Proposal for PIVX: Adaptive Proposal Fees

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,114
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
Whoever is a PIVX masternode, he may vote in a similar proposal that was submitted there: https://forum.pivx.org/t/adaptive-proposalfee/1098

You can check how many votes the PIVX proposal received there:
http://178.254.23.111/~pub/DN/DN_masternode_payments_stats.html
and compare them to the votes the DASH proposal received here:
https://dashvotetracker.com/history.php?ProposalID=271

That way you can judge (and compare) the prudence of the DASH community leaders (aka the MNOs, or the whales ) and of the PIVX community leaders.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dandy

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,114
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
Whoever is a PIVX masternode, he may vote in a similar proposal that was submitted there: https://forum.pivx.org/t/adaptive-proposalfee/1098

You can check how many votes the PIVX proposal received there:
http://178.254.23.111/~pub/DN/DN_masternode_payments_stats.html
and compare them to the votes the DASH proposal received here:
https://dashvotetracker.com/history.php?ProposalID=271

That way you can judge (and compare) the prudence of the DASH community leaders (aka the MNOs, or the whales ) and of the PIVX community leaders.
My proposal does not appear now in the PIVX budget system although it used to appear a couple of hours before.
The PIVX development team is looking at it.

Read here their answer:
https://forum.pivx.org/t/adaptive-proposalfee/1098/9
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TroyDASH

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,114
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
There are forces in PIVX that dont like to vote the numbers at all.
Have a look at my story there, and to what happened to the proposal of the Adaptive-ProposalFee
https://forum.pivx.org/t/adaptive-proposalfee/1098/10

At least the 1/5 of the PIVX masternodes dislike the Adaptive-ProposalFee for sure!
But they did an error, they revealed their intentions early, although the strategic voting requires to vote the last minute.
So lets wait for a month, to see what it will happen in the PIVX universe, regarding the adaptive proposal fee issue.:cool:

In the meantime, watch the Dashvotetracker carefully
https://dashvotetracker.com/history.php?ProposalID=271
 
Last edited:

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,114
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
The 400 negative votes from the PIVX Masternodes were probably all hosted in @coin-server which is now down. (reference: https://forum.pivx.org/t/cdg-mno-approval/910/4 ). The initial 400 negative votes are not valid at the moment. Currently the Adaptive-ProposalFee proposal at PIVX is voted as follows:

<vote history>
Current Number of Masternodes: 1189 (unique IPs: 1189, IPv6: 377, TOR: 409)
Proposal 12: Adaptive-ProposalFee Yes: 35 / No: 28
Command: pivx-cli mnbudget vote ed56d683274c95a75a3ab169332d799310305388bf44888adec799058f2fdfa3 yes | no
</vote history>
 
Last edited:
Apr 24, 2017
132
29
78
50
Italy
pietrosperoni.it
Dash Address
XsSU7489b1N3F2JCiJ6guBCk1cYuxAEhBQ
The 400 negative votes from the PIVX Masternodes were probably all hosted in @coin-server which is now down. (reference: https://forum.pivx.org/t/cdg-mno-approval/910/4 ). The initial 400 negative votes are not valid at the moment. Currently the Adaptive-ProposalFee proposal at PIVX is voted as follows:

<vote history>
Current Number of Masternodes: 1189 (unique IPs: 1189, IPv6: 377, TOR: 409)
Proposal 12: Adaptive-ProposalFee Yes: 35 / No: 28
Command: pivx-cli mnbudget vote ed56d683274c95a75a3ab169332d799310305388bf44888adec799058f2fdfa3 yes | no
</vote history>
@demo if one person controls 400 nodes, out of 1200, the situation is not recoverable. I am sorry.
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,114
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
@demo if one person controls 400 nodes, out of 1200, the situation is not recoverable. I am sorry.
I agree. Unless of course he decides to give his masternodes for free to other people, or he decides to give voting rights to some other actors and not only to the masternodes.... Everything depends on the will of the people who hold a lot of nodes.

But remember the same initial centraliazation happens whenever someone initially designs whatever coin. He has to make some initial decisions, and those decisions are centralized. Initially everything depends on the designers, the initial numbers are decided in a centralized manner, so centralization is always the first inevitable step.

The important thing is whoever has the centralized power (either being a designer/coder or a voter), to be dedicated in decentralization. So even if someone initialy holds 400 masternodes out of 1200, if he likes decentralization he may do some (big or small) steps towards the decentraliazation goal. And this is positive.

And here I am to encourage whoever holds centralized power, to give it away.
 
Last edited:

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,114
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
Vote history1:
ref: https://forum.pivx.org/t/adaptive-proposalfee/1098/21
<vote history>
Current Number of Masternodes: 1484 (unique IPs: 1484, IPv6: 655, TOR: 418)
Proposal 11: Adaptive-ProposalFee Yes: 119 / No: 137
Command: pivx-cli mnbudget vote ed56d683274c95a75a3ab169332d799310305388bf44888adec799058f2fdfa3 yes | no
</vote history>

Vote history2:
ref: https://forum.pivx.org/t/adaptive-proposalfee/1098/22
<vote-history>
Current Number of Masternodes: 1724 (unique IPs: 1724, IPv6: 902, TOR: 417)
The proposal is hidden (more than 10% negative votes)
</vote history>

Conclusion one: The TOR masternodes do not vote against the proposal.
Conclusion two: The total number of masternodes increased 240 votes and the number of IPV6 increased 247 nodes.

So all the negative votes came form IPv6 nodes.
 
Last edited: