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

[stan.distortion]

This is the question people have been asking since the first experiments with democracy in Athens. Nobody has ever solved the problem, so I doubt we're going to either. The best anyone can come up with is: a) civic responsibility, b) sometimes your vote really does matter.

Exactly. People vote when it matters to them which is why it's reasonable that the ones who ARE voting deserve to be heard over those that aren't IMO.

In the Scottish referendum on independence, people came out of the woodwork from all over the place to vote - people who had never even registered to vote before. There was such strength of feeling on both sides that nearly the entire population voted. On the other hand, in European elections - which actually do matter regarding certain areas of policy - you're lucky if 30% turnout.

The thing about Dash's voting system is that - unlike democracy - you can buy yourself votes.

Earlier today, emitkirby made this remark:

Otoh, I respect your right to make investments however the size of your investment in DASH gives you a lot of power. This is something I believe is holding potential investors back.

Although I think this is a reasonable view with regard to democracy, I don't really think it's reasonable with regard to governance of a commercial asset. The whole point of commercially traded assets is that you weild more influence over their governance the more you acquire. So the fact that Dash is doing justice to this principle should attract investors, not inhibit them. This principle applies universally in commerce. The fact that Steve Jobs held a huge number of shares in Pixar didn't inhibit people from investing in Pixar. Dash is a private currency - not a public one created by a central bank and backed by public debt.

Clarity is required. I don't see any other way that allowing large holders to wield more influence than small ones. In fact I think it's essential - it just gives them more responsibility thats all because the merits of their decision making (or in Dash's case, the decentralised will of the holders) will determine the propensity for others to invest.

If the governance process (however many participate) makes crap decisions then the asset will go down the tubes. If it is seen to take sensible, well thought out and generally 'safe' decisions then  the asset will grow and attract more users.

In conclusion I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference whether 1 person votes or 1000. It's not the number of votes but the quality of the decision making that's important. If only 20 people care passionately whether Dashwhale gets a blockchain sponsorship and only those 20 people vote, then thats better than 200 people voting where the other 180 don't have a particular view IMO.

However, the fact that many people can "jam their foot in the door" in a crisis over a critical issue if so required is a hugely powerful backstop against corruption.

I like Dash's governance model. Everytime I try to "think my way out of it" I keep coming back to the way it is - an uneasy but ultimately very powerful and well secured blend of capital & popular democracy. It also puts a lot of trust in the holders to make good decisions so it's an open book which makes it "alive" and appealing.

A representative system could be worth considering, imho it'd be an ideal thing to test out the ID and trust systems on. There's likely to be a lot of proposals covering areas that few really give a damn about but someone they trust might and would let them decide on their behalf if given the option.

[TanteStefana2]

How can you motivate anyone who just owns 1 or even 10 masternodes to participate, in the current setup/configuration? It's just a formality without any significance whatsoever.

This is the question people have been asking since the first experiments with democracy in Athens. Nobody has ever solved the problem, so I doubt we're going to either. The best anyone can come up with is: a) civic responsibility, b) sometimes your vote really does matter.

How quickly we forget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000

I own 2 MNs, and just like voting in local/state and federal elections, I make every one (well, I've screwed up a few times, forgetting) but on the whole, been voting many a decade and have participated in nearly all voting opportunities.  It's a matter of caring.

And no, for Dash, the votes are more like votes from shareholders.  The more shares you have, the more votes you have.  But in the same way, the more shares you have, the more you're invested, the more you risk and thus the more interest you have in making sure things go in the right direction.

So far, we only have been voting on basics.  Marketing: trips to conventions and booths, website, web domain, etc..., developer salaries, and a very few pay-backs of projects people have done that really can be inserted under Marketing.

We haven't even had anything "different" other than DashWhale, who couldn't even get funding to host the proposal forum, which is sad.  I would like to see a proposal forum in many locations, that sync to each other so that it's decentralized, but I don't see how we can do that if we don't fund them.

Anyway, I think some people are afraid to make a choice on funding, and don't have the time to keep up like some of us do here.  If I were still working, there would be no way I could keep up with what's going on here.  And then I wouldn't know how to vote.

Also, we don't have enough time to review proposals.  Generally, people are just giving us a couple of weeks, that's not enough to discuss and argue.  I think, for this to work best, we should do this in 2 steps.  First, gather the proposals, then spend 1 month discussing them before they're open for voting.  Then vote. 

But right now, we're doing so many things on the fly, when they come up, that the above doesn't give us the nimbleness we need.  But once we're big, we'll need to set down rules and regulations.  That's still a long way off though

[TanteStefana2]

This is the question people have been asking since the first experiments with democracy in Athens. Nobody has ever solved the problem, so I doubt we're going to either. The best anyone can come up with is: a) civic responsibility, b) sometimes your vote really does matter.

Exactly. People vote when it matters to them which is why it's reasonable that the ones who ARE voting deserve to be heard over those that aren't IMO.

In the Scottish referendum on independence, people came out of the woodwork from all over the place to vote - people who had never even registered to vote before. There was such strength of feeling on both sides that nearly the entire population voted. On the other hand, in European elections - which actually do matter regarding certain areas of policy - you're lucky if 30% turnout.

The thing about Dash's voting system is that - unlike democracy - you can buy yourself votes.

Earlier today, emitkirby made this remark:

Otoh, I respect your right to make investments however the size of your investment in DASH gives you a lot of power. This is something I believe is holding potential investors back.

Although I think this is a reasonable view with regard to democracy, I don't really think it's reasonable with regard to governance of a commercial asset. The whole point of commercially traded assets is that you weild more influence over their governance the more you acquire. So the fact that Dash is doing justice to this principle should attract investors, not inhibit them. This principle applies universally in commerce. The fact that Steve Jobs held a huge number of shares in Pixar didn't inhibit people from investing in Pixar. Dash is a private currency - not a public one created by a central bank and backed by public debt.

Clarity is required. I don't see any other way that allowing large holders to wield more influence than small ones. In fact I think it's essential - it just gives them more responsibility thats all because the merits of their decision making (or in Dash's case, the decentralised will of the holders) will determine the propensity for others to invest.

If the governance process (however many participate) makes crap decisions then the asset will go down the tubes. If it is seen to take sensible, well thought out and generally 'safe' decisions then  the asset will grow and attract more users.

In conclusion I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference whether 1 person votes or 1000. It's not the number of votes but the quality of the decision making that's important. If only 20 people care passionately whether Dashwhale gets a blockchain sponsorship and only those 20 people vote, then thats better than 200 people voting where the other 180 don't have a particular view IMO.

However, the fact that many people can "jam their foot in the door" in a crisis over a critical issue if so required is a hugely powerful backstop against corruption.

I like Dash's governance model. Everytime I try to "think my way out of it" I keep coming back to the way it is - an uneasy but ultimately very powerful and well secured blend of capital & popular democracy. It also puts a lot of trust in the holders to make good decisions so it's an open book which makes it "alive" and appealing.

Nicely said

[aigeezer]

How can you motivate anyone who just owns 1 or even 10 masternodes to participate, in the current setup/configuration? It's just a formality without any significance whatsoever.

This is the question people have been asking since the first experiments with democracy in Athens. Nobody has ever solved the problem, so I doubt we're going to either. The best anyone can come up with is: a) civic responsibility, b) sometimes your vote really does matter.

How quickly we forget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000

A long time ago I lived in a rural area with a hotly disputed election. People phoned me all day long "get out and vote", "it's really close" "it's important", and so forth. I did not vote and the election wound up in a tie, a dead heat. No kidding. Of course my first thought was that I could have swung it one way or the other. My second thought was that I didn't actually care which faction won as in my view they were two sides of the same coin and I had no actual preference for one over the other. Maybe a different outcome in Florida would have changed the world significantly, and maybe not. I would not have voted there either. Vote all you want, by all means, but it's just not something I do.             

I think Tok's point that "People vote when it matters to them" is also true with respect to general human behavior. Oddly though, I would be even less likely to vote if I cared deeply about an issue because of the dilemma created by a sense of being bound by the outcome. It's easy if you vote and your side wins. It's not so easy if your side loses over an issue you care deeply about and you have agreed - by voting - to go along with the outcome. Such processes, over time, tend to produce "adequate" but not "exceptionally good" products or systems because of the cumulative effect of the inevitable compromises. The handoff from founder to managers is always messy and dangerous. I think DASH is doing it well, but I still won't be voting - especially if I care deeply about an issue.       

To each his own.

[toknormal]

but I still won't be voting - especially if I care deeply about an issue.        

But by "not voting" you'll still be voting. Look what happened in your rural community - your passive action was the most impactive of everone's. No escape  

(I feel a quantum analogy involving cats coming on  )

[Solarminer]

A representative system could be worth considering, imho it'd be an ideal thing to test out the ID and trust systems on. There's likely to be a lot of proposals covering areas that few really give a damn about but someone they trust might and would let them decide on their behalf if given the option.

Absolutely not!  With the internet the is no reason someone can't vote for themselves.  Once you move your vote to a proxy, that proxy controls the outcome.  Dash is the first 'fair' voting system.  There isn't a group of people moving vote counts around or counting votes....This is truly unique, let's not screw it up.

I do agree with TanteSteffana, we need more time to vote.  4 weeks seems fair, 5 days like the last one was tough.  I don't see any need for discussion before hand.  Whoever wants to make a proposal either gets opinions before hand, or doesn't.  Just give a few more weeks time to vote and then everyone should be able to participate, if they want to.

Let's just create a proposal deadline.  Get your proposal in by x days before or it gets bumped to the next months budget.  Simple.

So another option could be that people getting paid from a proposal can't vote on it.  I have mixed views here...Any owner of dash should be able to vote, but the vote will sway toward those that benefit. A more fair approach is just to bump the % to get over the hurdle of the I have enough node % to vote my proposal in.

Think if we had the blockdebate vote.  I bet we would have 98% participation with a 48% to 50% vote.  Your vote may not make much of a difference on simple proposals, but with a heated topic that vote will be worth a lot.

[ddink7]

A representative system could be worth considering, imho it'd be an ideal thing to test out the ID and trust systems on. There's likely to be a lot of proposals covering areas that few really give a damn about but someone they trust might and would let them decide on their behalf if given the option.

So another option could be that people getting paid from a proposal can't vote on it.  I have mixed views here...Any owner of dash should be able to vote, but the vote will sway toward those that benefit. A more fair approach is just to bump the % to get over the hurdle of the I have enough node % to vote my proposal in.

This is a great idea, but unenforceable. Dash is an anonymous cryptocurrency, so we don't know who (person) is who (masternode).

[aigeezer]

but I still won't be voting - especially if I care deeply about an issue.       

But by "not voting" you'll still be voting. Look what happened in your rural community - your passive action was the most impactive of everone's. No escape 

(I feel a quantum analogy involving cats coming on  )

I understand that view but I don't share it. Opting out of a process is not the same as participating in it, even if opting out affects the outcome of the process.

The choice before me was analogous to "would I prefer to die in a fire or have pins stuck in my eyes?" My answer was analogous to Hofstadter's "Mu", which "unasks the question". Schrodinger didn't have a "mu" option.       

DASH decisions do not yet have that false-dichotomy feel and probably never will, but my relationship to DASH is one of consumer/user. If I continue to like it, I will accumulate more. If it goes off in some direction that distresses me, then I will use it less. No biggie, and I am emotionally free from pushing it to go this way or that. To continue with analogies - I really hope that Ferrari doesn't change its shade of red next year in case I find a winning lottery ticket on the ground, but I don't write to the factory to tell them that I really like their red but I'll buy a yellow one if they discontinue the red.

I hope my position doesn't come across as prescriptive. It's fine by me if people vote for or against whatever. I realize my worldview is not widely held, but I wouldn't want anyone to assume it is based on apathy.         
 

[stan.distortion]

A representative system could be worth considering, imho it'd be an ideal thing to test out the ID and trust systems on. There's likely to be a lot of proposals covering areas that few really give a damn about but someone they trust might and would let them decide on their behalf if given the option.

Absolutely not!  With the internet the is no reason someone can't vote for themselves.  Once you move your vote to a proxy, that proxy controls the outcome.  Dash is the first 'fair' voting system.  There isn't a group of people moving vote counts around or counting votes....This is truly unique, let's not screw it up.
...

There's lots of potential issues with it, it puts a lot of power in talk for one but that's easily countered by results and in some ways I think that's the better target for voting, not "how much will you gimmie to do this?" but "what's what I've done worth to you?". Pre and post votes make sense too and there's nothing stopping multisig voting, lock it up when it's proposed and free it up when its completed.

What we have works plenty well enough for the meantime though, it hasn't really been explored enough for clear improvement paths. Like the minimum 10% positive, get enough budgets being voted on and that figure's irrelevant, how much is allocable and how popular the vote is takes over.

[Sub-Ether]

A representative system could be worth considering, imho it'd be an ideal thing to test out the ID and trust systems on. There's likely to be a lot of proposals covering areas that few really give a damn about but someone they trust might and would let them decide on their behalf if given the option.

So another option could be that people getting paid from a proposal can't vote on it.  I have mixed views here...Any owner of dash should be able to vote, but the vote will sway toward those that benefit. A more fair approach is just to bump the % to get over the hurdle of the I have enough node % to vote my proposal in.

This is a great idea, but unenforceable. Dash is an anonymous cryptocurrency, so we don't know who (person) is who (masternode).

You could have a decentralized data base that holds a (initially) empty record of each masternode, where the holder has to insert his priv key in order to initiate a vote possibility from that node, so each one would effectively have to be registered.
Then, a question of being bothered to vote or not would be switched on its head for large owners because they would have to register hundreds of times, where as with most of us it would only be once or twice, I can't see Otoh ever getting round to it

(or more simply just disable the vote many commands, lol)

[stan.distortion]

Lol, "its a feature"

EDIT: The first could have utilities going around it just like votemany though, setup scripts to do the whole thing :/

[ddink7]

A representative system could be worth considering, imho it'd be an ideal thing to test out the ID and trust systems on. There's likely to be a lot of proposals covering areas that few really give a damn about but someone they trust might and would let them decide on their behalf if given the option.

So another option could be that people getting paid from a proposal can't vote on it.  I have mixed views here...Any owner of dash should be able to vote, but the vote will sway toward those that benefit. A more fair approach is just to bump the % to get over the hurdle of the I have enough node % to vote my proposal in.

This is a great idea, but unenforceable. Dash is an anonymous cryptocurrency, so we don't know who (person) is who (masternode).

You could have a decentralized data base that holds a (initially) empty record of each masternode, where the holder has to insert his priv key in order to initiate a vote possibility from that node, so each one would effectively have to be registered.
Then, a question of being bothered to vote or not would be switched on its head for large owners because they would have to register hundreds of times, where as with most of us it would only be once or twice, I can't see Otoh ever getting round to it

(or more simply just disable the vote many commands, lol)

Then you make the problem even worse, by making it harder to vote and thus lowering voter participation!!

[emitkirby]

This is the question people have been asking since the first experiments with democracy in Athens. Nobody has ever solved the problem, so I doubt we're going to either. The best anyone can come up with is: a) civic responsibility, b) sometimes your vote really does matter.

Exactly. People vote when it matters to them which is why it's reasonable that the ones who ARE voting deserve to be heard over those that aren't IMO.

In the Scottish referendum on independence, people came out of the woodwork from all over the place to vote - people who had never even registered to vote before. There was such strength of feeling on both sides that nearly the entire population voted. On the other hand, in European elections - which actually do matter regarding certain areas of policy - you're lucky if 30% turnout.

The thing about Dash's voting system is that - unlike democracy - you can buy yourself votes.

Earlier today, emitkirby made this remark:

Otoh, I respect your right to make investments however the size of your investment in DASH gives you a lot of power. This is something I believe is holding potential investors back.

Although I think this is a reasonable view with regard to democracy, I don't really think it's reasonable with regard to governance of a capital asset. The whole point of commercially traded assets is that you weild more influence over their governance the more you acquire. So the fact that Dash is doing justice to this principle should attract investors, not inhibit them. This principle applies universally in commerce. The fact that Steve Jobs held a huge number of shares in Pixar didn't inhibit people from investing in Pixar. Dash is a private currency - not a public one created by a central bank and backed by public debt.

Clarity is required. I don't see any other way that allowing large holders to wield more influence than small ones. In fact I think it's essential - it just gives them more responsibility thats all because the merits of their decision making (or in Dash's case, the decentralised will of the holders) will determine the propensity for others to invest.

If the governance process (however many participate) makes crap decisions then the asset will go down the tubes. If it is seen to take sensible, well thought out and generally 'safe' decisions then  the asset will grow and attract more users.

In conclusion I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference whether 1 person votes or 1000. It's not the number of votes but the quality of the decision making that's important. If only 20 people care passionately whether Dashwhale gets a blockchain sponsorship and only those 20 people vote, then thats better than 200 people voting where the other 180 don't have a particular view IMO.

However, the fact that many people can "jam their foot in the door" in a crisis over a critical issue if so required is a hugely powerful backstop against corruption.

I like Dash's governance model. Everytime I try to "think my way out of it" I keep coming back to the way it is - an uneasy but ultimately very powerful and well secured blend of capital & popular democracy. It also puts a lot of trust in the holders to make good decisions so it's an open book which makes it "alive" and appealing.

Thanks toknormal. I appreciate your views. I'm not likely to post often here but I have been reading this thread daily since page 1500 or so. I don't always understand. Nor for the most part do I really care about the daily ins and outs. As a project I can see a future and I appreciate the work that needs to go in the back end.

Carry on doing the good work. Like I said previously I hope this project does well.

Cheers,

Emit.

[Sub-Ether]

Then you make the problem even worse, by making it harder to vote and thus lowering voter participation!!

More equal per person none participation turnout,
and the whale hassle is cunningly weighted so that the bigger the whale the less likely all the votes will be used, an inversely proportional whale voter relationship  

[TanteStefana2]

A representative system could be worth considering, imho it'd be an ideal thing to test out the ID and trust systems on. There's likely to be a lot of proposals covering areas that few really give a damn about but someone they trust might and would let them decide on their behalf if given the option.

Absolutely not!  With the internet the is no reason someone can't vote for themselves.  Once you move your vote to a proxy, that proxy controls the outcome.  Dash is the first 'fair' voting system.  There isn't a group of people moving vote counts around or counting votes....This is truly unique, let's not screw it up.

I do agree with TanteSteffana, we need more time to vote.  4 weeks seems fair, 5 days like the last one was tough.  I don't see any need for discussion before hand.  Whoever wants to make a proposal either gets opinions before hand, or doesn't.  Just give a few more weeks time to vote and then everyone should be able to participate, if they want to.

Let's just create a proposal deadline.  Get your proposal in by x days before or it gets bumped to the next months budget.  Simple.

So another option could be that people getting paid from a proposal can't vote on it.  I have mixed views here...Any owner of dash should be able to vote, but the vote will sway toward those that benefit. A more fair approach is just to bump the % to get over the hurdle of the I have enough node % to vote my proposal in.

Think if we had the blockdebate vote.  I bet we would have 98% participation with a 48% to 50% vote.  Your vote may not make much of a difference on simple proposals, but with a heated topic that vote will be worth a lot.

The only thing I can say for a representative system, such as a Republic vs a Democracy is that in a Democracy, everyone turns into factions, majority rules, and stomps on the minority, whereas a Republic will protect the minority's interests - at least better than a Democracy.  Democracies also vote themselves money until the entire society collapses on itself, landing in, usually, some sort of totalitarian system. 

It's not necessary for a corporation, as shareholders will want to see the corporation succeed and will hopefully make good business decisions.  But for a governing body, it's catastrophic.  As can be seen in the United States where the Republic has been breaking down since the day it was created.  - Always hanging on by a tooth and a nail.

[smesmesme]

For all, who are still pointing theirs miners to CEX [Edit - ghash.io]. Dash mining pool is suspended since 15th of December 2015, so those 400 Mhashes are wasted, please devs post the info on your twitter.
The removal of the trading pair is 21st of December, and looks like folks have till 15th of Jan 2016 to remove coins from there.

Official link:
https://support.cex.io/hc/en-us/articles/214379428-Multipool-Suspension-and-Altcoin-Removal

Make peeps aware.

[Edit 2]

Coins not removed after 15th, will be eaten by wallet maintenace fee, 0.00015 btc worth of those coins a day (e.g. with todays price, every day 0.028 dash will be removed from users dash account, until it reaches 0).

[toknormal]

I'm not likely to post often here but I have been reading this thread daily since page 1500 or so.

I hope you will post more often given that you've now admitted to being a highly experienced lurker.

Measured contributions have been in short supply the last few months 

[TanteStefana2]

For all, who are still pointing theirs miners to CEX [Edit - ghash.io]. Dash mining pool is suspended since 15th of December 2015, so those 400 Mhashes are wasted, please devs post the info on your twitter.
The removal of the trading pair is 21st of December, and looks like folks have till 15th of Jan 2016 to remove coins from there.

Official link:
https://support.cex.io/hc/en-us/articles/214379428-Multipool-Suspension-and-Altcoin-Removal

Make peeps aware.

[Edit 2]

Coins not removed after 15th, will be eaten by wallet maintenace fee, 0.00015 btc worth of those coins a day (e.g. with todays price, every day 0.028 dash will be removed from users dash account, until it reaches 0).

Important ^^^

[Solarminer]

The only thing I can say for a representative system, such as a Republic vs a Democracy is that in a Democracy, everyone turns into factions, majority rules, and stomps on the minority, whereas a Republic will protect the minority's interests - at least better than a Democracy. 

Democracies also vote themselves money until the entire society collapses on itself, landing in, usually, some sort of totalitarian system. 

^This^ is true if there are no controls on taking money.  Sure if everyone is taxed, they want their money back.  But when you have to actually contribute to get paid, it doesn't collapse.  This is a fundamental uniqueness with the current Dash voting system.  Budgets get voted in only if masternodes have confidence it will improve Dash.  There is always the threat of no votes, so it is a self correcting system.

Pretty much every economic system is controlled by the top 100 richest people/corporations.  Even the best governments have been bribed to get certain laws/benefits passed growing government until it collapses.  It isn't anything new.  Is there even any democratic system in place anywhere?

[TanteStefana2]

The only thing I can say for a representative system, such as a Republic vs a Democracy is that in a Democracy, everyone turns into factions, majority rules, and stomps on the minority, whereas a Republic will protect the minority's interests - at least better than a Democracy. 

Democracies also vote themselves money until the entire society collapses on itself, landing in, usually, some sort of totalitarian system. 

^This^ is true if there are no controls on taking money.  Sure if everyone is taxed, they want their money back.  But when you have to actually contribute to get paid, it doesn't collapse.  This is a fundamental uniqueness with the current Dash voting system.  Budgets get voted in only if masternodes have confidence it will improve Dash.  There is always the threat of no votes, so it is a self correcting system.

Pretty much every economic system is controlled by the top 100 richest people/corporations.  Even the best governments have been bribed to get certain laws/benefits passed growing government until it collapses.  It isn't anything new.  Is there even any democratic system in place anywhere?

Unfortunately, it's the best we got, and it's why I have said before, we may want to make a budget proposal some day for a lobbyist who will protect crypto interest and freedom in Washington and the States, as well as Europe or anywhere where it can be effective.  Lobbyists are often awful, but they are a way for a group of people to get themselves heard.  More often employed by industries, lobbyists have also helped to pass many laws that were genuinely needed for many minorities.  People of other ethnic backgrounds, children's rights and protection, elderly protection, etc...  In fact some of those lobbyists are the biggest in the industry and are borderline or indeed too powerful with much farther reaching interests than the people initially supported them for.

Still, at some point, the Cryptographic Currency people will need to fight the Banking lobbyists, and we might as well at least have a big, powerful law firm at our side, at the very least. 

Just putting that out there for food for thought, we have a long way to go still ;P