Dash Nation Consensus Discussion

[TroyDASH]

I think your premise is not correct: There is nothing in existence. The new features are neither rolled out to mainnet nor testnet. Currently it's all on Evans/Udjins local source code repo, anyone could implement his own (better?) solution. As soon as Evan commits his work to github it's free for review, discussion and changes - the same would apply to any other implementation.



Who was talking about fixing bugs? Core team is currently working on 17 different projects (https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/march-2016-dash-core-team-monthly-report.8687) - pick one.



I don't get the point tbh.

I'll put it another way. It's like the dev saying, I'm going to build a railroad system that goes runs from downtown Manhattan, goes over the skyscrapers, does a few loop-de-loops, and ends at Yankee stadium. Dev person is a very skilled engineer and can absolutely build such a system, but everyone says to wait until it's built for testing before we talk as a community about whether we even want a system with that functionality, or if there might be some unintended consequences?

Under what conditions should Evan or core team engage with the community about feedback over design plans? Is there a way we can foster a dialogue with actual core team devs without wasting Evan's or everyone's time?

 

[Solarminer]

Personally I have so much trust in what Evan does that I would let him do the things and implement the solution first. If we have it on the testnet, then we can talk and work on the improvements and changes. Endless, theoretical talk on the forum is not very effective and goes to nowhere usually. Having PoC (testnet) gives much more options to discuss.

Another thing is to let someone else deciding whether Evan can/should implement something or not - it is fundamental misunderstanding in my opinion.

Kot, you are misunderstanding Tao's post. This isn't about trusting Evan or not. This isn't about if the code will work or not. This is about a significant change to the budget system that potentially could cause future problems. I feel this is so significant that it will completely corrupt the budget system and take away the decentralized nature that we benefit today. Maybe you don't feel this way, which is fine. There still should be a significant discussion about this.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

Not really - you are making wrong assumption. Please read carefully what I wrote. I am simply placing the discussion/decision part in more reasonable time-frame (when there is actually something to discuss).
Endless theoretical discussions would kill the progress - there is no chance to have everyone thinking the same and agree on the same matters.

I'm in complete agreement. We shouldn't waste time on "endless" discussions, and we don't HAVE to. We have a beautiful gift thanks to Evan which is the MN network to resolve disputes and gain consensus among Dash Nation members. If an issue is sensitive enough and people bring up valid concerns, I don't think it's too much to have a week of debate followed by a Masternode vote so we can move on knowing the majority of stakeholders agree on the direction. I'm not saying to do this for every little thing as that would be ridiculous, but for the major unplanned changes it is reasonable.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

@TaoOfSatoshi Three words: Just. Do. It.

I am part of Dash since almost two years now. One thing that i was asking me since ever: Why do people spend endless hours with writing ideas in forums ("contributing ideas") instead of doing things?



Seriously: BCT lost its status as collaboration platform long ago. Me for myself even had the IP of the forum on my firewall blocklist for several months - since i couldn't stand the nonsense which gets posted there and drove my bloodpressure up. Additionally i voted for closing the ANN thread

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/locked-dash-announcements-thread-on-btc.6492/#post-71894

If someone wants to address concerns to Evan and notes that his forum posts are not responded to: [email protected] is the way to go. Or [email protected] or [email protected]. Don't expect Evan or other members of the core team to spend 2 hours each day to read forum posts. Our resources are scarce anyway...



Dash is beginning to build a DAO, we are not there yet. In the future I'd like to see several independent teams - just like "core team" - doing what they've laid out in their proposal. The budgeting code gets revamped in 12.1 (aka sentinel) to facilitate this.

To address your points:

Re. Just do it! Completely agree.

Re: BCT: Fair enough, another avenue of communication could be used for OPEN debate, not just private emails.

Re. Building the DAO: These discussions are exactly how we will achieve that.

Thank you for your comments.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

I'll put it another way. It's like the dev saying, I'm going to build a railroad system that goes runs from downtown Manhattan, goes over the skyscrapers, does a few loop-de-loops, and ends at Yankee stadium. Dev person is a very skilled engineer and can absolutely build such a system, but everyone says to wait until it's built for testing before we talk as a community about whether we even want a system with that functionality, or if there might be some unintended consequences?

Under what conditions should Evan or core team engage with the community about feedback over design plans? Is there a way we can foster a dialogue with actual core team devs without wasting Evan's or everyone's time?

Kot, you are misunderstanding Tao's post. This isn't about trusting Evan or not. This isn't about if the code will work or not. This is about a significant change to the budget system that potentially could cause future problems. I feel this is so significant that it will completely corrupt the budget system and take away the decentralized nature that we benefit today. Maybe you don't feel this way, which is fine. There still should be a significant discussion about this.

The ideas behind your posts are exactly the reason why I started this thread. It's important to have the two potentially divided sides come together and work out a new possibly more inclusive way of doing things. Thanks!

 

[yidakee]

Kot, you are misunderstanding Tao's post. This isn't about trusting Evan or not. This isn't about if the code will work or not. This is about a significant change to the budget system that potentially could cause future problems. I feel this is so significant that it will completely corrupt the budget system and take away the decentralized nature that we benefit today. Maybe you don't feel this way, which is fine. There still should be a significant discussion about this.

And you honestly think Evan is not completely aware of these potential vectors of failure?

Let me put this another way. We're all here because we agree he's a genius crypto developer. All pilar features and major development came from his head. He think 5 steps ahead of everyone else. The simple fact that you're worried about something he very briefly described publicly and is currently head deep coding is more than enough reassurance that these "issues" will become clear as day to him while we weaves it all together with code.

And then, lets not forget that you, or anyone, will have more than enough time to subvert the system on testnet and actually make a point. That's the entire challenge of it. That is when all eyes and ears are open and you have 100% of Evan and dev's time, listening to your every word, eagerly awaiting for flaws and bugs to be discovered an suggestions are deeply thought on.

Not to be rude, and talking in general not pointing fingers at anyone, but in this field, and especially the hyper developing Dash, talk is not really worth much when the lead dev has made a breakthrough and his creative juices flowing! Do not disturb the man while he is pumped. After he commits to github, then you can look at what actually exists.

Testnet testnet testnet! That's the challenge! Prove him wrong! Break the system! No matter how deep your skill set everyone's invited. The more the merrier.

And please @TaoOfSatoshi - this is not black and white stuff, either/or, heaven or hell. Nothing has changed suddenly, just gradually evolving and thorough experimentation. We are definitely a DAO. There is no definition. We're currently writing the rule book. No one else has a self-funding model. We again are nº1 at that. We are pioneers. At least I believe so or I wouldn't be here.

Everyone doubted Masternodes, everyone doubted Darksend, everyone doubted Spork, everyone doubted InstantX, everyone doubted DGbB - numerous were the catastrophic doomsday scenarios. Everyone was wrong. No one has be able to break anything.

Have a little faith in the man.

 

[Solarminer]

And you honestly think Evan is not completely aware of these potential vectors of failure?

And then, lets not forget that you, or anyone, will have more than enough time to subvert the system on testnet and actually make a point. That's the entire challenge of it. That is when all eyes and ears are open and you have 100% of Evan and dev's time, listening to your every word, eagerly awaiting for flaws and bugs to be discovered an suggestions are deeply thought on.

Have a little faith in the man.

Why waste time changing an entire budget system to act like a corporation when it will fail? The idea needs to be sound BEFORE time is wasted coding it.

And to say we have plenty of time before it gets released. How do we know? Is there going to be a discussion period?

How much time was giving with the public awareness to exchange awareness? Less than a week, with no real alternative. Combining 5 different projects making it very easy to like one, but having to vote for all because funding would be lost with no time to create a new proposal.

I don't go by faith. You lose almost every time. I assume the worst possible scenario. And what I am assuming right now is a Friday post that says. Ok 12.1 is released, download and update. Half the masternodes and miners say no to the update and don't update. We have a lingering battle to fix this release to something the community agrees on. Not good.

Let's assume 12.1 does get updated. Project managers get voted in. One of them makes a bad mistake(deletes a wallet with a 2000 dash project fund or something). Masternodes react and vote out all project managers as they all try to defend the guilty one. New project managers get voted in. Dash core group is out. Evan gives up. We start Dash V2.0. I am not against this because the core will get paid a salary....I am against it because it will likely get the core kicked out. I am also against it because the actual people making decisions do not hold collateral(the real cause of the problem above.)

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

And you honestly think Evan is not completely aware of these potential vectors of failure?

Let me put this another way. We're all here because we agree he's a genius crypto developer. All pilar features and major development came from his head. He think 5 steps ahead of everyone else. The simple fact that you're worried about something he very briefly described publicly and is currently head deep coding is more than enough reassurance that these "issues" will become clear as day to him while we weaves it all together with code.

And then, lets not forget that you, or anyone, will have more than enough time to subvert the system on testnet and actually make a point. That's the entire challenge of it. That is when all eyes and ears are open and you have 100% of Evan and dev's time, listening to your every word, eagerly awaiting for flaws and bugs to be discovered an suggestions are deeply thought on.

Not to be rude, and talking in general not pointing fingers at anyone, but in this field, and especially the hyper developing Dash, talk is not really worth much when the lead dev has made a breakthrough and his creative juices flowing! Do not disturb the man while he is pumped. After he commits to github, then you can look at what actually exists.

Testnet testnet testnet! That's the challenge! Prove him wrong! Break the system! No matter how deep your skill set everyone's invited. The more the merrier.

And please @TaoOfSatoshi - this is not black and white stuff, either/or, heaven or hell. Nothing has changed suddenly, just gradually evolving and thorough experimentation. We are definitely a DAO. There is no definition. We're currently writing the rule book. No one else has a self-funding model. We again are nº1 at that. We are pioneers. At least I believe so or I wouldn't be here.

Everyone doubted Masternodes, everyone doubted Darksend, everyone doubted Spork, everyone doubted InstantX, everyone doubted DGbB - numerous were the catastrophic doomsday scenarios. Everyone was wrong. No one has be able to break anything.

Have a little faith in the man.

That's a bit of a straw man. I don't recall posting anything where I doubted Evan. I'm simply trying to introduce a more cohesive way of doing things. Evan is a genius, I would follow him to the ends of the earth...

 

[TroyDASH]

I don't think it would be fair to portray that recognizing Evan is a human being is equivalent to doubting his abilities or questioning his wisdom. I'm just saying, with the project growing as it is now, the model some of you are describing puts a lot of weight on one person, and people are fallable. Even though it may be true that Evan is smarter than all of us, it does not strike me as a prudent thing to not ask for conceptual feedback, and to not be interested in any dialogue about it before coding, when a significant portion of the community is asking for it. I don't really think it would consume a ton of resources to respond to some of the community concerns. Would it help if we had someone compile some of the most prevalent questions together so that no one has to spend time sifting through threads? Or is it really that there is zero interest to respond until the train tracks are built for test runs? It can feel a little like the dev team is treating people on their own team as trolls by ignoring

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

There are added benefits to my proposal, too that we haven't discussed yet:

The elimination of the core team designation, going with one team: People who previously may not have contributed may now feel empowered to help out, where they weren't before. Feeling like you're a part of the team can be very motivating!

Debating key issues, putting them to MN votes: Proposals such as Sentinel, rather than just getting approved/disapproved, through the debate process may actually be able to be improved prior to work beginning, leading to an engaged community, and a more efficient development cycle.

More food for thought.

 

[rustycase]

"There is no need for written declarations. There is no tribune. There is no democracy. This is a meritocracy."

Whew! This, is much more difficult to get through than that intro thread ! lol ...and I'll need to review it a few more times when I get towards the end of these 5 pages.
So far I've made it to 3. I should have taken down notes...
Tnx to all participants.
rc

 

[kot]

Why waste time changing an entire budget system to act like a corporation when it will fail? The idea needs to be sound BEFORE time is wasted coding it.

And to say we have plenty of time before it gets released. How do we know? Is there going to be a discussion period?

How much time was giving with the public awareness to exchange awareness? Less than a week, with no real alternative. Combining 5 different projects making it very easy to like one, but having to vote for all because funding would be lost with no time to create a new proposal.

I don't go by faith. You lose almost every time. I assume the worst possible scenario. And what I am assuming right now is a Friday post that says. Ok 12.1 is released, download and update. Half the masternodes and miners say no to the update and don't update. We have a lingering battle to fix this release to something the community agrees on. Not good.

Let's assume 12.1 does get updated. Project managers get voted in. One of them makes a bad mistake(deletes a wallet with a 2000 dash project fund or something). Masternodes react and vote out all project managers as they all try to defend the guilty one. New project managers get voted in. Dash core group is out. Evan gives up. We start Dash V2.0. I am not against this because the core will get paid a salary....I am against it because it will likely get the core kicked out. I am also against it because the actual people making decisions do not hold collateral(the real cause of the problem above.)

@Solarminer - you can't prevent anyone from doing things (e.g. coding) just because you do not like the idea. Not only in case of v.12.1 but in any other case.

I do not want to go by faith with the system changes (having faith to let the brilliant developer coding is a different story). Therefore I would like to have a solution working on testnet. Only this way we could check whether it is useful or not. On the testnet we could test all scenarios (including yours) we could imagine and define and improve the system (or reject the change - this is always an option). Testnet experience should decide whether we go in the direction or not (and only HAVING testnet experience we could vote consciously on big changes). Why? Because not everyone has the same level of experience. E.g. I have an experience in project management and process management so I can easy imagine impact from this perspective but I want to see also usability part, UI and workflow. Only testnet can give my the full picture.

About the idea of sentinels in particular - I think completely opposite to you. Our current system is very vulnerable - I can create a lot of scenarios to easy game the system and exort money (and I am not going to list them here to not create a manual). The other thing is the fact that the current system is not able to scale. Masternode owners can vote on limited number of projects and monitor their status (not to mention that after voting there is almost no control on the project direction). It is very idealistic and naive to think that current solution can support healthy growth of Dash ecosystem. You want to stay in your comfort zone, Evan proposes a vision for the future - this is the biggest difference between two of you.

 

[yidakee]

Why waste time changing an entire budget system to act like a corporation when it will fail? The idea needs to be sound BEFORE time is wasted coding it.

And to say we have plenty of time before it gets released. How do we know? Is there going to be a discussion period?

How much time was giving with the public awareness to exchange awareness? Less than a week, with no real alternative. Combining 5 different projects making it very easy to like one, but having to vote for all because funding would be lost with no time to create a new proposal.

I don't go by faith. You lose almost every time. I assume the worst possible scenario. And what I am assuming right now is a Friday post that says. Ok 12.1 is released, download and update. Half the masternodes and miners say no to the update and don't update. We have a lingering battle to fix this release to something the community agrees on. Not good.

Let's assume 12.1 does get updated. Project managers get voted in. One of them makes a bad mistake(deletes a wallet with a 2000 dash project fund or something). Masternodes react and vote out all project managers as they all try to defend the guilty one. New project managers get voted in. Dash core group is out. Evan gives up. We start Dash V2.0. I am not against this because the core will get paid a salary....I am against it because it will likely get the core kicked out. I am also against it because the actual people making decisions do not hold collateral(the real cause of the problem above.)

What Kot said, fully agree.

Also fully disagree with what you say, I see thing in an entirely different angle.

- There has never been a release of a feature, let alone major system overhaul, that is not subject to testnet before roll-out, that would be insane. Only minor bugs are updated without testing. Testnet runs for weeks until people run dry of ideas on how to break it !

- What Evan spoke of, and very briefly discussed, is not the entire end product. I'm sure there will be many nuances, changes, improvements etc - nothing is written in stone.

- Assuming is a very dangerous thing to do and very anti-productive. For example: Quit your day job today and lets assume Dash price reaches 10000 USD next week.

.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

@kot @yidakee @Solarminer

The debate you are having right now is exactly the type of thing we as a community (DAO) should be having whenever a key change (technical or otherwise) is introduced.

Evan is a first-class coder and thinker, that would not change if we went to a "one team" system. He would still be the engine that drives this machine. He would still come up with innovations, There will still be a dev team, nothing would change in that regard. But this system would be more inclusive, getting more perspectives on potential ideas and improving them before work begins. And once work is finished ready for testnet, we are one step ahead, with the blessing of the community.

The steps of core team designation elimination and community debate with voting will serve to unite us, and make us stronger as a cohesive unit. I would like to clarify that I think the core team is doing a great job, and assume that they would continue to do a good job even if they no longer had that title, but were simply part of a larger entity, where we are all equally valued for our skills.

Decentralized governance, FTW!!!

Edit: Another thought came to me: This would be great for marketing as well...

Dash, the most inclusive community in crypto! Looking for a core team? You won't find it in Dash Nation! All members have a say, and are equally valued for their strengths. A truly decentralized organization, thanks to Masternodes.

Could be huge...

 

[yidakee]

@Tao - again with this "one team" notion, as if something that is happening or planned or similar.

And what's with this "core team title elimination" ? We need official representation of the project for obvious reasons. If we handnt, no one would take us seriously and we could not conduct business with anyone.

The "we" your are referring to are two maybe three people at the moment. Maybe a little more if you start making lots of noise and obvious detractors, trolls, disruptors and negative-minded folk jump at the opportunity to create havoc.

It's ok to talk/propose/debate the notion, just please don't post in this manner as if it's something official, it will only confuse newcomers. Has this ever been debated? Where? I totally missed this discussion.

Also your notion of DAO, in my humble opinion, is flawed or you don't understand the concept. You speak of a "one team" and "cohesive" - if this were true it would have happened organically, yet there is no example in the entire history of human kind where this happened successfully, quite on the contrary.

... under the umbrella of DAO. What sort of professional experience do you have, and in what walk of life, where you can demonstrate that zero structure achieves, or at least increases, productivity and effectiveness?

DAO - decentralised autonomous organisation.

Organisation. As in ... organised.

noun: organisation

1. 1.
   an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organization.html

A social unit of people that is structured and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals. All organizations have a management structure that determines relationships between the different activities and the members, and subdivides and assigns roles, responsibilities, and authority to carry out different tasks. Organizations are open systems--they affect and are affected by their environment.


You have cannot achieve anything with a horizontal zero structure model. We are trying to promote very serious business and financial model. Not a Dogecoin style economy.

.

 

[AndyDark]

Why waste time changing an entire budget system to act like a corporation when it will fail? The idea needs to be sound BEFORE time is wasted coding it.

And to say we have plenty of time before it gets released. How do we know? Is there going to be a discussion period?

How much time was giving with the public awareness to exchange awareness? Less than a week, with no real alternative. Combining 5 different projects making it very easy to like one, but having to vote for all because funding would be lost with no time to create a new proposal.

I don't go by faith. You lose almost every time. I assume the worst possible scenario. And what I am assuming right now is a Friday post that says. Ok 12.1 is released, download and update. Half the masternodes and miners say no to the update and don't update. We have a lingering battle to fix this release to something the community agrees on. Not good.

Let's assume 12.1 does get updated. Project managers get voted in. One of them makes a bad mistake(deletes a wallet with a 2000 dash project fund or something). Masternodes react and vote out all project managers as they all try to defend the guilty one. New project managers get voted in. Dash core group is out. Evan gives up. We start Dash V2.0. I am not against this because the core will get paid a salary....I am against it because it will likely get the core kicked out. I am also against it because the actual people making decisions do not hold collateral(the real cause of the problem above.)

@Solarminer you are becoming the biggest troll in Dash. Look how many negative things you are saying there that "might" happen or are wrong with what the contributors (you're "core team") are doing:

coding unsound ideas - check
releasing code that half the network rejects - check
project managers making "bad mistakes" - check
Masternodes voting out project managers -check
core getting kicked out - check (and something you might be interested in, huh?)

And all this without proposing a single solution, or even having a clue the work and professional experience that has gone into Evan's plan.

Seriously, you are getting way out of hand. It's easy to snipe at the people doing that hard work, would be good I saw you doing any for a change?

 

[TroyDASH]

The message I am getting from the core team so far here is that prior to a testnet release (which takes months of coding), nobody cares about dialoguing with the community on the project direction at a conceptual level because either (1) Evan is so much smarter than everyone else that no community feedback could possibly be valuable, or (2) it's a waste of everyone's time to critique a plan for a few days before the dev team spends months to code it. Is that the message you want to be sending?

 

[TroyDASH]

@Solarminer you are becoming the biggest troll in Dash. Look how many negative things you are saying there that "might" happen or are wrong with what the contributors (you're "core team") are doing:

coding unsound ideas - check
releasing code that half the network rejects - check
project managers making "bad mistakes" - check
Masternodes voting out project managers -check
core getting kicked out - check (and something you might be interested in, huh?)

And all this without proposing a single solution, or even having a clue the work and professional experience that has gone into Evan's plan.

Seriously, you are getting way out of hand. It's easy to snipe at the people doing that hard work, would be good I saw you doing any for a change?

Please keep this thread constructive and do not personally attack. NO ONE who is posting here is a troll. Try to see things from other people's perspective.

 

[AndyDark]

The message I am getting from the core team so far here is that prior to a testnet release (which takes months of coding), nobody cares about dialoguing with the community on the project direction at a conceptual level because either (1) Evan is so much smarter than everyone else that no community feedback could possibly be valuable, or (2) it's a waste of everyone's time to critique a plan for a few days before the dev team spends months to code it. Is that the message you want to be sending?

It doesn't work like that. Anyone who wants to contribute rather than snipe from a keyboard on a forum IS CONTRIBUTING AND GIVING INPUT.

Can i just ask, who are you exactly, what experience do you have, what have you actually contributed?

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

@Tao - again with this "one team" notion, as if something that is happening or planned or similar.

And what's with this "core team title elimination" ? We need official representation of the project for obvious reasons. If we handnt, no one would take us seriously and we could not conduct business with anyone.

The "we" your are referring to are two maybe three people at the moment. Maybe a little more if you start making lots of noise and obvious detractors, trolls, disruptors and negative-minded folk jump at the opportunity to create havoc.

It's ok to talk/propose/debate the notion, just please don't post in this manner as if it's something official, it will only confuse newcomers. Has this ever been debated? Where? I totally missed this discussion.

Also your notion of DAO, in my humble opinion, is flawed or you don't understand the concept. You speak of a "one team" and "cohesive" - if this were true it would have happened organically, yet there is no example in the entire history of human kind where this happened successfully, quite on the contrary.

... under the umbrella of DAO. What sort of professional experience do you have, and in what walk of life, where you can demonstrate that zero structure achieves, or at least increases, productivity and effectiveness?

DAO - decentralised autonomous organisation.

Organisation. As in ... organised.

noun: organisation

1. 1.
   an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organization.html

A social unit of people that is structured and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals. All organizations have a management structure that determines relationships between the different activities and the members, and subdivides and assigns roles, responsibilities, and authority to carry out different tasks. Organizations are open systems--they affect and are affected by their environment.


You have cannot achieve anything with a horizontal zero structure model. We are trying to promote very serious business and financial model. Not a Dogecoin style economy.

.

Nothing in your posts suggests what I'm suggesting can't be done. No one has achieved it? Sounds like Dash. Need organization? Fine, but do it under the DAO, not a core team and community which has clearly demonstrated here and in Bitcoin that it breeds divisiveness. Why cling to a title when eliminating it could serve to solve problems that have been observed.

I'm not suggesting to eliminate structure, nowhere did I say that. We need structure. We have an opportunity through our technology to actually make this thing work, like no other organization in history. We are trailblazers, and can lead by example in this space.

One Team with debates and fair voting on key issues. We have the technology to do it and reap the rewards. Why not try it?

As far as debate, you're in it bud! As I've said before, this is a discussion on how to promote inclusivity because its been a problem.

This talk has been great, very cordial and professional. We just see things fundamentally different. Let's see where this talk takes us...

 

[AndyDark]

Please keep this thread constructive and do not personally attack. NO ONE who is posting here is a troll. Try to see things from other people's perspective.

You are a troll. You are anonymous, you don't contribute anything, you criticize everything you can, and you don't propose any solutions. That is not a 'personal attack', that is professional criticism - reading your posts, your only roll here is disrpution.

 

[AndyDark]

Nothing in your posts suggests what I'm suggesting can't be done. No one has achieved it? Sounds like Dash. Need organization? Fine, but do it under the DAO, not a core team and community which has clearly demonstrated here and in Bitcoin that it breeds divisiveness. Why cling to a title when eliminating it could serve to solve problems that have been observed.

I'm not suggesting to eliminate structure, nowhere did I say that. We need structure. We have an opportunity through our technology to actually make this thing work, like no other organization in history. We are trailblazers, and can lead by example in this space.

One Team with debates and fair voting on key issues. We have the technology to do it and reap the rewards. Why not try it?

As far as debate, you're in it bud! As I've said before, this is a discussion on how to promote inclusivity because its been a problem.

This talk has been great, very cordial and professional. We just see things fundamentally different. Let's see where this talk takes us...

There is already one team - the contributors. You are one, I am one.

What you are saying is, lets run this currency from a forum. Go read the website thread, you might see this is a moronic idea. The only people who decide what happens in Dash is the MN operators, and they are appointing teams to do ACTUAL WORK.

If i'm wrong, can you show me, what are the contributions to Dash that are being rejected by your evil secret team somewhere? Because in reality tao, you're talking a massive load of shit.

 

[TroyDASH]

It doesn't work like that. Anyone who wants to contribute rather than snipe from a keyboard on a forum IS CONTRIBUTING AND GIVING INPUT.

Can i just ask, who are you exactly, what experience do you have, what have you actually contributed?

You are a troll. You are anonymous, you don't contribute anything, you criticize everything you can, and you don't propose any solutions. That is not a 'personal attack', that is professional criticism - reading your posts, your only roll here is disrpution.

Wow, well since you are not interested in dialogue and have already made up your mind about my intentions, there is no point in talking to you. This is exactly the problem we are trying to resolve...

 

[AndyDark]

Wow, well since you are not interested in dialogue and have already made up your mind about my intentions, there is no point in talking to you. This is exactly the problem we are trying to resolve...

you are not trying to resolve any problems. you are trying to create the perception of problems for your own agenda.

Repeating:

Who are you? What experience do you have? Where are you contributions to Dash?

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

There is already one team - the contributors. You are one, I am one.

What you are saying is, lets run this currency from a forum. Go read the website thread, you might see this is a moronic idea. The only people who decide what happens in Dash is the MN operators, and they are appointing teams to do ACTUAL WORK.

If i'm wrong, can you show me, what are the contributions to Dash that are being rejected by your evil secret team somewhere? Because in reality tao, you're talking a massive load of shit.

I'm going to bed, I want to talk constructively, not respond to ad-hominem attacks. Your post contains nothing that I've been describing, and is not helpful.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

LOL this is constructive? you're an idiot.

My point exactly. We need more inclusivity in this project. Period.

 

[yidakee]

These tactics are old guys. @Tao, I think better of you, this is profoundly ridiculous, quite literally I invite you to sleep on it.

There is no divise. There are no problems plaguing us like on other coins. We are a magnificent example of effectiveness, productivity and achievement. We are not perfect. We will definitely keep morphing our entropy.

A handful of disgruntled people do not constitute a majority.

Anyone who firmly disagrees with the direction of this project can alway fork it.

The #1 top vote by the curator's of Dash's funds disagrees with you.

 

[TroyDASH]

These tactics are old guys. @Tao, I think better of you, this is profoundly ridiculous, quite literally I invite you to sleep on it.

There is no divise. There are no problems plaguing us like on other coins. We are a magnificent example of effectiveness, productivity and achievement.
We are not perfect. We will definitely keep morphing our entropy.

A handful of disgruntled people do not constitute a majority.

Would you feel differently if we put this to a masternode vote and the majority supports more dialogue on roles and relationship between community and DEV team?

 

[AndyDark]

Would you feel differently if we put this to a masternode vote and the majority supports more dialogue on roles and relationship between community and DEV team?

Why don't you apply for this yourself and get funding for it? You can join the core team and be a liason? Looking forward to your proposal and contribution.

 

[yidakee]

Would you feel differently if we put this to a masternode vote and the majority supports more dialogue on roles and relationship between community and DEV team?

Of course! That's the point of it ! I swear I was going to suggest exactly that.

.