I think that in order to get more efficiency from the budget system we need to do one or more of the following things:
a) Lessen the time factor--There is a real sense of urgency, in that we have only one month (at most) to plan and make proposals to the network before the funds or irretrievably "lost" for future development.
b) Given that any unallocated funds are lost forever (by simply not being created), we have a situation in which there is essentially zero cost for failure. If a proposal doesn't work out, then so what? The funds would have been lost anyway. The flip side is that almost any proposal with even the slightest chance of bringing value to the ecosystem is worthwhile, from a strict cost-benefit analysis. Take the latest proposal to integrate with a major exchange: that's just over 2,000 DASH or $30,000 USD. Not spending that money would effectively increase the value of all DASH in existence by half a cent, which is infinitesimal.
c) Communication must be improved. The creation of the new subforum is an excellent start.
My suggestion is to allow the network to "bank" any unspent funds so that they can be used at a later time by worthy projects. This has several advantages:
1) There's an incentive for saving. Today's unused funds will likely be worth quite a bit more in the future, due to price appreciation. This month's proposals, therefore, essentially have to compete against the possibility of even better proposals in the future. We don't want to fund marginal projects today, since that takes money away from potentially better projects in the future.
2) It eliminates the time factor, since there's no longer a hurry to spend funds before we lose them (i.e. before the month's superblocks are created). That gives more time to craft better proposals, more time for communication, and greater ability to hold contractors accountable (since there's no rush to approve expenditures).
3) It alters the cost-benefit analysis, because now the cost of disapproving a proposal is lower and the cost of approving a proposal is higher, since the funds if unused would be available for future projects.
P.S. It is vitally important that masternode owners realize there is risk in everything, and that it is up to them to assess the risk. There have been, and will continue to be, budget proposals that simply don't work out very well. That's simply how the world works--there are no guarantees in anything. All we can do is assess the risk and make the best possible decision with the information we have. If something doesn't work out, we learn from it and use that knowledge later. Failure is to be expected; if we never fail, it's because we never aspired.
Couple of VERY important points you bring up on this that I've never understood and never agreed on...why can't the funds be "banked"  This urgency to spend the funds before they are "burned" is ridiculous. This should be addressed...unless there is some compelling technical reason as to why we can't do this, this requirement should be removed. And second back to my original point...and one you touch on here...we need a very clear way to assess the performance of the budget system. Certainly we are all grown ups here(well most are here...  lol ) and can assess risk using our own criteria. The problem is that the information to make this kind judgement of system is incomplete and not readily available. This is quite problematic. So to recap...2 things need to be addressed, we should be advocating the removal of the time limit on spending the funds in a limit time frame and 2 creating a portal to which not only masternode operators but the community at large can gauge the performance of our system. The issue was a technical one if I remember correctly. People balked at members of Core being in control of the "bank" (for good reason) -- and it wasn't feasible for funds to be in a n of m multisig account as the the m (number of masternodes) is always changing. If fact, I don't think a proposal can even be paid out to any type of multisig account currently... 12.1 and Sentinel may allow such a functionality and it does make sense to explore this "bank" if it is technically feasible. A dev can probably offer more insight. |
|
|
|
Wow trolling is very active lately. Monero team worried Dash is poised for a nice bull run I think.
But seriously why compare Dash to Madoff? You might as well compare Dash to the number of cows in Switzerland for all the relevance that has. The growth of Dash looks nothing like that. At all. Btw.
Because, you can't base an investment solely on the fact that it has performed well in the past. You need to base it on something tangible that you expect to happen in the future that will help your investment grow. Well thats true I guess. As for myself I'm basing it on whats Dash has done in the past, (incentivised nodes, two tier network, instant send, private send...) and what its doing now (growing the network, financing multiple projects via the budget system, maintaining and growing value, market cap etc), and the potential I see and the vision of Dash Evolution, bringing a user experience to the masses. And so on. The thing is the trolls here know all this, and fear it, or they wouldnt be here. Do you really think they are here because they want to help us avoid a scam? Don't take my comment out of context. It was related to the comment above it, which was: ^ Yep. As an investor they have made me good money to this point so there is no reason to stop trusting them now. Cool My comment was only related to the blind faith attitude is dangerous. Hi Solar... I do agree to some of the concerns It's important that those of us that wish to question things and ask for accountability should remain doing so. For example, I've been advocating for a budget performance matrix for all funded projects. I've been willing to donate handsomely for this kind of thing where everyone is being held accountable via a standalone website. There are literally 10s of thousands of dollars being dished out... And no accountability. I purposed before the holidays that we set up an independent site that that strictly evaluates funding proposals performance as well as a complete detailed information on all aspects of the individual budgets, who they are, how much was the proposal worth in a couple of currencies what were the deliverables etc etc. Then finally a rating of how well the budget proposal did at fullfilling it's duties... This could even be voted on. This is how we can help hold everyone in community to remain confident that funds that parties are being given, are held accountable. I agree with questioning things and holding Core accountable. The new section on the forum is a good start. My original comment was only related to trusting them regarding this major exchange proposal (which was quickly taken out of context by Solar and the other trolls to be "blind faith"). I just think it would be silly to punt this exchange opportunity just because Ryan can't disclose the name of the exchange. We should trust the Core's judgement on this particular issue as the potential payoff is huge. That was my only point. |
|
|
|
Wow trolling is very active lately. Monero team worried Dash is poised for a nice bull run I think.
But seriously why compare Dash to Madoff? You might as well compare Dash to the number of cows in Switzerland for all the relevance that has. The growth of Dash looks nothing like that. At all. Btw.
Because, you can't base an investment solely on the fact that it has performed well in the past. You need to base it on something tangible that you expect to happen in the future that will help your investment grow. Lol, becuase DASH has absolutely nothing coming up in the future to make me want to hold  . Good riddance man -- enjoy Monero or whatever you invest in now. |
|
|
|
^ Yep. As an investor they have made me good money to this point so there is no reason to stop trusting them now.  |
|
|
|
Above has NOTHING to do with DASH the cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will have a problem only if doublespends occur after 1 or more confirmations.
With 0 confirmations it is not really expected to be safe. No confirm = anything can happen.
I think everybody is already aware that this issue is moot if there is a confirmation. I saw the video more as Amanda making a point about Bitcoin's overall usability. If having to wait at least 10 minutes is a requirement, then that eliminates Bitcoin from certain applications -- most notably point of sale applications. How much that matters in the long run can be debated, but I think everyone can agree that being confined to transitions where the parties are willing to (or for some logistical reasons must) wait is non-ideal. Given this, it seems reasonable to promote DASH as having a working solution to this problem. |
|
|
|
Good video. I didn't know about that issue. Bit sad to see all the Bitcoin maximalist types sticking their heads in the sand or bashing Dash in the comments, but that is to be expected.... I guess. Not hard to imagine why so little gets solved in Bitcoin nowadays. |
|
|
|
It is not about trust. Even in crypto you have to trust certain people. For example, every investor holding DASH at this time is trusting that Evan and the core team will pull off Evolution as advertised and further increase the value of the coin -- else you should sell now.
No, it is not about trust -- it is about properly aligned financial incentives. And in this case they are aligned properly. I can't think of any reason for Node 40, for example, to snoop becuase they would be killing off their own business. Not to mention hurting the value of any DASH they hold. It makes no sense.
Not to mention there is no evidence I have ever seen of 2000~3000 nodes (i.e. enough to do any reasonable snooping or double spending of IS transactions) being hosted on a single service...
I agree that more decentralization is always better, but this is a non-issue started (seemingly) by trolls.
I think the point is...lets explore ways of continuing to better the security. I for one don't see anything wrong with Mr. Jones proposing his theory. In Theory...it could in a very remote possible way happen that someone or entity might host close to 50% of MN's...in theory. I think its worth having people who are not DASH fans pointing thinkings out. It benificial for us to not only having ourselves surrounded by only fanboys and "yes" people...but constantly test and re-test and analyize with critical eyes on any and all possible angles. As Neil deGrasse Tyson says and I quote .... "Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail, and follow the evidence wherever it leads" As with everything it is about time and money. If improving something like this takes Evan away from Evolution then I would question the allocation of our dev resources. If somebody else steps up with an idea and submits a proposal for better decentralization then I would vote for it. I only was questioning the dire tone of the original post (improving this is hardly an emergency) imply that this is a MAJOR security flaw. I support (and I believe most support) reasonable improvements made to DASH whenever possible. |
|
|
|
|
It is not about trust. Even in crypto you have to trust certain people. For example, every investor holding DASH at this time is trusting that Evan and the core team will pull off Evolution as advertised and further increase the value of the coin -- else you should sell now.
No, it is not about trust -- it is about properly aligned financial incentives. And in this case they are aligned properly. I can't think of any reason for Node 40, for example, to snoop becuase they would be killing off their own business. Not to mention hurting the value of any DASH they hold. It makes no sense.
Not to mention there is no evidence I have ever seen of 2000~3000 nodes (i.e. enough to do any reasonable snooping or double spending of IS transactions) being hosted on a single service...
I agree that more decentralization is always better, but this is a non-issue started (seemingly) by trolls.
|
|
|
|
|
This whole vps attack vector discussion is silly becuase those pushing it are purposely not considering all a masternode owner's financial incentives.
Rather than worrying about improving their ROI 1%~2% by switching to a sketchy, prices-too-low-to-be-true hosting service -- masternode owners are primarily concerned with protecting the DASH price. If a bunch of owners change hosting services and the price drops due to an snooping attack, then they are going to lose much more money than they gained from the initial switch. In other words, this attack is completely unrealistic.
That is the beauty of the current system, if masternode owners simplify conform to the most obvious financial incentives DASH remains secure. At current prices they have at least $11,500 reasons to comply.
|
|
|
|
Yes, absolutely. The faster they get on the right chain the better, we are sending notifications to all exchanges. There's also two new checkpoints, that signal the correct chain to hop on. We'll push out an update in a few hours, in the mean time, if you're running from source feel free to update (the most important nodes will be running source, so that should fix everything anyway). https://github.com/dashpay/dash/commits/masterBtw, can you explain what actually happened to cause this? I might have missed it, but I don't remember seeing .58 being touted as mandatory update. Was this some sort of attack? |
|
|
|
Looks like another assault on the 0.028 BTC/DASH ATH has begun...  |
|
|
|
Thanks for posting this. It is nice to see people like that get more interested in DASH. |
|
|
|
Dash ready to go to the new ATH?
Getting close! According to coinmarketcap charts: USD/DASH ATH: $14.42 BTC/DASH ATH: 0.0259 |
|
|
|
Why don't we wait to see what he comes up with before throwing shade on the whole idea... Because this is nothing to do with the declared Dash roadmap or anticipated technical priorities. It's also something that is in the domain of holders, not developers since it is they who are responsible for assigning that portion of the blockchain reward and they've never asked for such project management tools. (Even if they had done, they don't need to come from the protocol. Google docs will do). I respect your opinion, but I think you are in the minority on this issue. I sure Evan will listen if a significant number of community members echo your concerns. |
|
|
|
You say we will have "some bad apples", I say will have a ton of bad apples once DASH gets bigger. With some form of minimal automated management I think the number of bad apples can be significant reduced. Feel free to submit your idea of "minimal automated management" (Clue: I suggest you patent it first if it works) I will leave that to the guy with the proven track record, Evan. Why don't we wait to see what he comes up with before throwing shade on the whole idea... |
|
|
|
Ok, I just read Macrochip's post on Dashtalk and now understand the problem better. So we need to have a discussion on how to remove the component of dependency on goodwill and trust within our governance model I'm sorry. This cannot be done. Dependency and goodwill are the essence on which ALL great creations, business projects and enterprises rely. That's exactly what's great about the current incarnation of Dash's governance system. It provides a basis for the holders and contractors to interact. Over time, some bad apples will be paid good money but also some gems will be discovered. It's an organic interaction that takes time to evolve - how do you think any great company develops ? Through getting to know their partners and trusting them. That trust is nothing to do with the blockchain - it's a people to people thing. It's voters pitted against contractors and thats just something that takes a lot of time, discussion, argument and growth. No way around it, but that the fact that Dash has that dimension of commercial evolution to it is a huge strength IMO, not a weakness. Yes - money will get wasted on crap contractors. They just won't get another look-in thats all and the ones that have integrity will. You could never match that level of project consciousness with an automated process. In theory you are right, but this is crypto -- the Wild Wild West where the vast majority of altcoins are scams. You say we will have "some bad apples", I say will have a ton of bad apples once DASH gets bigger. With some form of minimal automated management I think the number of bad apples can be significantly reduced. Then we let human interaction take care of the rest. Some good ideas might get caught in the net, but that is better that paying a ton of people like Icey.  |
|
|
|
But Tok, even you can agree that it isn't a good idea to hand people money from the blockchain and trust them to do what they say they will without any milestones or required reports You really are starting to sound like my bank manager. I didn't get into cryptos for this When I look down that list of proposals on Dashwhale, I know exactly what I'm interested in. I never had any problem separating the wheat from the chaff. On the other hand, if they were all full of project management structured B.S. and 7 levels of hierarchy, each one of which were professionally prepared I'd probably have to sell all my Dash just for the pleasure of not having to read them. "Gaming the system" is far easier when the system is structured than when it isn't. Nobody said anything about 15 page daily reports or 7 levels of hierarchy or whatever-- that's hyperbole. All Evan wants to do is track what is going on in the system and make sure things are happening as planed. The problem with zero management is that the economic incentives are misaligned for the budget system. You are incentivized to convince masternode voters to vote for you, but you have zero incentive to do what you proposed since you already have the money. The current system is altruism based. The only reason the system is working now sans management is because DASH is still tiny and most proposals are handled by trusted community members with significant stakes in DASH. There doesn't need to be overbearing management, but there needs to be more than ZERO management once DASH grows enough for scammers to care. |
|
|
|
If they get paid to do this work from the blockchain, then we should be tracking their milestones and releasing money for the work that's being done. Evan - you're thinking like a bank manager not like a monetary token developer. "God" created gold. He left it lying there to be discovered and people endowed it with value. It got acquired in all different ways - some people lost their lives mining it, others just tripped over it during a hillwalk. There was no rhyme or reason for its ascension to acceptance as a monetary medium other than its core monetary properties which were consistent throughout all of its incarnations - whether monetary, decorative or industrial. Thats the difference between Ethereum and Bitcoin. Ethereum needs development funds (because it isn't money) and Bitcoin doesn't (because it is). Bitcoin is currently a metric by which all other trades are measured in the cryptocurrency economy and thats enough. Dash had a chance at that with the Proof of Labour proposal and blew it out. (Hopefully it will get it back again ). Turning the blockchain funding mechanism into the equivalent of my local bank manager who wants to see "returns" and asks people to fill in a 7-level form is about as appealing as eating the trimmings off a coffin. Nobody will ever apply (at least nobody that has a semblance of creativity about them). If you put the same effort into developing Dash's monetary properties as you are proposing to put into it's "business properties" you'd have arrived. • Darksend working fast. • Decentralised API for 3rd party creativity and accessibility It's all there in the Evolution document. I suggest you go back and read your own script But Tok, even you can agree that it isn't a good idea to hand people money from the blockchain and trust them to do what they say they will without any milestones or required reports. As the DASH budget grows that will lead to dishonest behavior and clever people scamming the governance system. Currently, the "reporting system" is somebody writing an angry post on dashtalk and kot posting some document so quell them. I do see what you are saying that too many rules/reports will push people not to apply so maybe Evan is going too far, but I think he is on the right track. Automating the governance to some extent will fast track DASH development with the goal of becoming money. |
|
|
|
v12.1 is going to be neat ETA on 12.1 hitting testnet?  Not sure Alright, thanks for being upfront. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
