Yes there is. Now duplicate that among MNOs and see what happens.
If it gets more support, I'm open to the idea of, say, one dash proposals (for MNOs) instead of free.
Pre-Proposal: Free Proposal Submissions for MNOs
- Thread starter GrandMasterDash
- Start date
Yes there is. Now duplicate that among MNOs and see what happens.
If it gets more support, I'm open to the idea of, say, one dash proposals (for MNOs) instead of free.
demo
Well-known member
Of course you are wrong.
Dash needs a proof of individuality. Spies have a lot of money paid by their employers/states, and they are already using this money in order to spam dash's budget system and destroy the evolution of its governance system. 5 Dash proposal fee is nothing for the spies. The states and the competitors who are hiding behind the spies have a lot more money to spend (in order to accomplish their goal which is destroy/neutralize Dash) than the whole dash community has.
But the spies cannot easily hide between 4500 people/MNOs. If you turn the proposal fee free for the MNOs, then hard questions will be asked. The answers given to those hard questions will reveal (sooner or later) which masternodes belong to the spies. So you will be able to spit the spies out of the Dash's body.
@GrandMasterDash had a great idea! I hope that the spies are not the majority of the MNOs. I hope that this great idea will be accepted.
<vote history>
MNO Poll: Would you vote for this ?
*Yes 3 vote(s) 21.4%
No 7 vote(s) 50.0%
Yes, but one submission per masternode per monthly cycle. 4 vote(s) 28.6%
</vote history>
Last edited:
demo
Well-known member
@GrandMasterDash. why you set up this poll in a way that the nicknames of those who vote are hidden?
I mean, for what damned reason the masternodes owners (who are well known for their greed) will not want to be able to propose for free?
The only reason is that some MNOs are afraid to answer to hard questions, because they will be revealed to be spies.
BUT IF YOU SET UP THE POLL THAT WAY AND YOU HIDE THE NICKNAMES FROM THE COMMON VIEW, THE SPIES WILL NEVER BE REVEALED.
You want to protect the nicknames of the spies, dont you?
<vote history>
MNO Poll: Would you vote for this?
*Yes 3 vote(s) 18.8%
No 9 vote(s) 56.3%
Yes, but one submission per masternode per monthly cycle. 4 vote(s) 25.0%
</vote history>
I mean, for what damned reason the masternodes owners (who are well known for their greed) will not want to be able to propose for free?
The only reason is that some MNOs are afraid to answer to hard questions, because they will be revealed to be spies.
BUT IF YOU SET UP THE POLL THAT WAY AND YOU HIDE THE NICKNAMES FROM THE COMMON VIEW, THE SPIES WILL NEVER BE REVEALED.
You want to protect the nicknames of the spies, dont you?
<vote history>
MNO Poll: Would you vote for this?
*Yes 3 vote(s) 18.8%
No 9 vote(s) 56.3%
Yes, but one submission per masternode per monthly cycle. 4 vote(s) 25.0%
</vote history>
Pietro Speroni
Active member
Hey, I got more than 1 MNO. And I'll lend one to @demo just for this time.
Currently the fee is pretty high, because the more proposals we have the higher load we have on the system. I am not sure our current system could support more than a few hundred proposals, or maybe far less, we don't have a testnet big enough to know, and the math hasn't been done to simulate it because we have been too busy. Eventually with more and more proposals some of the weaker masternodes will start to have issues. Free proposals are just not technically possible as this could possibly lead to at least a 1000 proposals/month.
Then there's the second issue : MNO's can't be bothered to look at 1000s of proposals. I also am investigating how to solve this, and hopefully have a solution that everyone likes. Expect a whitepaper and DIP early next year. (Because we are all busy on evolution/current system).
I understand that a lot of people want to make a difference and impact the project, all with good intentions. The only thing is that a lot in the core team are working on these things already. The only way I personally see to get things moving faster is to hire more people, and we are doing that as fast as I think is possible already.
Then there's the second issue : MNO's can't be bothered to look at 1000s of proposals. I also am investigating how to solve this, and hopefully have a solution that everyone likes. Expect a whitepaper and DIP early next year. (Because we are all busy on evolution/current system).
I understand that a lot of people want to make a difference and impact the project, all with good intentions. The only thing is that a lot in the core team are working on these things already. The only way I personally see to get things moving faster is to hire more people, and we are doing that as fast as I think is possible already.
I would like to clarify something I just said so people don't think an attack is possible: we can have more than 1000 proposals, we just can't have 4000 masternodes voting on 1000 proposals (not sure where the limit is set), as I guess stronger masternodes would be able to fend off this attack. So if someone were to create 1000 proposals to attack the network (at 5000 dash), and no one voted on them, no biggie. Let's say the attacker had 50 masternodes and voted on them, also no biggie afaik. The problem becomes when you have 1000s of proposals being voted on by 1000s of MNOs.
Again an attack is very unlikely because it would require about 5000 Dash, and could be quite quickly mitigated. It would most likely require over a million dash to have any strong impact. (Attacker if you read this, please go buy 1 Million Dash to attack us
)
Actually this is great project for an intern next year. Figure out the limits of the system before masternodes start failing.
Again an attack is very unlikely because it would require about 5000 Dash, and could be quite quickly mitigated. It would most likely require over a million dash to have any strong impact. (Attacker if you read this, please go buy 1 Million Dash to attack us
)Actually this is great project for an intern next year. Figure out the limits of the system before masternodes start failing.
demo
Well-known member
The problem appears because you put a deadline to the proposals. There is no need for you to have a proposal deadline. The montlhy budget cycle where proposals expire is complete stupidity.
You have to create a tagged proposal tree, where all similar proposal will reside there forever. You have to assign tags to the proposals, so that if an MNO searches a proposal type to be able to find all similar ones. By browsing this tagged tree the MNOs will have plenty of time to vote whatever proposal they think is appropriate. At the same time they should be allowed to vote a threshold (vote a number...again!) and if this voting threshold is bypassed, then the proposal should allowed to be implemented.
The numerous proposals is not a curse, it is a blessing. It is a blessing as long as you are not in a hurry (by the stupid monthly budget cycle) to vote the proposals and as long as you are allowed to have as much time as you want in order to investigate the proposals before deciding to vote for them.
Last edited:
Um... demo, I don't think you understood what I was saying. I'm not saying numerous proposals are bad. I'm saying that the current system couldn't handle it. Our masternode network couldn't handle the traffic of thousands of proposals currently being voted on by thousands of nodes. Technically. This needs to be fixed at the protocol level before any discussion can come about whether it's best to have more proposals and fees get reduced.
Actually in my mind in many years, I want to help create a system capable of 1000s upon 1000s of proposals. I want masternode owners to be able to quickly vote on proposals on their phone. I have clearly thought how this might work and am working on it piece by piece.
Did you know why no spv wallets (iOS, android) have private send or governance directly integrated? It's because spv wallets can't verify masternode collateral elegantly. This is something that will be fixed before the end of the year (I hope). Basically the core team finds problems and fixes them, but we can only do so much per month. When you are on the cutting edge you can't really rush things.
My point I was trying to make is that unless proposals like this fund top cryptographers and researchers to help core figure out the underlying issues that need to be addressed to scale the system they really don't help much.
Basically we are in our infancy, you can compare us to a turn of the century (1900s) car engine. You are not going to put that in a modern race car, but it's the seed that everything else gets built on. Again we're trying to make something that will stand the test of time, not a half baked solution.
Actually in my mind in many years, I want to help create a system capable of 1000s upon 1000s of proposals. I want masternode owners to be able to quickly vote on proposals on their phone. I have clearly thought how this might work and am working on it piece by piece.
Did you know why no spv wallets (iOS, android) have private send or governance directly integrated? It's because spv wallets can't verify masternode collateral elegantly. This is something that will be fixed before the end of the year (I hope). Basically the core team finds problems and fixes them, but we can only do so much per month. When you are on the cutting edge you can't really rush things.
My point I was trying to make is that unless proposals like this fund top cryptographers and researchers to help core figure out the underlying issues that need to be addressed to scale the system they really don't help much.
Basically we are in our infancy, you can compare us to a turn of the century (1900s) car engine. You are not going to put that in a modern race car, but it's the seed that everything else gets built on. Again we're trying to make something that will stand the test of time, not a half baked solution.
@QuantumExplorer thank you for this feedback, it's appreciated.
I thought I read somewhere that proposals were going to get their own blockchain, which makes sense to me.
I wasn't anticipating thousands of proposals, but rather make better use of our own resources. In practical terms, I don't think we'd get hundreds of proposals, just because it's free. But I do think, over time, such proposals would be easier to vote because we would learn (from a small pool) which people (masternodes) can be trusted to deliver.
On reflection, it might generate quite a quite a few governance proposals but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Anyway, good to know such things are being considered within core. By all means, let's hire more if it helps.
I thought I read somewhere that proposals were going to get their own blockchain, which makes sense to me.
I wasn't anticipating thousands of proposals, but rather make better use of our own resources. In practical terms, I don't think we'd get hundreds of proposals, just because it's free. But I do think, over time, such proposals would be easier to vote because we would learn (from a small pool) which people (masternodes) can be trusted to deliver.
On reflection, it might generate quite a quite a few governance proposals but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Anyway, good to know such things are being considered within core. By all means, let's hire more if it helps.
No one is changing the 5 dash fee, it remains in place for almost everyone on the planet. The proposal was to make it free (or cheaper) for MNOs, which is probably, at most, 1500 - 2000 people.
I am having trouble with just the 35 proposals to vote for now!
I do not want much more proposals. Even if the person proposing owns a masternode.
Why do masternode owners need that? A masternode makes 5 DASH in about 3 weeks.
demo
Well-known member
You are having trouble with 35 proposals to vote within a month. But you are not having trouble with 35 proposals to vote within a year. So the problem is not the 35 proposals, the problem is the month. So change the month, vote the month. Vote the numbers.
Even more. The problem is that those 35 proposals are not tagged, classified and interrelated, so you have to read them all before voting. But if the proposals were tagged, classified and interrelated, you could ignore for example all advertising proposals, and read only the development ones. Furthermore, you could delegate your vote to a person you trust, and let him vote on your behalf.
Finnaly given enough eyeballs all bad proposals are shallow. You could decrease the masternodes collateral fee, so that more individuals could become masternodes and be allowed to vote. Also you could change the 10% percentage that is required for a proposal to pass. Vote the numbers again. Or try an alternative budget system or some after vote remedies.
You have so many alternative solutions, in order to avoid the curse of you laziness, and allow the bless of numerous proposal. Do not stay like that, just pick a solution and try it.
Last edited:
Let's do a math test. Would you like 10 hard questions or 50 easy questions? Allow me to answer that for you. When Core make proposals, they typically pass with a high margin... because of trust. MNOs have mostly come to trust certain people within Core, both with proposals and escrow. This is exactly the same philosophy; we funnel ideas through a small pool of people and over time we would learn which MNOs we trust to deliver. Those 35 proposals you are struggling with are from 35 different people that you have never had to deal with before. You're struggling with unknown entities, new projects from new faces.
Also, you are assuming 35 proposals will continue to arrive every month when, in fact, some of those might choose to go through certain MNOs with proven track records. And we'd get the added benefit of escrow via the MNO.
You say that MNOs can already afford to pay for proposals but come on, honestly, you actually think that happens in any significant way? The 45% reward is like a basic salary and with this they have the opportunity to earn more, to build up their reputation to deliver.