Dash Evolution official announcement next January in Miami!

[Sub-Ether]

...If we want to catch a certain momentum, hype, excitement about 'evolution' we gotta play that game ! (basic marketing)
if we release the white paper tomorrow (we do not have yet) to the community, we do not have to make a presentation in Miami as everybody will know the details by then, we will have at least 2 clones running parallel to ours, and the 'hype' and excitement is gone !
(missed opportunity)

Yer, why tell all at once? otheres would copy the idea quickly, I respect the decision to do drip feed this slowly and carefully, after all there is only one chance at getting it right, once the cats out the bag, thats it.
If investors want to invest they have had plenty of time to think about it and have been warned and informed as much as possible, the risk reflects the potential gains.

 

[jpr]

It's true someone might copy the code. But will they be able to implement it? Do we even have any competition in the altcoin scene? Is there any serious coin out there with at least 500 masternodes?

I'm not sure about it but is giving a bit more information to investors such a big risk?

 

[stan.distortion]

i belive (i was not there) you do not get invited to conferences, you pay to be there (if you are not some celebrity or VIP) !
that how conferences work and make their money.

So Evan can look forward to an invite to the 2017 event

 

[crowning]

But as an investor, I am concerned that we are not being given enough information to make rational choices regarding new or existing investments in Dash. Apparently, Evolution will be a full overhaul of the code base, so I understand we can't expect to see a Beta on testnet for several months, and that's fine; but I'm troubled that the only things I know about this key project, are cookie crumbs and conjectures. I think we at least should get the White Paper by the time Evan has a prototype, or at the conference, whichever comes first.

I also would like have more information about what products Apple plans to release next to make more rational choices regarding my investments there...

I have written, reviewed and rated quite a few papers, theses and whatnot in my life. One rule always applied: it's ready when it's ready.

I remember a co-worker being 9 months into his PhD in computer science when he reached a point where he could neither prove nor disprove one of his basic assumptions, had to throw away everything and start again from scratch. That's how science works sometimes.
(BTW, my co-worker is a well established professor in AI-research now :smile: ).

 

[raganius]

I also would like have more information about what products Apple plans to release next to make more rational choices regarding my investments there...

I have written, reviewed and rated quite a few papers, theses and whatnot in my life. One rule always applied: it's ready when it's ready.

I remember a co-worker being 9 months into his PhD in computer science when he reached a point where he could neither prove nor disprove one of his basic assumptions, had to throw away everything and start again from scratch. That's how science works sometimes.
(BTW, my co-worker is a well established professor in AI-research now :smile: ).


View attachment 1956

But, still, I tend to agree with fible1 here: (some) community members should have a better idea of what's going on: These should be, in my opinion, at least the Masternode owners (and, at least to everything that touches our budget monies), because we are the ones to give our voting consent, and also because it is the same Masternode owners the ones watching, supervising and controling the good usage of the funds (if we want consistent decisions from the community).

Also, IMO, FOUNDATION members should always have unrestricted access to all the available info. Simply because we are recognised (well known) members of a potential important "controlling organ" (or else, it makes no more sense to be part of the foundation...).

When dealing with our blockchain budget, it should be open as default. We demand it all the time from the governments. We cannot be the ones to fail with it. Not while "public" money is in use.

We'd better be careful whenever we decide for "secret actions" and "secret expenses". We don't want "black budgets" (we are not the NSA).

 

[crowning]

...(some) community members should have a better idea of what's going on: These should be, in my opinion, at least the Masternode owners

That would open all doors to insider trading...not good for the reputation of Dash.

 

[Stealth923]

But, still, I tend to agree with fible1 here: (some) community members should have a better idea of what's going on: These should be, in my opinion, at least the Masternode owners (and, at least to everything that touches our budget monies), because we are the ones to give our voting consent, and also because it is the same Masternode owners the ones watching, supervising and controling the good usage of the funds (if we want consistent decisions from the community).

Also, IMO, FOUNDATION members should always have unrestricted access to all the available info. Simply because we are recognised (well known) members of a potential important "controlling organ" (or else, it makes no more sense to be part of the foundation...).

When dealing with our blockchain budget, it should be open as default. We demand it all the time from the governments. We cannot be the ones to fail with it. Not while "public" money is in use.

We'd better be careful whenever we decide for "secret actions" and "secret expenses". We don't want "black budgets" (we are not the NSA).

Interesting point you raise here, what if we all voted against development of Evolution right now and voted gaining more end users/awarenesss and providing more liquidity to the market? Dont masternode owners get to direct how the funding for dev time is spent?

 

[tungfa]

.... gaining more end users/awarenesss and providing more liquidity to the market? .....

We are ALWAYS (voted or not) working on expanding Dash community, finding new members, promoting where we can, spreading the word , working on new Stories and PR .....
and you all can help (please do not forget)
:wink:

 

[Stealth923]

We are ALWAYS (voted or not) working on expanding Dash community, finding new members, promoting where we can, spreading the word , working on new Stories and PR .....
and you all can help (please do not forget)
:wink:

I was saying that we need to be careful...We implemented block chain governance for a reason. And now im starting to see all marketing has a black hole budget (and I agree that it needs to be in some degree) and now we will go forth and spend the next 6 months developing something that we know NOTHING about and has potential for the market to reject or over hype as it has not beed discussed with a broader audience. Now for both marketing and development - MN owners are in the dark....

If we are always going to be affraid of copy cats and the team is just going to go forward and decide whats happening for the next 6-12 months - whats the point of the vote?

 

[raganius]

That would open all doors to insider trading...not good for the reputation of Dash.

Well, I still do not understand clearly this line of reasoning.

Insider trading will always be a potential problem, no matter if it is 5 or 5000 insiders. There will always be some people with enough (privileged ?) knowledge of what's going on. And these will be the "decision makers", there's no escape.

But, who are the decision makers?

Voting power is decision making power. How can Masternode owners give successful decisions knowing only the "tip of the iceberg"?

Decision makers need open info. Now, it is only a matter of each one being ethic... and we arrive here at the problem of trust... What is the best solution for trust? Decentralisation (although centralisation appears so tempting...)

Interesting point you raise here, what if we all voted against development of Evolution right now and voted gaining more end users/awarenesss and providing more liquidity to the market? Dont masternode owners get to direct how the funding for dev time is spent?

The objective of the voting system is taking the best directions for DASH. If Masternode owners have enough information to decide for quiting or adopting any idea, proposal and solution, it is supposed that the Masternode owners decisions should be "sovereign".

We are ALWAYS (voted or not) working on expanding Dash community, finding new members, promoting where we can, spreading the word , working on new Stories and PR .....
and you all can help (please do not forget)
:wink:

Sure, we all can help, but when there is a (public) budget things change a lot.

 

[jpr]

I understand some information should not be disclosed. But I don't understand why are all masternode owners being kept in the dark. There has been 2 budget payments already for public awareness which is over 4000 dash and we know nothing about any spendings. "Trust the team" is not enough. A bit more transparency is essential. You guys cannot just do whatever you like with the budget money without telling anybody about it. We pay for this from our masternodes, drop us a fuckin bone!

 

[jpr]

That would open all doors to insider trading...not good for the reputation of Dash.

It already stinks with insider trading as the TEAM knows a bit more than we do, don't you think?

 

[stan.distortion]

Well, I still do not understand clearly this line of reasoning.

Insider trading will always be a potential problem, no matter if it is 5 or 5000 insiders. There will always be some people with enough (privileged ?) knowledge of what's going on. And these will be the "decision makers", there's no escape.

But, who are the decision makers?

Voting power is decision making power. How can Masternode owners give successful decisions knowing only the "tip of the iceberg"?

Decision makers need open info. Now, it is only a matter of each one being ethic... and we arrive here at the problem of trust... What is the best solution for trust? Decentralisation (although centralisation appears so tempting...)
...

True but that's something that would need to be considered as part of the proposal rather than after imo, included terms of disclosure rather than disagreement. I don't see at as an issue at the mo though, that sets things off in the direction of huge unreadable contracts in legaleses covering every scenario and that's something I feel we should avoid like the plague (maybe stock agreements to attach could avoid it?). No one wants to expose something half-finished, an artist wouldn't proudly display a half finished painting and the same is common practice in code, if Evolution is anything like as significant as it looks then keeping it under wraps until release sounds like a good plan.

 

[raganius]

True but that's something that would need to be considered as part of the proposal rather than after imo, included terms of disclosure rather than disagreement. I don't see at as an issue at the mo though, that sets things off in the direction of huge unreadable contracts in legaleses covering every scenario and that's something I feel we should avoid like the plague (maybe stock agreements to attach could avoid it?). No one wants to expose something half-finished, an artist wouldn't proudly display a half finished painting and the same is common practice in code, if Evolution is anything like as significant as it looks then keeping it under wraps until release sounds like a good plan.

Sure, regarding coding, it is natural that things are done this way. And that's why the dev team is receiving a "remuneration" for their work. But with other "expenses" the picture changes.

BTW, when dealing with coding results, the last word is that of the whole network, Masternode owners and miners adopting the "new software". It is not really a "budget" matter.

 

[crowning]

It already stinks with insider trading as the TEAM knows a bit more than we do, don't you think?

Sure, at least the people who implement it will sooner or later all know...you can't avoid this [1].
But there's quite a difference between a couple of people and > 3000 Masternode owners.


[1]: that excludes devs like me of course: I do things and do NOT know what I'm doing

 

[raganius]

(...)
Sure, we all can help, but when there is a (public) budget things change a lot.

* note of clarificarion: I know that this is unwelcomed for some people here, the notion that "having a budget changes things" (e.g. people will tend less to "work for free"). But I am trying to make reasonable assumptions here.

Not so long ago, before the budget voting system was brought into reality, there was the "assumption" in this community, by some of the members, that there were too many "free riders" among us. And that anyone who was not donating money directly into DASH projects (development, marketing, etc) was to be considered a "freerider".

I opposed to that view, sustaining, that many people could not afford to donate MONEY, but still they could donate their work and efforts (as many here have been doing greatly) and such peoples are as important, thus, these are also not "freeriders". Also, even those who simply "invest" their money (buying DASH) were also to be considered contibutors, not freeriders. So: were there any freeriders left? My conclusion is that there are no free riders. This view of mine was not accepted by some, but this debate was dead the moment the blockchain funding was conceived.

(notice that, as I am not a rich fiat holder, nor a rich DASH holder, I could only donate work)

Now this debate resides in the past. Great. But, still, I felt a sour taste of not having the importance my efforts so far recognised by the community. It was like having cold water poured over everything I believed regarding open source p2p efforts.

But, in reality, a new debate is born: "Now that MONEY comes from the blockchain funding. The freerider's works and efforts are suddenly important?"

 

[tungfa]

* note of clarificarion: I know that this is unwelcomed for some people here, the notion that "having a budget changes things" (e.g. people will tend less to "work for free"). But I am trying to make reasonable assumptions here.

Not so long ago, before the budget voting system was brought into reality, there was the "assumption" in this community, by some of the members, that there were too many "free riders" among us. And that anyone who was not donating money diretcly into DASH projects (developiment, marketing, etc) was to be consedered a "freerider".

I opposed to that view, sustaining, that many people could not afford to donate MONEY, but still they could donate their work and effors (as many here have been doing greatly) and such people's are as important, thus, these are not "freeriders". Also, even those who "invest" their money (buying DASH) were also to be considered contibutorr, not freeriders. So, were there any freeriders left? My conclusion is that there are no free riders. This view of mine was not accepted by some, but this debate was dead the moment the blockchain funding was conceived.

Now this debate resides in the past. Great. But, still, I felt a sour tast of not having the importance my efforts so far recognised by the community. It was like having cold water poured over everything I believed regarding open source p2p efforts.

But, in reality, a new debate is born: "Now that MONEY comes from the blockchain funding. The freerider's works and efforts are suddenly important?

freeriders ?
what
i never heard of this assumption !

there are and always will be people who talk and others who do !

i am as naive to expect everybody to contributes as much as they can and as much as i do.
i know this will not happen (due to the talkers hence the doers)
so doing projects for the community and expecting a certain appreciation or recognition is the totally wrong approach in my opinion.
doing it for the project itself is an approach that works (for me), talk to the doers (and not the talkers as they have always an opinion)
team up with them, and pull on the same string to get this project further and above !
sure there is a budget system, but that is not changing the general rules of engagement, support, involvement ....
is anybody expecting to be paid for FB likes and retweets ? i do not understand

 

[raganius]

for example: https://dashtalk.org/threads/self-s...ernance-by-blockchain.4708/page-17#post-52338 :smile:

 

[bhkien]

I think, with small improvements over time has much more advantage than big change, especially with core dev team.

When we have small steps of improvement, the price increases and we have more funding for dev team. And with that our dev team less depend on venture investors and has more chance to follow what they believe will benefit in long term.

With small successful steps our confident will increase.

Etherium has a big promise and that was a heavy burden on their back.

If we miss a promise we could loss one chance to getting support of many people.

And by divice to many small chunks we can get feedback immediately of community to improve it gradually.

And that can save us a lot of PR expenses!

 

[raganius]

I think, with small improvements over time has much more advantage than big change, especially with core dev team.

When we have small steps of improvement, the price increases and we have more funding for dev team. And with that our dev team less depend on venture investors and has more chance to follow what they believe will benefit in long term.

With small successful steps our confident will increase.

Etherium has a big promise and that was a heavy burden on their back.

If we miss a promise we could loss one chance to getting support of many people.

And by divice to many small chunks we can get feedback immediately of community to improve it gradually.

And that can save us a lot of PR expenses!

Agreed. I am always afraid of "big hypes" (especially if it is instead of sound development - fortunately, DASH has got a good reputation for serious development)