To this day, I still believe Grin is the greatest project since Bitcoin. Its greatness is due to the dedicated contributions of its creators, like @Yeastplume@oryhp@tromp and others, and the many others involved in this project. These individuals will be remembered in the annals of blockchain history for their creation; they are all great figures!
The community is filled with diverse figures, and they are bound to make all sorts of comments, even infuriating accusations and groundless abuse. If you pay too much attention to these comments, youâll be overwhelmed by them. Stay away from negative talk, maintain your faith, stay focused on your goals, and keep moving forward!
Donât worry, folks â in just a couple of years weâll no longer need to bow to developers or wait endlessly for their approval. AI will be capable of fulfilling every coding dream we could ever have.
No more pleading for reviews. No more begging for fixes. Developers, like VHS tapes, will fade into obsolescence. The days of groveling at their feet â as so many here seem forced to do â will be over.
And when that time comes, weâll remember. Weâll remember the names of those who walked away for higher pay and âbetter opportunities.â Weâll remember how they withheld their time and skills while the community begged for support. That will not be forgotten.
You sound confused. Nobody is forced to do anything. Itâs not the devsâ fault if someone canât produce high quality code today and thus have to wait years for someone else (AI) to do it for them.
The way to contribute meaningfully is the same for everyone. You have to dive in, understand deeply and invest lots of time and energy. Ask questions along the way. There are no shortcuts today. The fact youâre here playing a victim because you want to skip these steps has nothing to do with the past contributors and tells a lot more about you than others.
Weâll remember the sense of entitlement of people like you who contributed nothing while scolding those who did, for not contributing more.
How about remembering them for their time and skills that they did provide?
Nobody owes you anything, least of all the people who helped create Grin from scratch, like Ignotus, or people who built alternative implementations like David Burkett, or people who built a mobile client like Ivan Sorokin. Theyâre free to go off and pursue other projects. They deserve our gratitude, not (y)our criticism.
I donât show appreciation to the giants whose shoulders I stand on by offering lip service or hollow praise. I show it by putting my hard-earned money into the underlying asset. Money talks, bullshit walks.
Their coding work is already immortalized on GitHub â what isnât recorded is their abandonment of GRIN, and the way they left behind those whoâve kept the spark alive. Not everyone is born with the intelligence or skill to contribute code, but what some lack in technical ability they make up for in faith and commitment.
The active members of this community are its lifeblood, and I refuse to stay silent while those who abandoned the project are glorified, and those still here are accused of âcontributing nothing.â
@tromp would it be feasible for me to pursue adding CPU mining to the old grin-miner on Cuckatoo32 strictly for testing purposes? Itâs something I have been wishing was a thing lately, but Iâm unsure if itâd even be worth trying. I am still just beginning to have Grinâs PoW make sense to me.
You could add a Cuckatoo32 CPU miner, but a single solution attempt takes most of the block time (or longer on a slower CPU), so a large percentage of work will be wasted when you find a solution only to find the chain has already left you behind. What is it that you want to test?
Whether vibe coding was used is actually not relevant and is not the complain here.
What is relevant is that basic functioning of the code requires sub-modules like the validator to work and its output to be validated and compared with existing code (e.g. C++ reference miner validator).
This was not the case, functions were not tested, no solutions were found and validated. It is like showing a car and saying it can drive, but when you open the hood, the engine is missing.
Asking for a review while not having tested âthe basicsâ or being able to prove the code can provide any valid solutions is putting a unrealistic burden on the reviewer and means that asking for a review is just very premature. The lack of a proven validator or proof that the code works has been pointed out multiple times and has unfortunately not been addressed. The discussion is the feedback that has been provided. Until the feedback is addressed, there is no need for further discussion/feedback.
Compare the English grammar in the screenshot with the one in the milestone posts or the github repo readme. It doesnât take a genius to figure out at least some AI was used. I donât mind AI generated code (Iâm actually bullish on it!) nor do I think others would care if the code presented was runnable and reasoned through.
