GrantProposals-2017Q4
GrantProposals-2017Q4 copied to clipboard
ZcashFoundation
GUI Wallet improvements
I currently distribute open source, GUI full node wallet distributions for Mac and Windows, the latter currently estimated at over 40% of the full nodes on the zcash network. This grant proposal will be for improvements to them, including:
-re-branding to a name that is not in danger of being confused with a ZECC trademark, which is currently an issue with both zcash4mac and zcash4win
-adding support for useful api calls inherited from bitcoin that are useful to miners and are heavily requested (such as for sending from multiple taddrs at once to a taddr)
-GUI support for sending to multiple recipients in one txn
-friendlier memo send/receive interface
-multiple proving key download url support (including manual input)
-installer support for non-default location of binaries, proving key and blockchain data
-support for localisation into different languages
-improved fee handling
How does this compare to vaklinov's proposal #7 about essentially the same codebase? Also, see discussion there about GUI and about UX collaborations.
While not mandatory, it would be helpful if the two proposals will be coordinated and complementary in carving up the work, or will be merged together (budgeting for all aspects).
@radix42 and I have cooperated before and I am sure we can do it again. As a start we could make sure the two proposals do not create separate implementations of the same features. My proposal #7 already covers the points:
-adding support for useful api calls inherited from bitcoin that are useful to miners and are heavily requested (such as for sending from multiple taddrs at once to a taddr) -GUI support for sending to multiple recipients in one txn
... though worded slightly differently.
I would also be interested in incorporating/moving some of the ideas of this proposal into mine, if there are no objections. My proposal #7 was meant to be open to more ideas from the community. The following could easily be added to my proposal:
-friendlier memo send/receive interface -multiple proving key download url support (including manual input) -support for localisation into different languages -improved fee handling
Then once the two proposals are implemented @radix42 and I could cooperate in merging the code-base to be used in wallet distributions for Mac and Windows.
I'd be more than happy to have the non-overlapping parts of this issue merged into #7, as I hadn't read it in detail yet when I opened this issue, and sending my build system packaging improvements for mac and windows upstream. currently zcash4mac builds a signed dmg image that can be dragged and dropped into /Applications, and zcash4win spits out an .msi file (MS Installer), and close this issue (I DO have a LOT of other things on my plate already!)
@radix42, regardless of which proposal the UI improvements end up in: The installer packaging work (both ongoing and the merging existing work into upstream), and the distribution of the software, are needed and are clearly within the grant program' scope.
@radix42, @vaklinov, do I correctly understand your plan, as follows?
- Proposal #7 will cover all UI development in the wallet software per se, and you will collaborate on that (splitting the budget)
- This proposal will cover the rest, such as installers and proving keys
@tromer, I wish to correct a little the above description of proposal #7: Proposal #7 will cover all UI development in the wallet software per se (so far so good). I am prepared to collaborate with anyone on this who is willing to do a part of this "UI development". Once sizeable parts of this UI developemnt are ready we shall collaborate with @radix42 to merge them into his code base for release to the community (we have done this before on e.g. https://zcash4win.com/). However I have not made any arrangements for splitting the budget in #7. If anyone expects to get a part of the budget of proposal #7, we need to make arrangements before start (who will implement which parts for what share etc.) If this is not done at start, it may become a point of disagreement later. I shall submit a final document in proposal #7 soon...
@vaklinov: thanks for the clarification, that makes sense and please see https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/GrantProposals-2017Q4/issues/7#issuecomment-333725995 .
@radix42 Please confirm that you would approve moving the following features for implementation to proposal #7:
-friendlier memo send/receive interface -multiple proving key download url support (including manual input) -support for localisation into different languages -improved fee handling
After they are implemented, the two of us can work together to merge them to your code-base (e.g. for https://zcash4win.com/) as well.
I just made a comment to that effect in #7 right now
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:02 AM, vaklinov [email protected] wrote:
@radix42 https://github.com/radix42 Please confirm that you would approve moving the following features for implementation to proposal #7 https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/GrantProposals-2017Q4/issues/7:
-friendlier memo send/receive interface -multiple proving key download url support (including manual input) -support for localisation into different languages -improved fee handling
After they are implemented, the two of us can work together to merge them to your code-base (e.g. for https://zcash4win.com/) as well.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/GrantProposals-2017Q4/issues/22#issuecomment-333757657, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AF9e0I1HO8KaSBnX6M0YjO1AIa9OSJKcks5sodwHgaJpZM4PY2Ey .
Every informal proposal has multiple reviews by the review committee. The reviews are being collected and discussed in a private google doc (the 5 reviewers all have edit access to it, no one else can view it). By way of early, informal feedback, the reviewers have made a list of projects that they consider leading candidates for grant funding.
In that vein, your project (or at least its installer/deployments aspects as discussed above) was selected as one of the leading candidates, and the review committee encourages you to submit a full proposal by October 6th and looks forward to reviewing it.
In light of the excellent submission by @vaklinov I am going to close this issue and contribute Mac and Windows signed installer build system patches upstream to him instead, as his submission subsumes nearly all of his one.