It seems the norm that every proposal asks for their five dash back if it's successful... so instead of burning it right away, why don't you modify the protocol so that it's only burned on failure and reimbursed if successful?
Five Dash Unburned
- Thread starter GrandMasterDash
- Start date
demo
Well-known member
The 5 dash are not burned. Burning coins is a specific procedure. I still do not understand where those 5 dash go. Does anyone knows?
demo
Well-known member
This is a job. Why dont you make a proposal in the budget about it? Or if you dont know how much this job costs, why dont you make a budget proposal about an alternative budget, and when this alternative budget is created, then you can make this protocol change proposal?
What do you expect, the developers to work for free upon your request?
Developers are listening only to themsevles, to the budget, and to Evan. They are not listening to you.
The 5 dash are not burned. Nobody knows where those dash go. This is maybe one of the reasons they dont want to focus for changes in the protocol, regarding those 5 dash.
Last edited:
Proof of burn != burning
Burning coins means performing such operations that these coins cannot be ever spent. Proof of burn is just one of the implementation of the procedure which relies on the fact that you cannot brute-force privkey even knowing pubkey/address. Another implementation of the procedure is sending coins to data output which can't be spent by protocol design https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/null-data-transaction.
Process:
prepare proposal rpc comand https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/rpcmasternode-budget.cpp#L119
creates transaction where one output is OP_RETURN https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/wallet.cpp#L2051
and its amount is BUDGET_FEE_TX https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/wallet.cpp#L2056
i.e. 5 DASH https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/masternode-budget.h#L35
Modifying protocol in the described way would mean adding complexity in script validation for the whole network which also would rely on budget voting i.e. on some off-chain data which can't be really proved after some period of time. "amount + 5 DASH" calculation which must be made by budget proposal submitter seems like a much simpler and robust solution to me
Burning coins means performing such operations that these coins cannot be ever spent. Proof of burn is just one of the implementation of the procedure which relies on the fact that you cannot brute-force privkey even knowing pubkey/address. Another implementation of the procedure is sending coins to data output which can't be spent by protocol design https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/null-data-transaction.
Process:
prepare proposal rpc comand https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/rpcmasternode-budget.cpp#L119
creates transaction where one output is OP_RETURN https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/wallet.cpp#L2051
and its amount is BUDGET_FEE_TX https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/wallet.cpp#L2056
i.e. 5 DASH https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/masternode-budget.h#L35
Modifying protocol in the described way would mean adding complexity in script validation for the whole network which also would rely on budget voting i.e. on some off-chain data which can't be really proved after some period of time. "amount + 5 DASH" calculation which must be made by budget proposal submitter seems like a much simpler and robust solution to me
demo
Well-known member
Last edited:
demo
Well-known member
Instead of sending to OP_RETURN, why not sending to OP_TRUE?
The OP_TRUE mechanism maybe used to create fidelity bonds (a cryptographic identity expensive to obtain). Can a fidelity bond identity used as an alternative of trust? If yes, then you may also sell fidelity bonds, and give voting rights to the fidelity bond identities... Because the fidelity in the dash network (that is proved by owning 1000 dash) is the required property of the masternodes in order to gain their voting rights (according amanda's arguments)
I never liked the idea of burning coins, another alternative may be the five dash fee to be added to the next budget.
Last edited:
How about putting the five dash in a quorum multisig then returning to originator if proposal successful? I don't know if that is anywhere close to an answer, it just seems a bit of waste to burn them regardless.
demo
Well-known member
It is a waste for those who do not own DASH coins.
But for those who own DASH coins, it is a profit, because when you burn DASH, total DASH coins diminish in number, thus each coin becomes more valuable.
That's only theory, in practice it doesn't mean much. How many bitcoin or dash will never be used again? - because people die and keys never recovered. People lose backups. People try once, give up. Or addresses may be filled and remembered yet purposely dormant... who knows? Value is in human circulation, supply has very little to do with it. So maybe it's just not important to save those five dashes -----
I'm still waiting for a crypto where people must accept or decline money received.
noobtrader
Active member
i actually think that in the future it might be a good idea to issue tail emission to compensate those lost dash from voting mechanism. plenty of time to consider this idea though.