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

[bigrcanada]

I would, but first posters don't qualify as a troll. I always give the benefit of the doubt to anyone  

 I wasn't kidding, I am a man of my word.

You want trolling!  OK:

DASH isn't the greatest invention of all time!


Now, pay up!

You forgot the magic troll words

You're a sheep in wolfs clothing  

There's no pleasing you DASHheads.  OK:

DASH isn't the greatest instamine of all time!

Ok I feel charitable...I'll donate 1 Dash right now.  send the address...

[1713889396]

1713889396

[TanteStefana2]

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!

i think 10% should be plenty for right now. when the project grows and they need more the mn's should vote on it.
40/50/10 - m/mn/dev.

Everything is up for discussion at the moment, others are proposing a dynamic system depending on funding needs. I guess we need to work on the details, but to be honest, 480K is not even the yearly budget of a small business. It can definitely be adjusted as we grow, but I think if there is any adjustment down the reduction should go to miners not masternodes. The masternodes can't have an incentive to not fund legitimate projects to keep more rewards, the fair thing is for any savings to go to miners, if there is ever a change like this.

Good thinking.  I actually think 15% is barely enough.  and remember, the value of money (DASH) is dependent on time+skill+effort.  The more work that goes into this project, the more value the coin will have and the more usefulness the project will have. Thus everyone will benefit including the users and their needs.

[TanteStefana2]

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!

i think 10% should be plenty for right now. when the project grows and they need more the mn's should vote on it.
40/50/10 - m/mn/dev.

Sounds fair enough for me as well.

Crossposting from dashtalk:

In my opinion, pulling a set amount from the blockchain for future spending encourages frivolous spending.  I would instead say that the blockchain amount changes only when there is a need.  For example, a proposed video to support Dash needs a 6 month take of 1%.  MNs vote and then after approved the split changes.  After 6 months the split reverts.  We could do the same for new features, wallets, etc.  I would encourage each funding proposal to expire after a set time.  Putting a permanent 'development tax' on the blockchain sounds really bad to me.

Liking this idea. If there are approved projects to fund, divert that agreed amount to fund them. If not, why stockpile money? Keep a reserve but cap it at something sensible. Don't take from miners and MN ops when it's not needed.

Contractors should be paid after they deliver to full spec, never before, we shouldn't be fronting money to anyone.

Who's in control of this pot anyway? There's someone out there with 600 MNs or something. What % of votes are needed to decide a poll?

Or, we don't have to spend it all.  There is nothing wrong with savings.  But I suspect that great projects will be submitted and there won't be enough funds around to fund them all.  I honestly don't think this will be a problem for quite some time.  And if it does become a problem, like minotaur said, unspent funds could go back to the miners.  You could do something like an end of the year deposit into yet another account which makes a % payment to found blocks, which should pay out completely in 1 year, and each year there is a surplus of funds, this is done with that account.

[bigrcanada]

7gnwGHt17heGpG9Crfeh4KGpYNFugPhJdh

HELL!!! I'm feeling really REALLY good about quoting a troll!  I payed your sorry ass 5 DASH!.  So there...stick it.

[Minotaur26]

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!

i think 10% should be plenty for right now. when the project grows and they need more the mn's should vote on it.
40/50/10 - m/mn/dev.

Sounds fair enough for me as well.

Crossposting from dashtalk:

In my opinion, pulling a set amount from the blockchain for future spending encourages frivolous spending.  I would instead say that the blockchain amount changes only when there is a need.  For example, a proposed video to support Dash needs a 6 month take of 1%.  MNs vote and then after approved the split changes.  After 6 months the split reverts.  We could do the same for new features, wallets, etc.  I would encourage each funding proposal to expire after a set time.  Putting a permanent 'development tax' on the blockchain sounds really bad to me.

Liking this idea. If there are approved projects to fund, divert that agreed amount to fund them. If not, why stockpile money? Keep a reserve but cap it at something sensible. Don't take from miners and MN ops when it's not needed.

Contractors should be paid after they deliver to full spec, never before, we shouldn't be fronting money to anyone.

Who's in control of this pot anyway? There's someone out there with 600 MNs or something. What % of votes are needed to decide a poll?

Or, we don't have to spend it all.  There is nothing wrong with savings.  But I suspect that great projects will be submitted and there won't be enough funds around to fund them all.  I honestly don't think this will be a problem for quite some time.  And if it does become a problem, like minotaur said, unspent funds could go back to the miners.  You could do something like an end of the year deposit into yet another account which makes a % payment to found blocks, which should pay out completely in 1 year, and each year there is a surplus of funds, this is done with that account.

Xposting DCT

I see where you are coming from, the reason why I don't like this idea is because it provides an incentive to masternode operators to not fund projects, abstain or simply vote no. I feel that would be a weakness of the system, the amount of money we would have to work with as things stand today is not even the budget of a small business. There does not need to be any waste as we could keep a reserve, about having too much funds in the future, well that would only be the result of the success of the initiative, the ecosystem growing, more features, more adoption. In that theoretical situation, we can always make adjustments is a good problem to have. The alternative of being underfunded and people voting no because they have an incentive to keep the rewards would just leave us where we already are. Operators should vote no, because they don't like a proposal, not because they get to keep the money. A system like that would not work in practice, IMHO.

[TanteStefana2]

I would, but first posters don't qualify as a troll. I always give the benefit of the doubt to anyone  

 I wasn't kidding, I am a man of my word.

You want trolling!  OK:

DASH isn't the greatest invention of all time!


Now, pay up!

You forgot the magic troll words

You're a sheep in wolfs clothing  

There's no pleasing you DASHheads.  OK:

DASH isn't the greatest instamine of all time!

Ok I feel charitable...I'll donate 1 Dash right now.  send the address...

Dash is instamined but where did the money go?, Dash has too many cute REDHEADS!  DASH has too much innovation!  DASH is too DECENTRALIZED!  DASH is getting too big!  DASH has too many plans!  DASH IS TAKING OVER THE WORLD!
IT MUST BE STOPPED!

[coins101]

HELL!!! I'm feeling really REALLY good about quoting a troll!  I payed your sorry ass 5 DASH!.  So there...stick it.

I'm not talking to you.  You, you, ... wino!

I'm talking to GhostPlayer!  Pay up or I'll troll some more.

Evan uses BIG words in his manifesto.  Ecosystem, Constitution, Decentralized, Proportionately.  What do these words even mean?



7gnwGHt17heGpG9Crfeh4KGpYNFugPhJdh

bloody hell, we've created some right little monsters. even Mrs.Robinson is getting in on the act.

[TanteStefana2]

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!

i think 10% should be plenty for right now. when the project grows and they need more the mn's should vote on it.
40/50/10 - m/mn/dev.

Sounds fair enough for me as well.

Crossposting from dashtalk:

In my opinion, pulling a set amount from the blockchain for future spending encourages frivolous spending.  I would instead say that the blockchain amount changes only when there is a need.  For example, a proposed video to support Dash needs a 6 month take of 1%.  MNs vote and then after approved the split changes.  After 6 months the split reverts.  We could do the same for new features, wallets, etc.  I would encourage each funding proposal to expire after a set time.  Putting a permanent 'development tax' on the blockchain sounds really bad to me.

Liking this idea. If there are approved projects to fund, divert that agreed amount to fund them. If not, why stockpile money? Keep a reserve but cap it at something sensible. Don't take from miners and MN ops when it's not needed.

Contractors should be paid after they deliver to full spec, never before, we shouldn't be fronting money to anyone.

Who's in control of this pot anyway? There's someone out there with 600 MNs or something. What % of votes are needed to decide a poll?

Or, we don't have to spend it all.  There is nothing wrong with savings.  But I suspect that great projects will be submitted and there won't be enough funds around to fund them all.  I honestly don't think this will be a problem for quite some time.  And if it does become a problem, like minotaur said, unspent funds could go back to the miners.  You could do something like an end of the year deposit into yet another account which makes a % payment to found blocks, which should pay out completely in 1 year, and each year there is a surplus of funds, this is done with that account.

Xposting DCT

I see where you are coming from, the reason why I don't like this idea is because it provides an incentive to masternode operators to not fund projects, abstain or simply vote no. I feel that would be a weakness of the system, the amount of money we would have to work with as things stand today is not even the budget of a small business. There does not need to be any waste as we could keep a reserve, about having too much funds in the future, well that would only be the result of the success of the initiative, the ecosystem growing, more features, more adoption. In that theoretical situation, we can always make adjustments is a good problem to have. The alternative of being underfunded and people voting no because they have an incentive to keep the rewards would just leave us where we already are. Operators should vote no, because they don't like a proposal, not because they get to keep the money. A system like that would not work in practice, IMHO.

You could make it so it only pays the miners, not the MN's  That's what I was thinking.  MNs should not have any ability at all to vote it back to themselves

[TanteStefana2]

Dash is instamined but where did the money go?, Dash has too many cute REDHEADS!  DASH has too much innovation!  DASH is too DECENTRALIZED!  DASH is getting too big!  DASH has too many plans!  DASH IS TAKING OVER THE WORLD!
IT MUST BE STOPPED!

To answer the above accusations:

1.  The instamined coins were mostly all sold off as soon as a market place opened up, and Evan was buying them up as well, which really made me realized he valued them.  I know most if not all of the #1 wallet, the unknown owner of which we dubbed "#1" bought his coins over time, while we watched him accumulate.  Was this Evan?  I don't think so, because as it was accumulated, there was quite a value on those coins, so Evan would have had to have been quite rich.... or maybe his is quite rich in Bitcoin and was able to do this?  I have no idea??  But it was definitely distributed and redistributed, and the instamine has nothing to do with the distribution of coins today.

2.  This is a phenomenon that only shows that there is magic at play.  Never go against obvious magic forces that are telling you they're supporting a project.

3.  Somehow Dash innovation has a direct correlation to the number of redheads on the team.

4.  Decentralization is a problem.  How did Evan et al do it?  It's a mystery of genius that must be studied and written about for any hope of understanding.

5.  Consequently, indeed DASH is set to grow so huge, the Rothschilds will look tiny in comparison.

6.  The web of innovations and plans that are about to kick off will mimic and expand on the world wide web in ways one couldn't possibly imagine at this time!

7.  Yes, DASH may very well kill the banking industry as we know it and cause the governments to return to being For the people By the people!

8.  I'm afraid it may very well be too late to stop this ball from rolling...........

[TanteStefana2]

bloody hell, we've created some right little monsters. even Mrs.Robinson is getting in on the act.

It feels GOOD!  LOL

[razen489]

Dash Price inching back up after a pull back 

[blade87]

I'm late, but how do I update DRK to DASH? Should I just copy my DRK wallet.dat over the DASH one created?

[tungfa]

I'm late, but how do I update DRK to DASH? Should I just copy my DRK wallet.dat over the DASH one created?

DRK - DASH Wallet Mac (Migrate)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlRAVY27pI
DRK - Dash Wallet PC (Migrate)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYlY78b7s7U
DRK - Dash Wallet Linux (Migrate)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SjT-INOnHA

[Solarminer]

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!

i think 10% should be plenty for right now. when the project grows and they need more the mn's should vote on it.
40/50/10 - m/mn/dev.

Sounds fair enough for me as well.

Crossposting from dashtalk:

In my opinion, pulling a set amount from the blockchain for future spending encourages frivolous spending.  I would instead say that the blockchain amount changes only when there is a need.  For example, a proposed video to support Dash needs a 6 month take of 1%.  MNs vote and then after approved the split changes.  After 6 months the split reverts.  We could do the same for new features, wallets, etc.  I would encourage each funding proposal to expire after a set time.  Putting a permanent 'development tax' on the blockchain sounds really bad to me.

Liking this idea. If there are approved projects to fund, divert that agreed amount to fund them. If not, why stockpile money? Keep a reserve but cap it at something sensible. Don't take from miners and MN ops when it's not needed.

Contractors should be paid after they deliver to full spec, never before, we shouldn't be fronting money to anyone.

Who's in control of this pot anyway? There's someone out there with 600 MNs or something. What % of votes are needed to decide a poll?

Or, we don't have to spend it all.  There is nothing wrong with savings.  But I suspect that great projects will be submitted and there won't be enough funds around to fund them all.  I honestly don't think this will be a problem for quite some time.  And if it does become a problem, like minotaur said, unspent funds could go back to the miners.  You could do something like an end of the year deposit into yet another account which makes a % payment to found blocks, which should pay out completely in 1 year, and each year there is a surplus of funds, this is done with that account.

Xposting DCT

I see where you are coming from, the reason why I don't like this idea is because it provides an incentive to masternode operators to not fund projects, abstain or simply vote no.

Masternode owners will surely have an incentive to vote for some features like masternode blinding and 2FA.  This only ensures better security for the owners and stability of DASH.  Maybe some other features are not as high on the list, but any benefit to the rise in price of DARK will also be the desire of the MN owner.  Of course, if there is a big concern about MNs voting no, we could fix the MN% and only have the votes change the mining reward %.  Looking at it another way the MN owner makes about 1.5%/mo on a MN.  It would be more advantages to donate to anything that would increase the value of DASH by more than 1.5%/mo even if all the rewards need to be spent.

Once block rewards are in an escrow, I find it really unlikely that they will ever be returned.  This is just the nature of a tax before allocated system.

The suggestion that 10% or 15% is what is needed, is not specific.  Is it needed for 1 month, 10 years?  We are talking about a system that could be around in 1000 years with each DASH valued at $10,000+.  A % and specific time-frame allocated for each project is the only way I can see this lasting over the long run.  There are so many other opportunities for this funding it is really incredible.  This could be a way to setup loans that are repaid to miners/mn with additional interest.  Start capital projects(like an exchange) that self generate cashflow from fees.  This is only possible if the voting and funding system is setup per project per % and per length of time.  Think big!

Another problem with the fixed percent is that funding is not always available, or is in excess depending on the projects available.  With a project specific % and time, each project can be started immediately.  The funds for projects would be provided as the block rewards are generated - no escrow, no inefficient allocation of resources.

Great discussion.  We are on to something big.

[Lebubar]

Dash Price inching back up after a pull back 

Well today was rollercoaster really!!
With a quadruple low and high (with high amplitude of ~150K sat)

[thelonecrouton]

Dash Price inching back up after a pull back 

Well today was rollercoaster really!!
With a quadruple low and high (with high amplitude of ~150K sat)

Insider trading.   

[Bridgewater]

Masternode owners will surely have an incentive to vote for some features like masternode blinding and 2FA.  This only ensures better security for the owners and stability of DASH.  Maybe some other features are not as high on the list, but any benefit to the rise in price of DARK will also be the desire of the MN owner.  Of course, if there is a big concern about MNs voting no, we could fix the MN% and only have the votes change the mining reward %.  Looking at it another way the MN owner makes about 1.5%/mo on a MN.  It would be more advantages to donate to anything that would increase the value of DASH by more than 1.5%/mo even if all the rewards need to be spent.

Once block rewards are in an escrow, I find it really unlikely that they will ever be returned.  This is just the nature of a tax before allocated system.

The suggestion that 10% or 15% is what is needed, is not specific.  Is it needed for 1 month, 10 years?  We are talking about a system that could be around in 1000 years with each DASH valued at $10,000+.  A % and specific time-frame allocated for each project is the only way I can see this lasting over the long run.  There are so many other opportunities for this funding it is really incredible.  This could be a way to setup loans that are repaid to miners/mn with additional interest.  Start capital projects(like an exchange) that self generate cashflow from fees.  This is only possible if the voting and funding system is setup per project per % and per length of time.  Think big!

Another problem with the fixed percent is that funding is not always available, or is in excess depending on the projects available.  With a project specific % and time, each project can be started immediately.  The funds for projects would be provided as the block rewards are generated - no escrow, no inefficient allocation of resources.

Great discussion.  We are on to something big.

I think you've interpreted Evan's underlying idea of the value this system represents to masternode holders well. The MN are still investors, and unlike other investments, they have the opportunity to directly make decisions that affect their asset value in terms of exchange rate in other currencies (not the dividends from masternode reward, which is a fixed 45% amount of Dash).  Instead of giving the MN an extra 15% in 2016, why not have give them even more incentive to not only hold, but also increase the value of the asset itself. A large Dash reward means nothing if the coin itself is worthless.  In this early growth phase of the currency, the growth in exchange rate versus other currencies will offer a much better return on investment than the dividend alone.


A sunset clause can be built into the proposal itself, so the proposal won't go into action without a majority of people agreeing on when it should expire and then get re-voted on if necessary.  Proposals for actual feature implementations such as 2FA, etc can be voted to have no expiration date as it can be considered a persistent property of the currency.  The built-in expiration would be more for proposals that require human decisions, collaboration and effort.

[bigrcanada]

I would, but first posters don't qualify as a troll. I always give the benefit of the doubt to anyone  

 I wasn't kidding, I am a man of my word.

You want trolling!  OK:

DASH isn't the greatest invention of all time!


Now, pay up!

You forgot the magic troll words

You're a sheep in wolfs clothing  

There's no pleasing you DASHheads.  OK:

DASH isn't the greatest instamine of all time!

Ok I feel charitable...I'll donate 1 Dash right now.  send the address...

Dash is instamined but where did the money go?, Dash has too many cute REDHEADS!  DASH has too much innovation!  DASH is too DECENTRALIZED!  DASH is getting too big!  DASH has too many plans!  DASH IS TAKING OVER THE WORLD!
IT MUST BE STOPPED!

Fine... Screw you all... Im donating more money to the troll. Damn trolls!

[bigrcanada]

Taking bets on what year/month/day ED will win a Noble Prize in ECONOMIC SCIENCES

Interesting to think about indeed... There is some great dialogue going on in here these last couple of days... It's refreshing.

[TanteStefana2]

Taking bets on what year/month/day ED will win a Noble Prize in ECONOMIC SCIENCES

Interesting to think about indeed... There is some great dialogue going on in here these last couple of days... It's refreshing.

I think... 2025.  It'll take a while