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

[dazbarlby]

I have to agree 24h is short.

1 week?

The (Number Yes - Number of No) > 10% is really good.

1 week is too high. It will block re-submissions from getting paid. Imagine someone submits a proposal 3 times in the last couple of weeks, there's no way for the protocol to know the community has been talking about this specific proposal for 3 weeks .

Instead of having to submit a brand new proposal, can't we have proposal amendments, which when submitted adds an additional 3 days (1728 blocks) on to the discussion time.

So initial proposal discussion time for a 700 DASH proposal would be 7 days (700 DASH/100) submitted at block 1000 and ends at block 5032 . A 5 day discussion takes place and based on that discussion an amendment is made and the discussion time is increase by 3 days (5032+1728 blocks = End time at block 6760) to give people time (now 5 days left) to discuss the new amendment before voting.

If another amendment is submitted the additional time added would be the time lost discussing the previous amendment unless the time lost was greater than 1728 blocks, in which case 1728 blocks of time would be added on to the end time block.

Example

* Initial proposal submitted on block 1000 and to end at block 5032
* 5 days of discussion takes place (current block 3880)
* The First amendment is submitted (1728 blocks added to end time block. New End time block = 5032 + 1728 = Block 6760 )
* 1 Day of discussion takes place (current block 4456)
* Second amendment is submitted at block 4456 - because the block height difference between the first amendment and the second amendment is 576 blocks (1 day) and less then 1728 Blocks (3 days) only the difference is added to the End time block, which makes the new end time block 6760 + 576 = Block 7336
* 4 Days of discussion takes place (current block 6760)
* Third amendment is submitted on block 6760. because the block height difference between 2nd and 3rd amendments is greater than 1728 blocks, 1728 block are added to the end time block. end time block now = 7336 + 1728 = Block 9064
* No more amendments are submitted and 2304 Blocks or 4 days later MN's have voted and the proposal passes

This process ensures there will be an end date and also gives people time to discuss new proposal amendments.

[aigeezer]

The implications of that probably need to be thought through and evolved a good deal (which is what's happening I'm pleased to see).

I agree. We are on to something completely different (yea) and trying to make it fit with what we (think we) understand relatively well. I don't mean that to sound snarky at all.

My snarky version is that Patrick Murck (then of the BTC Foundation) attempted to negotiate with Bitlicense bureaucrat Ben Lawsky by telling him that BTC was not a new paradigm but was "sort of like" this and that. The rest is history.

Go DASH - may it change the world (in a good way, of course).             

[TanteStefana2]

I'm very concerned and want to educate you...

Bye  

One of the best we had here in months  

They are getting good. Melech is most likely Smooth or one of his operators

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TYv2PhG89A

(probably late, but had to do it)

[Shunak]

New ATH I believe 

Miami´s day will be "the day"

[S3cco]

Will Dash hit $26,000,000 in market cap in first half of 2016? Yes or no? Dare to bet in bitcoin?
https://www.betmoose.com/bet/dash-to-hit-26-000-000-market-cap-before-lug-1-2016-1367?ref=scacco

[MasterMined710]

time for a btc38 budget proposal?
looks like all it would take is ~$60.
 
http://www.btc38.com/trade/vote_for_trade_en.html

yes, btc38 and btc-e.
my 2 duffs

How much money did they want to add DASH?

here's the info on btc38....

So LTC pumping, BTC pumping. Time for DASH already? Let's hope Tok is right while I'm trying to get my buy orders filled.

BTC38 doesn't carry a DASH/CNY pair.  There will be no DASH pump.  Sorry.

Its really odd.  I get why there is most of the coins there that are there....they have been around for a long time...but Stellar and Bitshares?  Does someone have an ear over there?  We've been one of the top several cryptos for months now.  Why?

They have "Coin Voting" page, stating "you can vote on what you'd like to trade on BTC38."
http://www.btc38.com/trade/vote_for_trade_en.html

Note: they do not have Dash listed, but DRK for Darkcoin.

And this: "Each of our user has 1 free vote per coin. We are also accepting paid votes, which have no limit on the number of votes one can cast. The lowest cost for one vote is 0.0001BTC."

money votes. almost like in the U.S. world politics.

hopefully one of our dash whales can make it happen. or when the new dash update comes out we could make a proposal to pay to get on the exchange with the blockchain funds. i would vote for it.
fixed the last part for you.

[dEBRUYNE]

Voting system of btc38 is broken as far as I know. Also, Counterparty has been on the top of that list for nearly a year. 

[arielbit]

Dude, if you're going to quote me, you have to include it in context. I didn't "show a similar result". Did you even read my post? Those numbers require a bunch of rosy assumptions that simply can't be true:

1) It assumes that Evan was the ONLY miner for the first 500 blocks, which we know isn't true. There was at least one other developer at that time, I believe a friend of Evan's, but I'm not sure... so the "instamine" would have been split at least between two people
2) It assumes no one else was mining for the first 500 blocks (which may be the case... we'll never know, but I make this assumption in the interests of being conservative)
3) It assumes that Evan and Co had absolutely no down time for updating their miners, which is impossible... any downtime would reduce these assumptions
4) It assumes that once huge amounts of mining power joined beginning at block 500 that Evan didn't start experiencing an elevated level of rejects... this is unlikely as well since blocks were being created so rapidly at that time - literally seconds apart on average - that he and many others reported rejects, getting on wrong chains, having to reset, etc. Evan would have no way to be immune to these issues caused by the rapid creation of the blocks and network latency, so the true "networkhashps" is clearly understated during that period because many blocks were rejected and not counted.
5) It assumes that he never sold any Dash

EDIT: Not to mention that I was very clear that these numbers therefore constituted an UPPER LIMIT to refute claims by trolls (which I am starting to suspect you are) that Evan had instamined 1.8 million coins. This was proof that the claim was bogus. The real number is clearly much lower for all of the above reasons, which makes Evan's claimed amount of coins very much in line with what the data shows. If you are going to just ignore data, you are no longer just exhibiting "healthy scepticism" and I'm inclined to classify you as a troll yourself.

assume .. assume ..la la la assume .. assume ..

Taylor05, signed up jan19, 2014...all first post darkcoin, non-newbie-ish posts and forever darkcoin  

what is your love at first sight story with darkcoin?

welcome to my list https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1282836.msg13200467#msg13200467

I assume nothing... I do not assume Evan sold a bunch of Dash, nor do I assume he bought a bunch of Dash (though someone mentioned he was buying 20,000 at a time)
I don't assume he had an abnormal amount of downtime compared to anyone else... where do you get that shit?

I'm referring to Taylor05 not you...that's all i read in his post....assume..assume..assume ...be concise, get a pair of balls Taylor05  

[eduffield]

I have to agree 24h is short.

1 week?

The (Number Yes - Number of No) > 10% is really good.

1 week is too high. It will block re-submissions from getting paid. Imagine someone submits a proposal 3 times in the last couple of weeks, there's no way for the protocol to know the community has been talking about this specific proposal for 3 weeks .

Instead of having to submit a brand new proposal, can't we have proposal amendments, which when submitted adds an additional 3 days (1728 blocks) on to the discussion time.

So initial proposal discussion time for a 700 DASH proposal would be 7 days (700 DASH/100) submitted at block 1000 and ends at block 5032 . A 5 day discussion takes place and based on that discussion an amendment is made and the discussion time is increase by 3 days (5032+1728 blocks = End time at block 6760) to give people time (now 5 days left) to discuss the new amendment before voting.

If another amendment is submitted the additional time added would be the time lost discussing the previous amendment unless the time lost was greater than 1728 blocks, in which case 1728 blocks of time would be added on to the end time block.

Example

* Initial proposal submitted on block 1000 and to end at block 5032
* 5 days of discussion takes place (current block 3880)
* The First amendment is submitted (1728 blocks added to end time block. New End time block = 5032 + 1728 = Block 6760 )
* 1 Day of discussion takes place (current block 4456)
* Second amendment is submitted at block 4456 - because the block height difference between the first amendment and the second amendment is 576 blocks (1 day) and less then 1728 Blocks (3 days) only the difference is added to the End time block, which makes the new end time block 6760 + 576 = Block 7336
* 4 Days of discussion takes place (current block 6760)
* Third amendment is submitted on block 6760. because the block height difference between 2nd and 3rd amendments is greater than 1728 blocks, 1728 block are added to the end time block. end time block now = 7336 + 1728 = Block 9064
* No more amendments are submitted and 2304 Blocks or 4 days later MN's have voted and the proposal passes

This process ensures there will be an end date and also gives people time to discuss new proposal amendments.

Amendments would be nice, but it's a nightmare to code. Maybe eventually 

[BurstBurst]

Time to buy more

[toknormal]

Instead of having to submit a brand new proposal, can't we have proposal amendments, which when submitted adds an additional 3 days (1728 blocks) on to the discussion time.

I don't think this is a good idea at all. The blockchain isn't a drafting tool.

What we have is a powerful facility to direct block rewards to specific addresses based on voting by coin holders. Thats an appropriate blockchain function, but we should not try to turn it into anything more. Allowing amendments is just inviting poorly thought out and ill-prepared proposals.

There is plenty of stuff available for evolving group decisions online. Use that instead.

[AlexGR]

Will Dash hit $26,000,000 in market cap in first half of 2016? Yes or no? Dare to bet in bitcoin?
https://www.betmoose.com/bet/dash-to-hit-26-000-000-market-cap-before-lug-1-2016-1367?ref=scacco

Can DASH masternode network be used for escrowing and settling bets?

I mean it like this.

Let's say some users, who are "oddmakers" start creating a list of bets and lock some money in the network to cover incoming bets at given odds.

"Will this happen by 1/1/2017?"
"Will team A win over team B on the game of Jan 10 2016?"

People who feel like betting, deposit money on addresses of the network at the given odds and if they win will take the winnings. If not, the oddmaker takes their money. The mechanism of locking and unlocking the money will be coded into dash when the winning condition is met.

This is all data of if-then-else type. The only human component required is, I think, in those who determine the outcome of the game. So humans need to actually know what happened and inform the network of whether, for example, team A beat team B. In order for the system to not be "gamed", a large participation of "witnesses" would increase the reliability of the results. Masternode operators could perhaps be used as those who insert the result and verify its authenticity, in order to settle the bets.

Back in june I had the option on betting on one eventuality that would take place 6-7 months ahead. Since I can't even trust that an online crypto-betting company will be around for that long, I opted not to bet and not to lock my money. But if this was done over the dash network, I'd do it.

There are other bets (even leveraged bets) like "will BTC go up or down?", "will the dow go up or down" which can take data directly from the markets for auto-settlements that would theoretically not require human intervention.

[Walter_S]

I have to agree 24h is short.

1 week?

The (Number Yes - Number of No) > 10% is really good.

1 week is too high. It will block re-submissions from getting paid. Imagine someone submits a proposal 3 times in the last couple of weeks, there's no way for the protocol to know the community has been talking about this specific proposal for 3 weeks .

This is a fair point Evan makes... We risk making the DGBB system impractical to use. The Soda Machine proposal wouldn't have paid out if the minimum was 1 week, and 1 month would make it completely unusable I think (I think that was also suggested).

In terms of the 10% 'hurdle' rate of yes/no I think it's spot on. Changing it so that over 50% of masternodes need to vote yes ( i.e. an absolute majority) would, again, cripple the democratic process to allocate funds to projects.

In the real world it's very difficult to get 50%+ of the votes in any democratic decision making process... Unless the decision is fundamentally massive and affects all voters you just won't get the participation rates... For example, here in the UK, Scotland had a referendum in 2014 on whether to stay part of the UK or gain independence. The participation rate was close to 85%! This was astonishing and broke all records for any democratic vote in the UK by some margin. The only reason it was so high was because it was a fundamental decision that really did affect ALL voters. Even then, if we applied the 'absolute majority' principle in this scenario the 'NO vote' would only have accounted for 45% of the total electorate so wouldn't have passed and the 'YES vote' would only have achieved 35% of the total so neither would have 'passed' rendering the whole process pointless.

I think we all agree that we don't want to create a system open to abuse but we have to reach a practical middle-ground. Evan and the team have done a remarkable job creating a governance system that works so well from the start. Sure, it needs a little bit of tweaking but in my opinion they've got the whole thing pretty much spot on.

Finally - the amount of time to vote on a proposal. On balance I agree that it should be extended to say 72 hours. Although the system could be 'gamed' at 24 hours, it really is a technicality, in reality the incentive just isn't there for anyone who has the 'power' to do so to go ahead and try it... For the amount of funding on offer versus the amount that they already have invested in the whole DASH project it just isn't going to happen... And if it did it would ruin their reputation and the proposal would be subsequently voted down the next time anyway and the protocol would do it's job and push them out. All they would have left is their DASH stash and the few hundred/thousand DASH they managed to 'game' out of the network. As I said, it just isn't going to happen.

However, just to put it beyond reasonable doubt Evan's suggestion of 72 hours seems like a fair compromise in this debate.


Walter

[dEBRUYNE]

http://bitcoinist.net/cryptsy-has-moved-out-of-their-building-unannounced-nowhere-to-be-found/

[Otoh]

Evan does not own 500+ nodes. Otoh our largest investor currently owns about 430 nodes as he divested a big portion of his nodes in favor of more distribution and a healthier network, also giving new whales the opportunity to buy in.  Having said that, I don't see why the minimum age for a proposal could not be changed to 48 or 72 hours to always give the network more time. I think that is a really good suggestion.

How would you know?

I ran the numbers 6 months ago, but I estimated Evan should have mined 750,000+ in the first 24-48 hours with the hashrate he himself claimed to have at the time... that's 750MNs already... (not that he necessarily has them online right now)

Then they start collecting 50% of the mining share as masternodes, he should have 1000+ by now...

Yeah, your numbers are off and Minotaur is correct. I do not hold as many coins as Otoh. The system is designed in such a way that the founders eventually lose complete control of the voting system. It's on purpose, we are the ones that have the best idea of what needs to be done currently, but over the next few years our voting power will become less and less.

Look at the emission schedule here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RpLd87PTs65sz8USrrXwGRoVGVbzaC-nunErEtGSJoE/edit#gid=0

55% of the coins are going to people other than the masternodes (miners and budgets), that means a good portion of those will actually be turned into fresh masternodes. Over a long period of time this will dilute our power in the system.

In 2020 we will have nearly 10 million coins and probably about 7000 masternodes (Just a guess based on current trends).
In 2025 we will have nearly 12 million coins and probably about 9000 masternodes.

You should be able to see where I'm going. Those with a many masternodes can't even keep control of this if they are dedicating a good deal of earned coins back into the system. Year by year, our network will become increasingly more decentralized. I think it's a good strategy.

You also have to consider running masternodes isn't free. Operators must pay for hosting or someone to administer their nodes. Those coins are also reentering the supply and some of them will be turned into a new masternode, ran by someone else. Every part of this process further decentralizes the system over time.

Also, for someone like you, you've dedicated full time to this project, so you're either living off of your saved fiat, or selling your Dash to live.  Both ways put pressure on you to sell Dash - one way, or one day or another, and thus, decreases your potential to accumulate.

Same goes for otoh, As far as I can tell, he's living off his wealth, created from Crypto.  Which means, he has to play the market successfully, or not lose too much, and is living off his crypto holdings as well.

Indeed this is true, it's also scary how quickly one can become accustomed to first class limos too



LHR last night

[eduffield]

Will Dash hit $26,000,000 in market cap in first half of 2016? Yes or no? Dare to bet in bitcoin?
https://www.betmoose.com/bet/dash-to-hit-26-000-000-market-cap-before-lug-1-2016-1367?ref=scacco

Can DASH masternode network be used for escrowing and settling bets?

I mean it like this.

Let's say some users, who are "oddmakers" start creating a list of bets and lock some money in the network to cover incoming bets at given odds.

"Will this happen by 1/1/2017?"
"Will team A win over team B on the game of Jan 10 2016?"

People who feel like betting, deposit money on addresses of the network at the given odds and if they win will take the winnings. If not, the oddmaker takes their money. The mechanism of locking and unlocking the money will be coded into dash when the winning condition is met.

This is all data of if-then-else type. The only human component required is, I think, in those who determine the outcome of the game. So humans need to actually know what happened and inform the network of whether, for example, team A beat team B. In order for the system to not be "gamed", a large participation of "witnesses" would increase the reliability of the results. Masternode operators could perhaps be used as those who insert the result and verify its authenticity, in order to settle the bets.

Back in june I had the option on betting on one eventuality that would take place 6-7 months ahead. Since I can't even trust that an online crypto-betting company will be around for that long, I opted not to bet and not to lock my money. But if this was done over the dash network, I'd do it.

There are other bets (even leveraged bets) like "will BTC go up or down?", "will the dow go up or down" which can take data directly from the markets for auto-settlements that would theoretically not require human intervention.

sound like a good DAPI App

That's in one of the evolution papers somewhere

[Melech]

I have to agree 24h is short.

1 week?

The (Number Yes - Number of No) > 10% is really good.

1 week is too high. It will block re-submissions from getting paid. Imagine someone submits a proposal 3 times in the last couple of weeks, there's no way for the protocol to know the community has been talking about this specific proposal for 3 weeks .

This is a fair point Evan makes... We risk making the DGBB system impractical to use. The Soda Machine proposal wouldn't have paid out if the minimum was 1 week, and 1 month would make it completely unusable I think (I think that was also suggested)...

Let me set a few things straight here...

1) The soda budget was re-proposed 3 times in 2 days.... that would have only added 2 days to the 7, making a total of 9 days, not 3 weeks... (catch your mistake early and you dont have to wait 3 weeks...)

2) If I put up a budget, and after 2 days it had 1000 yes, 200 no... I would assume its going to pass and start my project on day 2... there is no 3 week wait...

3) If I had a Dash project, I would have no problem waiting a whole 7 days to start it... Why does everyone need to be in such a rush?  Personally, I think a 30-day wait to receive funds is perfectly acceptable, if not warranted

[Melech]

I would personally get rid of the 10% thing, and change it to 50 or 60% of the total MNs being the minimum for a vote to pass...

At current, that would be 1731 or 2077 votes to pass (out of 3462 MNs total)


Edit: With this option, I would feel better about the 24 hour minimum... if a proposal has 2000+ yes votes in 24hr, that's unanimous support

Nothing would ever get passed. Look at the average participation .

https://dashninja.pl/budgets.html

I have looked at participation, and it is higher than you think...

The soda budget got 1400 yes votes in under 3 days... that would have easily hit 1700 given a few more days... not an issue

This budget got over 2000 votes:
https://dashninja.pl/budgetdetails.html?budgetid=lamassu-integration

[eduffield]

I would personally get rid of the 10% thing, and change it to 50 or 60% of the total MNs being the minimum for a vote to pass...

At current, that would be 1731 or 2077 votes to pass (out of 3462 MNs total)


Edit: With this option, I would feel better about the 24 hour minimum... if a proposal has 2000+ yes votes in 24hr, that's unanimous support

Nothing would ever get passed. Look at the average participation .

https://dashninja.pl/budgets.html

I have looked at participation, and it is higher than you think...

The soda budget got 1400 yes votes in under 3 days... that would have easily hit 1700 given a few more days... not an issue

This budget got over 2000 votes:
https://dashninja.pl/budgetdetails.html?budgetid=lamassu-integration

I said average participation, not peak. Average participation is 34%, which actually isn't too shabby. Maybe we could raise the threshold from 10% to 20% without any impact.

So 72 hours and 20% minimum?

[Walter_S]

I would personally get rid of the 10% thing, and change it to 50 or 60% of the total MNs being the minimum for a vote to pass...

At current, that would be 1731 or 2077 votes to pass (out of 3462 MNs total)


Edit: With this option, I would feel better about the 24 hour minimum... if a proposal has 2000+ yes votes in 24hr, that's unanimous support

Nothing would ever get passed. Look at the average participation .

https://dashninja.pl/budgets.html

I have looked at participation, and it is higher than you think...

The soda budget got 1400 yes votes in under 3 days... that would have easily hit 1700 given a few more days... not an issue

This budget got over 2000 votes:
https://dashninja.pl/budgetdetails.html?budgetid=lamassu-integration

I said average participation, not peak. Average participation is 34%, which actually isn't too shabby. Maybe we could raise the threshold from 10% to 20% without any impact.

So 72 hours and 20% minimum?

That sounds about right to me. I think it is the sweet spot in terms of reducing the outside chance of abuse and ensuring the system is flexible, reactive, functional and democratic.

Walter