all this sounds reasonable to me. and i agree with the major pitfalls. ie: how do we know someone did what they say they did and such. that's actually been rattling around my head for a while. unfortunately i can't really think of any way to solve the problem. 


As long as there is light, the darkness holds no fear. And yet, even in the deepest black, there is life. - Arklan Uth Oslin
I want to leave this world the same way I came into it: backwards and on fire. - Arklan Uth Oslin

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:00 AM, steve <> wrote:
On 03/01/2013 15:50, Gavin Andresen wrote:
>>> E.g. "5 BTC to create a test plan for multi-wallet, plus 5 BTC to
>>> whoever executes that plan and files any issues first."
>> This is quite vauge, who signs a test plan off? I understand it wasnt
>> meant to be a functional example, but I cannot see how this will work...
> How much money are you imagining will be at stake?
> You're saying things like "... 33 hours of testing 33 hours testing
> per SKU/platform..." and while I agree that would be great, I just
> don't see volunteer testers putting in that kind of time. And I don't
> see there being a budget to pay somebody for hundreds of hours of
> testing.

Those were just numbers i plucked from the sky, they were not meant to
be realistic, just representative of a different way of approaching the
issue. sorry for the confusion.

In the testing contracting world things are paid by time and measured by

> Feel free to prove me wrong and raise enough money for hundreds of
> hours of testing (but raising money is a job in itself).

yeah, I dont think that anyone will be millionaires off this project...

> To answer your question directly:  I assume that we'll have volunteer
> testers and QA leads, who are mostly involved because they want to
> help make Bitcoin successful. But are motivated a little bit by
> getting a little bit of pocket money for their efforts.

That is exactly the target demographic.  which is why bettermeans had a
reasonable way of doing things. it did kinda flow. shame it burnt to the
ground.  I do think that we can learn quite a bit from it and try to
follow the lead that they set. (community prioritisation and default

I think a lot of the testing can be done 'online' in vm's where more
than one tester has access to the setup.

> So whoever raised the money to do the testing (whether the developer,
> a QA lead, or somebody interested in the new feature) gets to decide
> how the money is distributed between all the people who made it
> happen. If they do a bad job, they'll get yelled at. Actually, even if
> they do a good job, they'll get yelled at...
yep.  the wonder of test.  everyone hates you :)

Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at:
Bitcoin-test mailing list