We should change voting from Masternodes to EVERYONE

[demo]

and then if 51% or more of the shares in a particular node vote in one direction thats what the vote of that node will become.

What you are doing with this 51% threshold is to create masternode political parties. Nobody is happy inside political parties, because the ordinary people may agree with some ideas of a specific political party, but usally they also agree with some other ideas of another political party. If you apply this 51% then you trap the people inside the masternode political parties and you prohibit their right to express their opinion accurately.

Is this what you want? It is your right to want whatever you want, but on the other hand, shame on you. By applying a 51% threshold, you are trying to weaken more the vote of the poor.

The single vote of a shared masternode should be chopped in small independant pieces, having at least 4 decimals each one, and the pieces should be given to the shareholders. So that poor people having shares in one masternode to be able to be counted in the final result added together with other poor people having shares in another masternode (and having the same opinion with the first ones in the specific issue).

 

[bhkien]

Things as currently stand prevent some Bitcoin investors from moving over to Dash.
Meni Rosenfeld, the head of Bitcoin Israel community said that voting should be fair for all people, not only the rich.

Social protocol is just as important, if not more so, than a network protocol.
In reality it will not change very much, because MNs have most of the coins. But (!). We should allow the small people get heard.

Opportunities are always fair for everyone, but it not free or cheap. If someone who really wants to vote, he will try many ways to get enough Dash for a masternode.

 

[Technologov]

> If someone who really wants to vote, he will try many ways to get enough Dash for a masternode.

Ha ha ha. Are you for real ?

Do you know that at today's price Dash Masternode *already* costs more than a Real-Estate property in Kiev, Ukraine ? (there are lots of R.E. properties for the grab at around $30,000-to-$50,000)
And this is before most of the planet even realizes that Dash even exists !!! (even among computer geeks)

And what-if in several years a Masternode price breaks a $1 million dollar point ? (with Dash crossing a $1000)

 

[toknormal]

You are a liar, you lie to the others and to yourself.

Hey, thanks for letting me know.

At least I understand the "scientific method" though. I'm not quite sure you do looking at that proposal you linked

 

[toknormal]

> If someone who really wants to vote, he will try many ways to get enough Dash for a masternode.
Ha ha ha. Are you for real ?
Do you know that at today's price Dash Masternode *already* costs more than a Real-Estate property in Kiev, Ukraine ?

That isn't really a problem for the protocol to solve.

As far as the network is concerned, a node is the most granular unit of expression since the network is composed of nothing other than nodes and the collateral amount is largely arbitrary. (It's set in Dash so the market sets its exchange rate against other currencies). It could be set at 200 Dash and the market might then value that at several million dollars.

The protocol doesn't care about who owns what or how much. It only requires that a node issues a single coherent vote regardless of who, how or how many people control that node. How that gets done and how 'accessible' it is to everybody is a concern for holders, node operators and even markets, but not the protocol.

The fact that people are p*ssd off that they can't easily vote actually pleases me because it's a sign of how secure and well thought out the Dash voting system is. The protocol doesn't *require* anybody to own 1000 Dash before they can vote but it does require you to either:

1. co-ordinate constructively enough with other holders to be able to issue a coherent signal through a single node

or...

2. invest sufficient capital in the network to an extent that you don't have to

 

[bhkien]

> If someone who really wants to vote, he will try many ways to get enough Dash for a masternode.

Ha ha ha. Are you for real ?

Do you know that at today's price Dash Masternode *already* costs more than a Real-Estate property in Kiev, Ukraine ? (there are lots of R.E. properties for the grab at around $30,000-to-$50,000)
And this is before most of the planet even realizes that Dash even exists !!! (even among computer geeks)

And what-if in several years a Masternode price breaks a $1 million dollar point ? (with Dash crossing a $1000)

The masternode system is a way to get wisdom from people who have great faith in Dash, or people who has good financial capability to make decisions for every proposal.

Why we put so much important things to people who don't have enough capability or people who don't really believe in it?

If price of Dash go up, we have much better people to work for Dash ecosystem to make wiser decisions.

 

[Technologov]

>Why we put so much important things to people who don't have enough capability or people who don't really believe in it?

Because investors start small. When I had only $1000 dollars to invest, that's all I had after my Army service, I invested it in stocks, and went to investor meeting with it. And even voted with it. In traditional corporations, here in Israel. Investors grow mentally and financially, and we must allow such growth to exist, even if someone has only $100 dollars worth to invest.

Of course his vote will be very tiny, according to the amount of shares, but he should be able to vote and voice opinion.

 

[toknormal]

@Technologov I think you misinterpret the governance model.

The Dash network is not a democracy system. It isn't the "people" who have the vote, it's the nodes. The network is a machine and in order to 'steer' that machine it's necessary to get control of the steering wheel which is the nodes, just like if you want to take control of a ship you need to get control of the bridge, the engine room, the ancillary services and so on.

Transfering the voting power from the nodes to the holders directly would be potentially catastrophic and far less secure. The governance mechanism in Dash is decentralised. That means that the protocol does not concern itself with who controls a node or how many people, just like a ship does not concern itself with who crews it or what qualifications they need.

In years to come, if Dash continues its marketcap growth, almost no single person will hold enough Dash to control an entire node on their own. This will have the effect of forcing the holding community to structure itself in some kind of effective way that it can facilitate the management of nodes. I don't know how Evolution is gonig to advance this model but there's likely to be at least some changes in that direction.

 

[Nyk]

I know Evolution is already starting to change this masternode system (for the better imo), but people need to stop talking like the little guy who doesn't have a lot of money or wasn't involved in dash early doesn't matter(these people should be your target users)... First off you have no idea how invested someone is.. 60k$ is nothing to some people in this world and 6000$ is way to much for others.. I'd argue that someone throwing down their life savings of 6k$ would be way more invested in Dash and its future than a millionaire throwing in 60k$. I understand there's no way to calculate this, but to say "Dash is not a democracy" or "working as intended" is a bad mindset to have for the future of Dash. We should constantly strive to look for whats best for everyone.. In the end people will be using the crypto currency that gives them the most back.. If Dash doesn't do it someone else will

 

[Vedran Yoweri]

We should constantly strive to look for whats best for everyone.

Let's do what's good for Dash.
Leave the doing good "for the people" to your favorite politician.

 

[BagOfMonkeys]

Have you not thought about bad actors and if we let everyone vote they can easily vote to hurt the network??

The reason to have the barrier of entry so high to vote is it will ensure the people who vote are doing so to benefit the network, not hurt it. If they vote to hurt the network they stand to lose their own investment. Think of the MN owners as board members of the network, not every man and his dog who thinks they have a say when they dont put their money where their mouth is.

What is to stop the NSA, FBI, any central government or bad actors buying up loads of Masternodes?
The fact that Masternode owners control the direction of the Dash project weakens the decentralization aspect of the currency in my opinion.

 

[crowning]

What is to stop the NSA, FBI, any central government or bad actors buying up loads of Masternodes?

The price.
Once you buy 1000 DASH for a Masternode, the price goes up. Not significantly, but it does.
Buy 100 Masternodes and the price will go up significantly.
Try to buy 1000 Masternodes and you'd already have a _really_ hard time finding those 1000000 DASH on the market. And you'd still have less than 25% of all Masternodes.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Well, if we can put our faith in 12 random people to uphold criminal law, then I'm sure it won't take 4000+ MNs to come to a reasonable decision. However - and it's a big however! - if we want dash (or any other DAO) to be successful, then we must break down every wall between the DAO and it's users, real or otherwise. Users want to know there is fairness and known determined outcomes. It's nothing to do with "democracy" etc, they simply want to feel inclusive. Bitcoin's blocksize debate is just one example; many people are in the alts because of uncertainty and they're sick of all the in-fighting. The majority of people expected an "Electronic Cash System".. it's no wonder they've arrived at Dash - Digital Cash. But where's the checks-and-balances? I've said this for years; in crypto, the only thing that matters is relevance. There's nothing mathematic, scientific or deterministic about reading forums and "listening" to your customers, there has to be a mechanism to close the loop and stay on track.

 

[BagOfMonkeys]

The price.
Once you buy 1000 DASH for a Masternode, the price goes up. Not significantly, but it does.
Buy 100 Masternodes and the price will go up significantly.
Try to buy 1000 Masternodes and you'd already have a _really_ hard time finding those 1000000 DASH on the market. And you'd still have less than 25% of all Masternodes.

Ok, but price can be manipulated to some extent, especially with the budgets available to the "bad actors" given in the example. I suppose the underlying issue is with the concept of decentralization in Dash - what is the difference between Masternode owners and a Central Bank? If decisions around Dash are only made by Masternode Owners, how is it a decentralized currency? Is Masternode Owner not another name for Central Bank?

 

[crowning]

Ok, but price can be manipulated to some extent, especially with the budgets available to the "bad actors" given in the example. I suppose the underlying issue is with the concept of decentralization in Dash - what is the difference between Masternode owners and a Central Bank? If decisions around Dash are only made by Masternode Owners, how is it a decentralized currency? Is Masternode Owner not another name for Central Bank?

I guess (but don't know obviously) that there are 500-1000 unique Masternode owners. So with your reasoning we'd have 500-1000 Central Banks, spread over most continents.
Doesn't sound very "central" to me.

 

[BagOfMonkeys]

It doesn't sound central currently, but only because there are many Masternode owners, each owning relatively few Masternodes.

The worry in the future is if only a handful of Masternode owners end up controlling all Masternodes.

As a digital currency, I presume geographical location would be irrelevant.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Imo, 4k+ MNs is certainly enough but I think people want transparency; independent proof of distribution, that it's not all tied up in the hands of a few. It's just a pity we can't incentivise exchanges (and other KYC processors) to do some kind of audit. I think an independent audit is possible while protecting MNOs public identity.

The comparison with central banks is not that good because anyone with enough money (including protestors) can buy their way in... it's just that a significant minority is not willing to trust and that's why dash needs to deal with transparency and independent audits.

 

[Thomas Head-Rapson]

The fact that only masternodes can vote is a feature - not a bug. I would definitely not change that. Crowning slam dunked it - if anyone who incidentally buys 0.1 Dash on an exchange can vote you're basically opening up 'governance' to non-stakeholders en masse.

It isn't a recipe for 'unity' it's s recipe for disintegration.

Anyway, masternode shares are increasingly the popular option and Evolution will probably make them trustless so the idea that 1 masternode = 1 person is rapidly disappearing.

They would be invested, just not so much as someone else with more skin in this particular game.

Sent from my GEM-701L using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas Head-Rapson]

I dont agree its a problem at all, 4300 is pretty dame decentralised. I mean up until this point most of the largest corporations in the world have decisions made by a handful of people that can sit around one table. But regardless I still think that eventually anyone who wants to vote that holds some dash will be able to via shares in nodes and then if 51% or more of the shares in a particular node vote in one direction thats what the vote of that node will become.

4300 is much more decentralised than some of the current global systems we have, but 7 billion or so
would be even more so, and completely inclusive.

Sent from my GEM-701L using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas Head-Rapson]

> If someone who really wants to vote, he will try many ways to get enough Dash for a masternode.

Ha ha ha. Are you for real ?

Do you know that at today's price Dash Masternode *already* costs more than a Real-Estate property in Kiev, Ukraine ? (there are lots of R.E. properties for the grab at around $30,000-to-$50,000)
And this is before most of the planet even realizes that Dash even exists !!! (even among computer geeks)

And what-if in several years a Masternode price breaks a $1 million dollar point ? (with Dash crossing a $1000)

An 18T economy, ie. Dash market cap, would lead to Dash reaching 1M USD(if all dash mined, greater if not) , and a MN needing 1B USD. Just some numbers to think about.

Sent from my GEM-701L using Tapatalk