Search results

Yep. I haven't looked at the code, but if I had to guess I would say that rather than linking the superblock frequency and amount generated in normal blocks via some equation, Evan simply hardcoded everything for mainnet then decided later to increase the number of superblocks on testnet...

As far as I could understand, the frequency of the superblocks was moved up from once a month to every 50 blocks for testing purposes. As such many more coins will be generated on testnet. As for one superblock containing more that 10% of the monthly block reward.... It could be that since more...

I have following this closely since the beginning and there has been no discussion on over-budgeting. Thing is though... reading Evan's comments in this thread and the Slack discussion Moli was nice enough to post, it seems very likely that the 10% limit was lifted just for testnet. I am...

It is very likely NOT true as it would defeat the entire purpose of setting up a governance system (which the devs have obviously spent a lot of time coding to bring about) if a single vote out of 2600 could award a project money. That just makes no sense, and I am pretty sure Evan has done...

Although it hasn't been explicitly stated I am under the assumption that he meant that things would be ordered in terms of yes votes if and only if the proposal had achieved a simple majority.... In any event, I am sure a minimum threshold of some sort will be added as allowing things with 1...

This is my understand based on Evan's comments in that thread and the first post in this thread. 1. The block reward will be permanently reduced to 90% of its current value. This for all blocks (other than the superblocks) for all time. MNs will eventually get 60% of this 90% and miners 40%...

Alright. So I did understand the proposal correctly... This will need to be explained to the masses very carefully. People will raise one eyebrow when the block reward is changed (again) and another eyebrow when certain blocks "suddenly" generate a large number of coins. Sounds like a good...

Evan, correct me if I am wrong, but according to this new proposal the block reward will be reduced 10%. Then based on MN voting a certain number of projects are funded where the total cost of those projects must be X where 0%<= X <= 10% of the original block reward (in your example 5). Next...

It still looks like you are confused. But let's not derail the thread further. If you want to continue lets do it with PMs.

I am not upset. You said you wanted more and I simplify asked you to be specific. Also, I don't remember Evan saying anything about a vote for the name change. Are you getting confused with the logo contest? The only thing I remember being said about the name change was that if the community...

Like what, moli? Ever since the name change you seem like a different person. Evan said the MNs will vote on the proposal. If he goes back on his word then complain. Otherwise, what more do you want?

The first post says that the acceptance of this proposal will be decided by the masternodes themselves.

No. This argument is the one that is contrived. And in every single one of your posts you seem to ramp up the ad hominem attacks. That is really not necessary. Look, unless the masternodes vote for the freeloaders then they won't get one single duff. And since you seem to think that MNs owners...

What is the point of doing any of this if masternodes can vote to keep the money? That is just a donation system where you are expecting people to give to the project out of the goodness of their hearts... we already have a masternode donation system. Evan is trying to propose something better...

This is exactly right. Maybe I just don't have enough faith in humanity in general, but I believe that if you give people the choice of keeping their money or using their money for a cause that might make them more money in the future then 9/10 people will just keep the money. Quibble about...

Thanks for this moli. Btw, does anyone else think that it is about time (maybe after MN blinding hits mainnet) that Evan and the other devs step back from coding for a few weeks and carefully document the current state of the features of the coin? Right now, if you don't follow the...

"increasing the money supply to hire the Shadow team" - Wasn't this just an idea Evan floated before the community decided against it? "changing the name to something..." -The name itself was suggested by the community (namely Oblox) and the foundation board (I believe it was Masternode...

Has masternode blinding been reenabled now that we are past the rebrand? You mentioned it was disabled in a previous testnet release.

Quite true. :tongue: However, I was just hoping that we had learned from past spectacles and this time took a more moderate approach especially since a lot of eyes are on us during this rebranding process. It was just a sugesstion. I will leave those in charge to decide what is best. :cool:

Just throwing this out there... Given that there still seems to be some bugs with the current version, wouldn't it be better just to re-release the 0.11.1.25 wallet with the new name DASH and the new css theme tomorrow -- and leave the coding fixes/improvements in 11.2.x for later? I don't...