• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Idea for code governance via multisig MNs

Such silly attempts to undermine the Dash Project by trying to put core developer members in a bad spotlight even when they reply to questions with full details.
yes i'm referring to you GrandMasterDash and the tactics you are using here. And to demo : a little less talking to yourself please.
 
Such silly attempts to undermine the Dash Project by trying to put core developer members in a bad spotlight even when they reply to questions with full details.
yes i'm referring to you GrandMasterDash and the tactics you are using here. And to Demo : a little less talking to yourself please.

If you wasn't so blind to what I'm saying, you'd see that I'm supporting dash, not undermining it. Attempting to give end users some assurance and certainty. Actually, it's not that hard to understand what I'm saying yet for some reason, long replies are deemed "full details". Show us a concise answer in this thread that gives assurance to dash's end users. Go ahead, show me... but you know it doesn't exist.

For all those that don't want to engage with my discussion, just put me on block... or would you rather just complain?
 
Right.
"Say, for example, Moon falls on Earth can we have domain transferred to us (who?)?"
I'm tired of talking about this nonsense, sorry. I tried my best to explain, but turned out it's a waste of time.

Cheers.

You too, go ahead and put me on ignore... after all, why waste your time with someone tiring you with nonsense.

I've already clearly stated, any significant change to the core functionality of dash should, as far as reasonably possible, involve all the stake holders. End users should expect that any significant change was widely, democratically, approved and tested... and if not, then the significant changes should become the fork. Instead, currently, me as MNO has had zero say in the guiding strategy. We've simply never been asked, only one by one proposals. When the collective changes happen, you'll be sitting there saying, "if you don't like it, fork it", completely oblivious to the wishes of end users because you NEVER ENGAGED THEM in the process.

I said it earlier but maybe warrants repeating, "If you asked for pancake and you're given cake, you wouldn't call it pancake!". Why must end users accept such changes when there is no governance to give such assurance and certainty? An ounce of gold is.... well, an ounce of gold. Any material change e.g. someone giving you silver, should not continue to called "gold". Look at ethereum, moving to POS... will they engage end users or rename it? - no... the developers, apparently, play god, they are the new bankers, making the rules and if no one likes it, yes yes yes, as is always said here, "if you don't like it, fork it". Ah yes, it was forked... the original is the fork... that's what end users should expect from their currency???

What makes a successful crypto? - I'll tell you one of the key ingredients is RELEVANCE. It's got nothing to do with "limited supply" of coins etc... if you're not relevant, it doesn't matter if you one or a billion coins. Dash sits among many cryptos and if we consider supply then we must consider the supply of ALL COINS, because, after all, crypto is liquid and frictionless between the most RELEVANT coins.
 
And to demo : a little less talking to yourself please.
Au contraire. I expect a little more talking to yourself please. You never talk to yourself, thats why your arguments are not deep.

Do you have any arguments against my talk?
 
Back
Top