Dash Charity Fund

Fount4inhead

Member
Mar 21, 2017
51
12
48
39
Instead of having the 5 Dash for proposals be burnt, have them added to a charity fund on the blockchain. Also if its true that the budget gets burnt if not spent have this also added to the fund. Create a separate system for charity requests to be submitted then users(evolution?)/nodes can vote yes or no to accept or decline the proposal and send the funds.

A number of benefits

1. The obvious humanitarian benefits.
2. Publicity.
3. Creates a great image for Dash.
4. Disperses Dash and creates further awareness of the currency to a larger demographic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: demo

Nick

New Member
Mar 29, 2017
36
9
8
31
Thought of another way, this would be equivalent to passing a philanthropic proposal every month with dash funds. Only we can't dictate the amount and the charity will probably be set.

When considering philanthropic efforts we should consider them on a proposal basis. At this time I believe we should focus mostly on development until our monthly budget grows. As for publicity, we'd need a more detailed plan and analysis.
 

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
353
705
163
Interesting idea. I think the issue would be that this requires designation of the recipient charities (by payment address) using a centralized authority at the protocol level. Unless some dynamic solution could be devised.
 

Nick

New Member
Mar 29, 2017
36
9
8
31
Interesting idea. I think the issue would be that this requires designation of the recipient charities (by payment address) using a centralized authority at the protocol level. Unless some dynamic solution could be devised.
Having a public dash address for donations to the Dash Foundation is the best option in my opinion. Then we're able to donate to others through the foundation by adding a statement of how the funds are to be used.
 

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
353
705
163
Having a public dash address for donations to the Dash Foundation is the best option in my opinion. Then we're able to donate to others through the foundation by adding a statement of how the funds are to be used.
It's still a bit centralized though :) decentralized version would be the Network could appoint designated charities dynamically or something similar. Which should be possible in Evolution.

Mixing in proposals with charity donations though might be 2 things to keep separate because part of it is spam protection with burning funds, i.e. like POW, a cost is spent that can't be retrieved. Unlikely but an altruistic attacker might feel less bad spamming proposals if the money went to charity than if they were just burned (unlikely example I know but illustrating a point hopefully)
 

Nick

New Member
Mar 29, 2017
36
9
8
31
A good starting point for something like this would be to determine which charities are of interest to Dash and have a project team assigned to teaching them about dash and helping them to be able to accept it.
 

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
353
705
163
Oh, I was referring to real charities or nonprofits like the Ethereum Foundation. The website you link is someone posting text claiming to be a charity.

https://egov.maryland.gov/BusinessExpress/EntitySearch - http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First | Whois owner of a Mr. John Doe...
OK registered charities - I take your point. Unsung is pretty well known in Dash circles though via TheCryptoShow and the Network is sponsoring them: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/sponsorship-for-the-crypto-show-and-unsung-hacking-hunger.10565/
 
  • Like
Reactions: akhavr

Nick

New Member
Mar 29, 2017
36
9
8
31

Naruto

Member
Dec 26, 2014
176
89
88
I have thought about something like this before. BUT the main problem here is the charity fund will be a centralised fund, even with multi-sig address..... so


使用Tapatalk 發送
 

Nick

New Member
Mar 29, 2017
36
9
8
31
I mean it's reasons like this the dash nonprofit was formed. I see people playing with the words centralized and decentralized to suit their rhetoric when the core problem is individual fallibility and asking ourselves how we remove that as a factor. When you get down to it everything is centralized.

Having the foundation in the US definitely isn't the ideal place either but it's not the major issue. The major issue is getting funds from point A to B efficiently as possible for its intended use.
 
Last edited:

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
Yes yes i am sick of hearing people throw this centralised word as much as possible and feel that everything needs to be decentralised

Guys anything is fine provided things work ,

I feel it's far better to send the remaining dash to a charity instead of burning them

I am ready to vote on it
 

Fount4inhead

Member
Mar 21, 2017
51
12
48
39
I am not sure of the technicality's but I was not thinking of it being centralised in anyway, although I do agree there is no reason to be hung up on that point. I thought it could work just like an extension of the current proposal system so it would be entirely decentralised charity having the dash sent to the fund address on the blockchain automatically rather than burnt from the proposal fee and budget. People could also voluntarily donate simply by sending any amount to that address.

Then there is no reason to select charity's it would be done just how voting is currently done any charity can ask for funds if it be a large established charity requesting funds or local homeless man asking for some dash to his wallet for a 6 pack if it gets voted yes then he gets those dash....
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Core Developer
Dash Core Team
May 20, 2014
3,639
3,537
1,183
The idea to send funds to some arbitrary defined address instead of burning them via OP_RETURN means incorporating this address in protocol (can be changed only via hard-fork). Someone would have to have corresponding key(s) to get funds from it. This "someone" would have to be known and thus s/he becomes a perfect target for all kind of attacks because s/he is effectively a single point of failure for the network - to prevent hacker from stealing funds further after he gets the key the whole network should go through unplanned hard-fork. Basically, you are trying to recreate TheDAO on Dash network and, as you might already guess, I say "no" to such idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: akhavr

Fount4inhead

Member
Mar 21, 2017
51
12
48
39
The idea to send funds to some arbitrary defined address instead of burning them via OP_RETURN means incorporating this address in protocol (can be changed only via hard-fork). Someone would have to have corresponding key(s) to get funds from it. This "someone" would have to be known and thus s/he becomes a perfect target for all kind of attacks because s/he is effectively a single point of failure for the network - to prevent hacker from stealing funds further after he gets the key the whole network should go through unplanned hard-fork. Basically, you are trying to recreate TheDAO on Dash network and, as you might already guess, I say "no" to such idea.
What about sentinel / sporks?
 

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Core Developer
Dash Core Team
May 20, 2014
3,639
3,537
1,183
What about sentinel / spork?
Sentinel - one day probably, not soon
Spork - I'd rather see less sporks, not more of them. Or at least more but controlled by masternodes/sentinel and we are not there yet either.

There is nothing wrong with burning coins - it's a verifiable trustless way of proving your intentions (for proposal submission). Collecting coins at some predefined address opens Pandora Box of trusted 3-rd party incorporated into network i.e. attacks, corruption, loss of keys and all kind of who knows what else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: akhavr and flare

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
There is nothing wrong with burning coins - it's a verifiable trustless way of proving your intentions (for proposal submission). Collecting coins at some predefined address opens Pandora Box of trusted 3-rd party incorporated into network i.e. attacks, corruption, loss of keys and all kind of who knows what else.
Instead of burning the coins, you could add these coins to the next budget.
And then let the charities to compete with the rest proposals and get these coins.
Why not? Whats the problem with that?
 

Nick

New Member
Mar 29, 2017
36
9
8
31
Sentinel - one day probably, not soon
Spork - I'd rather see less sporks, not more of them. Or at least more but controlled by masternodes/sentinel and we are not there yet either.

There is nothing wrong with burning coins - it's a verifiable trustless way of proving your intentions (for proposal submission). Collecting coins at some predefined address opens Pandora Box of trusted 3-rd party incorporated into network i.e. attacks, corruption, loss of keys and all kind of who knows what else.
All moot points considering coinbase exists: [Coinbase Insurance | 2 Factor Auth Login | 5 Multi-sig Withdraw + Email Notification | Phone Send Confirmation] Then you have a short exchange window before the funds are in the foundation's bank account. And no paper work needed for <$5,000.

Vs

Do this for us anonymous guy, here's $10,000. Hope to see you again. This is not trustless.

I'd rather trust the foundation.