[ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency

[Gi01]

Please provide links to those MNs that are still getting payments. It's my understanding that it isn't supposed to work that way. As for the bad-acting miners, they get about 48 hours of extra money once every couple of months. Not a big deal IMO.

https://dashninja.pl/mndetails.html?mnpubkey=XtKaWTPjdkyXx98xVYvTq22fQ5koHfmpsK It's an example, and not a lonely one

Regarding the ability of these miners to get some extra buck at every protocol updated (skipping, in the process, some of the legitimate receivers) believe me, can be a blocker for big investors.

thats very weird and definetely needs some looking into by the dev team...

So what should we do?

[ddink7]

Please provide links to those MNs that are still getting payments. It's my understanding that it isn't supposed to work that way. As for the bad-acting miners, they get about 48 hours of extra money once every couple of months. Not a big deal IMO.

https://dashninja.pl/mndetails.html?mnpubkey=XtKaWTPjdkyXx98xVYvTq22fQ5koHfmpsK It's an example, and not a lonely one

Regarding the ability of these miners to get some extra buck at every protocol updated (skipping, in the process, some of the legitimate receivers) believe me, can be a blocker for big investors.

It looks like somebody is donating their MN revenue to that wallet. (Likely to consolidate it all into one wallet rather than keep it in each individual MN's address.) You have two payments on 4/15, for instance. I could definitely be wrong, but that's at least a possible explanation.

Regarding enforcement, as Dash continues to mature protocol bumps will become rarer and rarer. I would suggest that if this mythical "big investor" is turned off by the fact that 10% of the network doesn't pay what they should for 48 hours every two months...well, that's unfortunate. The code cannot be enforced until it's clear that the network isn't going to fork.

FWIW, nobody's payments are "skipped" by enforcement being off. They may be delayed by a block or two, but they aren't skipped. If my MN was supposed to get paid on block 285001 and a noncomplying miner publishes that block without an MN payment, then my MN doesn't get skipped for the next four days. I simply get paid on block 285002.

[WastedLTC]

Thanks again to splawik21 for the MN hosting services.    Finished setting 3 more up within a day of the request.

[thelonecrouton]

So otoh and instaminers get all the votes? Your centralizing your system even more.

Why should it be any other way ?

 I know you mean that sarcastically but you should be careful what you write, others may not take it that way

Yes, obviously we need to hand out free shit to all the whiners who didn't take a risk and are now bitching about not having reaped any of the rewards!

Anything other than a socialist free lunch bonanza is just unfair!

Gimme gimme gimme because I am a special snowflake!





LOL. You want a vote? Fucking pay for it like everyone else: www.bitfinex.com

[qwizzie]

Please provide links to those MNs that are still getting payments. It's my understanding that it isn't supposed to work that way. As for the bad-acting miners, they get about 48 hours of extra money once every couple of months. Not a big deal IMO.

https://dashninja.pl/mndetails.html?mnpubkey=XtKaWTPjdkyXx98xVYvTq22fQ5koHfmpsK It's an example, and not a lonely one

Regarding the ability of these miners to get some extra buck at every protocol updated (skipping, in the process, some of the legitimate receivers) believe me, can be a blocker for big investors.

thats very weird and definetely needs some looking into by the dev team...

So what should we do?

Give the dev team some time to catch up with this forum, Evan normally replies personally to these kind of questions and monitors this thread
or you can create a post on https://dashtalk.org/  if its getting drowned in here ...

[toknormal]

I know you mean that sarcastically but you should be careful what you write, others may not take it that way

I wasn't meaning it sarcastically. I was deadly serious.

How can you possibly decentralise voting power further once you've handed it over to coin holders ?

[RenegadeMan]

So otoh and instaminers get all the votes? Your centralizing your system even more.

Why should it be any other way ?

I think what Evan's put forward is certainly profound and the ramifications for use of blockchain technology in this way are revolutionary.

I too though am concerned by some aspects of how voting like this might actually play out in practise.

I just posted this on DCT:

Quite a brilliant plan Evan, with the potential to transform the entire way we think about decision making and organisational management.

One area that I'm keen to hear yours and other people's views on, is how an approach like this will handle the fact that, unlike say elections of politicians where one vote supposedly has one value (i.e. a wealthy person's vote is equivalent to the vote of a lower socio-economic voter), the power of the vote within a consensus mechanism like this is very much skewed towards those with large masternode numbers. This is in effect no different to shareholder voting within publicly listed companies where large shareholder groups can heavily influence board proposals, even to the point of voting for individuals to be appointed or removed from boards or dramatic mergers and acquisitions agreed to that may be detrimental to smaller shareholders.

Within the voting rights for shareholders it's seen as "he or she that has the highest risk exposure by investing in the stock should therefore have the greatest voting rights" and this is certainly valid to a degree.Where it starts to fall down is when voting is facilitating greater and greater levels of monopolistic control (i.e. "the rich get richer"). Although crypto by default tends to negate some aspects of this, I'm expecting there will still be many ways large masternode holders could end up with substantial "political" weight to influence support for proposals that bring them even greater influence.

Somewhat of a can of worms I'm opening here, but I think this aspect needs to be discussed (certainly prior to a "masternode vote many yay" command gets introduced!) 

[Gi01]

Thanks @ddlink7, pretty clear

The mighty investor it's not me, but if any business angel might for any reason find this project interesting, finding out that there is a way to take advantage and the community is OK with that... he will go away When you manage money that isn't yours you can't accept something like that.

I am not criticizing just for the sake of it, I am trying to give a point of view that is less technical/crypto and a bit more business oriented

[GhostPlayer]

I just wished to "moneros" a luck (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg11161083#msg11161083) - and DASH price has jumped immediately.

"Love your neighbor", don't hate trolls.  

I wish you all dash scammers burn in hell

 I'm sorry for your terrible investment strategies.

[GhostPlayer]

I'm sorry for your terrible investment strategies.

I'm doing fine, you should be sorry for your conscience, if you have one.

 I walk with a light step and chin up, I have no fears and don't ever look over my shoulder, thank you very much  

[fuzzyduck]

Thanks again to splawik21 for the MN hosting services.    Finished setting 3 more up within a day of the request.

Also look at my ubertastic tutorial on how to set up and run your own MN at home on a raspberry pi.
Got one running for over two months now without looking at it.


https://dashtalk.org/threads/masternode-on-raspberry-pi-2-model-b.4083/#post-43208

[Minotaur26]

So otoh and instaminers get all the votes? Your centralizing your system even more.

Why should it be any other way ?

I think what Evan's put forward is certainly profound and the ramifications for use of blockchain technology in this way are revolutionary.

I too though am concerned by some aspects of how voting like this might actually play out in practise.

I just posted this on DCT:

Quite a brilliant plan Evan, with the potential to transform the entire way we think about decision making and organisational management.

One area that I'm keen to hear yours and other people's views on, is how an approach like this will handle the fact that, unlike say elections of politicians where one vote supposedly has one value (i.e. a wealthy person's vote is equivalent to the vote of a lower socio-economic voter), the power of the vote within a consensus mechanism like this is very much skewed towards those with large masternode numbers. This is in effect no different to shareholder voting within publicly listed companies where large shareholder groups can heavily influence board proposals, even to the point of voting for individuals to be appointed or removed from boards or dramatic mergers and acquisitions agreed to that may be detrimental to smaller shareholders.

Within the voting rights for shareholders it's seen as "he or she that has the highest risk exposure by investing in the stock should therefore have the greatest voting rights" and this is certainly valid to a degree.Where it starts to fall down is when voting is facilitating greater and greater levels of monopolistic control (i.e. "the rich get richer"). Although crypto by default tends to negate some aspects of this, I'm expecting there will still be many ways large masternode holders could end up with substantial "political" weight to influence support for proposals that bring them even greater influence.

Somewhat of a can of worms I'm opening here, but I think this aspect needs to be discussed (certainly prior to a "masternode vote many yay" command gets introduced!)  

In the context of a market, where people take different levels of risk and contribute proportionately to their investment it totally has to be one vote per collateral bond of trust, as you explain.  This system is better in many other ways, as the decisions are taken facing the public and by presenting initiatives that are openly discussed not in private board meetings like with traditional foundations. It is also design to be flexible and outlast early adopters, you can't just place yourself in the context of the current reality. Decades from now when none of the early adopters are around the blockchain still would have a system for self-preservation, this systems floats as masternode operators move in and out of the game and as distribution changes in time.  It is actually brilliant and I like the concept very much.

There will be other applications in which Decentralized Governance by Blockchain can be applied outside of the context of a market. I proposed an idea in which the FIAT budget of a gubernatorial institution is pegged to a blockchain which emission would correspond to the said budget. Government employees are then paid from the blockchain in a transparent way and public initiatives are actively voted on by an assembly of representatives in things that are related to the executive branch in a completely new way. The possibilities are endless.

[GhostPlayer]

 1 Dash for the first troll that shouts

 Blockchain Governance = centralization.

[r4vani]

 1 Dash for the first troll that shouts

 Blockchain Governance = centralization.

troll 

[coins101]

Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

https://dashtalk.org/threads/self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4708/

Having read all that (all very profound), the one big question I have is - what's the software used to produce the info graphics?

Looks pretty neat.

[Lauda]

About trolls and how they help Dash
Troll's posts are mostly informal fallacies presented with an agenda, no need to keep replying. I think mainly:
Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.


There was nothing nefarious about the launch issues, so we have nothing to worry about. Actually it had negative and positive side effects. It really allowed for non miners to acquire more coins at very low prices in the market due to the extra liquidity. I am not a miner so I am really thankful for that. This coin is already 15 months old and going strong, the whole supply has been traded in markets several times. Everyone knows this, even the trolls, they just feel they can use it as a perceived weakness, yet they help the project through added transparency and openness about what did not go perfect. While in reality for an investor today, all that matters are the future prospects of the project and its growth potential.


Trolls have proven to be really healthy and a big part of our success, plus they are not going anywhere as long as we are making progress. Newcomers come into an unmoderated thread where there are supporters and detractors and they make their decisions with all information at hand. So far it has worked really well for the project.

All we need to do is relax, present the facts from time to time and don't respond to trolls. We are working hard to build added value for users and to find creative solutions for long standing crypto issues, they can read the papers, check the github and get a feel for the community, the price is just a consequence of that. 

Well I do agree however there is a "border" after which it stops being helpful. The only real explanation is that they are invested in some other coin or they've got burned while trading DRK i.e. DASH in the past.
I think that they should not be complaining if they haven't been here from the start. If they've found DASH months later they have the chance either to go with it or skip it. Nobody is forcing anyone to be using a specific coin. I've been here since the beginning. Well actually I've found DRK (a second time) 2-3 months after its release.
I'm very satisfied to see where it has come. I think that in the future it is going to be one of the 3 coins that are second to Bitcoin and have succeed.

[TanteStefana2]

So otoh and instaminers get all the votes? Your centralizing your system even more.

Why should it be any other way ?

I think what Evan's put forward is certainly profound and the ramifications for use of blockchain technology in this way are revolutionary.

I too though am concerned by some aspects of how voting like this might actually play out in practise.

I just posted this on DCT:

Quite a brilliant plan Evan, with the potential to transform the entire way we think about decision making and organisational management.

One area that I'm keen to hear yours and other people's views on, is how an approach like this will handle the fact that, unlike say elections of politicians where one vote supposedly has one value (i.e. a wealthy person's vote is equivalent to the vote of a lower socio-economic voter), the power of the vote within a consensus mechanism like this is very much skewed towards those with large masternode numbers. This is in effect no different to shareholder voting within publicly listed companies where large shareholder groups can heavily influence board proposals, even to the point of voting for individuals to be appointed or removed from boards or dramatic mergers and acquisitions agreed to that may be detrimental to smaller shareholders.

Within the voting rights for shareholders it's seen as "he or she that has the highest risk exposure by investing in the stock should therefore have the greatest voting rights" and this is certainly valid to a degree.Where it starts to fall down is when voting is facilitating greater and greater levels of monopolistic control (i.e. "the rich get richer"). Although crypto by default tends to negate some aspects of this, I'm expecting there will still be many ways large masternode holders could end up with substantial "political" weight to influence support for proposals that bring them even greater influence.

Somewhat of a can of worms I'm opening here, but I think this aspect needs to be discussed (certainly prior to a "masternode vote many yay" command gets introduced!)  

In the context of a market, where people take different levels of risk and contribute proportionately to their investment it totally has to be one vote per collateral bond of trust, as you explain.  This system is better in many other ways, as the decisions are taken facing the public and by presenting initiatives that are openly discussed not in private board meetings like with traditional foundations. It is also design to be flexible and outlast early adopters, you can't just place yourself in the context of the current reality. Decades from now when none of the early adopters are around the blockchain still would have a system for self-preservation, this systems floats as masternode operators move in and out of the game and as distribution changes in time.  It is actually brilliant and I like the concept very much.

There will be other applications in which Decentralized Governance by Blockchain can be applied outside of the context of a market. I proposed an idea in which the FIAT budget of a gubernatorial institution is pegged to a blockchain which emission would correspond to the said budget. Government employees are then paid from the blockchain in a transparent way and public initiatives are actively voted on by an assembly of representatives in things that are related to the executive branch in a completely new way. The possibilities are endless.

All this, but I want to step back and look at the whole picture.  This system allows anyone with an idea to put it forward, discuss it with the community and have a chance to get their project funded.  Masternodes will act in the best interests of DASH as a whole because they've got a vested interest.  So, with all the debate from everyone, they make as informed a decision as possible.  And if a project is given the green light and is funded, then when the project stalls or is dropped, the project can be cancelled immediately.  Just like firing an employee.  Even so, I see masternode owners needing to rely on boards or committees to inform them of most things going on in the end.

But now take a couple of steps back even further.  Imagine DASH grows even bigger.  Imagine that one of the helpful projects creates it's own income stream, and that income stream is used to fund a new "chain" of production?  These new branches that might have once been funded by the masternode system, might now become the new hub of development entirely funded by their original project and independent of DASH entirely.  Do this enough times over time, and you have a web of production, a whole new industry of all kinds of things, based off of DASH.  It truly is limitless and truly global.

Now think on this.  Money represents time skill and effert.  The more time skill and effort put into the system, the more money is created (or the more value money is given).  There may only be so many DASH available, but it's only a unit with flexible value.  The value will go up multifold as time work and effort are pumped into it.  So basically, what I'm saying here is that there is no "physical" reason why DASH couldn't become the world's money ........... period.  And yes, it's that much like cash, and that easy to use that DASH actually has every real chance of making it and bringing down the financial system of yesteryear. 

I don't see it happening where the world falls into chaos, but as the grass-roots effort of DASH (and other blockchain technologies such as Ethereum), the banksters and yes, even governments will eventually have to fold in.  This will likely be either a double system for a long time to come, but soon blockchain technology will be a part of every infrastructure and through acceptance there, understanding of what we are doing here will evolve, and slowly but surely, the world will come into the fold.  Not because of the promise of making tons of money but because it's so extremely trustless and open and the people will demand it.

Ok, I've said it before, I'm quite a dreamer.  But if it isn't DASH, the world surely will fall into the fold of blockchain tech, that much I can see!  And why not DASH?

[ddink7]

I'm extremely excited at the scale of this. Some weeks ago, when the masternode donation system and funding of devs was announced, I was excited but thinking that there wouldn't be nearly enough money to actually incentive development.

But 15% of block rewards? At the current rate of exchange, $40,000 per month or $480,000 per year? That's a staggering amount of funding which can be used for development, marketing, etc. I'm thinking this is very, very good! Imagine how far half a million dollars per year will go if spent wisely!

[alex-ru]

Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

https://dashtalk.org/threads/self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4708/

Let's imagine the future...

[TanteStefana2]

Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

https://dashtalk.org/threads/self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4708/

Let's imagine the future...

That's very cool