Let me tell you something, when Evan puts out a proposal, he's so f'ing tight he wants his 5 dash back
Pre-Proposal: Let all the actors (MNOs, Miners, Stakeholders) vote, then take into account only MNOs
- Thread starter demo
- Start date
Let me tell you something, when Evan puts out a proposal, he's so f'ing tight he wants his 5 dash back
demo
New member
My proposal here is NOT about granting voting rights to the actors. It is just to record the votes of the actors, but not taking into account thoses votes. In my proposal only the masternode votes count.
What you are proposing ( granting voting rights to the actors, then take those votes into account by giving them a weight) is a different proposal that may follow my proposal, in case the scientific method proves that the masternodes are taking worse decicions compared to some other actors.
Last edited:
My mistake for getting sidetracked. The only problem I can foresee with that scenario is that while votes don't necessarily "count", there is no way to necessarily prevent fake votes. So while it wouldn't hurt to have a sort of snapshot of these actors, the fact that their integrity is questionable makes me believe it may not be worth the effort to implement(but I'm no coder either, so that's just my subjective viewpoint).
EDIT: I need to investigate/inform myself of the "Proof of individuality" to have a better opinion
demo
New member
@GrandMasterDash and @JGCMiner I think you both need my script!
How much dash do you give me to continue the development?
demo
New member
For the initial 3 actor types of this proposal (MasterNodes, Miners, Stakeholders), I think there are ways to prevent the fake votes. This can be the proof of individuality, the Captcha, the votechain (save the votes in the blockchain for later investigation of fake votes) e.t.c.
Additionaly, the fake vote depends on the definition of the actors. As I already wrote, multiple actors can be defined:
One actor type may be the miners, another maybe the wallet owners, another may be the employees, another maybe the core team, another maybe the US citizents, another maybe the people with black hair and blue eyes e.t.c. Whatever grouping you could think, can be defined as a possible actor type. But of course not all groups are going to be taken seriously (ex. the black hair with blue eyes actor type is obviously a troll actor type)
Each actor is responsible to prove to the rest actors that it does not contain fake votes. Otherwise the actor may exist, but the votes of this actor will not be taken seriously.
Last edited:
My other replies aside, this I feel is actually the true crux of your prepoposal and is what I should have been addressing. Just as you mentioned, "actors" must be defined. Additonally some sort of voting mechanism must be developed for these actors. I feel as though you have a great idea that serves to optimize the governance of Dash. Whether to implement it is the next question I would say needs to be addressed. The biggest issue is cost vs reward. Development resources are scarce. Should Dash address optimizing its governance now or can it wait? On a long enough timeline I without a doubt feel it needs to be addressed.
However I also feel that current development time in other areas like evolution would better suit us now as the primary focus because they will bring more added value to the network which will allow more funding to then tackle optimizing the governance structure.
Programmable governance for a network like dash is uncharted territory. It's silly for anyone to think it's easy to do and get right the first time. So while I think your idea has merit, I just don't believe we're ready for it yet.
demo
New member
We are not ready yet to make programmable governance.
But defining 3 actor types, record their opinion and start investigating the potentialities of the statistics, I think we are ready for that.
Dash community should invest in research, not only invest in advertising, marketing and fests.
It is not the first time I asked the dash community to invest in research. But they dont listen to me.
Last edited:
That I can agree with. Specifically how is the next question
TroyDASH
New member
Although practically speaking, I don't think that this should necessarily be a priority right now, I am open to the idea of allowing other actors to participate in governance, if it can somehow be identified what their stake in the network is, and the amount of power they have should reflect that stake. In theory. Realistically though, there are probably insane technical barriers to attempting this not to mention even evaluating how much power the other actors should have. Unless someone comes out with even the roughest blueprint for how it would work, I think our governance is good enough.
demo
New member
In order to create a blueprint for how it would work, the first step is to take the statistics. There is not blueprint without statistics.
So you have to allow the actors to express their opinion, take the statistics on how accurate their opinion was in depth of times, and then define a model for the optimal governance (that may also be dynamic and change in time).
Asking a rough blueprint on how the programmable governance will work without allowing the opinions of the actors to be heard, is like asking to make a weather prediction, without allowing to have weather sensors. If you have no weather sensors at all, not even the weather model can be created. The weather models have been discovered, and they can predict the weather now, because of the existance of the weather sensors. Similarly the programnable governance model can be discovered, only if you allow the opinions of the actors to be recorded.
Last edited:
uport.me
but then maybe the whole dash project should be re-implemented on Ethereum...
imo Ethereum not a good choice but it would be a better platform than the current one
but then maybe the whole dash project should be re-implemented on Ethereum...
imo Ethereum not a good choice but it would be a better platform than the current one
demo
New member
Do you mean take the open source of the Ethereum. and use its codebase in order to reimplement dash?
This is not a bad idea.
Of course there is also ethereum classic.
TroyDASH
New member
We don't exactly have statistics, but that doesn't mean we can't still gather whatever data is available. If there are any big miners or merchants or whoever who have ideas that are different from that of the MN consensus, I'd be interested to hear them out, and explore whether or not their perspective is representative of the class. We can already do that to some extent right here on the forum or other public communication channels without needing to rework the protocol. It's just that I haven't heard too many people who aren't MNOs come forward who could also be considered to be comparably staked by other measures. It might be too early for that to be a significant population.
TroyDASH
New member
How about 'yes, but let them vote by contributing their views on the forum and self-identifying the class(es) of actor they wish to represent'
Which happens to be already allowed and does not require spending valuable resources.
Got nothing against data gathering--
If there appears to be an interesting discrepancy/pattern that emerges and warrants additional research then we can go from there.
Last edited:
Either that or simply make dash an Ethereum token.. either way it would benefit from the ecosystem, including identity, while retaining it's status as "digital cash"
demo
New member
If you built Dash on top of ethereum , then Dash's price will be dependant on ethereum's price (like it happened to the DAOhub case). And most important, Dash governance will be dependant on ethereum's governance, and this is bad as long as ethereum has no governance (as far as I know).
So a better idea is to take the opensource code of ethereum , and transform it to Dash code, similar to what @eduffield did to bitcoin code.
<vote history>
Let all the actors to vote, just for statistical reasons while their vote does not count.
*yes 1 vote(s) 33.3%
no 1 vote(s) 33.3%
other 0 vote(s) 0.0%
yes, but let them vote by contributing on the forum and self-identifying which actor they are 1 vote(s) 33.3%
</vote history>
Last edited:
demo
New member
Look at all those that mark you down as trolling, the same old people. They are reading this comment that I am writing now and they are itching to mark me as trolling too. It's okay, what goes around comes around.
In the end, it will become blatantly clear that the wishes of end users must be broadly in line with all the key stakeholders, whether that is developers, auditors, miners or MNOs. Right now, dash is functioning in business terms; that is to say, there is greed on two opposing sides that seek to find a middle ground that doesn't piss off the other side so much that they abandon. Should money be defined in such terms? - no, because that's what gave us banking; money for money's sake... money charges for handling money... the irony.
@demo I think you should roll your separate ideas into one grand vision because, to me at least, they are all connected. Having said that, I don't think you should post those ideas here alone, because there is no way a small sized and small minded group of people here will ever escape their own madness. For even if they were to listen, tomorrow would be a new day and the madness would start all over.
Above everything else, a cryptocurrency can only have value when it has relevance... it has absolutely NOTHING to do with "limited supply" yadda yadda yadda. This means an ongoing commitment to meet the needs of everyone on Earth. There needs to be good governance, fairness and formal verification. There also needs to be a slight inflation (to offset the losses through natural means) that also plays against some sort of dividend... and maybe even a basic universal income - who knows - but regardless, you won't find a vision like that here.
In the end, it will become blatantly clear that the wishes of end users must be broadly in line with all the key stakeholders, whether that is developers, auditors, miners or MNOs. Right now, dash is functioning in business terms; that is to say, there is greed on two opposing sides that seek to find a middle ground that doesn't piss off the other side so much that they abandon. Should money be defined in such terms? - no, because that's what gave us banking; money for money's sake... money charges for handling money... the irony.
@demo I think you should roll your separate ideas into one grand vision because, to me at least, they are all connected. Having said that, I don't think you should post those ideas here alone, because there is no way a small sized and small minded group of people here will ever escape their own madness. For even if they were to listen, tomorrow would be a new day and the madness would start all over.
Above everything else, a cryptocurrency can only have value when it has relevance... it has absolutely NOTHING to do with "limited supply" yadda yadda yadda. This means an ongoing commitment to meet the needs of everyone on Earth. There needs to be good governance, fairness and formal verification. There also needs to be a slight inflation (to offset the losses through natural means) that also plays against some sort of dividend... and maybe even a basic universal income - who knows - but regardless, you won't find a vision like that here.
demo
New member
I also think that the ideas are connected, and I am glad that you can see the whole picture. But until now, the only way I spread the ideas is talking to the internet anonymously.
The grand vision requires people to read it. But most of the people dont like to read grand visions, they prefer the small quotes. Thats why I think that writing a manifest will only advertise myself, and not help very much the cause I am serving. And of course a manifest is difficult to write, and maybe contains errors and wrong ideas. Thats why I havent write any manifest until now. It is due to the difficulty I have to write it. Difficulty which is not proportional to its readability. And if an error or a wrong idea is discovered, the whole manifest is defamed, and this is a pitty for the rest ideas that reside into the manifest.
Finally most of the ideas I deal with they refer to cryptocurrency communities that have governance, and such communities are rare worldwide.
Thats why I am stuck here.
<vote history>
Let all the actors to vote, just for statistical reasons while their vote does not count.
yes 2 vote(s) 33.3%
no 3 vote(s) 50.0%
other 0 vote(s) 0.0%
'yes, but let them vote by contributing on the forum and self-identifying which actor they are 1 vote(s) 16.7%
</vote history>
Last edited: