Separate names with a comma.
Please sign up to discuss the most innovative cryptocurrency!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by TaoOfSatoshi, May 1, 2016.
Could you elaborate on why?
Thanks for linking to that, I think there are some good ideas in that post. I'm curious which failures you are referring to, about communities that have taken a wrong turn in that way?
So you advocate for the "core team" and conmunity status quo. So in my example, @GreyGhost has to go through a core team member to fix the website in a less efficient way. I would like to see that dropped, and let people who are qualified at various things (with Masternode approval) be able to do them themselves. More efficient no? Nice debate BTW, good to see. I can't help noticing that so far the opinions have fallen along "core team" and community lines. Just sayin'
Your opinion is respected too. Thanks!
Or, how about thinking about it another way. Instead of something completely brand new, what if you were tasked simply with describing everything exactly the way it is now? The relationships between various entities that all play a part to make DASH what it is. Which decisions are made by whom? Who has the power to control what? What happens when there is a disagreement between these entities? If we can get something on paper for how things currently are, then we can look at it and review if this is how we would like things to be.
How about a little exercise.
I propose DASH Nation Constitution v0.01, which is as follows:
"Evan Duffield is the supreme leader. All decisions are initiated and approved by Evan. Evan should be in sole total control of vision, development, and budget allocation"
Why is this wrong? I welcome you to propose revisions/amendments.
Why are you trying to make a caricature out of this?
@TroyDASH ... with all due respect, on the other thread it became clear you have still a very baseline understanding on how blockchain crypto-currencies work. You are asking for a written document on the dynamic relationship on "exactly how thing are now". It is very hard to do that when you don't understand some basic fundamentals of crypto, and therefore Dash. I am very glad to explain it further
I a more than happy and available for some Q&A, we've had an influx of new users, and I've always been one to help folk get up to speed with things.
Also, regarding the "Constitution" - your irony apart, this is the sort of thing we're strongly against.
I'm not trying to make a caricature. Just need to start from somewhere, anywhere.
The purpose of this is not technical documentation. This is a high level view, a way for masternode operators to communicate information to everyone. Information which represents the consensus of the masternode operators on the relationship between different entities in the DASH system, which is entirely outside of anything that is built into the protocol.
Who is "we"?
Short overview of network consensus rules (~3 minutes).
Add masternodes for funding in the model described there and you gets Dash's consensus.
More broad overview of bitcoin consunsus including some technical parts (~1.5 hour).
Highly encourage everyone to watch both videos if you haven't already, Andreas is doing great job explaining complex things in a simple way there (as always).
Maybe I should clarify that in this thread, whenever I am referring to "consensus", I do not mean it in the technical sense of what it means for a blockchain to have a consensus algorithm...
I tend to be skeptical of any effort to make a decentralized project like Dash too formalized, which this constitution idea seems to want to do. Let Dash develop organically (which will include some overlapping responsibilities and clashes at times).
A few random thoughts on the matter:
I don't like the term "core team" myself, probably because of my opinion of the Bitcoin core team. I prefer to call them the "development team." Their primary duty is to develop the code, and, as I understand it, anyone can contribute code, but only Evan (anyone else?) can approve it. I see no problem with this; if you don't like it, fork the code!
At this stage in Dash's lifecyle, Evan has an outsized influence on the direction of the project, which is natural. If you look at projects like Linux or Bitcoin, this is how they started as well. Eventually Evan might get tired of the project or he comes up with a few bad ideas and gets pushed out, but until then, this is what Dash is.
The development team does just that: software development. They are not in charge of marketing or third-party apps or things of that nature, and I'll imagine they don't want to be. (BTW, I admit that other than Evan and Andy, I can never remember who is on the development team.) There is no need for other efforts to go through the development team for approval. For example, before publishing the recent article I wrote for Dash World, I asked Evan to check it for factual errors and to give me a few quotes (which he graciously did). But I didn't ask him his opinion of the article or what it should be about, because, frankly, that isn't his responsibility. Let him be the lead visionary and dev, not the lead marketerer, copywriter, web designer, etc.
I know the "team" listed on the dash.org website includes a marketing guy and business development guy, but I don't see them as the final arbiters of all Dash marketing and business development, as is the case with Evan and software development. I assume they get paid from the blockchain, but that just ensures that *someone* is doing marketing and business development, not that they are the *only* ones doing it. But anyone else can do it as well, and as we have seen with Dash World, they too can be paid by the blockchain!
Regarding the official website, this seems to be a sensitive issue with all cryptos. The website initially gets set up by the development team, and then they have control over it, probably longer than they should. Really the website should be controlled by marketing people not dev people. But I understand that this transition can be tricky.
Someone in this thread said something about letting the majority decide the direction of the project. If you mean by that the Masternode owners, okay, but in many cryptos this means the loudest voices on the forum or reddit. With Dash, all that should matter is Masternode votes.
But I don't think Masternode owners should micromanage the development team. If the dev team takes the project in a direction the Masternode owners don't like, there is a solution: simply stop paying them, and start paying another development team. Then move your masternodes over to the new implementation. I don't think the MNs should be voting on every new concept Evan and the dev team comes up with.
That being said, I do think it important that Evan and the dev team take into consideration the feedback of the community. I don't see any reason to think they don't do this currently, however.
Okay, I've rambled on longer than I planned, so I'll shut up now!
What happens if a proposal passes from the community (Masternodes) that is in direct contradiction of the core team's wishes? Do they have to implement it?
What is the role of:
These questions must be definitively answered to avoid problems in the future as we grow.
Great post. I'm going to change the word "Constitution" to "Consensus". I don't want a formal document, just an agreement on a guideline of responsibilities moving forward.
Edit: Can't change the title. @UdjinM6? @fernando?
Edit 2: Title changed, allowed by @moocowmoo.
Good post. I don't think Masternode owners should micromanage the development team either. How the development team (or any development team) organizes themselves I don't consider to be too important; what really matters is how the development team is defined (who determines who is in it?), and the relationship between the development team(s) and the other entities (masternodes, miners, merchants,...etc). If the masternodes don't like the project direction, is de-funding the dev team really a solution though? I'm trying to imagine what would actually happen in such a scenario. And we absolutely do need to protect against giving power regarding the direction of the project to squeaky wheels. How do we decide which project direction/conceptual issues get voted on, or which ones get opened up for feedback before the dev team starts coding it?
The distinction between marketing team vs. development team is a great point that I'm interested to hear more about. The issue with the website was one of the key points of contention in the Slack channel earlier.
My guess is whoever wants to be on it and writes accepted code. And I assume Evan is the final arbitor of what gets accepted.
I personally think the devs should have full control of this. If they think something will be a major change, it would be nice if they proposed it publicly first, perhaps even put it to a MN vote (like with the blocksize limit), but I don't think that should be required. If it seems like they are going in a direction that the MNs don't like, I can assure you that eventually they will either be fired, or they will be developing for a very small project.
Masternodes and miners control the project in the long term, but devs control it in the short term. They could literally implement anything they want, and no one can stop them, but if they implement terrible code, then long term, the project will die and masternode/miner money will move elsewhere.
Also remember: this is all open-source code. Anyone at any time can simply fork the code and start their own coin. And if it is better than Dash, people will move to it, and the world will be a better place.
Yeah, that was unfortunate. I personally think the website should be controlled by marketers, who get input from the dev team on technical matters. But I understand the reluctance to hand over control of the main point of public contact until one can be absolutely sure the new person is trustworthy and competent.
A final point: decentralization tends to be messy. The best way to acheive order is through centralization and force. But I don't think any of us want that type of order. So there is going to be some overlap and stepping on toes and even confusion at times. What matters is the final result.
I'm not going anywhere. I'm in this for the long haul. I just hate seeing needless conflict over things that could be prevented with a little better communication, guidance and organization. I know it can't be perfect, but it could certainly get much better.
@ericsammons - excellent points.
I agree on all points, except on one thing, and that might just be due to semantics. Website controlled by the marketeers.
Who are the marketeers?
What qualifies one to become a marketeer?
How can this be verified?
Who elected them?
Who do the marketeers answer to?
What if the marketeers decide to market the project in a totally different angle as the founder and lead dev?
What happens when marketeers clash in ideals, each furiously wanting to hammer their own vision?
Is there a master-marketeer? Who, and why?
If there is, isn' that centralisation? What's his role?
If there isn't, who mediates conflict?
Now, I'm not writing this directed to you in particular Eric, but as a general answer to this thread. To think that any project, especially a decentralised one like ours can work with a 100% hands-off, free for all, structure free, responsibility free environment is utopia. Only chaos can emerge. And again, why with 12.1 Evo, Sentinel and onwards, the need for further formal structure is needed.
We listen to the community. There are numerous threads since forever discussing ALL aspects, including the website. Some points are taken into very serious consideration, other are considered but discarded as they are not aligned with the direction intended. All points are considered, always!
Just because someone is talented and experienced in any given field does not automatically give them instant privileges. I prefer someone less qualified to develop a project fully aligned with the original vision, than a super proficient someone that is going to steer it out of path just because they think it's best thing to do. Not pointing fingers at all - just an example
Which brings me to another point. I have no clue what happened in Slack, nor do I want to, as it seems it's just another episode of a common situation. Someone has a strong opinion about something they are knowledgeable about, their point is heard but not instantly adopted, they throw a fit and start arguing, then realise they're not going to get anywhere with it, and throw a tantrum in rage. Am I close enough?
If that is even slightly close to what happened, it's sad. How many gzillion times have I been very vocal about something that had zero effect? I lost count. I never took it personally or make a fuss about it. If people cannot behave in a mature fashion and agree to disagree, only toxicity develops, and nothing good comes out of that.
On the other hand, people who consistently contribute in a positive, prolific and communal way, are ever more invited to participate in more sensitive initiatives and decision making, like the website. We started as a group of 3 or 4, we're now more than 28 in that particular development group. Not all doing the same thing, each contributing with what they know best. For instance, I did info-architecture structure right at the beginning, but right now just watching on the sidelines as I have nothing valid to add at this stage, until I do again. I may give my opinion, but at this point that's it.
Is @fernando the best web-dev or webmaster on earth, or even within the Dash community? Certainly not. Is there anyone more trustworthy than him to hold access to the website's backend? Certainly not. See where I'm trying to get at here?
The way Xcoin/Darkcoin/Dash has been self-organising has been continuously and gradually morphing, never has there been a radical change. So I don't understand what doubts are being risen here. If anything, it's lack on structural understanding on how this project is edified.
Threads like these only serve to confuse and divide. The roles and dynamics are very clear. There have been moments of shift and doubt, but certainly not at this point. The "rules" have been laid out already, whoever agreed participates, whoever doesn't is not forced to either.
Dash Nation started as a welcome thread that got stickied as a very positive community welcome thread. Now it's being referred to as something more official, or worse, as being corrupted/hijacked from some sort of a community driven project. This will only confuse newcomers.
Self-organised initiatives are great, the more the merrier! Just as long as they don't pretend to be something they're not. The only result is conflict and confusion.
Hi @TaoOfSatoshi ,
I do not have an opinion about consensus (need to think more about it) but I think that @ericsammons and @yidakee made some really good points.
The only thing that concerns me is that you repeat several times about "the "core team" and community status quo". From where it comes from? I am really not getting it...
I know there are few vocal guys that disagree with almost every action of the core team but it does not make them entire community and it does not mean that there is a split between the core team and the community. We listen very carefully what the community says and modify our actions based on the community feedback.
I would say more - it is great that there are individuals disagreeing with the core team. From time to time I can find really constructive feedback in their opinions - thanks to this we can be stronger and build better products. Does it make any disconnection between the community and core team? Not at all - there is no reason to make such suggestions.
All good points. Like I said, the website can be a bit tricky.
In an ideal world, the official website for any crypto should eventually be handed over from the development team to a marketing team. When and how that occurs would depend on the crypto in question and where it is in its lifecycle. In the case of Dash, I think it would be appropriate to be confirmed by a Masternode vote. But in any case, the marketers chosen would be trusted by the community (thus, the MN vote) to present the message of the crypto to the world. But I would also think it wise if someone from the original dev team (such as the creator of the crypto) maintained access just in case that trust were to be broken down the road.
Is this centralization? Possibly, but if so, I don't see how it can be avoided. There is only one "official" site, and I don't think it wise to have multiple parties maintaining that one site concurrently.
BTW, I am not saying anything against the current webmasters; in fact, I don't even know who currently controls the website!
Actually in a real world work (e.g. website) is usually handed over from development team to support/maintenance team.
Business users and business owners (let's say marketing team in our case) cooperate with the support teams and provide input but it is extremely rare (and not recommended) to give the business any advanced access rights. It quickly leads to extensive testing of disaster recovery procedures
the main webpage will always be maintained and secured by the Dev team
there are some serious security concerns obviously due to download page !
I guess my experience has been different. In mature projects/companies I've been involved with the marketing team controls the website. It is not primarily a development tool, after all, but a marketing tool.
Obviously there are security concerns, which is why when I say "marketing team" I don't just mean just anyone - only a team (or person) vetted and approved by both the MN owners and the dev team. And giving them the ability to update the website doesn't mean the dev team can't access/secure it. But I do think a website only controlled by developers is not ideal from a marketing perspective. Perhaps this is already even the case with Dash; like I said, I don't know who currently has access to it.
Just my opinion of course, and I would strongly agree that security should be a high priority for the site.
Ohhh... Just realised that you probably writing about business controlling content of the website and not the website from technical standpoint.
In response to Tao & Troy, regarding my sentiment toward 'Dash Nation':
The term itself, as a marketing shtick, is not what irks me. Any and all individual marketing efforts -- like those which Tao has admirably undergone from both his own popular Twitter account and his new website -- are admirable and highly appreciated by me.
What irks me is Tao's attempt to throw his marketing term over everyone who uses Dash. I, for one, have no desire to be involved with anything that uses the word "nation." I have no desire proceed in my involvement with Dash under some kind of "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" sort of paternalistic, ra-ra bullshit.
In short, I never voted with any of my masternodes to be continually referred to as a "member of Dash Nation."
The protocol is the constitution. If it needs changing, put forth a pre-proposal discussion for it.
I was on board all the way until the 3rd to last paragraph. The roles and dynamics might be clear to the people who are on the innermost circles in the project development, but they aren't always clear to those of us who aren't, or who are looking to contribute in other ways. Even though yes we have a development team, I think it's a good thing to have essentially anyone who wants to bring things to the table, to be able to do so and to feel like they are being fairly treated, respected and listened to, even if ultimately their idea is shot down or if they don't get their way. In this case, even if it may not have been the *intention*, the result was that some people felt like the dev team was deliberately ignoring or working against people.
The dev team obviously can't be spending all their time chatting it up with the community for every little thing, but I think this can be improved. There are a lot of people who are passionate about the success of the project and we should hope to retain these individuals and make the expectations clear so that we make best use of the resources we have.
I'm not really following about what you mean by "official"? I don't think what we are trying to accomplish is necessarily the same thing as what you are thinking of.
@TroyDASH - I completely agree with you. And again, on must only look at this project since it's inception to recognise exactly what you describe happens. Evan started alone, time went on, and now Dash Slack has around 80 people in there working daily on different projects, 44 are in the development channel. I'm sorry if I was a bit feisty yesterday, but you must remember that text can often imprint the wrong tone.
These are the guys who through merit and dedication brought something to the table. Anyone can contribute at any time, from anywhere. You can spontaneously produce something of use, or if you have a skill-set propose it to the team. We may or may not have something immediately for you, but it's always good to know who to count on.
In fact, it's been a rare occasion when people got directly "hired". The vast majority worked on personal projects, and the quality of their work and dedication were recognised. So if you want to contribute, by all means, contribute! Produce something. Propose yourself. Or wait until we need skills and can't find them and hail the community. But if you're eager, get something done and get noticed.
And we like to think we are fair. Not long ago I went head to head with @TheDashGuy sooo fiercely that I actually proposed he be banned from this forum. Before that he was kicked out of Slack for misbehaving. Nevertheless things calmed down and today he's collaborating with the website redesign. If we were such nazis he'd never have a chance! But hey, you know what, water under the bridge. (at least for me) - It was a bad week for everyone.
We do listen. We do engage the community in virtually all aspects of this project. Only the hush-hush stuff is not public for obvious strategic reason. I can think of no instance when this didn't happen, please tell me if you can.
Regarding the roles, we discussed this in the other thread. As it stands, Evan leads development, devs develop with him, team members coordinate non-dev stuff, miners secure the network, MN ops hold the fund strings, community members commune.
Once again, that does not imply "class and separation of classes" - there are no first and second grade "citizens". But we are a defined project, to make it work we need some sort of structure.
There is no need for written declarations. There is no tribune. There is no democracy. This is a meritocracy.
Thanks for your opinions. This discussion is going exactly the way I wanted it to. We are getting some clarification as to what the various roles are in Dash.
@kot I simply feel that things would be more efficient if we had more of an environment where people could directly contribute no matter where they are in the community. You do raise good points however why this cannot always happen.
@ericsammons I kind of feel the same way as you, only you're expressing it in a far more eloquent way. Cheers!
@yidakee I'm not disparaging the core team in any way. I think they're doing a great job, a big part of the reason we are successful. I was just trying to explore a potentially more efficient way of doing things. Please don't take offense to my comments, I'm on your side, really.
@n00bkid Dash Nation never purported to be official. It's simply a way of attracting newcomers to the project in a more philosophical way. It's been doing great in that regard, too. It's also how I personally refer to the Dash community, you know like some Dogecoiners call themselves Shibes, that sort of thing. If I wanted to make it official, which would be preposterous, I would put it to a MN vote. You can rest assured that will never happen. I hope that gives you a better insight into where I'm coming from.
Great discussion, mates! I still feel that it was needed...
I know you mean well here
but this is obvious much more complicated than that
grey ghost and the main webpage
should he get a log in ? I do not think so as this is the "security bed " for the 40 Mill market cap (downloads), there are people in place to deal with that
that has nothing to do with him or community or core , it is just general security measures we need to have in place !
I heard there was some "incident " (I would call it hissy fit) over on the other slack .
old people are leaving new people are coming , that is a community for you.
this is coming down to the same old discussion
Decentralized everything , or not
there is obviously more to it than just throwing keywords around (Decentralized is just so cool these days) but for a project as this to work , Evan getting the support he needs to concentrate on his tasks , there is a team in place . it seems people think we are here for this or that , in my opinion we the team are only here to back up Evan !
there is so much "little" stuff to do on a daily bases , maintain this , update that , test those ,.... that is where the team comes in , Evan collected a bunch of people he trusts , can rely on and needs as support .... and that is it !
did Evan and this team deliver over the last 2,5 years ?
I believe they did as we are still here and are doing better and better (Marketcap)
I am not sure what is going on on that other slack , but do not believe the hype and do not get carried away as others already did .
there is no devide here , there is a devide with a selected few (initiated by them) but that is totally normal in a project as this .
a team of 6-8 will never satisfy a community of 1000 (or more) , there will always be different opinions and that is good and makes us all grow !
no need to put this on a peddle stool , it is just normal project internal issues (as they all have)