Do you think raising the vote threshold would increase masternode participation?

[jarroyo]

Ive heard ideas to make voting part of the masternode' proof of service to collect their reward but I thought of an incentive from a different angle

My thought process is that if the 10% threshold were simply higher, it would be harder for proposals to get passed, thus at some point masternode operators would be virtually obliged to participate in voting, because else they'd see the protocol they have such a huge monetary stake in begin to stagnate.

Thoughts?

 

[TroyDASH]

It would also be harder for proposals to pass if there were so many competitive proposals that they don't all fit in the budget, so that the threshold is effectively higher than 10% without having to change it in the code. Not to say that 10% is a magic number, but I think just increasing the proposal competition would incentivize more votes in exactly the same way as you are describing, without having to alter the threshold. A couple months ago we did have one cycle where there were a lot of proposals and you would have needed 13% or so to be included in the budget by bumping something else out.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Perhaps more importantly - just an idea - that MNOs need to form aliases / cut deals because it seems to me there is too big a difference between those running a handful of MNs and those with many tens of MNs. The more MNs you have, the quicker it is acquire more because it's always 1000 dash regardless.

At the moment, dash is just a glorified gentleman's club. If the smaller MNOs can come together, they could overturn some of the more controversial decisions being made. For example, the Shadowcash thread is showing a clear 90%+ in favour of improving dash's privacy, yet there is almost no core members taking up the challenge.

 

[bhkien]

Ive heard ideas to make voting part of the masternode' proof of service to collect their reward but I thought of an incentive from a different angle

My thought process is that if the 10% threshold were simply higher, it would be harder for proposals to get passed, thus at some point masternode operators would be virtually obliged to participate in voting, because else they'd see the protocol they have such a huge monetary stake in begin to stagnate.

Thoughts?

Sorry, I oppose to your idea. With incentivize voting we will get more poor consideration votes than carefully votes.

 

[TroyDASH]

Perhaps more importantly - just an idea - that MNOs need to form aliases / cut deals because it seems to me there is too big a difference between those running a handful of MNs and those with many tens of MNs. The more MNs you have, the quicker it is acquire more because it's always 1000 dash regardless.

At the moment, dash is just a glorified gentleman's club. If the smaller MNOs can come together, they could overturn some of the more controversial decisions being made. For example, the Shadowcash thread is showing a clear 90%+ in favour of improving dash's privacy, yet there is almost no core members taking up the challenge.

Could you please stop repeating the claim that the poll asking forum members if privacy is a critical feature, is somehow the same thing as asking them if the core team needs to overhaul the privacy model and prioritize re-working the privacy model over Evolution and everything else. This is incredibly misleading at best, shameless FUD at worst

 

[demo]

Perhaps more importantly - just an idea - that MNOs need to form aliases / cut deals because it seems to me there is too big a difference between those running a handful of MNs and those with many tens of MNs.

This is a brilliant idea. Let the ones who own a few masternodes to create an alliance against the ones who own many masternodes. Not to tell that they should also examine the possibility to fork Dash and create their own new Dash!

After all, money is always a matter of faith, so what it really counts is to have more believers. That way, and if masternodes clash eachother, a new Dash may arise and become a more fair coin, a coin closer to Democracy rather than to Timocracy that it is today.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Could you please stop repeating the claim that the poll asking forum members if privacy is a critical feature, is somehow the same thing as asking them if the core team needs to overhaul the privacy model and prioritize re-working the privacy model over Evolution and everything else. This is incredibly misleading at best, shameless FUD at worst

Don't worry, this is going to become a formal proposal, in the same spirit as the block size vote was carried. At the time, Evan said he wanted to assess MNO sentiment.. if it's good enough for him then it's good enough for us. So, with that said, perhaps you would like to write a draft proposal and post it in the shadowcash thread.

 

[demo]

Don't worry, this is going to become a formal proposal, in the same spirit as the block size vote was carried. At the time, Evan said he wanted to assess MNO sentiment.. if it's good enough for him then it's good enough for us. So, with that said, perhaps you would like to write a draft proposal and post it in the shadowcash thread.

@TroyDASH to help anonymizing the masternodes? What makes you believe that?

Have a look at the vote history, to understand @TroyDASH's way of thinking and acting.

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/poll-mn-operators-please-respond.8688/page-3#post-93742

He voted all MNs should run on public IPs

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...d-truly-be-anonymous.10936/page-6#post-108580

He abstained.

He is against anonymity, or if he is not against it, we can definitely say that anonymity is a nuisance for him.

 

[TroyDASH]

@TroyDASH to help anonymizing the masternodes?
This is too optimistic!

Have a look at the vote history, to understand @TroyDASH's way of thinking and acting.

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/poll-mn-operators-please-respond.8688/page-3#post-93742

He voted all MNs should run on public IPs

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...d-truly-be-anonymous.10936/page-6#post-108580

He abstained.

He is against anonymity, or if he is not at least anonymity seems a nuisance for him.

Actually I would prefer if MNs had a private *option*, but am not in favor of compelling the core team to do it. The reason is that I don't claim to know that it can be done without jeopardizing or significantly delaying other aspects of the project.

This thread is getting seriously derailed though, demo or grandmasterdash if you want to continue this discussion let's move to the shadowcash thread, thx

 

[demo]

Actually I would prefer if MNs had a private *option*, but am not in favor of compelling the core team to do it. The reason is that I don't claim to know that it can be done without jeopardizing or significantly delaying other aspects of the project.

In that case, and if you prefer the "private option", you have to change your vote in the poll and cast the vote "Yes, but MNOs choose IP based or anonymous " similar to what @GrandMasterDash did

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/poll-mn-operators-please-respond.8688/page-3#post-93742

If you disagree with the "compel" word then ask @GrandMasterDash to add a specific poll option for you.

You dont want to compel the core team, but with your vote you want to compel all the masternodes to stay in IPv4 and you refuse their right to anonymity. Why compeling the core team seems bad for you, but compeling all the masternodes to stay in IPv4 and that way expose their privacy is not bad? Your way of thinking is strange, I can even say it is irrational.

 

[TroyDASH]

In that case, and if you prefer the "private option", you have to change your vote in the poll and cast the vote "Yes, but MNOs choose IP based or anonymous " similar to what @GrandMasterDash did

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/poll-mn-operators-please-respond.8688/page-3#post-93742

If you disagree with the "compel" word then ask @GrandMasterDash to add a specific poll option for you.

You dont want to compel the core team, but with your vote you want to compel all the masternodes to stay in IPv4 and you refuse their right to anonymity. Why compeling the core team seems bad for you, but compeling all the masternodes to stay in IPv4 and that way expose their privacy is not bad? Your way of thinking is strange, I can even say it is irrational.

Even if there was another poll option, I don't think there is a way to change my vote, unless I am missing something?

You have it completely backwards. What you're saying is like I am somehow wrong for wanting to refuse train operators the "right" to drive the train on a track that hasn't been built yet. Yes maybe it would be nice to have a blue colored track, but right now all we have is a red one. And building a blue one is not free, it has a cost which could affect the whole railroad.

 

[demo]

Even if there was another poll option, I don't think there is a way to change my vote, unless I am missing something?

Of course you can change your vote!

You can post a message in the poll's thread and declare that your vote has been changed! In this very message you can also blame @GrandMasterDash for creating a poll that is maliciously designed to trap the voters, by not allowing them to express their opinion change.

Have a look at the polls I am posting. All of them allow you to change your opinion-vote. So, beware of the malicious and trust my polls.

 

[TanteStefana]

Could you please stop repeating the claim that the poll asking forum members if privacy is a critical feature, is somehow the same thing as asking them if the core team needs to overhaul the privacy model and prioritize re-working the privacy model over Evolution and everything else. This is incredibly misleading at best, shameless FUD at worst

Agree. I think an auditable blockchain is of primary importance, even so I also agree privacy is just as important. Only Dash has a trustless way to have both. No other privacy solution has an auditable blockchain. If obscurity is what you want, use shadowcash, monero or zcash, etc... and hope there is no hidden vulnerability.

Evan once did say he thought ring signatures were useful, and later clarified that they would be useful for something like masternodes voting without exposing their vote records. Keeping the vote private. He never intended to obscure our blockchain which is also a feature that allows Dash to take advantage of any Bitcoin interfaces and innovations (if they were ever to actually innovate)

As far as changing the threshold for voting. I don't really think it'll help. I think that when we get people to act as proxies, people who are charged with studying the issues and making an informed decision, it'll be much easier. I don't know Evan's exact plan for this, but I would like to see it so that I could choose to either vote myself, or the person I would like to submit my votes for me because I judge them competent and agree with their point of view.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Agree. I think an auditable blockchain is of primary importance, even so I also agree privacy is just as important. Only Dash has a trustless way to have both. No other privacy solution has an auditable blockchain. If obscurity is what you want, use shadowcash, monero or zcash, etc... and hope there is no hidden vulnerability.

Evan once did say he thought ring signatures were useful, and later clarified that they would be useful for something like masternodes voting without exposing their vote records. Keeping the vote private. He never intended to obscure our blockchain which is also a feature that allows Dash to take advantage of any Bitcoin interfaces and innovations (if they were ever to actually innovate)

As far as changing the threshold for voting. I don't really think it'll help. I think that when we get people to act as proxies, people who are charged with studying the issues and making an informed decision, it'll be much easier. I don't know Evan's exact plan for this, but I would like to see it so that I could choose to either vote myself, or the person I would like to submit my votes for me because I judge them competent and agree with their point of view.

Yes, that's right... monero up, market cap $110M, dash down, market cap $60M ... and yes, for some time it's been moving like that; dash moving down, monero moving up. Oh wait, you want 24 hour volume? monero $5,924,480, dash $712,297

What does it feel like backing the wrong horse?

Oh, you think obfuscating voting is important but mere dash users should be public by default? You mean you wouldn't want people to see the gentleman's club that dash is? - wouldn't want people to see the difference in the number of MNs individual people hold? - but why? - I thought you was all for transparency and fairness?

 

[Naruto]

Ive heard ideas to make voting part of the masternode' proof of service to collect their reward but I thought of an incentive from a different angle

My thought process is that if the 10% threshold were simply higher, it would be harder for proposals to get passed, thus at some point masternode operators would be virtually obliged to participate in voting, because else they'd see the protocol they have such a huge monetary stake in begin to stagnate.

Thoughts?

What do you means for participation?
If I see a proposal that already get very high vote. I would assume it definitely pass and may skip that proposal. Does it means do not participate?

 

[TanteStefana]

Yes, that's right... monero up, market cap $110M, dash down, market cap $60M ... and yes, for some time it's been moving like that; dash moving down, monero moving up. Oh wait, you want 24 hour volume? monero $5,924,480, dash $712,297

What does it feel like backing the wrong horse?

Oh, you think obfuscating voting is important but mere dash users should be public by default? You mean you wouldn't want people to see the gentleman's club that dash is? - wouldn't want people to see the difference in the number of MNs individual people hold? - but why? - I thought you was all for transparency and fairness?

Basically what you are saying is that private send does not work. I disagree, and say a single round would be sufficient if you were not worried that MNs are spying on incoming IP addresses. Monero obfuscates differently but ultimately with 3 inputs just like Dash. As a price, you can't audit the blockchain and have to trust in the code. I think that's too much of a price to pay, personally. Even so, there are many choices. Monero, zcash shadowcash, etc... They exist already. Why make another? Why not have choices?

As for backing the wrong horse, I'm more excited over what Dash is doing today than ever. I have absolutely no doubt I'm backing the right horse. At the least, I'm backing one of the winners for certain. I say that because there are other directions cryptos and blockchains are going and they have other uses solving other needs. They're just not of interest to me personally, at least not at this moment.

As far as raising the voting threshold, I just don't really know if it would help. I suspect smaller projects wouldn't get funded, which would be a shame. I can see it causing only core backed projects to get funded because they're the "safe" ones to vote for (for busy masternode owners) I'd rather have 10% informed MN owners voting than 80% or whatever, half thought about votes telling us what to do.

But it's a hard one. Can you force people to vote? Will those votes be thoughtful and of high quality if they're coming under the gun? Would it cause that <<< ? Or would it get people to become more involved? It might be a good thing, my instinct says to leave as is, it's just my opinion, which the thread asked for.