Separate names with a comma.
Please sign up to discuss the most innovative cryptocurrency!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by TaoOfSatoshi, May 1, 2016.
Are all Masternode operators financial advisors or not?
This sounds fair. You went from being the one of the worst contributors on this thread to one of the best!
Andy, you pretty much went down the rabbit hole on that one. LOL. I was just trying to prove a point that the masternode voting can't really force developers to work on anything in particular. It can really only determine how many funds go to a person/area.
But to address Tao's question. If a developer requests a vote from the masternodes, the voting system is a fair system and the votes tallied can be considered an accurate network decision. (This is actually really impressive and incredibly important). Now the interesting thing that Tao is seeing is that it only works when someone that is able to offer an option(a developer) is requesting a vote. If a new option A project and vote pass, it can't enforce a change to implement option A - in this case a forum discussion is probably more effective.
NO, that's why I wrote this in one of my previous post:
Masternodes (investors) provide infrastructure for Dash and budget for projects (project sponsor role).
This, in my opinion, should be the role of MN network. Giving power to steer every aspect of the project to the MN network will end-up with a royal mess and failure (it doesn't work in a real world and won't work here - Andy explained why).
As @yidakee pointed out - we are talking many times about the same thing here...
@AndyDark I am 75 years old and have spent most of my life working on high risk edgy projects. A fatal attraction I suppose. I have long history of participation in failures as well as a few significant successes. Don Quijote and Sancho salute you!
And BTW there is a windmill over there that has been threatening us. A fellow who bought me my horse ttolld me so.
Relax, I was just being facetious... I'm a puppy, remember?
In other news, I officially moved to Dash Nation today...
Don't worry, I'm still on Twitter, also!
great info, agree. thanks
@tao, with all due respect, we are trying to build a project that is anything but facetious.
Facetiousness is one of the greatest threats to serious business development.
There is a time a place for humour.
Great! I have all bases covered then.
Yes I think you're right on that.. at this stage the network can't enforce micro-changes in technical direction without replacing the whole team. It can fire the team by pressing a few buttons and has instant funds to hire a new team if it needs too but really just a nuclear option once teams are in place, in lieu of alternative volunteer developer teams on-hand.
I don't see anyway around it at this stage without getting into this shareholder-control/nitpicking minefield which can cause the problems I mentioned and potentially risk losing the people adding value to the core parts.
I think with the blocksize increase, it only carried weight because it was proposed by someone already with the authorization / funding in that area, if anyone else had proposed it there's no guarantee that it would have been done, because we're an open source project that depends on idealistic volunteers paid not much to make things happen.
I don't think it matters much though until we're mainstream at which point I bet most of the current innovators will get bored and leave and more prosaic investors can fight for control of the direction of Decentralized Digital-Cash Corp. but their mission is really to make Dash compete and grow within the market whereas now it's about innovating / thinking out the box to get into the market.
seems like we all basically agree, communication is good
I know what facetious means, but thanks for posting that.
My style is my style, and I would appreciate it if you would let me express myself how I see fit, as I would extend you the same courtesy.
We are in complete agreement that this project is serious, but features people of all nationalities, styles and backgrounds coming together to make a team.
We would do well to understand each other, promote tolerance and not presume to lecture others on their personal style. With respect.
I've never to this day commented on your style, even though it's not particularly my cup of tea. I'm sure it's a mutual feeling.
But when we spend 13 pages going round in circles, requesting enlightenment on how things operate, and those doubts addressed, and simply not acknowledged, and just keep repeating the same questions over and over... people do tend to get frustrated.
When you candidly say you're just being facetious, it ceases to be your natural fun-loving style and just becomes plain obnoxiousness. I'm sorry you can't see that - afreer, kot and I keep courteously answering them, but keep getting challenged on the same issue over and over anyways....
For one to be preach tolerance, one must practice tolerance, and you've been completely intolerant to the answers given for 13 pages now, despite your warm "why can't we all just get along" prerogative.
And again, we don't all make up a team, we make up a community that has a team. Or many teams. Anyone can create a team and work. Operating word here being "work" - towards a common goal, put forth by the founder and creator of this project.
Did you miss the part where @kot, @AndyDark, @Solarminer and myself were starting to agree on things? We had a respectful talk, opinions and input was considered, and a consensus was formed, which was the goal of this thread to begin with? What is your problem with me? I don't know how to be more diplomatic...
No I didn't miss it. I had hopes for advancement. Did you miss, on this very same page, the exact opposite and once again doing exactly what I described?
My problem with you right here right now is that you're like a "dog with a bone" - simply not letting go. Maybe it's the dalmatian in you, I don't know. All I'm seeing is every time a page rolls over you go back the the same premise. You're taking the discussion backwards - look, just read what @kot wrote not a few posts back!
OK, in case you need me to spell it out for you:
WE HAD A TALK. I GOT MY CLARIFICATION, I SEE THEIR SIDE, THEY AGREE THAT EVENTUALLY WE NEED TO DECENTRALIZE MORE, BUT NOW IS NOT THE TIME. WE REACHED A CONSENSUS.
I, for one, consider the case closed, having reached the clarity and consensus that I wanted from the beginning. With seriousness, and not a trace of facetiousness.
Do you understand me?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go continue bringing more people and talent into Dash Nation. That's a way more productive use of my time.
Tao broke lol.
I too, think we have had a good amount of clarification but yidakee I don't think we have just been rehashing the same things the whole time. Seeing as how some participants went from being extremely dismissive initially to now being more willing to contribute. Even in the most recent few pages there has been a lot of new material that was not previously brought up. I don't have any additional questions at the moment though so I will take some time to digest.
Calm down buddy. You're loosing your optimism. I hear you loud and clear. I understand you, believe me.
If you consider the case closed, then please, don't again bring the already addressed issues back.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
I didn't expect this to be productive but I think we got there in the end.
I can understand it better from Tao/Solarminer/TroyDash's perspective a lot better now, for people like me and Yidakee who work on this behind the scenes it comes across as victimization being hit with lots of posts and what we read as unfair criticisms, and from the other side it comes across as arrogance and under-appreciation from people chuckling in their ivory tower. Both aren't the full story and I apologized to Solarminer privately for my accusations at him which were unfair and in the heat of quite a stressful the moment.
I think we need to be careful if we are in different 'groups' and we clash headlong on forums. It's really an easy way to fall out typing messages at each other from our disparate groups when we're angry and frustrated and everyone here is passionate about Dash so it's not surprising.
In future we should probably chat first maybe off-forum and try to understand what people want and where they are coming from rather than assuming the worst. It's obvious to me now we all genuinely want the best for Dash and believe in what we are doing, which is why communication is important, so lets get on with it! onwards and upwards
Evan weighs in on the Dash Nation Consensus issue, and apparently he believes the Masternodes SHOULD have the power to influence direction:
In that light, I reopen the discussion. How do we proceed?
@yidakee @amanda_b_johnson @kot @eduffield
@TaoOfSatoshi - what would you like to discuss in particular? I guess all was already written in the topic.
Sure @kot. We were under the impression that the Masternodes had no power over direction of the project, just budget. Now Evan has gone on record saying that Masternodes should indeed have power over the direction of the project.
The consensus we reached may be changing...Its critical that the networks decisions are respected. This is the right way to run a DAO, in my opinion.
I would like it to be posted here as well, as it pertains to our consensus.
I believe Evan was talking about general direction in the context of a specific discussion.
It depends on what decision you are talking about and what circumstances are. My opinion is that MNs should vote only on strategic direction of the project with clear questions Yes/No (like block size) + project budgets (and projects need to be well described and managed).
If you want to start this discussion again because of the youtube channel issue - it has no sense. Do you expect masternode owners to be experts in every possible area and vote consciously on every possible question/proposal (PR, marketing, media, software, hardware, legal cases, human resources, project management, organization management, process management, vendor selection and management, finance management, procurement and many others)? Do you know such experts, who could make proper decisions in every possible case? Are they masternode owners?
Evan Duffield via Reddit:
"I think the masternode network should be the main decision making engine we use to gauge our direction"
That comment is not directed to one issue, that is a statement that indicates he believes that the MN operators should be respected when it comes to decisions on direction. Which they should, as they are the largest stakeholders with ever-increasing amounts of money tied up in this project. Like Amanda said, it's time for us to start behaving like the DAO we claim to be in the media.
I guess, this is exactly what I wrote: "MNs should vote only on strategic direction of the project". Do you have anything different in mind?
I don't expect MN ops to be experts in every area. This is why not every little thing needs to go to the MNs for a vote. But it is important that we establish, when a ground-up initiative happens and is voted on by the MN ops for the specific purpose of weighing in on a particular topic, or something they would like *paid* team members to do/change, what is the response?
Very complex topic to consider - I need to think more about it (and promise to return to you with my opinion).
PS. Thanks a lot for the change in the tone of discussion. I like your current style.
Thanks @kot. Not trying to step on anyone's toes, I will actively try to stay on point and refrain from personal accusations.
The way I am thinking about it, it can be helpful to distinguish between the different kinds of proposals that get put out there and how they fit into our DGBB model.
"MN budget" -- when the MN ops vote on a proposal for the purpose of funding a project with certain promised deliverables
"MN feedback" -- when MN ops are asked to vote on a question for the purpose of gauging support for a hypothetical idea with no immediate deliverables (ex. the blocksize increase, demo's "voting with numbers").
"MN mandate" -- when MN ops vote on a question instructing a paid individual or group to take a particular action (ex. Amanda's possible proposal about the old YT channel being removed or deactivated)
I think we have done a great job with MN budgets. It's these other two areas that are largely untested with respect to how they fit and what we can reasonably expect to happen.
For the feedback and the mandate, this may involve an instruction which may or may not be technically possible at all. And for a mandate in particular, it may involve instructing an individual to spend time/effort or money, or to use their own property in a certain way.
I think we can agree that the network really can't (and shouldn't) be able to force people to do things or use their property in a certain way. However, when combined with the fact that this is an individual or group that is already paid by the blockchain, part of the purpose for such a proposal is the message/implication that failure to comply may put their funding at risk.
Of course, with the example that led up to this today it is even more complex because the mandate may apply to just one individual in a larger group which is paid all in one lumped-together budget. But we may have such a mandate on our hands now and it will definitely not be the only one that happens over Dash's long lifetime . What should we reasonably expect from proposal creators and the individuals/groups it is directed to?
It has been mentioned in the other thread, if there is doubt/lack of clarity/or if is only about one part of a larger proposal, then perhaps the mandate should be proposed and voted on specifically to make sure it is a fair vote. Agreed. Then what happens? -- what if the MNs vote on a mandate and there are more yes-votes than no-votes, but the proposal does not make it into the budget? And regardless of whether it actually makes it into the budget, how do we measure whether to expect compliance?