Hi, everyone. I'm interested to know what each person -- especially masternodes -- thinks about proposals being categorized as either "core" or "community." Do you find value in this? If so, what is the value you find? And if not, why not? Thanks in advance to all who respond, and to babygiraffe, who already responded to the question in a private message I sent him. Cheers.
As I'm sure you know, the core team of developers already committed to leaving 10% aside for the community (until it's probable that those funds might not be allocated). So I think it's a quick way to tell at a glance if they're honoring that commitment or not. I also just like to see the breakdown personally.
The only way to logically categorize proposals in a decentralized project is by the actual activity. There could be 5 core teams if anyone stepped up to the plate. Let's focus on naming projects based on what they do and skip the labels. The current core members are only core until their proposals get voted out. Will the next core team be called The Rebels? Or The Developers?
To use an analogy, I look at Core as the Dash government. Right now, Dash Nation is a one-party state with one core team. In the future, if another group of people with big pockets decides to propose to take Dash in a totally different direction, then there becomes two parties. The masternodes would decide which party would continue as the government. It could become really interesting over time. Disclaimer: Before people accuse me of being literal with the above, I will say that it is only an analogy. I don't consider Dash to be a nation literally, it's an open-source project.
I just had one comment on this, the protocol makes no distinction between proposals it is completely agnostic in that sense. All the protocol cares about is whether a proposal meets the necessary requirements to be funded. If you are referring to categorization in reporting from humans that post information on the forum? Then I guess is useful to organize information in ways that are more digestible. Who posts different proposals might be an interesting parameter to see in a report. Again, this has nothing to do with the protocol and any person can write a report in the way they feel is most helpful.
Yes. I see a problem in a voting system that doesn't actually afford control. Stuff is being developed with it without the consent of the nodes. Plus, its a lot of damn work... It makes the DGBB look like a cute sideshow that doesn't really have any say. Where is the 12.1 development proposal with stated goalposts? Its cute that we can vote, but what is DGBB really, if stuff is done regardless? Not that it should be voted down... But it makes DGBB look like it really serves no purpose. Dev team could probably be getting paid more, too. Essentially, what good is congress if the president declares himself king and does whatever he wants? Its not DGBB if the voting base is not the boss. I don't think anyone disagrees that the stuff being Evolutioned is what we all want. But. It never went through a process of being voted on... The King just decided and it was so... DGBB totally circumvented like its not even there... At what point will The King give up control and give the power to the voters? Until them DGBB is nothing it pretends to be. Categorization would be a step towards this. The entire system is non-granular. See all of my previous rants about DGBB being far too clumsy to be workable. Another recommendation to add granularity to a clumsy, boolean system. Look at the effort made to reach the End User in Evolution's facebook-of-crypto features. Why not expend the same effort in the DGBB and Vendor Experience? Do you not understand that these are MORE important than getting grandma to use it?
I agree with this entirely, however - giving a group a name does give you an instant idea about who the team is that is making the proposal. Hopefully, with our governance system, we will never see a split of the Dash network into "Core" "Classic" or "Insert Other Name". Thus I suspect we'll always have a "core code maintaining group". But I also see the "core" team as eventually focusing on development only. It's already starting to do that. We've voted in a marketing team (Dash World) and even so the core team has successfully campaigned for pre-funding more marketing in the Fall, they can be ordered to give those funds to another marketing team designated by the network. It's all very liquid, and for ease of use, I suspect in the end, we will have a "core team" department in all elements of our Dash Business. But if we don't l like the performance of a team, it will be very easy to fire them and hire a new team. Even the developer controlled github account can be forked to insert a new "core developer team" within minutes. If the network overwhelmingly approve that direction, miners really have no control over such things, and it will simply be done. So I guess I don't mind them being called "core", as it's very useful to see who is the Network's designated leader in a certain area.
I don't know, @camosoul, we have been given nearly all the information on which direction the core developers want to take Dash, and in fact, editing the proposal was left open to any community member who wanted to contribute. People were editing it, and asking questions and inserting their ideas and issues for months. They didn't even have to be MN owners, just interested parties. After that, the network has continued to give voice of support for this direction, and this morning, we actually paid some proposals that are directly earmarked for the development of Evolution. So DGBB is indeed functioning and very much involved in the forward progress and approval of Dash and Dash Evolution.
I wouldn't view this as a problem... if a good option is presented, doesn't matter where it comes from. The MNs will vote on whatever is presented to them. Best rc
What if I'm "community" but my proposal is generally disliked by the "community" and the "community" deals that I am misrepresenting them by claiming to be "community"? What if I'm "Core" but the reason that I'm making a proposal is because I can't get the rest of "core" to support me, so I'm taking my case to the "community"? What exactly is supposed to be gained by this whole labeling idea?
It looks like MNOs blindly take their marching orders from The King. Not that a dictatorship is bad at this point, what with the system not working for anything except that MO... and MNOs really not basing their choices on anything but "The King said so."
Yes, that is a danger. And actually Evan is fully aware of what he is in the eyes of the community (leader) and the pull that gives him. But he made a choice to take that roll for these early years of Dash because a project like this needs a strong leader - until it eventually becomes a self sustaining machine. I don't think MNO are blindly following him though. Just look at all the arguments going on in the forums. People are very much engaged, but almost every single one of 'em, once they understand fully the vision, are fully supportive of the direction Dash is going in. Of course, some did not, and left, and a few of those left pretty spectacularly. I think it's working well, to tell you the truth. In fact, I think the balancing act Dash as a whole has been achieving has been about as optimal as could ever be possible. I think your fears can be valid, but because we have a very benevolent leader who has incredible wisdom, it seems to me that it's a non-issue. And frankly, MNO have ultimate control over whom they will follow.
Whenever I read "core", all these negative connotations pop up in my head. I think BitcoinCore is to blame... Are you talking about developers and non-developers? They're both part of the DASH community, so categorizing things as core vs community is going to confuse people, it confused me already...
To me, the labels "core" or "community" are unnecessary qualifiers. I imagine they also bias the judgement process of the person or proposal being evaluated. People and proposals should stand or fall on their own merits, without group affiliations.
Negative, ghostrider ! Someone closer to the crux of the biscuit knows much more about what is really going on. As a Newbie, I may have plenty of lofty ideas, yet those who are down in the trenches can see they are no more than pie in the sky. If I provided part of a clue to resolve some situation and they were able to glean a small amount of value, that would be a good thing. YMMV rc
Someone closer to the crux of biscuits, will advise us to make biscuits. But what if we dont need biscuits? what if a pie is what we really need? And what if we have never seen a pie, we dont know how a pie looks like, because they always serve us biscuits ? This is the case we face in dash when we deal with the core team. Buscuit eaters are about to decide what we eat for dinner. You should not be biased, and you should always be able to observe and judge things with a clear eye.You should turn all budget proposals to anonymous ones, and only after they have been voted up you should reveal the proposer. This is the clear and unbiased eye I am talking about. After all, whenever the proposer's name is revealed, and if MNs judge that this proposer is an unreliable one then they always hold the right to repeal their vote and vote down the proposal again.
IMO, displaying the proposal owner is enough information. Creating two groups of proposal owners calling them "core" and "community" creates a sense of disunity and does cause bias. It's not the most important thing by any means but that's just my opinion.
At first I thought categories were a good idea for the simple fact that it would make voting easier. With the recent changeover from a single big-budget Public Awareness fund to individual items, the number of individual proposals that a MN voter must examine is certainly increasing. Any sort of "category" field would make the voting experience faster. Like if someone is gung-ho about "marketing" he would immediately vote for anything in that category. But the problem with that is not only is the voter being ignorant, a disingenuous proposal creator could capitalize on that ignorance by slapping on a "marketing" category to something that will not promote Dash at all, and ultimately just line his pockets. In this case, the category is Core versus Community, which is a little different, since it is a category of actual people, which is not an arbitrary categorization like my example above. Having the Core category means that MN voters can vote more easily based on the faith they have in the current Core team members. But taking a step back, it is no different from voting for an individual proposal owner with his own reputation at stake. If the Core team starts to lose the confidence of Dash's majority investors, then they will be voted down eventually and a new "Core" in the community side will emerge, like was stated above. Ideally, proposals should stand on their merits and not their titles. The masternode voters should be the smartest, most informed, and best able to decide the future of Dash, because they hold the majority of it. Keep in mind that that decision currently could very well be simply "whatever Evan or Core thinks is best" in the mind of a MN operator. That certainly does not mean the MN is not doing any deciding, though! He is putting his money where his trust and faith in execution is. We are all ultimately voting for people--not things--because only people can cause things to happen. So I think the real question is whether to have a "Core" of trusted individuals versus independently-trusted individuals. As long was we continue to have a Core Team, it probably should be a budget category, IMO. Otherwise, what's the point of having a team if you can't trust that entity with some degree of autonomy?
No my friend. You are wrong. People exclusively cannot cause things to happen, it is also MONEY that can cause things to happen. So it is not enough to vote for people, you also have to assign money to tasks, in order for things to be done. In that sense you dont need to vote for people at all, you just have to vote and assign money to tasks, and many many people will be found to accomplish them. And what is money? Money is FAITH. So FAITH can cause things to happen. So you have to vote for things, assign FAITH to things--and people attracted from that FAITH can cause things to happen. So in general, FAITH can cause things to happen. And if you vote for people and things happen, the skills of those persons are not enough to accomplish their task. It is the faith that surrounds those people that causes things to happen, and because of that faith they are able to complete their task.
Who cares about those people who are trapped into a faith? The power resides not in people who have the faith but in people who can inspire a faith to the others. So , to answer your question, I have more faith to the one who is capable to inspire and inculcate that faith to me the better. Regardless whether he is a project.manager or a proposal.submitor it is his personal talent to inspire the others that matters.
At first I was not comfortable with the label "core proposal" vs "non core proposal". It sounded like a creation of a wall between "us" and "them", or the attempt to "message" the community what is "original" and what is "pirate". Now I understand that "core" only wants to signal that the proposal comes from that specific group of people (and not the specific individual submiting the proposal): Meaning "this specific group of persons are equally responsible for this commitment"; the reputation of each individual from this group guarantees that this is a honest proposal... that's simply a joint liability. I guess, likewise, other groups may be formed, and be given a "name", and have their proposals labeled under the group signature. What still I find very uncomfortable, though, is the eventual use of "non-core". That could be dispensed, IMO.
I was seeing it more along the lines of "core" being things that impact the very nature of the coin and should be handled by those who have serious experience. non-core being feature tweaks, adds, totally new ideas, etc... What bothers me is the "MNOs do as told by core dev team" being completely the opposite of what governance is meant to be. There are multiple angles why that's not really valid right now, the most important of which is that most MNOs are simply not fit to make those choices, so being subordinate at this time is actually sensible. But, at what point will it come that the MNOs are actually in charge of something and actually making the calls? Calling it "governance" by a body of voters who don't actually have any say in anything is kinda not governance at all...
The voting system doesn't have a way to enforce change. It doesn't have a government police force, jails, or even a legal entity to prosecute. It can only fund opportunities. So calling it governance make this that much more confusing. With 12.1, programmable features will be added. If we rename this system, it will make a lot more sense. Plus, we will be making Ethereum the way it should have been made; focused on the funding....not contracts that somehow get enforced by generosity with absolutely no way to resolve a conflict. The name I propose is: Programmable Collateralized Voting Budget. In real news, we have someone interested in adding 2FA from the bounty we put up. It is still not clear how or when it can be done, but at least it has a chance. Real change happens when there is a price put on it. www.dashnation.com/gigs
The budget system doesn't have a way to enforce change. But you can add a taxation system in the protocol of dash. Taxation can be used to enforce change, or to financially punish someone who is not compatible with the decisions of the community.
Taxation doesn't work in crypto. You can't force someone to pay something - they can just create a new wallet with a new 'identity'. A government can put you in jail....(unless you are running for president or a CEO)...that has a little more pull than a taxing a dead wallet.
Taxation may work for the budget system only. How do you pay those who implement a budget proposal? They are forced to give a dash wallet address in order to get paid. So if you want to punish them you can implement taxation punishment into the dash protocol, for those specific dash wallets that are paid by the budget system. You may also trace the transactions in the blockchain and prevent anonymization for a period of time, for all those specific dash wallets that are affiliated to the budget, so even if they will try to create a new wallet identity, this identity will also be traced. It all depends on the protocol of dash. Taxation may work in crypto, if you say so.
Yeah, you can stop paying someone that has a budget paying them. That isn't a tax. That is just defunding future work. A government can tax you and go after all your assets and put in jail depending on if you pay. There is a big difference.
I didnt mean just stop paying him. The protocol may also include the option for all his dash wallet that is affiliated to the budget to be confiscated, if this is the decision of the dash community. Confiscation is taxation.
