Implement clique sealing logic

[5chdn]

a parity node should be able to seal valid blocks in a clique network according to spec

[ghost]

Thanks for saving me, clown.

[thefallentree]

I rewrote this comment a couple times, see next one for final version.

[thefallentree]

since I can't seem to reach @mariapaulafn reliably, I have decided to make an public post for the record.

1. @jwasinger you must know it yourself that you didn't deliver a single version of working sealing code implementation, period (as defined in common sense of working, that is , able to be used to connect to goerli testnet). There had been plenty of time and support for you to do it, but you didn't deliver anything that is working.

Since you don't seem to want to admit, thanks to git, it is all recorded in history.

After the last commit by @jwasinger , the entire codebase is unable to compile for 2 weeks (it works before and I have implemented the syncing function, and explorer.goerli.net was using my version of parity.) . when on Jan 22 I reached out for current status, @jwasinger claim that he doesn’t know how to fix this compile issue, and he is unable to continue.

As recorded in history, anyone can try checking out this commit and see if you can fix this compile error and test how sealing works. I trust that you will find that nothing is actually working, in fact what was working before has also been sabotaged. @jwasinger also has not written any comments about what he had implemented, what he didn't implement and what he plans to do next, in fact it wasn't even clear why half the code is the way it is, it is clearly unfinished. So, I claimed this issue on that day, and I consider that he has made 0 valuable contribution to the project on sealing implementation so far. After all, coding is not typing contest, you can't just copy paste stuff and claim that you did work. (It is clear that there was copy & pasting from authority round implementation, even if it clearly didn't make sense).

2. After I fixed the compile issue, I then restored syncing functionality. Then Suddenly @jwasinger jumps out here claiming my refactoring has ruined his work. I told him I had to fix syncing first, otherwise there is no foundation to further build on. And He agreed. Since then, @jwasinger has made 0 further attempt to continue working on sealing. He has made no code changes, no comments, and participate in no discussion at all. I know he is probably busy involved with some other work, and I'm okay with it. So, I continued work by myself and released several working version of parity code, including the last version that I currently run as an authority node.

3. All my subsequent code release is working and I'm the one that kept pushing on getting reviewed and merge into trunk. The review has gone around for at least 5 times and I have addressed most of the comments. In total, I've probably spent over 200 hours on this implementation and I'm glad that I have something working.

4. There are numerous statements made by @jwasinger that I consider dishonest. In many conversations he specifically emphasized that he and I have worked on this issue for months. (in fact, it's in the comments above") where I disagree. In my honest opinion that he hasn't been involved in this for an very long time, and he is just here to be "part" of the team. I personally don't like such behavior, but also, I don't judge what everyone else spends their time on either, it's a common corporate white lie. But I draw a line where this type of "white lie" is used to claim reward that don't belong to them. And when confronted with fact they will resort to complain about "communication issue". Yes, there was communication issue, and it is because of @jwasinger is not involved anymore. No one can communicate to a dead ear and no one should be forced to. And making this type of complain also turn this issue into a personal attack on the honest party, which is precisely why I must respond to, in public, specifically to @jwasinger. @jwasinger there is a common Chinese tradition that we allow other parties to "save face", which is why I didn't want to respond before, but you crossed the line (and you know it) when you accused me of communication issue, that is not an fact, it is a direct assault that commonly used in corporate politics. I don't like corporate politics and don’t want to participate in it in general, especially in OSS work, but I am also not afraid to. so, you have made me an enemy and brought this onto yourself.

I've been working on this issue long before goerli is created. In fact, my first few commits is there to make it work with rinkbey. Any monetary compensation happened afterwards is an after fact , it is an incentive for delivery, it is not an employment contract, and so far it has been kept me going stronger in the project, until now.

Please let the record show that I have 0 interest in how much money or compensation @jwasinger or anyone beside me get for his "effort" in other areas/project or whatever hourly rate * hours spent are. In fact, I congratulated @jwasinger on gitter after seeing that he have got an reward, good for him. But I do have an issue with rewarding this bounty to him. Because, yes, he has put in some hours for this project, sure, but the net result is 0. and Since this "reward" or "bounty" is for the delivery of "clique sealing implementation", of which, like I pointed it out in the above paragraph, I consider he has made 0 valuable contribution in total, beside claiming that he has done some "work" and checked in some code. To award such behavior is like saying typing junk into codebase is of equally valuable work that I delivered and I actually consider that this is a personal insult and slap of face to the work I put in (In fact I think it is an insult to me as a programmer in general, but that is just my own opinion.).

I personally detest the attitude of "I have put in hours so I earn what I owe" in this context, because OSS is not an employment. no one owes anyone anything.

What I also detest is that “you can only argue if you reject the award" as I am not recruited/employed by this award, rather this award is specifically created for incentivizing delivery. In my opinion. I designed, implemented and delivered working code by myself, I wrote high quality comments (I even wrote a mini design doc on how syncing/sealing code works in general, which is entirely new to parity codebase, because I spent hours tracing the code and figured it out, there was 0 documents) and I am currently running an official authority node using that code, with cost out of my own pockets.

I consider that I am 100% fully qualified for this "bounty" as it is stated. However, as a project collaborator I had issue with the split decision and I am here to raise my point to whomever in charge. I urge whoever manage the funds for goerli project in the future to put in more thoughts on how to utilize it. I somewhat understand because of what @5chdn has apparently been going through something in the past few months, that he may not be 100% on point on what's happening, but that doesn't resolve the fact that the decision is flawed, and it hurt the project more deeply than helped.

[mariapaulafn]

Hi @thefallentree give me some hours to read this (got a couple meetings first) and will give you an answer, both on gitter and here. @jwasinger please till then, try to not take this personal, I'll make sure to cover everyone's concerns

[jwasinger]

This is slanderous and unnacceptable. Many statements made above are patently false.

[jwasinger]

I trust that you will find that nothing is actually working, in fact what was working before has also been sabotaged.

Lie. The client was sealing blocks (even as part of the CI) after I implemented it.

[jwasinger]

what was working before has also been sabotaged.

Please clarify.

[soc1c]

Stop insulting contributors. I will remove offending comments here to secure the integrity of the project. If anyone thinks they personally received too much, please feel free to send it back to the goerli multi-sig wallet. 0x6974df01bf293ab9af66127c03aac79b81d494c7

[mariapaulafn]

Final statement from Görli: We are extremely disappointed with the situation here. I mentioned to @thefallentree that we would have a bit of an issue communicating due to my workload and timezones, I was expecting to talk this through today. Till we read that awful message. Targetting a contributor in the way @jwasinger was targetted is NEVER okay, and will NEVER be okay. @thefallentree I had asked both of you to focus solely on your work and assess if the compensation of YOUR work was fair, not the others. We know how this rolled out, no need to bring up a timeline of accusations. We funded Jared not only based on this but previous work.

I personally detest the attitude of "I have put in hours so I earn what I owe" in this context, because OSS is not an employment. no one owes anyone anything.

Well, your attitude is not very OSS either, it's petty and wrong. Finger pointing is not OSS at all. Degradation instead of collaboration is not OSS either. Neither is questioning another person's income (however you wanna call it, this is income - and OSS is a job). And you owe people basic decency and respect.

What I also detest is that “you can only argue if you reject the award" as I am not recruited/employed by this award, rather this award is specifically created for incentivizing delivery.

Well, that's your opinion. Here nobody has expected anybody to work for free, we want to create a healthy sustainable community, and it involves incentives, salaries, bounties or how you wanna call it. It's still money for work. Pays rent. Period.

I consider that I am 100% fully qualified for this "bounty" as it is stated. However, as a project collaborator I had issue with the split decision and I am here to raise my point to whomever in charge. I urge whoever manage the funds for goerli project in the future to put in more thoughts on how to utilize it.

You are technically qualified, that's 110% accurate. But not suited for the best interests of our community and our vision. Therefore, we have made the hard decision to remove you from the organization to protect other contributors and our project's culture.

We are deeply sorry for everyone that got upset by reading all this thread. My DMs and Gitter are open. OSS IS ABOUT CODE, BUT ALSO ABOUT BEING EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER.