I have been working on it off and on in the last months but nothing major to release at this time. It is quite difficult and time consuming working on both the web based wallet and the MicroCash server. At least one more developer is needed to solely develop that web wallet if there is going to be any progress made in a timely manner. I think it may be best to put the source for the server on github and try to get more developers working on it. I will look into this in the next weeks.

Also given that there has not been much action in regards to a final release I think people who have sent bitcoin for the seeding should receive it back. Once it is more certain about the release date and there are more developers then a new seeding can begin.

So anyone who has sent any Bitcoin please give details on where to send it so you can get it back.

 

Would it be better to open up the wallet code instead of the server code? That way, you can keep going on your long-running work and keep it a bit more under control, at least in the initial formative releases. It seems like more people will be likely to just be confused by your code and strip out anything they want for other projects (if there's anything they can use), instead of actually developing it into what MicroCash is intended to be.

If the server is developed by you and front-end stuff is developed by others, I think there's maybe a better chance we'll find people with lesser skillsets actually wanting to dig in, rather than hoping very high-end coders will dig into the difficult server side. (I at least assume the server side is a more difficult endeavor, by far, correct?)

 

The wallet code is already out there as its HTML.

And it is quite likely some variants of the MicroCash server are already floating out there due to past developers with loose fingers. When it comes to open source projects it seems many of the people who can help will only help if it is already on some service like Github. It also means people following the project can see that "source things" are happening, or not happening, as the case may be.

You have to weigh the risks and rewards of everything I guess, what did projects like Ethereum do? Were they updating public sources on the way to their "final" ? The funny thing is Ethereum was released way too early when you consider the number of additions and hard forks they are planning and have implemented. But releasing "Something" to have support seems a necessary thing in this age of cryptocurrency. Seems better to most to have an unfinished alpha out there "Working" in some way even if it has flaws than to sit back on the perfect thing.

I will do the first round of send back of the funds this Sunday so if you read this and have sent some Bitcoin then please make sure you tell me where you want the Bitcoins to go. Thanks!

 

Yeah, the thing I don't like about how Ethereum (et. al.) have shaped up is exactly that mess created by early/untested code getting rolled into releases due mostly to greed. It is fine for the people looking to scrape bucks out of their efforts, but for the bigger picture of the project, it really sucks, IMO.

I'm more of an idealist on this front, I suppose. To me, it's not just about getting ANY version of something out there, but it's more important to have a reliable core vision realized.

Maybe I'm just being too greedy myself? Greedy about wanting to help get this bigger vision crafted to a more "final" state before opening it up and letting the ravens peck it apart. If I had more trust in people, I suppose I'd be really excited to open it up to get any interested folks fired up & jumping in... as it is, I tend to expect anyone wanting to do something useful with it will just scrape it and go stealth with whatever they're working on, releasing some other hacked mess on their own.

...maybe either way is fine? I really want to see "the real MicroCash" in the end, so I keep trying to veer the ship in that direction. Greed-monger that I am.