Oh, you mean like what Maidsafe is doing?   Check out the 3rd paragraph where they talk about being able to test applications with a simulated network.

https://safenetforum.org/t/maidsafe-dev-update-january-26-2017/12300

CoinChat.Club is a slack chat that focuses on the top 10+ coins in Crypto.   

We have close to 1200 members and encourage an open discussion.  We even allocate channels to youtube stars like the 9th most influential people in blockchain, also known as BitcoinUncensored, who also join us from time to time.  News feeds also pop into each coin channel so you don't have to look around for info on your favorite coins.  Feel free to drop in and ask questions or talk about that interesting post you just found.   Or ask about that coin that jumped up in market cap for apparently no reason, usually someone has an answer.

Best of all it is free.  Just click the link below, provide an email and you are in.

Thanks.   You you have the right idea.  The simplest solution is to downvote every proposal that doesn't give acceptable updates.  That could even be forced by a vote reset every month.

First point.  The budget is a renewable monthly voted in budget.  It doesn't matter if the proposal says 99 months or 2 months, it can be voted out at any time.  I am not upset that the budget was declined.  (Maybe a little frustrated that GrandMasterDash posted on every 3rd post that the time length was too long and moderators did nothing.  Every 3rd post.  Really?  LOL.)  The concern is that core members called it a plan to overtake Dash.  Severe language in private messages, rants on slack calling me out, upset posts on the forum from Kot, Andy, etc.   Not at all a normal reaction to a simple budget proposal.

At the time, this would have created new displays for shows, new products to help merchants use Dash, and we would have got to a terminal device that merchants could use.   At least Kodaxx, snogcell, and chaeplin have started something with POS.   It isn't enough, the core should be focused on retail and POS adoption instead of ignoring it and hoping the community will try something.

2nd point.  Slack was owned privately and had 100s of members before it took any Dash funds.  Funds were used for promotion and moderators time.  All expenses and funds were posted on dashtalk with updates.  This is the typical response for any community member trying to do something.  They get critiqued to death and called scammers.  A core member proposal can go a year without anything useful to show for it, end up with a failed project, and hardly get slapped on the wrist.  At the same time anyone pointing out how bad the project is after it becomes obvious gets called a concern troll without any critical discussion about the project.

Since this was now brought up by Tungfa, Stealth, and yourself I'll post an analogy.
Care rental place owns car.   (private owners owned slack)
You pay for rental, pick up car.  You pay for gas.  (slack got some rewards from the budget for promotions, it wasn't SOLD to the network)
You stop paying for rental.  (slack proposal stopped getting rewards)
Do you expect to own the car because you paid a little bit of the cost of ownership?  (so the slack now is owned by the community?)
No, you return the car.
Do you call the car rental place a scammer for not giving you the car?
No, you return the car and end the transaction.

And I did offer the slack to the core guys as an open bid.  They declined to respond.  A few days after my request 2 new slacks opened up.  Not rocket science what happened.

I appreciate the comments and am not offended by non paid community members asking questions or posting assumptions.  This is a natural process to be skeptical when you don't know someone.

Judging a user because they hung out with the wrong crowd?   Yeah, that is ridiculous.  The non coding core team is so against critical thinking that they intentionally call any negative comments trolling.  Kot, Daniel, and mainly Coingun were in the dashchat slack intentionally redirecting anything critical.  The discussions seemed like a witch hunt mainly because there were hardly ever any direct answers. 

Critical thinking leads to improvements and innovation.   Blind faith leads to waste, corruption, and laziness.

Did I ever say anything about Monero this year?  No.  Your random grouping strategy is odd, but not of my concern.

If you are grouping me in with the critical thinkers and unbiased crypto nerds that say negative things once in a while.  Sure, that makes sense.  Feel free to put me on ignore so you can maintain your exceptionally high standard of Dash Positiveness.

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.

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.

I have been attacked by the Non-Coding Dash guys for a while now.  I have put up with it because I believed in Dash.   But now there is too much corruption and mistakes being made.  Maybe it will have a shakeup or implode and the right changes will get made. 

For any newbies, here is some history:

• First I was told you can't build an instantx soda machine and you will just take the money.
• Then it was you are a scammer because you built the soda machine (with camo and moo of course) but are not giving profits(never expected to be used after the show anyway) back to the community.
• Then accused of trying to take over Dash by submitting a proposal to get technology into vendors called vendor-experience.  Instantx anyone?
• I was harassed several times in private messages flaming me with inappropriate language (from a core member still on the team).
• Called a troll almost non-stop for any critical thinking.
• Called a scammer for supporting Dash and community with a slack and then stopping it when the proposal was defunded.
• Now I am labeled a concern troll and one of the 5 guys, even though I have done more with InstantX than anyone else in Dash, just look at my signature.

There is definitely something wrong with this community.   Maybe I should file a grievance with that new HR person that is coming soon.

Said every Bernie Madoff investor. 

Still don't see InstantX.   Are you referring to the term supposedly used in the 12.1 wallet that hasn't been release yet?   Oh, Ok....LOL. 

Well, at least the attempt to use it was put in the proposal.

I don't see InstantX in the proposal.  Don't assume.  Read them carefully. 

Do you remember the proposal for Lamassu compatible software on a network of one machine.... but the proposal looked like it was actually with lamassu on their network.

Oooh.  Will we finally get the result of the Fiat Gateways project?   This is a must vote yes to see.  You got this far....better double down.

Nah, but I think the timing is off.  Fixed that.

Icebreaker is actually making some good arguments.   Well said.

So I understand that increasing the blocksize is more than one line of code....which I did find by the way.  Hee hee.  But the goal of that vote should have been to direct resources to make it happen.  There should have been a timeline and an idea for testing and implementation.   Maybe initially it was a 1.1MB block and adding .1MB every 3 months.   Whatever made sense to safely implement the change.  Ignoring the proposal now just shows how ineffective the entire Dash Decision Engine really is.

I am not faulting Moo or Udjin, they are completely capable of making the change in a reasonable way.  And maybe the answer is not to make the change.  Which right now is probably a good decision. 

The fault is in the marketing of the change like it was actually going to happen.  I bet if the change was actually made after that vote, Dash would have gained a lot of support.

BTW, Maidsafe and Ardor coming up will be using ways to only keep the latest transactions.  The Blockchain and Blocksize the way we think of it now will be changing.

Hey Moo.   There is more too it than just being impatient.  I think most people thought that proposal would happen quickly, not waiting 2 years for Evolution.  And if this was the only issue with Dash, it would be a pretty minor issue.

This is from the initial release post here:  https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/v0-11-1-instantx-release.3923/
Transaction locks are lost when restarting the client and only last for an hour
So if there are enough transactions that have fees higher than the InstantX fee, and blocks are kept full for an hour, the lock will be released and transaction unlocked.

So my reply might have seemed harsh, but I am truly disappointed with Dash.  The proposal last year was a great idea.   Ideas are easy, implementing them takes work.   All the Dash marketing about increasing blocksize or made the decision to, is now false advertising.  And since I trusted developers to follow through, I have also been part of the problem by spreading false information.

Dash is different than Bitcoin.  If blocks do get full, InstantX transactions will start to be unlocked.  This is huge problem for such a key feature.   And the attitude of no need to worry about it we are fine, is poor.  Dash should be moving to variable blocks.   Vcash had that figured out last year.  Dash looks more and more like they are promising features just to get investors regardless if they will actually finish them.

Yeah, totally reasonable to delay a year before working on any of the code for a blocksize increase.  At this rate it is looking like Bitcoin will beat Dash on a blocksize/segwit update.

Nope.  Dash does not have a governance system.   Governance implies that you can force a change.   The only thing the budget system can do is pay out a project that is submitted.

Proof:   Budget passed to increase block size to 2MB.   Result is still 1MB blocksize.  Of course, this proposal is used over an over to say Dash can increase the blocksize in 24 hours....um.   right....1 year and still no change.

The only ones that can control changes are those with access to github.  And even then, the code needs to be created and tested before it can be approved.

Charlie was spot on with the "Marketing over Tech".

To get you started on that blocksize increase, here is a start.
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/primitives/block.h
/** The maximum allowed size for a serialized block, in bytes (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
change to
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 2000000;

This just shows how incompetent the marketing team is.  We offered the core team the option to bid(with no minimum) on the slack that we built over 1000 users with 15,000 messages a week.   What did they bid?   No response.  Not even a we want it, but we don't want to pay.  Genius move.