Universal Dividend and Web of Trust for Dashcoin

[halso]

Man, this is crypto town. You are trying to sell socialism to a bunch of libertarians trying to disrupt the government backed global financial system.

You might have more luck selling hamburgers at a vegan convention.

 

[demo]

Man, this is crypto town. You are trying to sell socialism to a bunch of libertarians trying to disrupt the government backed global financial system.

You might have more luck selling hamburgers at a vegan convention.

Socialism is the yes/no voting system of the budget. It is bolshevik socialism.

Voting with percentages is menshevik socialism.

 

[halso]

Socialism is the yes/no voting system of the budget. It is bolshevik socialism.

Voting with percentages is menshevik socialism.

Well, I doubt you'll find any bolsheviks or mensheviks on the dash forum. Plenty of greedy capitalists though.

Why don't you join us? Jump in for the big win!

It's still early. Dash is still sub $10. Get yourself a MN and we'll all be rich in 12 months!

Socialism will be a distant memory when we all meet up on a tropical island sipping champagne.

 

[demo]

Well, I doubt you'll find any bolsheviks or mensheviks on the dash forum. Plenty of greedy capitalists though.

Of course you are bolsheviks . Do you know what bolsheviks means in russian? The people of the majority. The yes/no voting system in the budget is in favor of the majority.

Voting with numbers and percentages allows the minorities to breath. Do you know how the minority people were called in russian? mensheviks . And as we all now, the bolsheviks after sending mensheviks to siberia-exile, they established USSR. And we all know what the fate of USSR was.

This is what you, the bolsheviks, are doing right now, to me and to any other minority here. You are sending minorities to the exile. But as long as deep inside we are all minorities, in fact you are not sending minorities to the exile, you are sending yourself to the exile, because the minority is the metropolitan city and the majority is the exile. And you are going to fail, because the failure is the fate of every bolshevik which oppresses and sends to the exile the mensheviks.

 

[raganius]

Socialist ideas are not only hypocritical, socialism in immoral and criminal.

Marx is the worst crimminal I am aware of. Because of his fallacious ideas lies, billions have died, and are still dying.

Statism is Socialism, so anyone who defends Statism is immoral, hypocritical and criminal.

Finally, as @halso already said, this is a cryptocurrency we are building. Cryptocurrencies are weapons to fight against Statism, Communism, Socialism, and all other lies that are more and more dominant in the world.

Greed and inequality are not problems, actually these are the best thing in the world, because they make the individual need to fight against poverty.

Poverty is the natural state. Animals are poor. Men are naturally poor. To overcome poverty, the individual will user their habilities.

To fight against poverty, one does not need the Government intervention. One just need to create value, with work.

The wealthy person is the person that produces value, and values brings benefits,

The inneficient will stay in poverty, because they do not create value, in reality, they only create losses.

Government intervention is theft and violence. Its immoral.

Robin Hood ideas of robbing from the wealthy to give to the inneficient is IMMORAL, and that's Socialism.

As an example, companies that add value will succeed and grow. Companies which indistries are not interesting for consummers will break. This is healthy and natural. But when the Governments intervene, they hold an unnatural and dangerous situation (And this is not Capitalism, this is Corporativism).

Another exemple, I work hard, and bring a proposal that benefits the community. The budget funds my idea, and everyone benefits. But you bring a terrible proposal, but just because you and your friends approve it, you will benefit from the money (that could be better used for a real useful project) and only you will benefit, no one else. IMMORAL. It will be robbing funds from good ideas for the benefit of bad ideas.

Moral relativism is considered your below phrase.

"If an eventual group of individuals believe in an idea, but most of the other individuals from the community does not want it, it would be a CRIME to have this idea funded from the common budget!""

You do not define the numbers, so that your moral to be relative to your personal interests.

And I say that as long as there is no theory on what "eventual" or "most" should be, those numbers should be voted. And this is not moral relativism.

No

If something is immoral, it will be immoral, no matter what the numbers are.

Statists (Socialists, Communists, and all these bunch of crooks) are always moral relativistis, and this is disgusting.

 

[demo]

Socialist ideas are not only hypocritical, socialism in immoral and criminal.

Marx is the worst crimminal I am aware of. Because of his fallacious ideas lies, billions have died, and are still dying.

Statism is Socialism, so anyone who defends Statism is immoral, hypocritical and criminal.

Finally, as @halso already said, this is a cryptocurrency we are building. Cryptocurrencies are weapons to fight against Statism, Communism, Socialism, and all other lies that are more and more dominant in the world.

Greed and inequality are not problems, actually these are the best thing in the world, because they make the individual need to fight against poverty.

Poverty is the natural state. Animals are poor. Men are naturally poor. To overcome poverty, the individual will user their habilities.

To fight against poverty, one does not need the Government intervention. One just need to create value, with work.

The wealthy person is the person that produces value, and values brings benefits,

The inneficient will stay in poverty, because they do not create value, in reality, they only create losses.

Government intervention is theft and violence. Its immoral.

Robin Hood ideas of robbing from the wealthy to give to the inneficient is IMMORAL, and that's Socialism.

As an example, companies that add value will succeed and grow. Companies which indistries are not interesting for consummers will break. This is healthy and natural. But when the Governments intervene, they hold an unnatural and dangerous situation (And this is not Capitalism, this is Corporativism).

Another exemple, I work hard, and bring a proposal that benefits the community. The budget funds my idea, and everyone benefits. But you bring a terrible proposal, but just because you and your friends approve it, you will benefit from the money (that could be better used for a real useful project) and only you will benefit, no one else. IMMORAL. It will be robbing funds from good ideas for the benefit of bad ideas.




No

If something is immoral, it will be immoral, no matter what the numbers are.

Statists (Socialists, Communists, and all these bunch of crooks) are always moral relativistis, and this is disgusting.

Yeah Yeah...

Only that you forgot to mention that statism is also the way dash is created and operates.

There is the dash state governed by Evan and his core team. There is the budget percentage strictly defined to 10% by Evan and his core team. They intervene by setting the budget to their favorite percentage, dont they?

And all the rest of you are the faithful servants of the dash state, which are prohibited to decide and set the budget to 0%, or to 100% , or to whatever their opinion and their vote is.

And of course dash is also bolshevism, as long as the majority always rules, and as long as the yes/no voting system sends the minorities to the exile.

So If you are looking for statism, put your dash community (put yourself) in the mirror.

And what am I proposing? Vote with numbers, to crash statism.

 

[raganius]

Yeah Yeah...

Only that you forgot to mention that statism is also the way dash is created and operates.

There is the dash state governed by Evan and his core team. There is the budget percentage strictly defined to 10% by Evan and his core team. They intervene by setting the budget to their favorite percentage, dont they?

And all the rest of you are the faithful servants of the dash state, which are prohibited to set the budget to 0%, or to 100% , or to whatever their opinion and their vote is.

And of course dash is also bolshevism, as long the yes/no voting system sends the minorities to the exile, and the majority always rules.

So If you are looking for statism, put your dash community (put yourself) in the mirror.


And what I am proposing? Vote with numbers, to crash statism.

nonsense... there is no coercion here

 

[demo]

nonsense... there is no coercion here

There is no coercion here, because this is digital life and not real life. You are an exact mirror of statism in the digital life, and you do not coerce simply because you cannot, simply because in digital life it is very hard to coerce.

I am sure that if you could coerce, you would do it. The same happened with other big digital companies, they initially started with no coercion, and when they became monopolies they started coercion.

You have already the structure of coercion in your dash state, because you are an exact mirror of a state. Τhe state is above all hierarchy, because with the help of hierarchy the state has the power to intervene without asking the others or against the will of the others. And your dash state is formed strictly hierarchical because some people here have also the power to intervene without asking the others or against the will of the others. So you repeat statism almost tottaly, until its very tiny details, in a digital form of course. And because of this mirroring, you will start coercion whenever (and if) you will become dominant.

And what am I proposing? Vote with numbers and percentages, in order to crash dash's hierarchy, to crash dash's bolshevism, to crash the present dash's statism and the future dash's coercion.

 

[TroyDASH]

It should be voted. Those who have voting rights should cast a triple percentage vote. For example I say 30-40-30, and Evan says 45-45-10, so the result is
37,5 Mining reward-42,5 MasterNode reward-20 Budget

Thanks for your responses, and without getting into the politics, I will try to explain why I don't agree -

What your model fails to account for is that people are not incentivized to vote according to exactly what they would like to see. Take for example, the budget is currently 45-45-10, and let's assume that most people agree that 45-45-10 is good. But let's say I would rather it to be 40-40-20. In this system, am I going to vote 40-40-20? No, because by "voting with numbers", I can vote towards the extreme in order to influence the end result. I would vote something like 10-10-80, or 0-0-100 to force the average in my direction even though obviously I don't actually want it to be 0-0-100. It gives too much power to outlier votes. The fact that people are incentivized to vote on the extremes rather than what they actually want, means that the end result of the weighted vote is not representative of the actual consensus.

However, the more general idea of dynamically allocated budgeting has already had a discussion here, which I am not entirely against, and it could potentially allow for more flexibility and not have the major flaws that this "voting with numbers" idea has.

It will be funded even with one dash. People can change their vote, and turn it to 0 dash, if someone do not funish his work.

Yes proposals get funded not to the requested amount, but to the amount it is given to them. The funding amount is like an auction. I ask an amount, they give me another, and I sign or not the contract in order to start working.

The votes are expressed as percentage of the total allocation , so the amounts cannot exceed the DGBB total allocation.

This is a major problem because in real life if you are hiring someone to do work, you can't give them just a small percentage of the asking price. You have to give them the entire amount or they won't do the work. This means that proposal creators will be incentivized to create proposals for significantly more DASH than is actually needed, in hopes that the percentage they actually get from the network is sufficient. This system also incentivizes scammers to make proposals for 100% of the budget. They can bribe masternode owners for their votes in exchange for a cut of the proceeds, which are inflated because even with a small number of votes, you can get a nice chunk of change if your 100% of the budget proposal is distributed by an average. When we make a system like this, incentives are incredibly important -- and having a system that incentivizes abuse just won't work.

Finnaly, there is also a tree like voting. For example:
First we cast a percentage vote about Mining reward-MasterNode reward-Budget. And then in a poll that depends on the result of the first, we cast a percentage vote on the Budget for specific proposals. The second voting depends on the result of the first one. Thats why we say that polls are dependant eachother. The result of a poll affects the result of another poll. Thats why a dependant poll structure should be built.

I don't necessarily have anything against this, and would be interested in ideas about the ability to set up a more complex decision-making system, but this I think is an entirely different subject from the "voting with numbers" and universal dividend.

 

[demo]

Thanks for your responses, and without getting into the politics, I will try to explain why I don't agree -
What your model fails to account for is that people are not incentivized to vote according to exactly what they would like to see. Take for example, the budget is currently 45-45-10, and let's assume that most people agree that 45-45-10 is good. But let's say I would rather it to be 40-40-20. In this system, am I going to vote 40-40-20? No, because by "voting with numbers", I can vote towards the extreme in order to influence the end result. I would vote something like 10-10-80, or 0-0-100 to force the average in my direction even though obviously I don't actually want it to be 0-0-100. It gives too much power to outlier votes. The fact that people are incentivized to vote on the extremes rather than what they actually want, means that the end result of the weighted vote is not representative of the actual consensus.

You are right. People will vote to the extremes. This is an obvious consequence of the system I propose. But the vote in that system does not represent what people really believe and want, but whether they want the current result (the status quo) to be increased or decreased.
People are incentivized to vote on the extremes, but the result is representative of the actual consensus, because if the result is lower than someone believes it should be, then this person is always allowed to change his vote and vote to the opossite extreme. You have to understand that voting exactly what you believe is a wrong way of voting. It is not very important how big you believe a number should be, the most important thing is what others believe about that number. And when you vote, you must primarily take into account the opinions of the others, and not your opinion. Your opinion (and your voting attitude) strictly depends on the opinions of the others. This is what games theory also claims. People must accustom to vote taking into account games theory, taking into account the opinion of the others. They should stop voting like if they were alone in this world, and this applies to any kind of voting and not only to number voting.

This is a major problem because in real life if you are hiring someone to do work, you can't give them just a small percentage of the asking price. You have to give them the entire amount or they won't do the work. This means that proposal creators will be incentivized to create proposals for significantly more DASH than is actually needed, in hopes that the percentage they actually get from the network is sufficient. This system also incentivizes scammers to make proposals for 100% of the budget. They can bribe masternode owners for their votes in exchange for a cut of the proceeds, which are inflated because even with a small number of votes, you can get a nice chunk of change if your 100% of the budget proposal is distributed by an average. When we make a system like this, incentives are incredibly important -- and having a system that incentivizes abuse just won't work.

There is not any problem with scammers making proposals for 100% of the budget. You understood me wrong.
You are not allowed to make a proposal asking 100% of the budget. You are just allowed to make the proposal. Thats all. You are also allowed to declare that you are going to start working only if the votes of the Masternode owners will reach your favorite percentage threshold. But the actual percentage of the budget you receive for your proposal is exclusively the job of the masternode owners. The masternode owners are the ones who vote with percentages, not you. The average is only applied to the opinions of the MO. Your own opinion as a proposal maker is not taken into account for any average or for any other arithmetic operation. The only thing you can can do, is to deny or to accept a budget percentage given to your proposal by the masternode owners. Not to mention that MO have the power to change the percentage whenever they wish, as long as the vote never ends. So scammers are tottaly eliminated.

 

[Druid]

Man, this is crypto town. You are trying to sell socialism to a bunch of libertarians trying to disrupt the government backed global financial system.

You might have more luck selling hamburgers at a vegan convention.

That. Thank you, sir, for expressing my thoughts with words.

 

[TroyDASH]

You are right. People will vote to the extremes. This is an obvious consequence of the system I propose. But the vote in that system does not represent what people really believe and want, but whether they want the current result (the status quo) to be increased or decreased.
People are incentivized to vote on the extremes, but the result is representative of the actual consensus, because if the result is lower than someone believes it should be, then this person is always allowed to change his vote and vote to the opossite extreme. You have to understand that voting exactly what you believe is a wrong way of voting. It is not very important how big you believe a number should be, the most important thing is what others believe about that number. And when you vote, you must primarily take into account the opinions of the others, and not your opinion. Your opinion (and your voting attitude) strictly depends on the opinions of the others. This is what games theory also claims. People must accustom to vote taking into account games theory, taking into account the opinion of the others. They should stop voting like if they were alone in this world, and this applies to any kind of voting and not only to number voting.

There is not any problem with scammers making proposals for 100% of the budget. You understood me wrong.

You are not allowed to make a proposal asking 100% of the budget. You are just allowed to make the proposal. Thats all. You are also allowed to declare that you are going to start working only if the votes of the MO will reach your favorite percentage threshold.

But the percentage of the budget you receive for your proposal is the job of the masternode owners. The masternode owners are the ones who vote with percentages. The only thing you can can do, is to deny or to accept a budget percentage given to your proposal by the masternode owners.

Getting closer. I think the scammer is still a problem because even if there is no "proposed amount", anyone with a proposal is incentivized to bribe masternode owners to vote 100% on their proposal. Makes for a very strange dynamic where the votes may be more driven by how much is being kicked back to the masternode owners in the short term, than the long term benefit to the network. It also does not solve the problem that in real life there are actual contracts for specific amounts of money. This will result in a glut of underfunded projects.

In any case, I think you would do very well to separate your ideas out. You came into this thread going all gangbusters with web of trust, universal dividend and at the same time insisting that we change the protocol so that the way budgets are allocated, and the way the entire block reward is distributed are completely revamped in order for your idea to get funding. Take it one thing at a time. Right now in the current framework it appears you simply don't have enough support to get our people working on a universal dividend or to get a project like that funded, so I would recommend that you put this on the back burner. However the other questions about how the DGBB budget gets allocated among the proposals, and whether we can make the entire block reward allocation more dynamic, those are entirely different areas and should be talked about separately. You should also keep in mind that our project is still very young, and we really only have one core development team, and that development team still has more control over the vision for the project's future than you might have been led to believe by some of the hype about Dash's decentralized governance. The people who are actually programming and testing the protocol are also the ones who are most qualified to answer questions about technical feasibility. The best way to submit your ideas to the community is to clearly describe exactly what you are trying to accomplish and how, and in a way that is not antagonistic towards the development team.

/ramble

 

[demo]

In any case, I think you would do very well to separate your ideas out. You came into this thread going all gangbusters with web of trust, universal dividend and at the same time insisting that we change the protocol so that the way budgets are allocated, and the way the entire block reward is distributed are completely revamped in order for your idea to get funding. Take it one thing at a time. Right now in the current framework it appears you simply don't have enough support to get our people working on a universal dividend or to get a project like that funded, so I would recommend that you put this on the back burner.
/ramble

I am not asking a fund for myself, or a fund for whoever is going to implement the universal dividend in dash code. I asked a fund for the universal dividend itself, a some to be allocated and to be given to the (future) persons who are going to claim they deserve that dividend. If a some for the dividend is allocated, then I (or someone else) may start implementing the code (for socialistic reasons, for sure).

If the Masternode owners are only allowed to vote yes/no, and the majority rule is applied, then the universal dividend has no hope at all (taking into account the greed around here). But If the Masternode owners are allowed to vote with numbers, and the result is calculated with the average, then I hope someone to vote in favor of the universal dividend. Because I dont believe all MOs are greedy capitalists here, and because I believe that some MOs here are smart capitalists, and they understand that if they tottaly reject the universal dividend, this will be their fatal error and a catastrophic decision for dash. So in that case a small amount of universal dividend is going to be allocated.

Thats why I changed my tactic, I changed my visible opinion. It is the games theory, applied.

 

[tungfa]

i think the community vote is VERY clear regarding this idea
i think you should accept it, as you asked for it

 

[demo]

i think the community vote is VERY clear regarding this idea
i think you should accept it, as you asked for it

This is not the community of the Masternode Owners. This is just a hint of what the masternode owners may vote.

if you are a bolshevik, you see a clear no in this vote result.
But if you are not, you see 195 dash per month.

 

[TroyDASH]

I am not asking a fund for myself, or a fund for whoever is going to implement the universal dividend in dash code. I asked a fund for the universal dividend itself, a some to be allocated and to be given to the (future) persons who are going to claim they deserve that dividend. If a some for the dividend is allocated, then I (or someone else) may start implementing the code (for socialistic reasons, for sure).

If the Masternode owners are only allowed to vote yes/no, then universal dividend has no hope at all, taking into account the greed around here. But If the Masternode owners are allowed to vote with numbers, then I hope some one to vote in favor of the universal dividend. Because I dont believe all MO are greedy capitalist here. And in that case a small amount of universal dividend is going to be allocated.

Thats why I changed my tactic. It is games theory applied.

If the universal dividend is going to be in the code itself, then the infrastructure would need to be coded *before* any funding happens, unless you are hiring a developer or developers specifically to implement it. Right now the Masternode owners are only allowed to vote yes/no, and this vote determines only how the budget is allocated, not what features get implemented in the protocol. If you want it to be any other way, then tackle that first. Personally I think changes to the way budgets are allocated, or the way the block reward is allocated, is within the realm of possibility because it has already been done before (eg. the introduction of masternodes, although I wouldn't expect any radical changes and certainly not overnight). And governance over project direction is a different subject as well, which is imo, your biggest problem, because right now ultimately if the development team does not want to build a feature or if they think it is not feasible, then no amount of voting will ever be able to fix that.

 

[TroyDASH]

This is not the community of the Masternode Owners. This is just a hint of what the mansternode owners may vote.

And if you are α bolshevik, you see a clear no in this vote result.
But if you are not, you see 195 dash per month.

I would be interested to see what the masternodes would vote if you can arrange a proposal I would guess it would be even more overwhelmingly "no" than the forum result.

 

[demo]

If the universal dividend is going to be in the code itself, then the infrastructure would need to be coded *before* any funding happens, unless you are hiring a developer or developers specifically to implement it. Right now the Masternode owners are only allowed to vote yes/no, and this vote determines only how the budget is allocated, not what features get implemented in the protocol. If you want it to be any other way, then tackle that first. Personally I think changes to the way budgets are allocated, or the way the block reward is allocated, is within the realm of possibility because it has already been done before (eg. the introduction of masternodes, although I wouldn't expect any radical changes and certainly not overnight). And governance over project direction is a different subject as well, which is imo, your biggest problem, because right now ultimately if the development team does not want to build a feature or if they think it is not feasible, then no amount of voting will ever be able to fix that.

Of course not. We can also allocate an amount for the universal dividend, before creating the infrastructure. If this is the decision of the MOs, who is about to refuse it?

But in order for a some to be allocated for the universal dividend, first we need to allow MOs to vote with numbers. There is a strong majority here against the dividend, so the Bolsheviks will never allow such a thing unless we make them vote with numbers.

MOs may accept voting with numbers, because this affects not only the universal dividend (which is not important to them, who cares about 195 dash??), but also some other very important aspects, like their freedom for example.

 

[TroyDASH]

Of course not. We can also allocate an amount for the universal dividend, before creating the infrastructure. If this is the decision of the MOs, who is about to refuse it?

Why would we need to allocate an amount before creating the infrastructure? The only way to do that in the present framework would be for someone trusted to actually submit a proposal and collect/hold the funds. Or do you just want a vote on the issue (with no funding attached), to see what the masternode owners think? Either way, are you willing to fund the proposal? It costs 5 DASH to submit

 

[demo]

Why would we need to allocate an amount before creating the infrastructure? The only way to do that in the present framework would be for someone trusted to actually submit a proposal and collect/hold the funds. Or do you just want a vote on the issue (with no funding attached), to see what the masternode owners think? Either way, are you willing to fund the proposal? It costs 5 DASH to submit

It is meaningles to spend 5 dash, just to see what a majority of capitalists thinks. I dont care what their majority think. I care about their minority.
It is also meaningless to propose 195 dash for the universal dividend. 195 is a hypothetical number, based in the hypothesis that MOs are similar to the people voted here.

But I would like to make a proposal for allowing the MOs to be able to vote with numbers. If they accept that proposal, then everything else follows.