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

[DaveJones]

snip


I finally changed my votes to "No" due to the crazy flip-flopping the network was doing. Plus Otoh had changed his votes from "No" to "Yes" just this morning, due to hearing it was working out with Terpin. I asked him to change them back to "No" so we could implement a proper contract. I think it makes much more sense.

That doesn't read like: The network of master nodes decide  

[afbitcoins]

snip


I finally changed my votes to "No" due to the crazy flip-flopping the network was doing. Plus Otoh had changed his votes from "No" to "Yes" just this morning, due to hearing it was working out with Terpin. I asked him to change them back to "No" so we could implement a proper contract. I think it makes much more sense.

That doesn't read like: The network of master nodes decide  

Hmm true dat. Seems like a few people control a lot of masternodes. A majority?  Motion that 'vote many' is abolished ?

[Sub-Ether]

snip
I finally changed my votes to "No" due to the crazy flip-flopping the network was doing. Plus Otoh had changed his votes from "No" to "Yes" just this morning, due to hearing it was working out with Terpin. I asked him to change them back to "No" so we could implement a proper contract. I think it makes much more sense.

it doesn't read like: The network of master nodes decide  

Hmm true dat. Seems like a few people control a lot of masternodes. A majority?  Motion that 'vote many' is abolished ?

lol, I suggested getting rid of the vote many about a year ago, but it didn't go down very well.

[spatula]

snip


I finally changed my votes to "No" due to the crazy flip-flopping the network was doing. Plus Otoh had changed his votes from "No" to "Yes" just this morning, due to hearing it was working out with Terpin. I asked him to change them back to "No" so we could implement a proper contract. I think it makes much more sense.

That doesn't read like: The network of master nodes decide  

Hmm true dat. Seems like a few people control a lot of masternodes. A majority?  Motion that 'vote many' is abolished ?

Are you saying if I have more than one masternode, that means I shouldn't get more than one vote? Or perhaps it should just be more difficult for me to vote my nodes than someone with one?

[eduffield]

Vote on whether or not to implement contracts  ? Or benevolent dictator decides

How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important.

As feelthebern said, thanks for great response Evan. To me this does seem obvious for a proposal.

Personally I don't like the risks of locking into long term projects. Maybe I haven't considered it all through enough but I don't like the risks. The budget allowance is not a bottomless pit. The exchange rates too volatile. As with Occams razor maybe simplest solution is best.

Someone said Dash might be a monster. I hope ultimately in a good way. I had a vague uneasy vision of 'the network' turning out being worse than 'for profit corporations' are now. Maybe human kind is doomed to these fates. Imagine if we are all one day enslaved by the Dash network in a way 10x worse than what goldman sachs and jp morgan do today ?!  

I'm not really saying we have to use contracts for everything or anything really. That much would be up to the network. However, wouldn't it be good if we could promise funding to a vendor for a given period of time? Let's say the Lamassu project requires one year of funding in order to make it happen, is it better to use a 12-month contract or not have the Lamassu project at all?

[eduffield]

Vote on whether or not to implement contracts  ? Or benevolent dictator decides

How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important.

I agree. If I may offer an opinion, I read that you were looking at setting rules for locking into 6 month and 1 year contracts. I would hazard that 1 year contracts are simply too long (especially in the accelerated world of crypto). There's nothing a 1 year contract can't accomplish that two successive 6 month contracts cannot. It can be done just like car insurance. If the contract sours early on, we have a sixth month checkpoint that allows us to be mercifully set free. BTW, thanks for listening to us on the noisy forums.

I think one year contracts are too long as well and the network should be absolutely sure about it before locking into that argeement. That's why I suggest we require at least 51% of the network to support the given 12-month contract. Imagine 10% of the network vote "No", that would mean 61% would be required to vote yes.

Alternatively 6-months would require 33% network support and 3-month would require 20%. I think that's fair and would measure the network for consensus accurately.

These projects also require 30-days of voting to elapse, so they would be heavily debated. The community would be very well informed before deciding ultimately.

[afbitcoins]

snip


I finally changed my votes to "No" due to the crazy flip-flopping the network was doing. Plus Otoh had changed his votes from "No" to "Yes" just this morning, due to hearing it was working out with Terpin. I asked him to change them back to "No" so we could implement a proper contract. I think it makes much more sense.

That doesn't read like: The network of master nodes decide  

Hmm true dat. Seems like a few people control a lot of masternodes. A majority?  Motion that 'vote many' is abolished ?

Are you saying if I have more than one masternode, that means I shouldn't get more than one vote? Or perhaps it should just be more difficult for me to vote my nodes than someone with one?

I don't know how you could stop someone having more than one vote but you can at least make it difficult for someone to vote hundreds (or more) times. But how would that get voted in ? lol

Maybe safe to assume that the dictator(s) still have ultimate power

[FeelTheBern]

Vote on whether or not to implement contracts  ? Or benevolent dictator decides

How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important.

I agree. If I may offer an opinion, I read that you were looking at setting rules for locking into 6 month and 1 year contracts. I would hazard that 1 year contracts are simply too long (especially in the accelerated world of crypto). There's nothing a 1 year contract can't accomplish that two successive 6 month contracts cannot. It can be done just like car insurance. If the contract sours early on, we have a sixth month checkpoint that allows us to be mercifully set free. BTW, thanks for listening to us on the noisy forums.

I think one year contracts are too long as well and the network should be absolutely sure about it before locking into that argeement. That's why I suggest we require at least 51% of the network to support the given 12-month contract. Imagine 10% of the network vote "No", that would mean 61% would be required to vote yes.

Alternatively 6-months would require 33% network support and 3-month would require 20%. I think that's fair and would measure the network for consensus accurately.

These projects also require 30-days of voting to elapse, so they would be heavily debated. The community would be very well informed before deciding ultimately.

Can we also introduce the idea of "caps" to each proposal as to not waste the budget on such a small amount of big ticket items at once? If something is above the cap, it gets split into 2 proposals? Not a big deal really, but it does freee up the budget from "burning" large amounts of Dash over issues like this. And it gives us small fry guys a chance to utilize the budget for smaller projects and lessens the likelyhood of it just being used up all the time... more voting, more often is good for everyone.

[spatula]

Vote on whether or not to implement contracts  ? Or benevolent dictator decides

How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important.

I agree. If I may offer an opinion, I read that you were looking at setting rules for locking into 6 month and 1 year contracts. I would hazard that 1 year contracts are simply too long (especially in the accelerated world of crypto). There's nothing a 1 year contract can't accomplish that two successive 6 month contracts cannot. It can be done just like car insurance. If the contract sours early on, we have a sixth month checkpoint that allows us to be mercifully set free. BTW, thanks for listening to us on the noisy forums.

I think one year contracts are too long as well and the network should be absolutely sure about it before locking into that argeement. That's why I suggest we require at least 51% of the network to support the given 12-month contract. Imagine 10% of the network vote "No", that would mean 61% would be required to vote yes.

Alternatively 6-months would require 33% network support and 3-month would require 20%. I think that's fair and would measure the network for consensus accurately.

These projects also require 30-days of voting to elapse, so they would be heavily debated. The community would be very well informed before deciding ultimately.

Can we also introduce the idea of "caps" to each proposal as to not waste the budget on such a small amount of big ticket items at once? If something is above the cap, it gets split into 2 proposals? Not a big deal really, but it does freee up the budget from "burning" large amounts of Dash over issues like this. And it gives us small fry guys a chance to utilize the budget for smaller projects and lessens the likelyhood of it just being used up all the time... more voting, more often is good for everyone.

This couldn't work because what if only one piece of a split up large proposal passes? It would still have to be an all or nothing vote, and wouldnt matter if it was split up, as the total amount would take up the same amount of room. If you don't like a large proposal, vote against it.

[FeelTheBern]

Vote on whether or not to implement contracts  ? Or benevolent dictator decides

How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important.

I agree. If I may offer an opinion, I read that you were looking at setting rules for locking into 6 month and 1 year contracts. I would hazard that 1 year contracts are simply too long (especially in the accelerated world of crypto). There's nothing a 1 year contract can't accomplish that two successive 6 month contracts cannot. It can be done just like car insurance. If the contract sours early on, we have a sixth month checkpoint that allows us to be mercifully set free. BTW, thanks for listening to us on the noisy forums.

I think one year contracts are too long as well and the network should be absolutely sure about it before locking into that argeement. That's why I suggest we require at least 51% of the network to support the given 12-month contract. Imagine 10% of the network vote "No", that would mean 61% would be required to vote yes.

Alternatively 6-months would require 33% network support and 3-month would require 20%. I think that's fair and would measure the network for consensus accurately.

These projects also require 30-days of voting to elapse, so they would be heavily debated. The community would be very well informed before deciding ultimately.

Can we also introduce the idea of "caps" to each proposal as to not waste the budget on such a small amount of big ticket items at once? If something is above the cap, it gets split into 2 proposals? Not a big deal really, but it does freee up the budget from "burning" large amounts of Dash over issues like this. And it gives us small fry guys a chance to utilize the budget for smaller projects and lessens the likelyhood of it just being used up all the time... more voting, more often is good for everyone.

This couldn't work because what if only one piece of a split up large proposal passes? It would still have to be an all or nothing vote, and wouldnt matter if it was split up, as the total amount would take up the same amount of room. If you don't like a large proposal, vote against it.

Why is it all or nothing? I don't understand this concept..

We want ROOM in the budget for smaller projects for normal ol users like myself. Not a PR company snatching up all the funds. (without any burden of proof they are working as hard as they can for us, aka analytics.

[spatula]

snip


I finally changed my votes to "No" due to the crazy flip-flopping the network was doing. Plus Otoh had changed his votes from "No" to "Yes" just this morning, due to hearing it was working out with Terpin. I asked him to change them back to "No" so we could implement a proper contract. I think it makes much more sense.

That doesn't read like: The network of master nodes decide  

Hmm true dat. Seems like a few people control a lot of masternodes. A majority?  Motion that 'vote many' is abolished ?

Are you saying if I have more than one masternode, that means I shouldn't get more than one vote? Or perhaps it should just be more difficult for me to vote my nodes than someone with one?

I don't know how you could stop someone having more than one vote but you can at least make it difficult for someone to vote hundreds (or more) times. But how would that get voted in ? lol

Maybe safe to assume that the dictator(s) still have ultimate power

Why would you want to make it more difficult for people who have invested a lot of money in Dash to vote? I don't see the benefit.

"dictators"? Because some people have a larger investment than others, therefore get proportionally more votes does not make them "dictators". It means they have more to gain/lose at the same proportion level as anyone else by investment.

[spatula]

Vote on whether or not to implement contracts  ? Or benevolent dictator decides

How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important.

I agree. If I may offer an opinion, I read that you were looking at setting rules for locking into 6 month and 1 year contracts. I would hazard that 1 year contracts are simply too long (especially in the accelerated world of crypto). There's nothing a 1 year contract can't accomplish that two successive 6 month contracts cannot. It can be done just like car insurance. If the contract sours early on, we have a sixth month checkpoint that allows us to be mercifully set free. BTW, thanks for listening to us on the noisy forums.

I think one year contracts are too long as well and the network should be absolutely sure about it before locking into that argeement. That's why I suggest we require at least 51% of the network to support the given 12-month contract. Imagine 10% of the network vote "No", that would mean 61% would be required to vote yes.

Alternatively 6-months would require 33% network support and 3-month would require 20%. I think that's fair and would measure the network for consensus accurately.

These projects also require 30-days of voting to elapse, so they would be heavily debated. The community would be very well informed before deciding ultimately.

Can we also introduce the idea of "caps" to each proposal as to not waste the budget on such a small amount of big ticket items at once? If something is above the cap, it gets split into 2 proposals? Not a big deal really, but it does freee up the budget from "burning" large amounts of Dash over issues like this. And it gives us small fry guys a chance to utilize the budget for smaller projects and lessens the likelyhood of it just being used up all the time... more voting, more often is good for everyone.

This couldn't work because what if only one piece of a split up large proposal passes? It would still have to be an all or nothing vote, and wouldnt matter if it was split up, as the total amount would take up the same amount of room. If you don't like a large proposal, vote against it.

Why is it all or nothing? I don't understand this concept..

We want ROOM in the budget for smaller projects for normal ol users like myself. Not a PR company snatching up all the funds. (without any burden of proof they are working as hard as they can for us, aka analytics.

I am not talking about a specific budget proposal, I am talking about splitting up any large one into smaller pieces (by way of proposal caps) doesn't change the amount of room they take up in the total budget.

Example #1:

total budget available: 1000 dash

big project: 900 dash
small project: 100 dash



Example #2:

total budget available: 1000 dash (with 300 dash limit per proposal)

big project(part 1): 300 dash
big project(part 2): 300 dash
big project(part 3): 300 dash
small project: 100 dash



If people want to vote YES for the big project, it takes up the same amount of room with or without caps.

[mjsrs]

"USD valuations would also be created via quorum and an average price over a period of 7 days would be used to stop people from attacking the implementation. (e.g. if you dump 10000 coins right before the budget is finalized, you could drop the price by 10% and get 10% more coins as a result, right? To stop this we’ll use quorum based averages)."

Evan,

Can you please explain a little more how this will work?
thanks

[FeelTheBern]

Vote on whether or not to implement contracts  ? Or benevolent dictator decides

How about we make a proposal to decide if we implement contracts? Like I've always said, I'm along for the ride. If the network doesn't want me to implement something I won't. However, I'm voting yes and I'll argue the merit of contracts for our platform. I think they're important.

I agree. If I may offer an opinion, I read that you were looking at setting rules for locking into 6 month and 1 year contracts. I would hazard that 1 year contracts are simply too long (especially in the accelerated world of crypto). There's nothing a 1 year contract can't accomplish that two successive 6 month contracts cannot. It can be done just like car insurance. If the contract sours early on, we have a sixth month checkpoint that allows us to be mercifully set free. BTW, thanks for listening to us on the noisy forums.

I think one year contracts are too long as well and the network should be absolutely sure about it before locking into that argeement. That's why I suggest we require at least 51% of the network to support the given 12-month contract. Imagine 10% of the network vote "No", that would mean 61% would be required to vote yes.

Alternatively 6-months would require 33% network support and 3-month would require 20%. I think that's fair and would measure the network for consensus accurately.

These projects also require 30-days of voting to elapse, so they would be heavily debated. The community would be very well informed before deciding ultimately.

Can we also introduce the idea of "caps" to each proposal as to not waste the budget on such a small amount of big ticket items at once? If something is above the cap, it gets split into 2 proposals? Not a big deal really, but it does freee up the budget from "burning" large amounts of Dash over issues like this. And it gives us small fry guys a chance to utilize the budget for smaller projects and lessens the likelyhood of it just being used up all the time... more voting, more often is good for everyone.

This couldn't work because what if only one piece of a split up large proposal passes? It would still have to be an all or nothing vote, and wouldnt matter if it was split up, as the total amount would take up the same amount of room. If you don't like a large proposal, vote against it.

Why is it all or nothing? I don't understand this concept..

We want ROOM in the budget for smaller projects for normal ol users like myself. Not a PR company snatching up all the funds. (without any burden of proof they are working as hard as they can for us, aka analytics.

I am not talking about a specific budget proposal, I am talking about splitting up any large one into smaller pieces (by way of proposal caps) doesn't change the amount of room they take up in the total budget.

Example #1:

total budget available: 1000 dash

big project: 900 dash
small project: 100 dash



Example #2:

total budget available: 1000 dash (with 300 dash limit per proposal)

big project(part 1): 300 dash
big project(part 2): 300 dash
big project(part 3): 300 dash
small project: 100 dash



If people want to vote YES for the big project, it takes up the same amount of room with or without caps.

OK, point taken. Sorry for my half assed suggestion. I just feel like we shouldn't be using the entire budget on 3-4 items. It should be 10-100 items. However we do this is fine by me.

[afbitcoins]

Why would you want to make it more difficult for people who have invested a lot of money in Dash to vote? I don't see the benefit.

In answer to your question, people who have invested a lot in masternodes get a lot of dash paid in masternode payments so its not like you are hurting them. If it were possible to have only one vote per person instead of per masternode, the idea I guess is that the little people get more influence in the direction of Dash which might serve as a way to prevent too much power accumulating to those few wealthy elites at the top of the Dash pyramid. If you get my meaning

(oops did an edit instead of reply by accident, have lost the original comment I had here )

[Solarminer]

I am not talking about a specific budget proposal, I am talking about splitting up any large one into smaller pieces (by way of proposal caps) doesn't change the amount of room they take up in the total budget.

Example #1:

total budget available: 1000 dash

big project: 900 dash
small project: 100 dash


Example #2:

total budget available: 1000 dash (with 300 dash limit per proposal)

big project(part 1): 300 dash
big project(part 2): 300 dash
big project(part 3): 300 dash
small project: 100 dash

If people want to vote YES for the big project, it takes up the same amount of room with or without caps.

There is a valid benefit here.  If you are trying to get funding for a project and don't necessarily need the full amount each month.  Splitting it in 3 is preferred. If a chunk doesn't fit the budget only that 300 is lost.  Not the full 900.

[Solarminer]

If anyone is interested why I am only suggesting we try at most 3 month budget contracts.....This is why.  I am also seeing similar opinions from others of the same caliber.

Stock Market "Last Gasp" Moment May Be About To Occur, Severe Sell Off Coming. By Gregory Mannarino

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-3TlPz9T8g

[FeelTheBern]

Why would you want to make it more difficult for people who have invested a lot of money in Dash to vote? I don't see the benefit.

In answer to your question, people who have invested a lot in masternodes get a lot of dash paid in masternode payments so its not like you are hurting them. If it were possible to have only one vote per person instead of per masternode, the idea I guess is that the little people get more influence in the direction of Dash which might serve as a way to prevent too much power accumulating to those few wealthy elites at the top of the Dash pyramid. If you get my meaning

(oops did an edit instead of reply by accident, have lost the original comment I had here )

Perhaps jus cap the votes per person? like 50 votes per masternode owner is plenty.... this doesn't need to be an uphill battle...

and yea, you old comment is gone.

[Solarminer]

Why would you want to make it more difficult for people who have invested a lot of money in Dash to vote? I don't see the benefit.

In answer to your question, people who have invested a lot in masternodes get a lot of dash paid in masternode payments so its not like you are hurting them. If it were possible to have only one vote per person instead of per masternode, the idea I guess is that the little people get more influence in the direction of Dash which might serve as a way to prevent too much power accumulating to those few wealthy elites at the top of the Dash pyramid. If you get my meaning

(oops did an edit instead of reply by accident, have lost the original comment I had here )

Perhaps jus cap the votes per person? like 50 votes per masternode owner is plenty.... this doesn't need to be an uphill battle...

and yea, you old comment is gone.

While it seems that a larger masternode holder has too much power with the voting system, it is still proportional to everyone else.  So those 100 masternodes are still 100x the investment as 1 masternode.  The concept is the more you risk in collateral the more influence you have in voting.  Slowing down how an owner votes with limited commands or maximum votes at a time isn't going to change the result of a vote since you still have 24 hours minimum to vote.

Now we could throw in some hanging chads...then this would get interesting.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/the-legacy-of-hanging-chads

[FeelTheBern]

Why would you want to make it more difficult for people who have invested a lot of money in Dash to vote? I don't see the benefit.

In answer to your question, people who have invested a lot in masternodes get a lot of dash paid in masternode payments so its not like you are hurting them. If it were possible to have only one vote per person instead of per masternode, the idea I guess is that the little people get more influence in the direction of Dash which might serve as a way to prevent too much power accumulating to those few wealthy elites at the top of the Dash pyramid. If you get my meaning

(oops did an edit instead of reply by accident, have lost the original comment I had here )

Perhaps jus cap the votes per person? like 50 votes per masternode owner is plenty.... this doesn't need to be an uphill battle...

and yea, you old comment is gone.

While it seems that a larger masternode holder has too much power with the voting system, it is still proportional to everyone else.  So those 100 masternodes are still 100x the investment as 1 masternode.  The concept is the more you risk in collateral the more influence you have in voting.  Slowing down how an owner votes with limited commands or maximum votes at a time isn't going to change the result of a vote since you still have 24 hours minimum to vote.

Now we could throw in some hanging chads...then this would get interesting.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/the-legacy-of-hanging-chads

Fair enough, no arguments here.

edit: just to be clear, I have agreed, calmed down and am participating in this argument fairly at this point. So why the hell does Tungfa feel the need to wake up and start this whole ride over? Just got kicked from Telegram after a 30 second chat with him and BolehVPN about how they dislike my methods.