Pre-Proposal: Let all the actors (MNOs, Miners, Stakeholders) vote, then take into account only MNOs

[demo]

This is a pre-proposal that may be added to the budget system if it turns popular.

Let all the actors (MasterNodes, Miners, Stakeholders) to vote, then take into account only the Masternodes votes. Although the MNOs will obviously dont want to give their voting power to others, it is important for them to know what is the opinion of the rest actors for whatever issue.

Everyone should be able to see what is the opinion of the masternodes on a issue, what is the opinion of the stakeholders and what is the opinion of the miners. So if there is a disagreement between the masternodes and the rest actors, this may make the masternodes to reconsider their vote. Or if there is convergence of views, this is a sign that everything goes well in the community. So the software should allow all the actors to vote, for information purposes, but then take into account only the MNOs votes.

This is very important, because although the decision power will remain to the masternodes, the votes of all the actors will be recorded, and in the depth of times we will see which actor was the wisest one and deserves to decide. I do not consider only 3 types of actors, if this proposal passes then more actor types may be added in a latter proposal. For example an actor type may be all wallets that passed a proof of individuality. Another actor type may be the masternode operators (those individuals that own more than X masternodes). And so on...

So what do you think about it?

Stop believing that the masternodes are the best to decide because the core team said so. Stop taking the pills. Start knowing who deserves to decide. Let them all vote, let the masternodes decide, and let history to reveal who was right and who was wrong.

 

[demo]

I can add to the poll whatever poll choice reflects better your opinion on the subject (or out off the subject). So let me know if you wish a poll choice to be added.

<vote history> Let all the actors to vote, just for statistical reasons while their vote does not count. *yes 1 vote(s) 50.0%, no 1 vote(s) 50.0%. other 0 vote(s) 0.0% </vote history>

 

[demo]

From the veritas team.

Participation of All Actors
Voting systems are most ideal when they best represent the desires of all actors in the system. In the DGS, however, only Masternodes can vote for proposals. Thus, Masternodes will naturally vote according to their preferences; however, this might not necessarily be the best choice for the entire system. Thus it would be better to give some level of voting power to all participants in the system according to their stake in that system.

I am not even asking to give voting power to all actors, I am just asking the opinion of all the actors to be recorded.

So that , after some period of time, every objective observer could take the voting statistics , could watch what the bad and what the good decisions were, and thus discover scientifically what is the optimum electorate for the community. You should not be based to the blind faith of the core team, which decided what the electorate should be without an obvious or a scientific reason.

Do the core team, do the masternodes have the braveness to accept science rather than blind faulty faith? Do they?

 

[demo]

Have a look also at the answer the core team gave to the veritas team.
The answer of the core team is full of blind beliefs, without trying to prove their claims with a scientific manner.

Just count how many times the word "believe" (or a synonym of it) can be found in the below answer.

 

[Walter]

If you want a vote then buy a masternode.. Otherwise what's wrong with just running a Poll on this forum for each proposal? Like you've just done above?

If the vote is non-binding in any case then why build it into the network? Seems a lot of 'make work' when we have a perfectly usable voting mechanism in the community forum?

 

[demo]

If you want a vote then buy a masternode.. Otherwise what's wrong with just running a Poll on this forum for each proposal? Like you've just done above?

If the vote is non-binding in any case then why build it into the network? Seems a lot of 'make work' when we have a perfectly usable voting mechanism in the community forum?

Not every actor is in the forum.

Additionaly there is also the rule saying that the alternative opinion has value only nearby the opinion. All opinions of all actors should reside in the same place, so that an objective observer can compare them and extract the statistics and the scientific results.

Having some opinions in the budget system, some other opinions in the forum, some other opinions in the mining farms, some other opinions in the wallets e.t.c. this is a bad tactic and makes the scientific research of the truth harder, or even impossible in some circumstances.

 

[Walter]

Masternode operators are a pretty broad church of people from varying backgrounds and are fairly representative of a cross-section of views, religions, beliefs, creeds... MNO's are such a statistically large sample that I have no doubt that the aggregated votes of the collective is fairly representative of the community as a whole.

So on that basis I don't think you will find much statistical variance between MNO votes and the views of the community as a whole, certainly in areas directly related to the best interests of the Network...

However, I will concede this... any difference you would find (where statistical variance may exist) would be down to areas where there may be a conflict of interest between MNO's, Miners and certain community members or sub-groups... This variance may show up in a few % point differences between the MNOs and the community as a whole in these situations... Well, tell me something I didn't know!

So, on that basis all this proposal would achieve - if the community votes was implemented - is highlight something we already know is the case anyway?

 

[demo]

However, I will concede this... any difference you would find (where statistical variance may exist) would be down to areas where there may be a conflict of interest between MNO's, Miners and certain community members or sub-groups... This variance may show up in a few % point differences between the MNOs and the community as a whole in these situations... Well, tell me something I didn't know!

So, on that basis all this proposal would achieve - if the community votes was implemented - is highlight something we already know the case anyway?

What you dont know is the future, and how the history will be written.

After a period of time, any objective observer can distinguish some obvious good decicions from some obvious bad decisions, and watch how each actor voted. So he could define with a scientific manner the optimum electorate.

For example, lamassu was obviously a bad decision. I dont think any reasonable person can deny that (but if there is a disagreement about it, let the success or the failure of a project to be voted also). It is interesting to know what the rest actors would vote in this obviously bad decision, how fast they would react when the project started to show its weakness e.t.c.

Those actors who were credible and wise in the past, it is more likely to remain credible and wise in the future. So those actors should be defined as the optimum electorate that should be allowed to decide, for the benefit of the community as a whole.

 

[mastermined]

"For example an actor type may be all wallets that passed a proof of identification."

So you want to identify all Dash user's officer demo?
You have suggested something similar when giving away small amounts of dash for contest. Would a blood test be required or are fingerprints and retinal scans good enough?
So if i have 3000 Dash i get 3000 votes? Or shall we go by duff's, to be fair?

 

[demo]

"For example an actor type may be all wallets that passed a proof of identification."

So you want to identify all Dash user's officer demo?
You have suggested something similar when giving away small amounts of dash for contest. Would a blood test be required or are fingerprints and retinal scans good enough?

Sorry... I meant proof of individuality, not proof of identification. The proof of individuality is not against anonymity.

An actor type can also be the unique individuals. And whether someone is a unique indidual can be proved without necessarily revealing the identity. Search in this forum for "proof of individuality" and you will find several proposed protocols I wrote.

Thanks for the remark, I want my texts to be accurate, so I edited it and I wrote the correct.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Let's face it, dash's "governance" sucks. Twice I tried contacting Coinfirm with a view to hiring them but - surprise surprise - I didn't get a reply. I wonder why that is? I might as well go to the competition and hire a different blockchain analysis company.. let them analyse the masternodes and then we'll see just what it's structure is.. because I'm totally fed up with dash's MN system. Really, it's broken and getting worse. Seems to me just a handful of people run 50% or more of all masternodes. Because the 1000 dash collateral is a fixed amount, those with the most masternodes are gaining new masternodes at a faster rate... and thus the power centralises to what it is today.. just a handful of major players.. all the others are just bit players to make it look like it's "decentralised".

And for sure the views of end-users are at odds with masternodes... e.g. privacy vs transparency

Now watch as we get marked down as trolling... fuck you tosers, no wonder no one comes here, no one gives a fuck about dash

 

[demo]

... no one gives a fuck about dash

I give a fuck about dash, simply because I havent found yet any other cryptocoin that has the government feature.
Dash governance surely sucks, but it is better than nothing.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

It takes approximately 500 weeks to gain a new masternode.. but if you've got 500 masternodes already (Evan) then it only takes 1 week. Only one way to prove me wrong is for all MNOs to be declared and counted... but surprise surprise they don't want that, they only want end users to give up their privacy. The only thing dash is good at - or rather it would be good at - is the granting of wishes.. but what's the point of that if just a handful of people are pulling the strings... a gentleman's club, and no one wants that, no one wants one type of elitist (bankers) to be replaced by another (New Geek Bankers)/

 

[jarroyo]

It's all an interesting idea. I will say though that the 1000 Dash collateral is still the biggest factor in play. Even if a person were to have enough masternodes a to earn enough to make more masternodes quicker than others, they are still bound by the incentive to maintain/grow the value of their holdings. I might even argue that as a holder of the currency, even if a centralized actor was making decisions that were increasing the value of my holdings because of said incentives then there really isn't an issue. The danger of centralization I think is when things go the opposite way, however I feel the incentives aren't there with collateral at stake. Is it perfect? No. But markets correct themselves and I feel as though things are in place for the general growth of the currency and economy. I feel there will always be room however to discover the optimal parameters for growth.

Overall I think the collateral requirement for voting is paramount and thus would have no issue granting voting rights to other actors in the ecosystem if they too had some form of verifiable monetary stake. And it is at that point which everything could be up to debate as to how to weigh those votes

 

[GrandMasterDash]

It's all an interesting idea. I will say though that the 1000 Dash collateral is still the biggest factor in play. Even if a person were to have enough masternodes a to earn enough to make more masternodes quicker than others, they are still bound by the incentive to maintain/grow the value of their holdings. I might even argue that as a holder of the currency, even if a centralized actor was making decisions that were increasing the value of my holdings because of said incentives then there really isn't an issue. The danger of centralization I think is when things go the opposite way, however I feel the incentives aren't there with collateral at stake. Is it perfect? No. But markets correct themselves and I feel as though things are in place for the general growth of the currency and economy. I feel there will always be room however to discover the optimal parameters for growth.

Overall I think the collateral requirement for voting is paramount and thus would have no issue granting voting rights to other actors in the ecosystem if they too had some form of verifiable monetary stake. And it is at that point which everything could be up to debate as to how to weigh those votes

What incentive, dash is programmed to give out those rewards regardless of outcome. The only incentive that matters is keeping up the facade that the wishes of fake MNO are inline with end users. How does dash's "governance" prove that?

#FakeNumbers producing #FakeNews

 

[jarroyo]

What incentive, dash is programmed to give out those rewards regardless of outcome. The only incentive that matters is keeping up the facade that the wishes of fake MNO are inline with end users. How does dash's "governance" prove that?

#FakeNumbers producing #FakeNews

Yes the block reward will always be paid out. I'm saying that users heavily invested in the form of masternode collateral are incentivized to make decisions that serve to grow the value of the network as a whole. And again I have no issue opening that power to end users with less "at stake" so long as that can be accomplished with their "weight" of investment somehow factored in

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Core, happy to hire a legal team yet unwilling to make a legal pledge to it's end users.

Core, happy to reprogram the rules of finance, yet unwilling to hand over version control and binaries to a third party auditor.

Core, willing to switch off payments to MNs, yet unwilling to fork their own project even though they're the ones changing the rules of the game.

MNOs, happy to ditch end users privacy (re Coinfirm), yet unwilling to give up their own privacy and prove their decentralised governance.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Yes the block reward will always be paid out. I'm saying that users heavily invested in the form of masternode collateral are incentivized to make decisions that serve to grow the value of the network as a whole. And again I have no issue opening that power to end users with less "at stake" so long as that can be accomplished with their "weight" of investment somehow factored in

Yes, but we're in a situation where Evan has 500+ MNs. A couple of months back we were told he reduced to 300 but now I question that.. who's going to prove me wrong?

 

[jarroyo]

Yes, but we're in a situation where Evan has 500+ MNs. A couple of months back we were told he reduced to 300 but now I question that.. who's going to prove me wrong?

That's an interesting observation to ponder over and I can't prove you wrong. It is my opinion though that so long as Dash continues to grow in value, what is the problem? Assuming your assertion is true (and I'm not arguing that) Evan still has the most to lose.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

@JGCMiner that's right, you keep marking me as Trolling and I'll keep returning the favour

 

[GrandMasterDash]

That's an interesting observation to ponder over and I can't prove you wrong. It is my opinion though that so long as Dash continues to grow in value, what is the problem? Assuming your assertion is true (and I'm not arguing that) Evan still has the most to lose.

Let me tell you something, when Evan puts out a proposal, he's so f'ing tight he wants his 5 dash back

 

[demo]

Overall I think the collateral requirement for voting is paramount and thus would have no issue granting voting rights to other actors in the ecosystem if they too had some form of verifiable monetary stake. And it is at that point which everything could be up to debate as to how to weigh those votes

My proposal here is NOT about granting voting rights to the actors. It is just to record the votes of the actors, but not taking into account thoses votes. In my proposal only the masternode votes count.

What you are proposing ( granting voting rights to the actors, then take those votes into account by giving them a weight) is a different proposal that may follow my proposal, in case the scientific method proves that the masternodes are taking worse decicions compared to some other actors.

 

[jarroyo]

My proposal here is NOT about granting voting rights to the actors. It is just to record the votes of the actors, but not taking into account thoses votes. In my proposal only the masternode votes count.

What you are proposing ( granting voting rights to the actors, then take those votes into account by giving them a weight) is a different proposal that may follow my proposal, in case the scientific method proves that the masternodes are taking worse decicions compared to some other actors.

My mistake for getting sidetracked. The only problem I can foresee with that scenario is that while votes don't necessarily "count", there is no way to necessarily prevent fake votes. So while it wouldn't hurt to have a sort of snapshot of these actors, the fact that their integrity is questionable makes me believe it may not be worth the effort to implement(but I'm no coder either, so that's just my subjective viewpoint).


EDIT: I need to investigate/inform myself of the "Proof of individuality" to have a better opinion

 

[demo]

@JGCMiner that's right, you keep marking me as Trolling and I'll keep returning the favour

@GrandMasterDash and @JGCMiner I think you both need my script!
How much dash do you give me to continue the development?

 

[demo]

My mistake for getting sidetracked. The only problem I can foresee with that scenario is that while votes don't necessarily "count", there is no way to necessarily prevent fake votes. So while it wouldn't hurt to have a sort of snapshot of these actors, the fact that their integrity is questionable makes me believe it may not be worth the effort to implement(but I'm no coder either, so that's just my subjective viewpoint).

For the initial 3 actor types of this proposal (MasterNodes, Miners, Stakeholders), I think there are ways to prevent the fake votes. This can be the proof of individuality, the Captcha, the votechain (save the votes in the blockchain for later investigation of fake votes) e.t.c.

Additionaly, the fake vote depends on the definition of the actors. As I already wrote, multiple actors can be defined:

I do not consider only 3 types of actors, if this proposal passes then more actor types may be added in a latter proposal.

One actor type may be the miners, another maybe the wallet owners, another may be the employees, another maybe the core team, another maybe the US citizents, another maybe the people with black hair and blue eyes e.t.c. Whatever grouping you could think, can be defined as a possible actor type. But of course not all groups are going to be taken seriously (ex. the black hair with blue eyes actor type is obviously a troll actor type)

Each actor is responsible to prove to the rest actors that it does not contain fake votes. Otherwise the actor may exist, but the votes of this actor will not be taken seriously.

 

[jarroyo]

This is very important, because although the decision power will remain to the masternodes, the votes of all the actors will be recorded, and in the depth of times we will see which actor was the wisest one and deserves to decide.

My other replies aside, this I feel is actually the true crux of your prepoposal and is what I should have been addressing. Just as you mentioned, "actors" must be defined. Additonally some sort of voting mechanism must be developed for these actors. I feel as though you have a great idea that serves to optimize the governance of Dash. Whether to implement it is the next question I would say needs to be addressed. The biggest issue is cost vs reward. Development resources are scarce. Should Dash address optimizing its governance now or can it wait? On a long enough timeline I without a doubt feel it needs to be addressed.

However I also feel that current development time in other areas like evolution would better suit us now as the primary focus because they will bring more added value to the network which will allow more funding to then tackle optimizing the governance structure.

Programmable governance for a network like dash is uncharted territory. It's silly for anyone to think it's easy to do and get right the first time. So while I think your idea has merit, I just don't believe we're ready for it yet.

 

[demo]

Programmable governance for a network like dash is uncharted territory. It's silly for anyone to think it's easy to do and get right the first time. So while I think your idea has merit, I just don't believe we're ready for it yet.

We are not ready yet to make programmable governance.
But defining 3 actor types, record their opinion and start investigating the potentialities of the statistics, I think we are ready for that.

Dash community should invest in research, not only invest in advertising, marketing and fests.
It is not the first time I asked the dash community to invest in research. But they dont listen to me.

 

[jarroyo]

We are not ready yet to make programmable governance, but defining the actors and start investigating the potentialities, I think we are ready for that.
Dash community should invest in research, not only invest in advertising, marketing and fests.

That I can agree with. Specifically how is the next question

 

[TroyDASH]

Although practically speaking, I don't think that this should necessarily be a priority right now, I am open to the idea of allowing other actors to participate in governance, if it can somehow be identified what their stake in the network is, and the amount of power they have should reflect that stake. In theory. Realistically though, there are probably insane technical barriers to attempting this not to mention even evaluating how much power the other actors should have. Unless someone comes out with even the roughest blueprint for how it would work, I think our governance is good enough.

 

[demo]

<vote history>
Let all the actors to vote, just for statistical reasons while their vote does not count.
*yes 1 vote(s) 33.3%
no 1 vote(s) 33.3%
other 1 vote(s) 33.3%
</vote history>