for someone else, who makes a more significant contribution in the future. Personally, I prefer Gittip’s m…
What if this kind of routine trivial fix is exactly the sort that needs to be incentivized to actually happen? This is perhaps an extreme example, but it's also the sort of thing that is both common and vaguely unappealing about open source projects. Everyone's excited to do the big important next feature or blatant bug fix, but no one really wants to do the janitorial cleanup.
Re: Earn $4 in bitcoins for any commit to sferik/t, a command-line Twitter tool
#97I hate to be a party pooper here, but if this project would ever take off, and the project would receive serious amounts of bitcoin that would mean that serious amount of bitcoin would have to be managed and secured by whoever runs that project. The past has shown that everyone, even persons who run e-wallets and currency exchanges, severely underestimates the amount of security such an endeavour requires. There's a…
If only there was some party out there that could protect us from things like this. Possibly even insuring us in the case of something going really wrong and the person holding our money loses it all. They could also establish rules that anyone holding money would have to comply with in order to be certified as safe. Wouldn't that be grand...
[deleted]
Re: Earn $4 in bitcoins for any commit to sferik/t, a command-line Twitter tool
#98The problem with this funding model is that it encourages fluff pull requests, such as this one: https://github.com/sferik/t/pull/138/files . If there was no financial incentive, I would probably merge it but now I'm questioning the motivations of the committer. If I merge this, it means there will be less money for someone else, who makes a more significant contribution in the future. Personally, I prefer Gittip’s m…
This is getting ridiculous:
https://github.com/sferik/t/pull/142/files
https://github.com/sferik/t/pull/143/files
https://github.com/sferik/t/pull/144/files
Shameless.
Re: Earn $4 in bitcoins for any commit to sferik/t, a command-line Twitter tool
#99maybe tips per number of lines changed would be a fairer benchmark than tips per commit. I guess that would still cause a bunch of unnecessary line changes.
I really don't think this kind of financial incentives are good for open source projects.
Re: Earn $4 in bitcoins for any commit to sferik/t, a command-line Twitter tool
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, that's what I was imagining. And perhaps projects would publish any guidelines they end up going by for what commits could be worth.
Interesting idea. Here's a twist: what if the committer could set the value of their commit instead? Social pressure would dictate that most people would not overreach. Then those who make small but useful commits could recognize in advance their minor nature. This is essentially a kind of honour system.
That's actually a good idea; you'd probably get fairly reasonable results that way. The downside: using those tags at all makes it unambiguously clear that you care about the tip4commit tips.
One plausible possibility that might help: in the block that normally contains Signed-off-by and Reviewed-by, add a tag for marking a commit as "minor" or "trivial", in the sense used by the Linux kernel's trivial@ patches or the GNU project's threshold for changes accepted without copyright assignment.
And as a quick hack, scale the tip by log(diffstat) with a sensible upper bound.