Budget Proposal - Proof of Labour

[stan.distortion]

It sounds inflexible when we're used to pairing everything with the dollar but really it's just the same as the economologists idea of linking to a basket of currencies for stability, you're creating a web of pairings rather than a central hub so when you try to move one it moves all the others around it, and so the ones around those, etc. Except with the economologists way of thinking you've got lots of currencies with Keynesian economics trying to dictate their value on one side of the equation and the market trying to decide their value on the other... kaboom! :/

It's not necessarily a means of allowing the market to decide value either, you can create a contract to sell a coat for 10 Dash, receive a contract requiring 0.01 bitcoin to pay a toll and allow passage, offer a ton of coal in an underground seam as a store of value at whatever the market deems a fair rate in contracts for silver in a trusted vault with storage fees reducing their value over time... and so on and so on, the contracts specify the routing requirements and the network does the routing. Not simple to design that kind of complexity from zero but it can evolve from a relatively simple system, something like selling simple goods and services for Dash then allowing more direct routes with Dash maintaining the balance, contracts for other cryptos, contracts for fiat, etc. etc.

EDIT: Including contracts for future goods and services, leases, whatever. Its up to the user to decide if they want to accept them as value, the market might say they do but markets have some funny ideas sometimes :/ Good luck with the drive. 550 miles... ouch.

EDIT2: Just been watching the Anarchapulco vid (great job ) and the same thought was expressed, a barter system is too complicated so you need a base unit of exchange, a default money. The same thing would have been said about the Dash network in the past, you can't manage massive amounts of transactions in a decentralised manner, you can only do it with a centralised system.

Consider that group of starlings again, thousands of birds working as a single unit and they do it in a very similar manner to the masternode quorums, each bird is only aware of 6 or 7 birds around it and that allows simple messages to pass through a group of almost unlimited size extremely quickly and efficiently. Now, instead of movements as the messages you pass metadata, "coat", "Dash", "USD" , "beer" and positive/negative values for each, you can very quickly pool them and their pair and from there create paths between them. Frankly I don't know enough about networking to go beyond that but Dash has some some finely tuned minds with an intimate understanding of that kind of networking.

 

[raganius]

It sounds inflexible when we're used to pairing everything with the dollar but really it's just the same as the economologists idea of linking to a basket of currencies for stability, you're creating a web of pairings rather than a central hub so when you try to move one it moves all the others around it, and so the ones around those, etc. Except with the economologists way of thinking you've got lots of currencies with Keynesian economics trying to dictate their value on one side of the equation and the market trying to decide their value on the other... kaboom! :/

It's not necessarily a means of allowing the market to decide value either, you can create a contract to sell a coat for 10 Dash, receive a contract requiring 0.01 bitcoin to pay a toll and allow passage, offer a ton of coal in an underground seam as a store of value at whatever the market deems a fair rate in contracts for silver in a trusted vault with storage fees reducing their value over time, and so on and so on, the contracts specify the routing requirements and the network does the routing. Not simple to design that kind of complexity from zero but it can evolve from a relatively simple system, something like selling simple goods and services for Dash then allowing more direct routes with Dash maintaining the balance, contracts for other cryptos, contracts for fiat, etc. etc.

EDIT: Including contracts for future goods and services, leases, whatever. Its up to the user to decide if they want to accept them as value, the market might say they do but markets have some funny ideas sometimes :/ Good luck with the drive. 550 miles... ouch.

I believe (I can certainly be wrong here) this (the idea as proposed by OPs - as far as I could understand it) will make things much more complicated, instead of simplifying anything. Impractical, maybe...

Of course, having an assets market running attached to the DASH network can be very convenient, and I am fine with this (specific part ? of the idea). But, Running a tangle of barter currencies, created ad hoc by the market players (worse, depending on trust... which we should avoid), instead of having a single common "denominator currency" (in this case, DASH) to make the system work ... it sounds to me like a "fractal emulation" of the whole cryptocurrencies tangleness, right inside DASH.

Unless I have understood nothing of this profound proposal.

Anyway; Now I prefer to wait and observe, in hope that I got it all wrong.

 

[stan.distortion]

I believe (I can certainly be wrong here) this (the idea as proposed by OPs - I far as I could understand it) will make things much more complicated, instead of simplifying anything. Impractical, maybe...

Of course, having an assets market running attached to the DASH network can be very convenient, and I am fine with this (specific part ? of the idea). But, Running a tangle of barter currencies, created ad hoc by the market players (worse, depending on trust... which we should avoid), instead of having a single common "denominator currency" (in this case, DASH) to make the system work ... it sounds to me like a "fractal emulation" of the whole cryptocurrencies tangleness right inside DASH.

Unless I have understood nothing of this profound proposal.

Anyway; Now I prefer to wait and observe, in hope that I got it all wrong.

Careful not to mix it up with the thoughts I've been rambling on about (this is why I should really stay quiet :/ ) As far as I can tell the proposal in the paper is using its own common denominator currency and is intended to operate on top of Dash rather than within it, at least initially.

 

[oscarmolivera]

Wow, this is awesome. You guys are on the right track.
We have so much to discuss and clarify.
But please bear in mind that all of this is new grounds even for us.

Julio has been working on this idea about 4 years, and all by himself. I just recently came in the picture (about a year and a half) because he publish a first paper in Facebook and I knew exactly what he was trying to achieved.
His first idea didn't take in consideration crypto curriencies, and is with long hours of Julio reading and learning that he understood how the blockchain technology can help us. But there are still so much to be tested. And we know DASH is the right path to implement this. We just need to prove it with compleling data.
So, much of what is in the audio is just a tiny picture of all the ideas that explains the main focus of the paper.
Julio has created a new way of measuring labour in a way that when I saw it, it simply blew my mind. How to work inside the new companies that are going to be created in this new type of economy, How to interact with the different kinds of bonds and nodes (MasterNodes?) and a lot more.

Do guys think the paper is groundbreaking? Wait and see all the things we will deliver if we got approved.

So please forgive us if there are a lot missing and not explained, Julio and I are taking baby steps towards explaining all the different aspects of the project and how Dash can really benefit from us and this new ideas.

We are now going to make a very cheap (in money terms) video trying to gains votes for us, because we really need this money. I know it may be (or not) a lot of money but to us is even much more.
So please be patient and all this ideas will be clarify in time.

Again, thank you so much to all the people that has supported us. That had belived and understand that is important to DASH and the world.
This my friends is going to be a hell of a ride.

 

[buster]

Careful not to mix it up with the thoughts I've been rambling on about (this is why I should really stay quiet :/ ) As far as I can tell the proposal in the paper is using its own common denominator currency and is intended to operate on top of Dash rather than within it, at least initially.

This was my take after I did the interview with them. I do not believe they want to insert code into any core software. It would be another layer built on top of core (kind of like they are doing with evolution).

I want to make it very clear, I am not endorsing this proposal: Some morons on reddit seem to think that is my goal here, it is not. I did this interview to give the community the opportunity to pose questions and also for Julio/Oscar to explain their proposal in detail. I never claimed to be an economist, in fact I hardly believe even 90% of masternode owners could call themselves economist.

Just wanted to say thanks to oaxaca juliomoros and oscarmolivera for giving the time to do this interview. Good luck with your proposal and remember don't get discouraged if you don't get funding.

 

[oscarmolivera]

This was my take after I did the interview with them. I do not believe they want to insert code into any core software. It would be another layer built on top of core (kind of like they are doing with evolution).

I want to make it very clear, I am not endorsing this proposal: Some morons on reddit seem to think that is my goal here, it is not. I did this interview to give the community the opportunity to pose questions and also for Julio/Oscar to explain their proposal in detail. I never claimed to be an economist, in fact I hardly believe even 90% if masternode owners could call themselves economist.

Just wanted to say thanks to oaxaca juliomoros and oscarmolivera for giving the time to do this interview. Good luck with your proposal and remember don't get discouraged if you don't get funding.

Thank you buster for your time and efforts.

 

[raganius]

This was my take after I did the interview with them. I do not believe they want to insert code into any core software. It would be another layer built on top of core (kind of like they are doing with evolution).

I want to make it very clear, I am not endorsing this proposal: Some morons on reddit seem to think that is my goal here, it is not. I did this interview to give the community the opportunity to pose questions and also for Julio/Oscar to explain their proposal in detail. I never claimed to be an economist, in fact I hardly believe even 90% of masternode owners could call themselves economist.

Just wanted to say thanks to oaxaca juliomoros and oscarmolivera for giving the time to do this interview. Good luck with your proposal and remember don't get discouraged if you don't get funding.

Thank you all. It was a great interview!

 

[TroyDASH]

By the way, for anyone like myself who was previously unfamiliar with the term, "flow scrip" is not a mistranslation/misspelling of "flow script".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip

 

[TroyDASH]

One comment I had, I am not a fan of the term "Proof of labor" - I think the terminology is too similar to Bitcoin's "Proof of Work". One of the core concepts in this paper is that "doing work" is not what creates wealth. The claim is that "Delivering goods/services that other people want/need" is what creates wealth, regardless of how easy or difficult it was to produce that result.

Suppose for some reason there is a demand in the community to dig a hole in the ground to make an Olympic-sized swimming pool. Suppose you arm 3000 people with tweezers, then have them all help dig the hole with their tweezers, and say the wealth created is how much money it takes to pay the workers for all the man-hours of labor it took to dig the hole. But that is preposterous, no one would think like that, and in fact by accomplishing the task in such an inefficient manner, net wealth was destroyed not created. This is what crypto does with "Proof of Work" and miners to meet the demand for a decentralized currency. To me that is essentially the same thing as "Proof of Labor". What you are really going for here in this paper though is straight to the value, that you can prove that you in fact delivered the good or service that was valued by the community. Not sure what might make for a better term, but I think perhaps the term could be improved.

 

[TroyDASH]

So, if I just take two concepts from this proposal, boiled down to the bare bones:
1. Credit transactions would create positive and negative coins, representing a line of credit and debt.
2. Reputation can be assigned to wallets by the decentralized community (or communities?), and reputation is a prerequisite for creating a credit line via credit transaction.

This essentially takes you up to page 6 in the paper. As I see it, literally everything else in the paper after this point is contingent on the above being implemented and resistant to sybil attacks, which is briefly acknowledged. So that is my main focus at this point so we do not get too far ahead of ourselves.

 

[toknormal]

What you are really going for here in this paper though is straight to the value, that you can prove that you in fact delivered the good or service that was valued by the community. Not sure what might make for a better term, but I think perhaps the term could be improved.

Yes, it's really "economic activity" in its most general description. But that's a bit of a crap term as well

Brainstorm time !!!

Proof of growth
Deed validation
Proof of Trade
Trade Metrology
Proof of Endorsement
Proof of Value
Exchange Validation
Proof of Commerce
Growth Metrology
Commercial Witness
Proof of Credit Deposition

My own favourite is "Commercial Witness" because that's basically what this "flowscript" system is. A blockchain-based, irrevocable testament to the fact that voluntary economic activity has taken place that was endorsed by 2 economically viable parties on the respective sides of the trade.

(And the fact that some credit money gets 'killed' in the process only fuels the metaphor )

 

[stan.distortion]

"Proof of trade" would probably be the closest imho Tok with maybe something like "proof of completed economic activity" as another. I'd put a lot of focus on value being both created and destroyed as value long since gone but still lingering around in the system is a recipe for disaster.

 

[toknormal]

By the way, for anyone like myself who was previously unfamiliar with the term, "flow scrip" is not a mistranslation/misspelling of "flow script".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip

Nice find ! i thought it was a misspelling as well. Never heard of that word.

 

[TanteStefana]

The schools are always selling grocery store scrip or scryp to raise money around here. You buy 200 from the school and they get a % of the value, and you can spend them like cash at the grocery store. Actually, I haven't seen it in a while, wonder if they still do that?

So anyway, Julio and Oscar, looking forward to your next installment of ideas!!

 

[xdashguy]

I am voting no. This proposal does not benefit Dash and it likely will never have concrete benefits. it is a very good idea and there should be a coin that does it. Maybe Dash will even do something similar some day. The issue with this is that it is 1) a research proposal 2) the results of the research proposal will not benefit Dash.

The purpose of the Dash budget should be to improve Dash specifically (not crypto in general). The Dash budget should not be used to benefit crypto in general or other alt coins. It should be used to specifically benefit Dash. This research proposal likely will never provide a benefit for Dash. Even if it someday might, its conclusions will benefit all cryptocoins, so its benefits are not specific to Dash. As a result, this should be funded by a university, a company, or someone else with a general interest in Crypto. The Dash network should have an interest in Dash specifically.

Research should be done by people who are passionate and not looking for money. Paying someone to do research they don't want to do will not work. Someone who has a real interest in a topic will research it whether paid or not. A lot of work and research has already went into this proposal. The authors will continue this whether it is funded or not if they really have an interest in it.

The proposal has the air of someone who first thought of an idea and then later threw Dash in to get blockchain money. I do not think this idea relates to Dash specifically. I think the authors have done great work and I commend them on that. However. the truth is, they are hoping to exploit the budget system in Dash to fund general cryptocrurency research. If Dash did not have a budget system that could provide them money, then I doubt Dash would have been mentioned in the paper at all.

Finally, Dash needs results, not research. Dash has a LOT of things that can be improved right now that are currently actionable. There is no reason to fund a general research project that may or may not ever provide any ROI and is not specific to Dash. Dash has a very limited budget. That very limited budget should be used on the very high priority items that can improve Dash in the near-term and drive adoption. This is not one of those items.

 

[raganius]

Dash needs results, not research

I agree with every other ideas you brought in your last post, with the exception of what's quoted above.

I understand that the specific case of the "proof of labour" concept would be better fit to an altcoin, alien to DASH (maybe, a sidechain, if so), and that it would make little sense for DASH to be funding it (especially because there's a limited budget... that always needs to be well spent)...

But I don't agree that DASH does not need research:

The thing is that I don't really agree with the notion that one would necessarily dedicate himself, doing serious research for free simply because the research is "on topics he loves". If that was true, big companies would not spend so much on their research teams and projects.

Even researchers need incentive... and in this world we live, love is not always enough incentive.

IMHO, DASH does need research if it wants to stay alive in the long term, among this ever (fast) developing crypto environment. But, indeed, I agree that DASH only needs (and should only fund) research projects that brings direct potential benefits to the DASH system itself (a good example would have been this one).

 

[toknormal]

I am voting no. This proposal does not benefit Dash and it likely will never have concrete benefits.

I'm afraid I have to respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree with almost everything said in this post.

First of all, from what sectors do we think Dash adoption is going to come ?

I only see 3:

[1] - as a hedge to Bitcoin
[2] - as a retail medium
[3] - as a monetary base with which to capitalise new economic models

Thats it. I don't see any others of significance.

As far as [1] goes, we're already there. You can basically assume that most of Dash's current marketcap comes from that source. As for [2], forget it. Dash is not competitive in that sector and never will be for 2 reasons:

a) it's not a crypto reserve like Bitcoin (i.e. prices across the board are not denominated in Dash, they're denominated in Bitcoin or Fiat)
b) it doesn't have any distinctive properties that make it preferable over any other denomination for retail

So that leaves [3]. Serving as a monetary capital base and this is indeed where Dash can score IMO. It has superb monetary properties that are likely to consolidate its identity, integrity and value over time and potentially qualify it as a low tier capital asset - albeit in fledgling economic models initially.

likely will never have concrete benefits

Did you actually try to calculate the potential "concrete benefits" ? I did (try, at least) - see bottom of message

If a mere 10 flowscrip mini-economies were established somewhere in the world, each having a turnover of just half a million dollars and a monetary velocity of 4 (more than double the $USD velocity) and a full reserve ratio (thats still 33% less than Bitshares) then that would require a capitalisation of 173,000 (173 thousand) Dash at current exchange rates. Thats 3% of the entire coin supply - just to capitalise 10 micro flowscrip economies the size of 15 staff salaries each. That amount of Dash isn't available so the price would have to skyrocket a bit to meet the equivalent dollar liquidity requirement with a smaller quantity of Dash.

If even one such micro-economy (it could be a school parents association for that matter) is shown to be successful then you can be sure there'll be a lot more than 10.

its conclusions will benefit all cryptocoins, so its benefits are not specific to Dash

That isn't what the proposers said. They were clear and unambiguous in their assertion that Dash in particular lent itself to the flowscrip model due to its ability to support the decentralised allocation of funds. So what if the research potentially benefits crypto in general ? ALL the efforts made in this sector do cos it's all open source.

I don't understand how we can afford to dismiss a proposal that comes under the one category of the above three where there's currently ZERO progress. What do we do then ? - wait for another crypto to research it and then steal their research because we were to skinflint to fork out a measly 1k Dash for nearly 6 month's work that's potentially of a strategic nature ?

To me, this proposal is the most no-brainer yes vote on that entire list. I'd gladly sacrifice the whole lot just to get this one passed - at least at this research stage. Lets see what the options are after that once the results are delivered.