Budget Proposal - Proof of Labour

[juliomoros]

It's too big. Re-writing money... its a huge and extremely important subject but far too big for a single budget proposal (one I'd be very interested in discussing in another thread though). As I see it there are 2 areas in your paper that fit in with current development in Dash and one in particular with a lot of cross platform potential and could even be considered a currency in its own right, that's the trust system.

At the moment Dashes DAPI is under development and that includes user identities, in my opinion that's an extremely important area and I feel it will be at the very centre of how we use the internet in the near future and should be a key area of development. There are several arguments against that, the most important is Dash is a cryptocurrency project, not a social platform and I'd agree to some degree, Dash is digital cash, the money we're familiar with in digital form and social connections have no part in that. However, trust can be considered a currency and has been recognised as one in the past and likely will again in the future but in the present day it's an alien concept.

Another argument against any kind of development budget is development already has a budget. Personally I think we're at the point where that needs some consideration, a general budget has been very effective up to now but the project is growing fast and has several areas that could be developed independently so some sort of sub-division of development funds could be needed at some stage.

That leads to the second area where parts of your proposal coincide with current development, there has been some discussion on an update to the budgeting system and part of that is contracts. Discussion so far is on contracts as part of budgets, contractual obligations, funding cancellation clauses, that kind of thing but I think it's likely that will develop into a smart contract system to perform a wide range of budgeting operations automatically. That's a key part of the budgeting system though and I doubt there'd be much support for independent development, an independent trust system using simple identities provided by the Dash network would be the most favourable direction imho.

That would be a major undertaking though and would likely need a good reputation to get any kind of support, have you any open source projects, github repositories etc. as examples? I'd like to see Dash supporting development of a wide variety of independent projects but we seem to be at a turning point for that at the moment and it will probably take a lot of reputation building for any independent project to be funded up-front, ie. projects would need to be developed and then request funding rather than request funding for development.

I agree, it is a very ambitious project.

In every project there is a first stage to be developed, and it is the conceptual design. We wrote our proposal as a first explanation for the conceptual.
By the other hand, the needed development budget dash community already have, as I understand it, is for people working at the detailed stage for several projects.

Before to start a coding project, is usefull to seek for previous development. May be all the solutions we need for our proposal, already exist, and we just need put all them together.
The work we like to do is some like the next step after a conceptual design: Specific technical papers explaining how every idea can be accoplished, and what are the open source projects already done or in development right now.

If we step into the lucky to find already-made code, it great!, work saved.

Concerning your question about our backgrounds on coding, Oscar has some participation in projects on Hit Hub, but we do not have any of our own yet. I know is a main concern to you, and I have to be honest. I hope to help on the conceptual and math foudations for the code, and Oscar hopes to help a lot in the coding area.

As always I appreciate your interest on our proposal.

Regards

 

[juliomoros]

I suggest you put out that video asap. It would help getting the desired number of votes. Most people don't really understand what you're trying to achieve here, which is why you're not getting many votes.

Absolutely agree, it is a crucial step. We are on it.
Thank you for your concern dude!!!

 

[stan.distortion]

Ahh, I see, you're looking for funding to advance towards it? Researching it and projects that can be pulled together to move towards it, that kind of thing? One problem I see with what you have in the paper is money has no part in that other than as a backwards-compatibility layer, digital communications make its role obsolete. It's a minor point though, how markets would interact without it and scale globally is something that will take a hell of a lot of research and development.

 

[raganius]

I apologize for not being able to answer yesterday to your comment.
Do you know what I think raganius? Your concern about any disruption over the dash tiers are the very concern of those who has being skeptical to the proposal.
Specially a concern related to any disruption bringing "negative dashes" to the platform.

As I told you in a former comment: If there is something difficult, risky and delicate is to disrrupt any system which already works.
And dash is not the exeption. This is not a proposal to disturb the mechanics that already dash has, because it would affect awfully the dash price in the market, and that would obviosly hurt us all.

The proposal is a way to expose a solution to real needs. And here "solution" should be read as an "alternative". Which alternatives do not exist right now?

An elaborated smart contract to emulate the regular banking administrative trust. Think of the power of a solution like this. Total freedom from any stock exchange chamber.
The ability to ofer to anyone real paying-dividends-shares of your business. The ability to create really fair crowdfundings. The ability to offering a really secure clud minery, safe from any kind of the scams.
A smart contract to help a bunch of people to organize themeselves to create a business, and to operate one in the way to be able to create money (flow scrip system). And related to these ideas, there is a concept of -UTXO, to be tested, but also a concept of -coinbase, that could work as well. And over all: The option to use whatever alternative will work better and discard whatever which don't.

These alternatives do not exist today.

The same way, negative coin concept, is an alternative to be tested in side chains or colored, in any way that it don't affect the today mechanics of dash, otherwise it would be a silly suicide to dash.

But I don't think dash helping to develope and test new and creative alternatives would damage its reputation. Let's remember that in order to be decentralized, all the code created needs to be open source. Open to anyone to imporve it or test it.

I want this idea, not oly to be usefull to dash, but also watching carefully the suggestions of the dash community, as we advance in our work.

Thank you for your interest!!!

Thank you again for your sincere clarifications. I do see and believe the importance of the ideas you present, and I am excited to see them becoming a reality, if not "inside" the DASH structure, at least to be brought to reality as a sister autonomous project, with DASH support.

But, please understand that I am a quasi illiterate when it comes to coding, and I don't judge myself capable to assess the risks of "messing" with DASH inner core: I would definitely feel enourmously comfortable to decide only after knowing the opinions of our core developers on the matter.

See, there's a saying* here in Brazil: "Em time que está ganhando, não se mexe" (If the team is winning don't change it... or something like: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it) :wink:

* (man, this saying brought so many bad remembrances...)

 

[juliomoros]

Ahh, I see, you're looking for funding to advance towards it? Researching it and projects that can be pulled together to move towards it, that kind of thing? One problem I see with what you have in the paper is money has no part in that other than as a backwards-compatibility layer, digital communications make its role obsolete. It's a minor point though, how markets would interact without it and scale globally is something that will take a hell of a lot of research and development.

I'm sorry stan, I got lost in the translation (English is not my strong point).
I can see you are talking about what is referred as money in the peper, and something about digital communications. But I got lost.
May you please rephrase your comment? Thanks!

 

[stan.distortion]

I'm sorry stan, I got lost in the translation (English is not my strong point).
I can see you are talking about what is referred as money in the peper, and something about digital communications. But I got lost.
May you please rephrase your comment? Thanks!

You refer to money in various ways in the paper but money is unnecessary, it's the way we think about economics today but what actually matters is the transfer of value, not the medium used to transfer it and in the digital space that's done entirely by contracts. What really matters in the future of economics is the means of transferring contracts and introducing money into that is like requiring a stamp and envelope for every email, you're putting something into a container to transport it that doesn't need either a container or transport, an envelope in the case of email and money in the case of value.

 

[juliomoros]

You refer to money in various ways in the paper but money is unnecessary, it's the way we think about economics today but what actually matters is the transfer of value, not the medium used to transfer it and in the digital space that's done entirely by contracts. What really matters in the future of economics is the means of transferring contracts and introducing money into that is like requiring a stamp and envelope for every email, you're putting something into a container to transport it that doesn't need either a container or transport, an envelope in the case of email and money in the case of value.

I see, you have a philosophical discrepance.

By experience I know that it is the most hard subject to address, because is part of your convictions I do not pretend to change.
But I think, in the paper is stated (Section 3, Monetary design) the money as a contract. As an agreement.

I agree with you that what really matters is the means of transferring contracts, because money IS a contract.

Money is not currency or objects, is an agreement which involves a community.
If I made you a favor outside a money system, you owe me and only to me that favor.
If I made you a favour inside a money system, anybody in the community can pay it forward to me, and you owe that favor to anybody in the community.
In order to know who owes and who claims there is needed a kind of token. But be careful. That token is not the money, is the evidence thet the agreement between you, the community and me, exists and is into force.

Regards :smile:

 

[stan.distortion]

It could be considered philosophical but that says more about the times we live in than the role money plays, it could also be considered theological fwiw.

Basically the issue is in the definition of money, the "store of value" part. If you're moving value physically then you need something to act as a means of transporting that value, money. But if you're moving something digitally there's nothing to transport (other than information) and you can do it practically instantly across any distance so you don't need an artificial form of value as a means of transport, just other forms of value to transfer it to, be that something like tons of coal or grains of sand as a store of value or directly from the thing you sell to the thing you buy.

It's a hard concept to grasp but that's just because of the nature of money, its embedded in our thinking to the point where we can hardly consider value without referring to it but it's an artificial concept. Any contractual economic system considered from the very basics and allowing for digital transfer of information doesn't include money and introducing it may appear to simplify things but in reality it doesn't, you have to create and destroy it in perfect synchronisation with the real world value it tries to represent and even a brief look at the history of economics shows that's an extremely complex problem.

 

[TanteStefana]

I understand your concern (I hope), and I think is due to the risk of inflation.
(If you have a different concern, please let me know why are you against debt)
The risk of not to be able to manage the total amount of positive coins.

Nonetheless, the proposed system address this issue by several ways:

1.- Inside the flow scrip system, debt is destroyed after every trading period, and after EACH buying/selling transaction. So liquidity is never accumulated, relieving the inflationary pressure.
2.- A flow scrip, as contract is a kind of future (Derivative contract). It trends to stabilize prices. Another releiving valve for inflation.
3.- Outside the flow scrip system, the debt that any individual can create, is limited by agreements of reputation and the total amount of business shares this person holds. So you can not create an arbitrary amount of debt.
4.- There is no interest rate over any kind of debt in this system. Your motivation to pay the debt is to restore your reputation level, and to be able to keep investing in the system, to make grow your wealth (In business shares). So people will have personal reasons to destroy the debt.

In any solution for new money creation alternatives, will allways be the inflation concern. And it is independent on the debt (Creating negative coins) mechanism. To introduce new alternatives for money creation you always increase the money mass (Even if you don´t leave behind a trace of negative coins). So the main concern here is how to destroy the debt.

The paper is long enough like it is, but there are a lot of options to assure the debt destruction.

5.- To invest into a project there may be (there should be) services linked to flwo scrip contracts. So that kind of payments destroys money.
6.- Without negative coins (without debt) you are reducing the options to destroy money mass. Paying debt is a valid way here to increase your wealth and to relieve inflationary pressure.

7.- This is not mentioned in the paper (Is already too long), but you may include a little fee in all transactions destined to pay debt. If you generate the transaction from a reputed wallet, the fee-payment goes directly to your debt (If there is no debt, there is no fee). If it is generated from an anonymous address, the fee may be randomly scattered among several reputed addresses with negative balance (Not belonging to a business wallet). And to be included in this raffle, you may rise a flag announcing to the system your debt, to receive little paymens from every anonymous transactions.

But, take in mind this is an extra alternative. There may be many others. Fore example: " -coinbase " transactions can destroy coins without any output. If some amunt is held as collateral, in a compromise not fulfilled, that coins may be destroyed.

There is a lot to be discussed though. The paper is not a "last word" in anything. But I believe, debt is convenient in order to design new ways of money creation.
Negative impacts on the reputation on a cryptocurrncy, may be due to the very bad backgrounds that this concept has in the fiat money systems, and is natural for the people to be sceptial towards its useage. So, I hope a little open mindness to undertand radical new options like our proposal.

Regards

Hi juliomoros,

It's really unfortunate that I get cross-eyed when reading all of this economics stuff, but I want to make a good decision. Although technically, Bitcoin, Dash, etc... are inflationary because there are coins constantly being created, it's really highly deflationary as people join the system. The value of crypto-currencies, if successful, will undoubtedly rise due to increased demand. For this reason, I have always felt that the system had a flaw. You can't really lend coins out to people and expect them to be paid back. If the coins go up in value at 20-50% per year, the loan is not affordable. And if that's the case, just to get your coins back as a lender, you know the person has to increase the value 50%, you might as well just hold on to your coins. I know this is simplified, but it's for demonstration purposes.

So, I am guessing that this system you propose actually allows for lending while protecting the borrower from price volatility of the initial coin?? Is that right? And if that's right, can you please explain in very simple terms, like I'm a Jr. High School student what this system can do for a world based on crypto currencies. What will it enable? Maybe answering by describing an existing system that it would replace? Obviously loans, right?

Is there a flow chart you could create to show how actual Dash coins relate to these other units, and are these other units always the same value? Do they have a flexible relationship to Dash? Is it pinned to the value of a fiat unit? It's so complex, but maybe by not explaining the HOW but rather tell some of us the whys and whats, we can at least then get to the point where we can understand the how, LOL. Does that make sense? Maybe I'm the only one confused but I really need to understand what this will do for people, why we need it, then I think I'll be able to formulate my own how questions and find the answers??? This one is seriously complex, and it's a good thing you gave us time to learn about it because we need it!

But please, if you can, explain in terms that we are familiar with today. "loans, assets, credits, deposits, banks, contracts, etc..." Describe a scenario as it works today, and then describe how it would work in your system. Thanks so much!

 

[juliomoros]

Hi juliomoros,

It's really unfortunate that I get cross-eyed when reading all of this economics stuff, but I want to make a good decision. Although technically, Bitcoin, Dash, etc... are inflationary because there are coins constantly being created, it's really highly deflationary as people join the system. The value of crypto-currencies, if successful, will undoubtedly rise due to increased demand. For this reason, I have always felt that the system had a flaw. You can't really lend coins out to people and expect them to be paid back. If the coins go up in value at 20-50% per year, the loan is not affordable. And if that's the case, just to get your coins back as a lender, you know the person has to increase the value 50%, you might as well just hold on to your coins. I know this is simplified, but it's for demonstration purposes.

So, I am guessing that this system you propose actually allows for lending while protecting the borrower from price volatility of the initial coin?? Is that right? And if that's right, can you please explain in very simple terms, like I'm a Jr. High School student what this system can do for a world based on crypto currencies. What will it enable? Maybe answering by describing an existing system that it would replace? Obviously loans, right?

Is there a flow chart you could create to show how actual Dash coins relate to these other units, and are these other units always the same value? Do they have a flexible relationship to Dash? Is it pinned to the value of a fiat unit? It's so complex, but maybe by not explaining the HOW but rather tell some of us the whys and whats, we can at least then get to the point where we can understand the how, LOL. Does that make sense? Maybe I'm the only one confused but I really need to understand what this will do for people, why we need it, then I think I'll be able to formulate my own how questions and find the answers??? This one is seriously complex, and it's a good thing you gave us time to learn about it because we need it!

Let me see if I got you.

Your main concern is to pay a debt in a deflationary system. Right?
And I perceive, I feel that your concern is all about rate values between currencies. Right?
So I see that your concern is: Why to introduce another money structure, with credit included in a deflationary ecosystem?

Let me tell you my main "why": Options to create money. I think we need more options.

If you don't had preexistent money, you wolud remain out of the cryptocurrency game. Indeed, out of today's economic game.
If you don't had enough money to buy the equipments, and other resources, in order to create your own coins by mining, for example, you have to buy the coins with pre-existent money.

The value of coins in a money structure depends to its mechanics of money creation.

In the case of Bitcoin-type-cryptocurrencies, the creation mechanics is to pay for a service called minery, with a coinbase transaction, which increase in difficulty on time but which reward progressively goes lower with time. This obviously force an artificial increasing rate value of the coins.

It is Ok, because they are minery servers. They are robots.

But would you agree, in advance and like a human being, to an agreement like that?:
I will pay you 25 coins per month for your service, wich will be more and more difficult each month, and each year I will pay you the half of the coins?

if the money creation system were based on such pre-designed prices of services and goods, it would be mandatoriy for everybody to reduce prices artificially.

In a free market a double auction game is constantly played. If money creation is not based on the creation of goods and services, the money mass goes out of sync of productivity activities, creating social imbalances, and eventually people out of the game.

The flow scrip system shoul run in a side chain, as the smart trusts. But Credit system needs more care, more tests, and our intention is not to disrupt the value of dash or any other cryptocurrency. But are tools needed to exist as alternatives.

May be, I have not understood clearly your question, in that case please let me know what don't fix still for you.

 

[TanteStefana]

But would you agree, in advance and like a human being, to an agreement like that?:
I will pay you 25 coins per month for your service, wich will be more and more difficult each month, and each year I will pay you the half of the coins?

if the money creation system were based on such pre-designed prices of services and goods, it would be mandatoriy for everybody to reduce prices artificially.

Well, I'm not sure if it's artificial, because it is still inflationary (more coins are being produced) but it's deflationary if more people join the ecosystem and put enough buying pressure on the coin to simulate deflation.

In a free market a double auction game is constantly played. If money creation is not based on the creation of goods and services, the money mass goes out of sync of productivity activities, creating social imbalances, and eventually people out of the game.

Agreed

The flow scrip system shoul run in a side chain, as the smart trusts. But Credit system needs more care, more tests, and our intention is not to disrupt the value of dash or any other cryptocurrency. But are tools needed to exist as alternatives.

So are we to assume that this scrip flow "coin" will be pegged, perhaps like Newbits, to something more stable, like the dollar? And thus, create a unit of payment that is more stable and predictable in real-world use for loans, etc? Will this scrip flow coin be in some way correlated to a Dash unit?

When a person/business, etc... "takes out" credit, he creates scrip flow units, right? Are there Dash units locked up, that allow these scrip flow units to be created? If so, who's coins are being locked up to pay for this? If no Dash is being used to "pay" for these scrip flow units, then what gives them value, and why would you even need a coin like Dash to make it work?

I think I'm floating in the air, and simply need to find an anchor to understand what you're trying to do. I need to understand the mechanics of how these scrip flow units relate to Dash units - or how they might relate in case that's not actually worked out yet.

I do understand basically how this will be used, but not how it will work.

 

[TanteStefana]

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }
I think I might have just had an epiphany, well a personal epiphany at least. The theory is kind of like Ayn Rand's description of where money really comes from, which is from producing. Please tell me if this is the gist of the idea.:


First, these negative tokens are brought into existence from "thin air" or nowhere. Perhaps they will be given a certain value (maybe correlated to the value of the USD, lets say) They come into existence when a person spends them (creating a credit in their wallet). In a way, this is the start of a completely new monetary medium - lets call it Dash Scryp. Each Dash Scryp is valued at a USD. So, your baker uses his initial Dash Scryp to buy flour, butter, sugar and yeast at different places, he spends 100 Dash Scryp. He now has a negative balance of -100 Dash Scryp. He bakes up 100 loaves of bread and sells them for 2 Dash Scryp each. He now can pay back his 100 Dash Scryp debt and has increased his real value by 100 Dash Scryp due to the labor he put into the system. Not only that, his ability to borrow just went up, say 100%, so he can spend 300 Dash Scryp now due to his rating going up.


Another person who bought a loaf is down 1 Dash Scryp, he can pay that back, perhaps, by buying Dash Scryp at an exchange or else, perhaps he is an artist. He paints a painting, and sells it for Dash Scryp,


In a way, this is a debt based system, isn't it? Where funds are created based on debt? If the Baker doesn't ever use his credit line again, where will the new funds come from in this system? It needs new funds in order for it to grow, no? So really, new people who enter the system also bring in new money by creating debt and the first users continue to borrow, turning their borrowed coins into real coins via productivity (energy), and thus increase their stored wealth.


You talk about community agreements. Where the community somehow gives a member the credit line. This is where I get a headache simply because it sounds idealistic and unworkable. I personally doubt any community of people can understand such a concept, and rather, I think that the entire system, one system as a whole would need to be automated to provide the initial setup. I think the Dash Scryp would need to be accessible from other forms of stored energy, such as fiat. Because in reality, not everyone will be able to enter this system so easily at first. They'll need to pay off their “debt” and may not be able to get anyone to pay them their salaries etc... in Dash Scryp. So how do they enter the system as a consumer (person who buys the bread)


So why use this Dash Scryp? Well, what if your initial loan amount can be somehow based on an initial investment, maybe you could open an account, and buy 10 Dash Scryp. By doing that, you're given 10 Dash Scryp credit line. Now you have double the purchasing power (you could even sell all of them on an exchange to do business in fiat) but you have to pay them back. Why pay them back? Because then your credit line again increases. Now this is arbitrary, but you can see that the user instantly doubles their buying power, and from that point on, with good management and payback, he will be able to increase his credit limit. Energy that keeps the coins growing can come from any source. From selling goods and services or buying Dash Scryp from an exchange. This energy increases the number of Dash Scryp in existance.


The number of Dash Scryp available, can be calculated with the asset backed Dash using a nubit/nushares type of approach. Or perhaps another mechanism. There would have to be a way to keep the Dash Scryp at a stable rate of exchange.


Anyway, is this something like what you're trying to do? Is there a reason that it's so much more complex than this? I realize I may be missing the whole point, so please tell me where I'm going wrong, thanks so much!


Additional:

So why use Dash?
1. This, probably on a side chain, system will utilize the MN network for securing the transactions.
2. Will use the identity and rating system for the Evolution wallets already in existence
3. Will use the distributed storage to keep a database on proof of user.

What it would require, IMO, is a solid verifiable way to identify a person. Perhaps using a finger printing system or iris scanning system. Not to lock or secure your wallet but to prove your identity to an autonomous system. Obviously, one could cheat this, so we'd have to come up with something that can be submitted to the system and verified without using Governmental institutions or human interaction. I don't know what this would be.

 

[stan.distortion]

Sorry to interrupt, another small point. The components are running on chains, like trust sidechains, etc. Something everyone seems to completely overlook when the see Dash is where the innovation is taking place, they see a blockchain based system and look no further. Dashes blockchain secures the network but the really innovative things are happening in the layer above that, the quorums, how masternodes interact with each other, what that can be used for and how it can operate efficiently without bloat or massive resourses... everyone's trying to build things on blockchains but in a lot of cases the blockchain severely limits what they can do, they work exceptionally well as secure shared ledgers but imo we've moved on to how that can complement what we're trying to do, not so much what we can do with the ledger directly.

 

[raganius]

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }
I think I might have just had an epiphany, well a personal epiphany at least. The theory is kind of like Ayn Rand's description of where money really comes from, which is from producing. Please tell me if this is the gist of the idea.:


First, these negative tokens are brought into existence from "thin air" or nowhere. Perhaps they will be given a certain value (maybe correlated to the value of the USD, lets say) They come into existence when a person spends them (creating a credit in their wallet). In a way, this is the start of a completely new monetary medium - lets call it Dash Scryp. Each Dash Scryp is valued at a USD. So, your baker uses his initial Dash Scryp to buy flour, butter, sugar and yeast at different places, he spends 100 Dash Scryp. He now has a negative balance of -100 Dash Scryp. He bakes up 100 loaves of bread and sells them for 2 Dash Scryp each. He now can pay back his 100 Dash Scryp debt and has increased his real value by 100 Dash Scryp due to the labor he put into the system. Not only that, his ability to borrow just went up, say 100%, so he can spend 300 Dash Scryp now due to his rating going up.


Another person who bought a loaf is down 1 Dash Scryp, he can pay that back, perhaps, by buying Dash Scryp at an exchange or else, perhaps he is an artist. He paints a painting, and sells it for Dash Scryp,


In a way, this is a debt based system, isn't it? Where funds are created based on debt? If the Baker doesn't ever use his credit line again, where will the new funds come from in this system? It needs new funds in order for it to grow, no? So really, new people who enter the system also bring in new money by creating debt and the first users continue to borrow, turning their borrowed coins into real coins via productivity (energy), and thus increase their stored wealth.


You talk about community agreements. Where the community somehow gives a member the credit line. This is where I get a headache simply because it sounds idealistic and unworkable. I personally doubt any community of people can understand such a concept, and rather, I think that the entire system, one system as a whole would need to be automated to provide the initial setup. I think the Dash Scryp would need to be accessible from other forms of stored energy, such as fiat. Because in reality, not everyone will be able to enter this system so easily at first. They'll need to pay off their “debt” and may not be able to get anyone to pay them their salaries etc... in Dash Scryp. So how do they enter the system as a consumer (person who buys the bread)


So why use this Dash Scryp? Well, what if your initial loan amount can be somehow based on an initial investment, maybe you could open an account, and buy 10 Dash Scryp. By doing that, you're given 10 Dash Scryp credit line. Now you have double the purchasing power (you could even sell all of them on an exchange to do business in fiat) but you have to pay them back. Why pay them back? Because then your credit line again increases. Now this is arbitrary, but you can see that the user instantly doubles their buying power, and from that point on, with good management and payback, he will be able to increase his credit limit. Energy that keeps the coins growing can come from any source. From selling goods and services or buying Dash Scryp from an exchange. This energy increases the number of Dash Scryp in existance.


The number of Dash Scryp available, can be calculated with the asset backed Dash using a nubit/nushares type of approach. Or perhaps another mechanism. There would have to be a way to keep the Dash Scryp at a stable rate of exchange.


Anyway, is this something like what you're trying to do? Is there a reason that it's so much more complex than this? I realize I may be missing the whole point, so please tell me where I'm going wrong, thanks so much!


Additional:

So why use Dash?
1. This, probably on a side chain, system will utilize the MN network for securing the transactions.
2. Will use the identity and rating system for the Evolution wallets already in existence
3. Will use the distributed storage to keep a database on proof of user.

What it would require, IMO, is a solid verifiable way to identify a person. Perhaps using a finger printing system or iris scanning system. Not to lock or secure your wallet but to prove your identity to an autonomous system. Obviously, one could cheat this, so we'd have to come up with something that can be submitted to the system and verified without using Governmental institutions or human interaction. I don't know what this would be.

wow, it seems great... I need to sit, relax, focus and think about it all...

 

[TanteStefana]

wow, it seems great... I need to sit, relax, focus and think about it all...

I have no idea if I'm on the right track, I'm sure they're talking about something that's a little more complex...

 

[raganius]

I have no idea if I'm on the right track, I'm sure they're talking about something that's a little more complex...

I'm trying to "join the dots" with all these interesting ideas brought by this proposal, and how that could fit with the DASH system (but I am still entangled with it) :smile:


I don't really grasp this idea:

(...)
Let me tell you my main "why": Options to create money. I think we need more options.

If you don't had preexistent money, you wolud remain out of the cryptocurrency game. Indeed, out of today's economic game.
If you don't had enough money to buy the equipments, and other resources, in order to create your own coins by mining, for example, you have to buy the coins with pre-existent money.
(...)

The way I see it: Creating "money" is not simply "printing" money. Money is created by adding "value".

At first, it is not wrong to say that the DASH "token" has got no value per se* (the same way that a piece of paper with 100USD printed on it bears no value per se), because in reality its value comes from the measure of utility that it represents:

• When the miner receives DASH from the network the "value of the works" performed by the miner towards the network is represented by the DASH tokens he received.
• When the Masternode receives DASH from the network the "value of the works" performed by the Masternode towards the network is represented by the DASH tokens it received.
• Also, DASH system and all the benefits and utilities it brings are perceived as "value" that will be represented inside those same DASH tokens put in circulation.

The ratio of the summatory of all those above mentioned "values" with the expected maximum DASH to ever be put in circulation is a "formula" that the market may instinctively use to attibute a "price" to each of the DASH tokens, thus "creating" over them what we understand as money (currency).

• IF there was no PoW, or
• IF there was no utility, or
• IF there was no limitation to the total amount of DASH emission, etc

There would be no real value, so, the market would certainly not attach a real "price" to the DASH tokens (it would not be real money).

* That's why I regard your assessment that "we need more options to create money" as a non issue.

Because one does not have to have a miner or be a Masternode owner in order to "print" money on the DASH network, as long as one can bring value to the system.

Anyone could "create" value if they are competent enough to bring utility (work, services, products, liquidity, etc). So, any person is entitled to "create money" out of DASH network <- money: being here the representation of some value stored <- value: that was brought in benefit of the DASH system through the dedicated time and efforts of that person.

(...)
The flow scrip system shoul run in a side chain, as the smart trusts. But Credit system needs more care, more tests, and our intention is not to disrupt the value of dash or any other cryptocurrency. But are tools needed to exist as alternatives.

May be, I have not understood clearly your question, in that case please let me know what don't fix still for you.

I do like the option of building this idea in a sidechain.

 

[toknormal]

I've been reading this proposal for the last week and the contributions in this thread. I've got quite a lot to say about it and don't really know where to start cos it seems like the piston engine just met the motor car but about 50 years before driving schools were invented.

I'm going to vote for this proposal with the full firepower of my 2 masternodes - not because I want to see negative coins in the blockchain, but because I think:

[1] - it took me a week to realise that this is just a research proposal. It's the last page in the document ! I was worrying about hardforks and stuff, but unnecessarily as it turned out. To me it looks like great value and I really want to read those documents they are proposing to produce

[2] - I think us cryptocurrency fans need to ditch our delusions that people are going to start buying stuff on Amazon with bitcoin. I don't think they are. I think cryptocurrencies will engender entire new decentralised and automated business models that were not conceivable before and that our concept of "currency" as it was with fiat cannot be projected onto the what is to come. What's being proposed here is one such business model so this is R&D

[3] - I've been periodically trying to get a dialog going in the community about the distinction between base money/risk assets and stable, inflationary currency with regard to an exchange medium for retail goods and services. I now feel like I was firing a water pistol and a fleet of Panzer tanks has just thundered onto our front lawn looking for some ammunition. It would be good if we could give them some without compromising the principles of what cryptocurrencies are. To that end I think a bridge must be built in technical understanding of monetary mechanics (the 'driving school' I alluded to above)

[4] - Whatever the decentralised nature of the commercial world in decades to come, it will be something like what's described in this proposal paper - automated and decentralised. These guys have thought it through and identified Dash as a potentially viable platform for this business model. We would be mad to pass up the chance to have such powerful use cases researched IMO.

At the same time I think there is a mutual learning process involved that may or may not lead to an ultimate marriage.

In regard to bridge building, the disparity between these two views seems a good start:

stan.distortion:

And...

Juiliomoros:

Julio - I think you need to understand better what a cryptocurrency is and its history. Cryptocurrencies fundamentally, are not money, they are an electronic commodity. You would not have made that statement about coal, oil, copper, wood, water, wool, beef, sand or cement - no matter how philosophically since clearly, none of those things are available in "negative quantities". They can only be negative in an accounting sense.

Before 2009, there was no electronic commodity. That type of asset did not exist because the only thing anyone could send through the internet was information. They could not send commodities except in your very ambiguous definition of an "agreement". So, for example I could sell someone 1Kg of gold that I had but the gold would not travel through the wire to their house. It was only an agreement.

For around a quarter of a century (at least since 1982) researchers had been attempting to create an electronic commodity and failed. In particular I recommend reading about this guy and reflecting on how much time and effort it took to escape the idea of "money as an agreement" and arrive at "money as a commodity" on the electronic platform. After 2009 a watershed moment occured. People could finally send an electronic commodity directly from one internet node to another. Be advised there is no "negative version" of this, just as there is no negative version of metal, sand, oil, cement or coal.

However, we can create negatives in an accounting sense, just as the world does with fiat money and its derivatives and this is where I see your ideas having great value and being complimentary to crytocurrencies.

Money has always been a layered concept. Even when there was a gold standard, people didn't actually exchange gold, they traded government notes which were exchangeable for gold. That was the second layer if you like in the financial system. Then came a third layer - credit. An accounting entry which could record debt and credit that didn't even need to involve the exchange of notes. However, the concept of debt and credit could only manifest at that third level of abstraction. It could not manifest at the 1st (commodity) or 2nd (paper notes) layers. So it is with cryptocurrencies such as Dash.

Dash is layer 1 base money. Ergo, a commodity.

*************************************************************************************************

Ok. Now that I've started building that end of the bridge, I'll jump to the other side and try to do the same:

In the modern economy, anything is money - just as Julio correctly points out. An agreement (usually called a bond) can be money. The advantage of the modern system is that it is incredibly flexible and is what's required in creative times.

The world (to our knowledge) has never lived through such levels of prosperity or creativity. This makes commodities somewhat inadequate as "money" because there are such huge surges and contractions in worldwide GDP that the inflation would be ridiculous. You need some kind of hybrid between the legacy fiat credit creation system and trading commodities as money. What Julio and his colleagues have described in their proposal document is an example of such a hybrid. Even if this proposal gets rejected, if Dash ever established itself as an institutional level store of value, it would not be traded directly, it would form a value basis for economic models such as that proposed by Julio IMHO.

What I like about this proposal is that it recognises both interests and embodies an understanding of what people (e.g. bakers) need.

Also, I'd like to see what people think about the fact that they seem to have chosen Dash over Bitshares. To me that is astounding. Bitshares was invented to directly address the requirements of proposals such as this, yet no-one seems to have remarked on that. I'd like to know why. Having read more of the document it might be a social factor rather than a technical one - i.e. that this business model can lever Dash's already existing governance model as one of the "pools" in their model. (Not sure if it's the "Sponsor Pool" or "Master Pool". I need to read that thing again).

Put it this way. Dash is a shop. A currency shop. A customer has just turned up that wants to connect one sector of commerce to another using Dash as a vehicle. We shouldn't turn that customer away in my view. We have to find a way to make this work - or at least dismiss it on solid grounds, but not on grounds of ignorance.

Since what's proposed here at the moment is purely a research project of potentially great value I think we must embrace it.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

I've been reading this proposal for the last week and the contributions in this thread. I've got quite a lot to say about it and don't really know where to start cos it seems like the piston engine just met the motor car but about 50 years before driving schools were invented.

I'm going to vote for this proposal with the full firepower of my 2 masternodes - not because I want to see negative coins in the blockchain, but because I think:

[1] - it took me a week to realise that this is just a research proposal. It's the last page in the document ! I was worrying about hardforks and stuff, but unnecessarily as it turned out. To me it looks like great value and I really want to read those documents they are proposing to produce

[2] - I think us cryptocurrency fans need to ditch our delusions that people are going to start buying stuff on Amazon with bitcoin. I don't think they are. I think cryptocurrencies will engender entire new decentralised and automated business models that were not conceivable before and that our concept of "currency" as it was with fiat cannot be projected onto the what is to come. What's being proposed here is one such business model so this is R&D

[3] - I've been periodically trying to get a dialog going in the community about the distinction between base money/risk assets and stable, inflationary currency with regard to an exchange medium for retail goods and services. I now feel like I was firing a water pistol and a fleet of Panzer tanks has just thundered onto our front lawn looking for some ammunition. It would be good if we could give them some without compromising the principles of what cryptocurrencies are. To that end I think a bridge must be built in technical understanding of monetary mechanics (the 'driving school' I alluded to above)

[4] - Whatever the decentralised nature of the commercial world in decades to come, it will be something like what's described in this proposal paper - automated and decentralised. These guys have thought it through and identified Dash as a potentially viable platform for this business model. We would be mad to pass up the chance to have such powerful use cases researched IMO.

At the same time I think there is a mutual learning process involved that may or may not lead to an ultimate marriage.

In regard to bridge building, the disparity between these two views seems a good start:

stan.distortion:

And...

Juiliomoros:

Julio - I think you need to understand better what a cryptocurrency is and its history. Cryptocurrencies fundamentally, are not money, they are an electronic commodity. You would not have made that statement about coal, oil, copper, wood, water, wool, beef, sand or cement - no matter how philosophically since clearly, none of those things are available in "negative quantities". They can only be negative in an accounting sense.

Before 2009, there was no electronic commodity. That type of asset did not exist because the only thing anyone could send through the internet was information. They could not send commodities except in your very ambiguous definition of an "agreement". So, for example I could sell someone 1Kg of gold that I had but the gold would not travel through the wire to their house. It was only an agreement.

For around a quarter of a century (at least since 1982) researchers had been attempting to create an electronic commodity and failed. In particular I recommend reading about this guy and reflecting on how much time and effort it took to escape the idea of "money as an agreement" and arrive at "money as a commodity" on the electronic platform. After 2009 a watershed moment occured. People could finally send an electronic commodity directly from one internet node to another. Be advised there is no "negative version" of this, just as there is no negative version of metal, sand oil, cement or coal.

However, we can create negatives in an accounting sense, just as the world does with fiat money and its derivatives and this is where I see your ideas having great value and being complimentary to crytocurrencies.

Money has always been a layered concept. Even when there was a gold standard, people didn't actually exchange gold, they traded government notes which were exchangeable for gold. That was the second layer if you like in the financial system. Then came a third layer - credit. An accounting entry which could record debt and credit that didn't even need to involve the exchange of notes. However, the concept of debt and credit could only manifest at that third level of abstraction. It could not manifest at the 1st (commodity) or 2nd (paper notes) layers. So it is with cryptocurrencies such as Dash.

Dash is layer 1 base money. Ergo, a commodity.

*************************************************************************************************

Ok. Now that I've started building that end of the bridge, I'll jump to the other side and try to do the same:

In the modern economy, anything is money - just as Julio correctly points out. An agreement (usually called a bond) is money. The advantage of the modern system is that it is incredibly flexible and is what's required in creative times.

The world (to our knowledge) has never lived through such levels of prosperity or creativity. This makes commodities completely inadequate as "money" because there are such huge surges and contractions in worldwide GDP that the inflation would be ridiculous. You need some kind of hybrid between the legacy fiat credit creation system and trading commodities as money. What Julio and his colleagues have described in their proposal document is exactly such a hybrid. There is no remote doubt about this. Even if this proposal gets rejected, if Dash ever established itself as an institutional level store of value, it would not be traded directly, it would form a value basis for economic models such as that proposed by Julio.

What I like about this proposal is that it recognises both interests and embodies an understanding of what people (e.g. bakers) need.

Also, I'd like to see what people think about the fact that they seem to have chosen Dash over Bitshares. To me that is astounding. Bitshares was invented to directly address the requirements of proposals such as this, yet no-one seems to have remarked on that. I'd like to know why. Having read more of the document it might be a social factor rather than a technical one - i.e. that this business model can lever Dash's already existing governance model as one of the "pools" in their model. (Not sure if it's the "Sponsor Pool" or "Master Pool". I need to read that thing again).

Put it this way. Dash is a shop. A currency shop. A customer has just turned up that wants to connect one sector of commerce to another using Dash as a vehicle. We cannot turn that customer away. We have to find a way to make this work - or at least dismiss it on solid grounds, but not on grounds of ignorance.

Since what's proposed here at the moment is purely a research project of potentially great value I think we must embrace it.

Why don't you post here more often? Brilliant post as always.

 

[TroyDASH]

Wow, I was not expecting a bombshell of this magnitude to plop down in the DASH forum. It definitely looks to me like most of this was already written before DASH was identified as a potential target currency, but it doesn't really matter either way.

My initial reaction reading this was "hell no", but I am fascinated by some of the ideas in this paper. I don't really think it is prudent to fund this as a budget item though, it is basically funding research into something that may or may not ever have anything to do with DASH. It looks like so much work has already been put into this, I don't think that failing to fund this from the blockchain would really in any way prevent further research from happening. The best that we should offer at this point IMO is just for anyone who is interested to volunteer to help explore the concepts further and hash it out. Could even have its own subforum if there was enough interest. But it's way too early for a budget item.

 

[TanteStefana]

Wow, I was not expecting a bombshell of this magnitude to plop down in the DASH forum. It definitely looks to me like most of this was already written before DASH was identified as a potential target currency, but it doesn't really matter either way.

My initial reaction reading this was "hell no", but I am fascinated by some of the ideas in this paper. I don't really think it is prudent to fund this as a budget item though, it is basically funding research into something that may or may not ever have anything to do with DASH. It looks like so much work has already been put into this, I don't think that failing to fund this from the blockchain would really in any way prevent further research from happening. The best that we should offer at this point IMO is just for anyone who is interested to volunteer to help explore the concepts further and hash it out. Could even have its own subforum if there was enough interest. But it's way too early for a budget item.

•••••••••or
Consider the amount of funding they're requesting to head up this research and development. It's cheap, and they've already put a TON of work into this. If we can make this work, nobody, but nobody would stand a chance against the Dash system.

I've been reading this proposal for the last week and the contributions in this thread. I've got quite a lot to say about it and don't really know where to start cos it seems like the piston engine just met the motor car but about 50 years before driving schools were invented.

I'm going to vote for this proposal with the full firepower of my 2 masternodes - not because I want to see negative coins in the blockchain, but because I think:

[1] - it took me a week to realise that this is just a research proposal. It's the last page in the document ! I was worrying about hardforks and stuff, but unnecessarily as it turned out. To me it looks like great value and I really want to read those documents they are proposing to produce

[2] - I think us cryptocurrency fans need to ditch our delusions that people are going to start buying stuff on Amazon with bitcoin. I don't think they are. I think cryptocurrencies will engender entire new decentralised and automated business models that were not conceivable before and that our concept of "currency" as it was with fiat cannot be projected onto the what is to come. What's being proposed here is one such business model so this is R&D

[3] - I've been periodically trying to get a dialog going in the community about the distinction between base money/risk assets and stable, inflationary currency with regard to an exchange medium for retail goods and services. I now feel like I was firing a water pistol and a fleet of Panzer tanks has just thundered onto our front lawn looking for some ammunition. It would be good if we could give them some without compromising the principles of what cryptocurrencies are. To that end I think a bridge must be built in technical understanding of monetary mechanics (the 'driving school' I alluded to above)

[4] - Whatever the decentralised nature of the commercial world in decades to come, it will be something like what's described in this proposal paper - automated and decentralised. These guys have thought it through and identified Dash as a potentially viable platform for this business model. We would be mad to pass up the chance to have such powerful use cases researched IMO.

At the same time I think there is a mutual learning process involved that may or may not lead to an ultimate marriage.

In regard to bridge building, the disparity between these two views seems a good start:

stan.distortion:

And...

Juiliomoros:

Julio - I think you need to understand better what a cryptocurrency is and its history. Cryptocurrencies fundamentally, are not money, they are an electronic commodity. You would not have made that statement about coal, oil, copper, wood, water, wool, beef, sand or cement - no matter how philosophically since clearly, none of those things are available in "negative quantities". They can only be negative in an accounting sense.

Before 2009, there was no electronic commodity. That type of asset did not exist because the only thing anyone could send through the internet was information. They could not send commodities except in your very ambiguous definition of an "agreement". So, for example I could sell someone 1Kg of gold that I had but the gold would not travel through the wire to their house. It was only an agreement.

For around a quarter of a century (at least since 1982) researchers had been attempting to create an electronic commodity and failed. In particular I recommend reading about this guy and reflecting on how much time and effort it took to escape the idea of "money as an agreement" and arrive at "money as a commodity" on the electronic platform. After 2009 a watershed moment occured. People could finally send an electronic commodity directly from one internet node to another. Be advised there is no "negative version" of this, just as there is no negative version of metal, sand, oil, cement or coal.

However, we can create negatives in an accounting sense, just as the world does with fiat money and its derivatives and this is where I see your ideas having great value and being complimentary to crytocurrencies.

Money has always been a layered concept. Even when there was a gold standard, people didn't actually exchange gold, they traded government notes which were exchangeable for gold. That was the second layer if you like in the financial system. Then came a third layer - credit. An accounting entry which could record debt and credit that didn't even need to involve the exchange of notes. However, the concept of debt and credit could only manifest at that third level of abstraction. It could not manifest at the 1st (commodity) or 2nd (paper notes) layers. So it is with cryptocurrencies such as Dash.

Dash is layer 1 base money. Ergo, a commodity.

*************************************************************************************************

Ok. Now that I've started building that end of the bridge, I'll jump to the other side and try to do the same:

In the modern economy, anything is money - just as Julio correctly points out. An agreement (usually called a bond) is money. The advantage of the modern system is that it is incredibly flexible and is what's required in creative times.

The world (to our knowledge) has never lived through such levels of prosperity or creativity. This makes commodities completely inadequate as "money" because there are such huge surges and contractions in worldwide GDP that the inflation would be ridiculous. You need some kind of hybrid between the legacy fiat credit creation system and trading commodities as money. What Julio and his colleagues have described in their proposal document is exactly such a hybrid. There is no remote doubt about this. Even if this proposal gets rejected, if Dash ever established itself as an institutional level store of value, it would not be traded directly, it would form a value basis for economic models such as that proposed by Julio.

What I like about this proposal is that it recognises both interests and embodies an understanding of what people (e.g. bakers) need.

Also, I'd like to see what people think about the fact that they seem to have chosen Dash over Bitshares. To me that is astounding. Bitshares was invented to directly address the requirements of proposals such as this, yet no-one seems to have remarked on that. I'd like to know why. Having read more of the document it might be a social factor rather than a technical one - i.e. that this business model can lever Dash's already existing governance model as one of the "pools" in their model. (Not sure if it's the "Sponsor Pool" or "Master Pool". I need to read that thing again).

Put it this way. Dash is a shop. A currency shop. A customer has just turned up that wants to connect one sector of commerce to another using Dash as a vehicle. We cannot turn that customer away. We have to find a way to make this work - or at least dismiss it on solid grounds, but not on grounds of ignorance.

Since what's proposed here at the moment is purely a research project of potentially great value I think we must embrace it.

I think the reason why they chose Dash is because it really does work like cash, which is what their system will need. On the other hand, starting a new coin by forking would be extremely difficult in today's environment, as our network is established and fully secure. I completely agree, this is amazing and we should jump on the opportunity.

Unfortunately, I don't think people understand this proposal. So I hope you'll help explain what is going on so that MN owners can make an informed choice.

Remember, this is research and development, and they're not going to touch Dash until and if they come up with something that is completely safe and who's effects are understood and agreed upon. No need to fear ! We should capture these two geniuses and keep them with our project!