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

[toknormal]

P.S. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about.

A couple of months ago, two guys from Venezuela put forward a proposal for Dash blockchain funding that was more visionary than any cryptocurrency - never mind Dash. It took Dash to the next level in the same way that an aeroplane could do for aluminium seats (and without the need for any protocol revisions contrary to the 'scare stories' of the day).

It was the only proposal in existence that has ever made a realistic, industrial scale use-case for Dash.

That proposal got made in the spirit of liberty on 2 counts:

[1] - the total blank sheet they had for rethinking the money system and the structure of micro-economies

[2] - the opportunity to appeal for funding on their own terms, not those of some red tape 7-level hierarchy

(It didn't get accepted -another story - but lets just pretend that it did).

IMO, we must keep 2 important principles protected:

[1] - that Dash is a monetary project, not a database one (thats my department and I've got 30 years experience in it and I know another database project when I see one    )

[2] - that the governance system is SINGLE TIER, not a bank manager. For example, if something is complex then it just gets done in multiple proposals, each one evaluated on its own merit

That way, Dash remains a currency not an investment platform and plays to its strengths - not Ethereum's strengths or Rootstock's strengths or Bitshare's strengths.

IMHO of course. But...jeez. This was an no brainer. Can people not see it ?

[iCEBREAKER]

oh?

Well read this:

the governance system (what was previously the budget system) will explicitly have a system for tracking what's happening in our economy

Dash is money, not a venture capital investor. Venture capital companies have governance systems for "tracking what's happening in our economy" but money sure as hell does not since the whole point of "sound money" is that once you have it you are at liberty to do whatever you want with it.

These two objectives just have wildly conflicting priorities.

Dash's priorities IMO should be aligned with those of a monetary medium. i.e.

[1] - continue to consolidate the technology behind improving fungibility and security

[2] - implement a commercial API

Those two priorities are consistent with those of monetary media. Dash is on solid ground.

The governance system is there to support development of the monetary token - not the other way around IM(H)O.

Thanks for your unsolicited opinion and advice, but you of all people should by now know Dash is only what Evan does.  No more, no less.  If you don't like that dictatorship and Bus Factor of 1, you know how to find the exit.   

Don't worry, the "zomg Dash is the next KickStarter" nonsense won't be followed up on with any serious effort.  It's obviously just a one-off attempt to hype and pump (just like Evan's "we will implement ring signatures" fake promise).

[eduffield]

oh?

Well read this:

the governance system (what was previously the budget system) will explicitly have a system for tracking what's happening in our economy

Dash is money, not a venture capital investor. Venture capital companies have governance systems for "tracking what's happening in our economy" but money sure as hell does not since the whole point of "sound money" is that once you have it you are at liberty to do whatever you want with it.

These two objectives just have wildly conflicting priorities.

Dash's priorities IMO should be aligned with those of a monetary medium. i.e.

[1] - continue to consolidate the technology behind improving fungibility and security

[2] - implement a commercial API

Those two priorities are consistent with those of monetary media. Dash is on solid ground.

The governance system is there to support development of the monetary token - not the other way around IM(H)O.

I've been meaning to bring this up, so thanks! I think we're on the same page and we need to focus on fixing problem areas in the economy. As a cryptographic currency, we have various needs to ensure success:

- Fiat on-ramps in every country, capable of integrating directly with all major banks
- Core software maintenance / upgrades
- Wallet software on the 1st tier (Existing Android and Apple Wallets)
- Wallet software on the 3rd tier (Evo)
- Legal work / Legal research
- Funding for foundations, which will interact with governments / users / companies
- Advertising / Public Awareness
- Building educational websites / wikis / documentation
- Building new hardware
- Maintaining core infrastructure
- Hiring core engineers for ongoing maintenance of the network

The question is who's going to do this work? Are they going to get paid? If they get paid to do this work from the blockchain, then we should be tracking their milestones and releasing money for the work that's being done.

Bitcoin was the first, so others just popped up to help them build all of this. It just happened. However, it's not happening automatically in our economy, so some of us are working on fixing these one by one. After all of these are fixed and only at that point can you call Dash money. Currently it's an investment in a product that we're trying to turn into money.

I think we can do this, but how?

We have to fund these things. We will create the snowball, then get the machine working piece by piece. But that's going to take some  different ways of thinking about these issues. I think the solution is a decentralized incubator and we will agree as a network what our current prime objectives are. One by one we will fix the issues. As soon as you know it, we'll be money.

So what should we fund and what shouldn't we? I think we should fund things directly benefiting our value as a medium of exchange and nothing else. So if you're going to build a product for our network that solves a pressing problem we're having, then you'll likely get funded. If you're a company, looking to make the next fitness gadget... you can look elsewhere

[eduffield]

[2] - that the governance system is SINGLE TIER, not a bank manager. For example, if something is complex then it just gets done in multiple proposals, each one evaluated on its own merit

Let's get crazy and say Dash blows up to a 500 million dollars. Now the budget is 9M per year. If average employees cost $55k a year, we could actual employ 163 people. Let's say the average working group is 7. That means we have 23 fully operational "companies" developing different things in our economy. We know if we're successful we're going to be in this situation, therefore it's really important to figure out how we manage this now.

How do you search something like this? I want to know:

- How many users there are, how many proposals each owns.
- What the average project is costing the network
- Which projects are behind
- How to reach project owners
- How to allow users to amend proposals / contracts and other objects securely

I also want to be able to do all of this in a decentralized way, without having to rely on outside centralized software. The question is how you keep track of all of this without directly writing it into the software. Is there another way? I think the budget system usage is growing exponentially and we have a very short time to figure this out.

I also want:

- Standard reporting guidelines
- Official forms and procedures for using our systems
- Centralized sites for storing reports and project status type information (think federated)

We should be able to ask any question, go to one place and have it answered in less than five minutes. It sounds like a technology issue to me and I think it's solvable by this idea. Maybe "incubator" is the wrong term? Maybe we should just call it the governance system. 

[toknormal]

If they get paid to do this work from the blockchain, then we should be tracking their milestones and releasing money for the work that's being done.

Evan - you're thinking like a bank manager not like a monetary token developer.

"God" created gold.

He left it lying there to be discovered and people endowed it with value. "He" did not endow them with value.

It got acquired in all different ways - some people lost their lives mining it, others just tripped over it during a hillwalk. There was no rhyme or reason for its ascension to acceptance as a monetary medium other than its core monetary properties which were consistent throughout all of its incarnations - whether monetary, decorative or industrial.

Thats the difference between Ethereum and Bitcoin. Ethereum needs development funds (because it isn't money) and Bitcoin doesn't (because it is).

Bitcoin is currently a metric by which all other trades are measured in the cryptocurrency economy and thats enough. Dash had a chance at that with the Proof of Labour proposal and blew it out. (Hopefully it will get it back again   ).

Turning the blockchain funding mechanism into the equivalent of my local bank manager who wants to see "returns" and asks people to fill in a 7-level form is about as appealing as eating the trimmings off a coffin. Nobody will ever apply (at least nobody that has a semblance of creativity about them).

If you put the same effort into developing Dash's monetary properties as you are proposing to put into its "business properties" you'd have arrived.

 • Darksend working fast.
 • Decentralised API for 3rd party creativity and accessibility

Just to get the decentralised API would be awsome. It would unleash a massive potential in 3rd party production that could never be matched by the core protocol. For example those guys could get their "negative balances" without even touching the core protocol.

It's all there in the Evolution document. I suggest you go back and read your own script  

[JGCMiner]

If they get paid to do this work from the blockchain, then we should be tracking their milestones and releasing money for the work that's being done.

Evan - you're thinking like a bank manager not like a monetary token developer.

"God" created gold.

He left it lying there to be discovered and people endowed it with value. It got acquired in all different ways - some people lost their lives mining it, others just tripped over it during a hillwalk. There was no rhyme or reason for its ascension to acceptance as a monetary medium other than its core monetary properties which were consistent throughout all of its incarnations - whether monetary, decorative or industrial.

Thats the difference between Ethereum and Bitcoin. Ethereum needs development funds (because it isn't money) and Bitcoin doesn't (because it is).

Bitcoin is currently a metric by which all other trades are measured in the cryptocurrency economy and thats enough. Dash had a chance at that with the Proof of Labour proposal and blew it out. (Hopefully it will get it back again  ).

Turning the blockchain funding mechanism into the equivalent of my local bank manager who wants to see "returns" and asks people to fill in a 7-level form is about as appealing as eating the trimmings off a coffin. Nobody will ever apply (at least nobody that has a semblance of creativity about them).

If you put the same effort into developing Dash's monetary properties as you are proposing to put into it's "business properties" you'd have arrived.

 • Darksend working fast.
 • Decentralised API for 3rd party creativity and accessibility

It's all there in the Evolution document. I suggest you go back and read your own script  

But Tok, even you can agree that it isn't a good idea to hand people money from the blockchain and trust them to do what they say they will without any milestones or required reports. As the DASH budget grows that will lead to dishonest behavior and clever people scamming the governance system.  Currently, the "reporting system" is somebody writing an angry post on dashtalk and kot posting some document so quell them.

I do see what you are saying that too many rules/reports will push people not to apply so maybe Evan is going too far, but I think he is on the right track. Automating the governance to some extent will fast track DASH development with the goal of becoming money. 

[toknormal]

But Tok, even you can agree that it isn't a good idea to hand people money from the blockchain and trust them to do what they say they will without any milestones or required reports

You really are starting to sound like my bank manager. I didn't get into cryptos for this  

When I look down that list of proposals on Dashwhale, I know exactly what I'm interested in. I never had any problem separating the wheat from the chaff.

On the other hand, if they were all full of project management structured B.S. and 7 levels of hierarchy, each one of which were professionally prepared I'd probably have to sell all my Dash just for the pleasure of not having to read them.

"Gaming the system" is far easier when the system is structured than when it isn't.

[eduffield]

If they get paid to do this work from the blockchain, then we should be tracking their milestones and releasing money for the work that's being done.

Evan - you're thinking like a bank manager not like a monetary token developer.

"God" created gold.

He left it lying there to be discovered and people endowed it with value. "He" did not endow them with value.

It got acquired in all different ways - some people lost their lives mining it, others just tripped over it during a hillwalk. There was no rhyme or reason for its ascension to acceptance as a monetary medium other than its core monetary properties which were consistent throughout all of its incarnations - whether monetary, decorative or industrial.

Thats the difference between Ethereum and Bitcoin. Ethereum needs development funds (because it isn't money) and Bitcoin doesn't (because it is).

Bitcoin is currently a metric by which all other trades are measured in the cryptocurrency economy and thats enough. Dash had a chance at that with the Proof of Labour proposal and blew it out. (Hopefully it will get it back again   ).

Turning the blockchain funding mechanism into the equivalent of my local bank manager who wants to see "returns" and asks people to fill in a 7-level form is about as appealing as eating the trimmings off a coffin. Nobody will ever apply (at least nobody that has a semblance of creativity about them).

If you put the same effort into developing Dash's monetary properties as you are proposing to put into its "business properties" you'd have arrived.

 • Darksend working fast.
 • Decentralised API for 3rd party creativity and accessibility

Just to get the decentralised API would be awsome. It would unleash a massive potential in 3rd party production that could never be matched by the core protocol. For example those guys could get their "negative balances" without even touching the core protocol.

It's all there in the Evolution document. I suggest you go back and read your own script  

I'm 0% sure about how your argument applies to what I'm doing with the budget system. I'm creating a system, that will better track what the network is doing. There are no "returns" or "business properties". This system could fund everything you say we should be funding and actually track it. Imagine that?

[Macrochip]

toknormal, if I may weigh in:

My takeaway from the suggested improvement is a fix for a problem I discussed here

Wouldn't you agree that wasted funds might become a problem in the future?

[toknormal]

Here's the thing:

I'm not dissing project management and proper due diligence processes. If people want detailed investment appraisals and banks manager approaches - be my guest. But do it once you've got your own funds.

I'm just saying that it isn't an appropriate role for a blockchain to be involved in that process. It's wholly inappropriate and conflicted.

Dash does not belong to Evan. Anyone who wants can write update the protocol and have it accepted by the miners. At the same time, Evan does not have to work on Dash - he can go off and relax for a year if he wants to. (I'm not suggesting that, I'd like him to finish the Evoloution roadmap and turn it into reality).

The blockchain governance is anarchistic. It is supposed to be an organic thing where somebody applies for funding, they maybe get it they maybe don't. Maybe Evan supplies the next Dash upgrade and maybe he doesn't.

But what Dash isn't is some kind of bank that requests milestones and cashflows from people. That is just ludicrous considering what the original philosophy of cryptocurrency was and the current objectives of Dash are.

[eduffield]

On the other hand, if they were all full of project management structured B.S. and 7 levels of hierarchy, each one of which were professionally prepared I'd probably have to sell all my Dash just for the pleasure of not having to read them.

I never said any of that, nor would I want a system that required that level of reporting. We need to find the minimum level to stop abuse and keep the network informed. I think if we have zero reporting requirements (such as where money is being spent) we'll run off a cliff.

[toknormal]

I never said any of that, nor would I want a system that required that level of reporting. We need to find the minimum level to stop abuse and keep the network informed. I think if we have zero reporting requirements (such as where money is being spent) we'll run off a cliff.

OK. I'll have to have a think about that.

I also have been wondering how to hold blockchain funding applicants to account, but I would do it post-emptively, not pre-emptively because that puts the blockchain in a position of weakness.

I think there are better ways to do it that push the problem back out to the holders.

[JGCMiner]

But Tok, even you can agree that it isn't a good idea to hand people money from the blockchain and trust them to do what they say they will without any milestones or required reports

You really are starting to sound like my bank manager. I didn't get into cryptos for this  

When I look down that list of proposals on Dashwhale, I know exactly what I'm interested in. I never had any problem separating the wheat from the chaff.

On the other hand, if they were all full of project management structured B.S. and 7 levels of hierarchy, each one of which were professionally prepared I'd probably have to sell all my Dash just for the pleasure of not having to read them.

"Gaming the system" is far easier when the system is structured than when it isn't.

Nobody said anything about 15 page daily reports or 7 levels of hierarchy or whatever-- that's hyperbole.

All Evan wants to do is track what is going on in the system and make sure things are happening as planed. The problem with zero management is that the economic incentives are misaligned for the budget system. You are incentivized to convince masternode voters to vote for you, but you have zero incentive to do what you proposed since you already have the money. The current system is altruism based. The only reason the system is working now sans management is because DASH is still tiny and most proposals are handled by trusted community members with significant stakes in DASH.

There doesn't need to be overbearing management, but there needs to be more than ZERO management once DASH grows enough for scammers to care.

[Macrochip]

Still waiting iCEHOLE, still waiting:

ICEBREAKER, buddy, I still need your help. Please de-anonymize this transaction that was obscured by the "flawed CoinJoin implementation" that has "not been peer-reviewed" and help me to figure out the source address of these funds! The good news is that it only went through four rounds of this "DarkSend," so it will be orders of magnitude easier to figure out than if it had been through all eight. Thank goodness for small miracles!

Please help me figure this out! It's URGENT!!!

Dash De-anonymization Contest

Icebreaker and other trolleros: I have donated $1 to Monero's development team. I sent 0.25 Dash (TX ID: 59d51690d4b56ddbf1e393fa8d3a49bcfc3247f270f36be3b6ee411802666cba-000) to shapeshift.io, which converted it to Bitcoin and sent it to the official Monero donation address listed at https://getmonero.org/getting-started/donate/.

I challenge you to de-anonymize this transaction. To make it just a little easier, I only used four rounds of Darksend, so it's exponentially less private than it would be with the maximum eight rounds.

Please tell me what address this transaction originated from.

Cheers!

What's the source address? I know you can do it!

[toknormal]

Ok, I just read Macrochip's post on Dashtalk and now understand the problem better.

So we need to have a discussion on how to remove the component of dependency on goodwill and trust within our governance model

I'm sorry. This cannot be done.

Dependency and goodwill are the essence on which ALL great creations, business projects and enterprises rely. That's exactly what's great about the current incarnation of Dash's governance system.

It provides a basis for the holders and contractors to interact informally. Over time, some bad apples will be paid good money but also some gems will be discovered. It's an organic interaction that takes time to evolve - how do you think any great company develops ? Through getting to know their partners and trusting them.

That trust is nothing to do with the blockchain - it's a people to people thing. It's voters pitted against contractors and thats just something that takes a lot of time, discussion, argument and growth. No way around it, but the fact that Dash has that dimension of commercial evolution to it is a huge strength IMO, not a weakness. Yes - money will get wasted on crap contractors. They just won't get another look-in and the ones that have integrity and productivity will.

You could never match that level of project consciousness with an automated process.

[BitWater]

U.S. Senate Bill Seeks to Ban Effective Encryption, Making Security Illegal

https://rietta.com/blog/2016/04/08/feinstein-burr-encryption-bill/

Hey, who told you you could surf the web? Get back to coding! 

What about the rest of the world? Sounds like the economic repercussions would be huge.

[JGCMiner]

Ok, I just read Macrochip's post on Dashtalk and now understand the problem better.

So we need to have a discussion on how to remove the component of dependency on goodwill and trust within our governance model

I'm sorry. This cannot be done.

Dependency and goodwill are the essence on which ALL great creations, business projects and enterprises rely.

That's exactly what's great about the current incarnation of Dash's governance system. It provides a basis for the holders and contractors to interact. Over time, some bad apples will be paid good money but also some gems will be discovered. It's an organic interaction that takes time to evolve - how do you think any great company develops ? Through getting to know their partners and trusting them.

That trust is nothing to do with the blockchain - it's a people to people thing. It's voters pitted against contractors and thats just something that takes a lot of time, discussion, argument and growth. No way around it, but that the fact that Dash has that dimension of commercial evolution to it is a huge strength IMO, not a weakness. Yes - money will get wasted on crap contractors. They just won't get another look-in thats all and the ones that have integrity will.

You could never match that level of project consciousness with an automated process.

In theory you are right, but this is crypto -- the Wild Wild West where the vast majority of altcoins are scams. You say we will have "some bad apples", I say will have a ton of bad apples once DASH gets bigger. With some form of minimal automated management I think the number of bad apples can be significantly reduced. Then we let human interaction take care of the rest. Some good ideas might get caught in the net, but that is better that paying a ton of people like Icey.  

[toknormal]

You say we will have "some bad apples", I say will have a ton of bad apples once DASH gets bigger. With some form of minimal automated management I think the number of bad apples can be significant reduced.

Feel free to submit your idea of "minimal automated management"

(Clue: I suggest you patent it first if it works)

[JGCMiner]

You say we will have "some bad apples", I say will have a ton of bad apples once DASH gets bigger. With some form of minimal automated management I think the number of bad apples can be significant reduced.

Feel free to submit your idea of "minimal automated management"

(Clue: I suggest you patent it first if it works)

I will leave that to the guy with the proven track record, Evan. Why don't we wait to see what he comes up with before throwing shade on the whole idea...

[toknormal]

Why don't we wait to see what he comes up with before throwing shade on the whole idea...

Because this is nothing to do with the declared Dash roadmap or anticipated technical priorities.

It's also something that is in the domain of holders, not developers since it is they who are responsible for assigning that portion of the blockchain reward and they've never asked for such project management tools.

(Even if they had done, they don't need to come from the protocol. Google docs will do - and a whole lot more on top   ).