Reduction Of Proposal Fee To 0.1 Dash (Proposal)

Acedian

Member
Mar 17, 2017
243
71
88
Dash Address
XeMABbcebB5yeZH2HxsV7yLNJA9hbzMgpz
An active proposal is looking to reduce the proposal fee to 0.1 Dash.

Here is the DashCentral link:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Reduce_proposal_fees_to_dot1_DASH

Please read and vote if you are a masternode owner.

I am not the proposer, I would just like to spread the word.

The proposal:

"Dear Dash Nation !

Sudden spike of Dash-to-U.S.Dollar prices, put many new proposals out of reach for small projects.
With regard to the recent maximum USD price of Dash at $120, We think the proposal fee should be reduced to 0.1 Dash.
Without this change, We feel that opportunities will be missed.
This is because a high proposal cost will discourage submitting of anything but "guaranteed" proposals.

The 5 Dash fee was introduced primarily to prevent spam.
This was successful when this fee was only about $15.
We see no reason why a smaller fee of about $5 will not successfully discourage spam.

There was a question about pricing Dash proposals in USD;

Sadly this is technically impossible, because the Dash network (our block-chain)
knows nothing about the price of U.S. Dollar, nor about the price of gold.

Therefore 0.1 DASH (Dash = $50) will mean that a single proposal will cost only $5 at this price, and even in a case of sudden spike to a $1000 for Dash, our proposals will still be priced reasonably at $100-a-pop."

Manually vote on this proposal (DashCore - Tools - Debugconsole):
gobject vote-many 96ced329ee3c4678f543dd7eeb6f1646b8c54472b02c3a0e22e7bfb69694ee2a funding yes

(taken from dashcentral.org, submitted by Technologov)
 

RichardAO

New Member
Jan 17, 2017
34
8
8
NYS
Dash Address
XmTSEYFTG5dF7N68mEZwtpVUQPAPQ
If you cant get five friends behind your idea, to lend you a Dash each, then how great of an idea can it be? Good luck.
 

Technologov

Member
Mar 5, 2017
160
36
88
36
Israel
Mini Q&A:


Q: > What is the purpose of the proposal fee?

To avoid spam.

Q: > How do you measure if the fee is too high?

Our budget is not filled with proposals. We have fewer proposals than available budget.

Q: > Is there currently evidence that it is too high?

Many small-academic projects are already priced out of the market.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/introduction-to-my-extraordinary-proposal.13651/

And we have zero spam. Good idea is to decrease fees.
We want competition for budget money -- that is more proposals for ideas and start-ups than available budget. This will give maximum growth for the Dash network.

What if a Dash spikes to a $1000 and new proposal will cost $5000 ? Only big and rich corporations will be able to propose new stuff or new policies or new start-ups on our network.
 

RichardAO

New Member
Jan 17, 2017
34
8
8
NYS
Dash Address
XmTSEYFTG5dF7N68mEZwtpVUQPAPQ
Mini Q&A:


Q: > What is the purpose of the proposal fee?

To avoid spam.

Q: > How do you measure if the fee is too high?

Our budget is not filled with proposals. We have fewer proposals than available budget.

Q: > Is there currently evidence that it is too high?

Many small-academic projects are already priced out of the market.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/introduction-to-my-extraordinary-proposal.13651/

And we have zero spam. Good idea is to decrease fees.
We want competition for budget money -- that is more proposals for ideas and start-ups than available budget. This will give maximum growth for the Dash network.

What if a Dash spikes to a $1000 and new proposal will cost $5000 ? Only big and rich corporations will be able to propose new stuff or new policies or new start-ups on our network.
No matter what the usd evaluation of Dash is at any given moment, people with good ideas can still gather support and make proposals. 5 Dash will always be 5 Dash, be it from friends or family or well wishers. Promote your great idea and you wont need to raise the funds - the funds will come to you.
Just remember, only ideas that substantially increase the value of Dash compared to altcoins will really stand a chance. So be serious about it, put your money where your mouth is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bridgewater

David

Well-known Member
Dash Support Group
Jun 21, 2014
618
628
163
Mini Q&A:


Q: > What is the purpose of the proposal fee?

To avoid spam.

Q: > How do you measure if the fee is too high?

Our budget is not filled with proposals. We have fewer proposals than available budget.

Q: > Is there currently evidence that it is too high?

Many small-academic projects are already priced out of the market.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/introduction-to-my-extraordinary-proposal.13651/

And we have zero spam. Good idea is to decrease fees.
We want competition for budget money -- that is more proposals for ideas and start-ups than available budget. This will give maximum growth for the Dash network.

What if a Dash spikes to a $1000 and new proposal will cost $5000 ? Only big and rich corporations will be able to propose new stuff or new policies or new start-ups on our network.
We had zero DDOS attacks on the masternode network too...until we had one a few weeks ago. The fee isn't to prevent spam (as in unwanted proposals). The fee is to prevent attacks (as in somebody flooding the network with 10,000 proposals.)

A bad guy wanting to make a profit would short a bunch of DASH on Poloniex, spam the network with 10k proposals at a cost of $50,000 - $60,000 and then close his shorts once the price drops due to the attack.

I'd personally be in favor of reducing the fee to 1 DASH, but not 0.1
 

Vedran Yoweri

Active Member
Apr 29, 2015
334
152
113
Let's try and force core to get the budget system swamped by 100+ sh*t proposals every month.
F-ing trols.
 

Technologov

Member
Mar 5, 2017
160
36
88
36
Israel
No matter what the usd evaluation of Dash is at any given moment, people with good ideas can still gather support and make proposals. 5 Dash will always be 5 Dash, be it from friends or family or well wishers. Promote your great idea and you wont need to raise the funds - the funds will come to you.
Just remember, only ideas that substantially increase the value of Dash compared to altcoins will really stand a chance. So be serious about it, put your money where your mouth is.
5 DASH at $1000 a pop means that Academics will not be able to apply for grants. Small start-ups will be priced out of the market.
(just like Coffee buyers are priced out of the Bitcoin network, because transactions fees are sky-high at $1 one-dollar-a-pop. A transaction fee must NEVER EVER exceed even 1 cent. And this is absolute maximum.)
 

David

Well-known Member
Dash Support Group
Jun 21, 2014
618
628
163
5 DASH at $1000 a pop means that Academics will not be able to apply for grants. Small start-ups will be priced out of the market.
(just like Coffee buyers are priced out of the Bitcoin network, because transactions fees are sky-high at $1 one-dollar-a-pop. A transaction fee must NEVER EVER exceed even 1 cent. And this is absolute maximum.)
I don't think that anybody is advocating never changing the proposal fee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grex

Nick

New Member
Mar 29, 2017
36
9
8
30
.1 is too low at this time due to reasons mentioned. 1.5 seems reasonable - $95 at the current rate, or $42-$190 considering a 100% change in margin.
 

Technologov

Member
Mar 5, 2017
160
36
88
36
Israel
".1 is too low at this time due to reasons mentioned. 1.5 seems reasonable: $95 at the current rate, while a 100% change in margin would be from $42-$190."

Let's see how it goes, and if there will be too much spam, we will consider to increase fees slightly.

"RichardAO"
There is *no* way to convince friends to give you hundreds of dollars. No one will. Not in Dash and not in fiat.
 

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
353
705
163
An active proposal is looking to reduce the proposal fee to 0.1 Dash.

Here is the DashCentral link:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Reduce_proposal_fees_to_dot1_DASH

Please read and vote if you are a masternode owner.

I am not the proposer, I would just like to spread the word.

The proposal:

"Dear Dash Nation !

Sudden spike of Dash-to-U.S.Dollar prices, put many new proposals out of reach for small projects.
With regard to the recent maximum USD price of Dash at $120, We think the proposal fee should be reduced to 0.1 Dash.
Without this change, We feel that opportunities will be missed.
This is because a high proposal cost will discourage submitting of anything but "guaranteed" proposals.

The 5 Dash fee was introduced primarily to prevent spam.
This was successful when this fee was only about $15.
We see no reason why a smaller fee of about $5 will not successfully discourage spam.

There was a question about pricing Dash proposals in USD;

Sadly this is technically impossible, because the Dash network (our block-chain)
knows nothing about the price of U.S. Dollar, nor about the price of gold.

Therefore 0.1 DASH (Dash = $50) will mean that a single proposal will cost only $5 at this price, and even in a case of sudden spike to a $1000 for Dash, our proposals will still be priced reasonably at $100-a-pop."

Manually vote on this proposal (DashCore - Tools - Debugconsole):
gobject vote-many 96ced329ee3c4678f543dd7eeb6f1646b8c54472b02c3a0e22e7bfb69694ee2a funding yes

(taken from dashcentral.org, submitted by Technologov)
Hi Acedian

I won't comment on the actual fee I think we should have right now. But just to point out, these proposals that just ask a question aren't always going to get results because proposals only work when they pay someone to do something (this is the fundamental incentive modal of the budget system). For example, this proposal should really pay a dev (whoever) to implement the code change and PR it to the dashpay repo.

There is the argument that e.g. the core devs are employed by the Core Team dao which is subcontracting to the network on a rolling monthly basis - therefore a decision like this must be followed. I agree with that to a point, but really budget proposals are supposed to financially incentivize people to take action. This proposal isn't financially incentivizing anyone so I wouldn't be surprised if these type of proposals are often contentious / not followed in Dash's future.

Andy Freer

EDIT: BTW, this requires a hard fork, so it's not something we can just change back and forth easily right now so we should put a lot of thought behind it (i agree 5 is too much right now personally but i would be more conservative with the reduction for security / technical reasons)
 
  • Like
Reactions: stan.distortion

Technologov

Member
Mar 5, 2017
160
36
88
36
Israel
hard forks are easy when they are done on a weekly basis. See Ethereum. (hint: if there is no political fork, chain will not split)

Let's call it a "protocol upgrade" instead. :)
 
Last edited:

Technologov

Member
Mar 5, 2017
160
36
88
36
Israel
One of the reasons for small fees: Ability for scientists and academics to use Dash Budget system, so we can sponsor their research papers.

I want Academics and scientists to use our system too... There is one scientist, working on Dash, and would like to receive a small grant here:

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/introduction-to-my-extraordinary-proposal.13651/

I think it is very beneficial for us, if scientists and academics could publish scientific-papers about Dash.
With $120 DASH x5 = $600 fee proposals. It will price academic and scientists out of DASH.
 

splawik21

Grizzled Member
Dash Core Team
Moderator
Foundation Member
Dash Support Group
Apr 8, 2014
1,927
1,287
1,283
@AndyDark can't it be once implemented in the code that MNs vote on the actual fee in the monthly rates? If a new % maggioranze voted by the MNs will not be achieved then the old fee remains till the moment when votes go to another %fee. This would only need 1 future hardfork and would live in the code for all future changes of the fee.
Immagine that the price of one coin goes to 500$. It's a big barrier for anyone who has a new ideas to submit his proposal or must be 100% sure it will pass.
0.1 fee with the actuall price might flood the network with the gobject:)
 

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
353
705
163
@AndyDark can't it be once implemented in the code that MNs vote on the actual fee in the monthly rates? If a new % maggioranze voted by the MNs will not be achieved then the old fee remains till the moment when votes go to another %fee. This would only need 1 future hardfork and would live in the code for all future changes of the fee.
Immagine that the price of one coin goes to 500$. It's a big barrier for anyone who has a new ideas to submit his proposal or must be 100% sure it will pass.
0.1 fee with the actuall price might flood the network with the gobject:)
Hey Splawik :)

It would be possible to do that with Sentinel, yes. But in the Evo revision it can be done more elegantly, so our strategy is to press on with the Evo alpha (within which Sentinel is upgrading to DashDrive essentially) and release everything together.

Andy
 
  • Like
Reactions: splawik21

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
I won't comment on the actual fee I think we should have right now. But just to point out, these proposals that just ask a question aren't always going to get results because proposals only work when they pay someone to do something (this is the fundamental incentive modal of the budget system). For example, this proposal should really pay a dev (whoever) to implement the code change and PR it to the dashpay repo.

There is the argument that e.g. the core devs are employed by the Core Team dao which is subcontracting to the network on a rolling monthly basis - therefore a decision like this must be followed. I agree with that to a point, but really budget proposals are supposed to financially incentivize people to take action. This proposal isn't financially incentivizing anyone so I wouldn't be surprised if these type of proposals are often contentious / not followed in Dash's future.

Andy Freer

EDIT: BTW, this requires a hard fork, so it's not something we can just change back and forth easily right now so we should put a lot of thought behind it (i agree 5 is too much right now personally but i would be more conservative with the reduction for security / technical reasons)
Your way of thinking is simply wrong. Α governance decision should precede any implementation proposal. Why a free lancer developer to spend his time investigating how to change the Dash code, if he is not sure that the masternodes want that? Thats why those kind of questions are tottaly needed to be answered by the masternodes. They are not implementation proposals, they are just governance questions, that will incentivize free lancer developers outside the core team to start searching implementation solutions, and then make their implementation proposals to the budget system that are compatible to the governance decisions.

The governance type questions will boost dash, they will free it from the salary paid developers (which tend to have a civil servant behavior)
. What is really at stake in this very vote, it is whether the free developers or the paid employees developers will lead dash's future. And I prefer the free market rather than the employees-servants.

I hope to have mass participation in this vote, because this will show that the masternodes operators (regardless whether they agree or not to the specific question) they understand the huge value that those governance-type questions have.
 
Last edited:

solo7861

New Member
Aug 3, 2014
34
15
8
Your way of thinking is simply wrong. Α governance decision should precede any implementation proposal. Why a free lancer developer to spend his time investigating how to change the Dash code, if he is not sure that the masternodes want that? Thats why those kind of questions are tottaly needed to be answered by the masternodes. They are not implementation proposals, they are just governance questions, that will incentivize free lancer developers outside the core team to start searching implementation solutions, and then make their implementation proposals to the budget system that are compatible to the governance decisions.

The governance type questions will boost dash, they will free it from the salary paid developers (which tend to have a civil servant behavior)
. What is really at stake in this very vote, it is whether the free developers or the paid employees developers will lead dash's future. And I prefer the free market rather than the employees-servants.

I hope to have mass participation in this vote, because this will show that the masternodes operators (regardless whether they agree or not to the specific question) they understand the huge value that those governance-type questions have.
I totally understand this proposal and I am 100% voting AGAINST it! and I would advise other masternode owners to do the same, think carefully do u really want to create a hard fork?
 
  • Like
Reactions: camosoul

UdjinM6

Official Dash Dev
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 20, 2014
3,638
3,536
1,183
Hi Acedian

I won't comment on the actual fee I think we should have right now. But just to point out, these proposals that just ask a question aren't always going to get results because proposals only work when they pay someone to do something (this is the fundamental incentive modal of the budget system). For example, this proposal should really pay a dev (whoever) to implement the code change and PR it to the dashpay repo.

There is the argument that e.g. the core devs are employed by the Core Team dao which is subcontracting to the network on a rolling monthly basis - therefore a decision like this must be followed. I agree with that to a point, but really budget proposals are supposed to financially incentivize people to take action. This proposal isn't financially incentivizing anyone so I wouldn't be surprised if these type of proposals are often contentious / not followed in Dash's future.

Andy Freer

EDIT: BTW, this requires a hard fork, so it's not something we can just change back and forth easily right now so we should put a lot of thought behind it (i agree 5 is too much right now personally but i would be more conservative with the reduction for security / technical reasons)
I kind of disagree with that to the point that proposals should always pay someone. IMO it's a nice way to get idea of what majority of actively participating MNOs are up to and we wouldn't be able to get this data otherwise. So even though there is no direct incentive to implement this it's a pro-active way to tweak the system which is IMO much better than "implement smth, no one is happy - no/slow adoption, lots of complains and needless discussions,... repeat...".

Regarding the proposal, IMO 0.1 is not going to work at current price levels. I'd say proposal fee should be smth comparably high to make <$100 proposals economically not reasonable. Smth like 1 DASH would work better for now IMO.

Fee can be technically lowered without "hard fork"-like migration (which would require protocol bump, everyone to upgrade, masternode start, etc). This would still require majority masternodes to upgrade between 2 budget cycles to get new proposals propagated and voted properly but it's risky and can lead to chain split if not executed in timely manner because with no protocol bump there is no way to safely cut off old nodes.

There was an idea somewhere (in original thread?) to compute fee for the next cycle based on the use of previous budget(s) which I like actually - it sounds pretty close to diff adjustment we have for PoW, so why not? I think that one worth investigating a bit more...
 

JGCMiner

Moderator
Moderator
Jun 8, 2014
364
217
113
Agree 100% with the above suggestion.

Some sort of system that adjusts the fee based on the number of proposals as well as the total budget allocated over say the past three or so months is a great idea. IMO, that is a much more robust and elegant solution than just dropping the fee 50x suddenly.
 

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
353
705
163
I kind of disagree with that to the point that proposals should always pay someone. IMO it's a nice way to get idea of what majority of actively participating MNOs are up to and we wouldn't be able to get this data otherwise. So even though there is no direct incentive to implement this it's a pro-active way to tweak the system which is IMO much better than "implement smth, no one is happy - no/slow adoption, lots of complains and needless discussions,... repeat...".

Regarding the proposal, IMO 0.1 is not going to work at current price levels. I'd say proposal fee should be smth comparably high to make <$100 proposals economically not reasonable. Smth like 1 DASH would work better for now IMO.

Fee can be technically lowered without "hard fork"-like migration (which would require protocol bump, everyone to upgrade, masternode start, etc). This would still require majority masternodes to upgrade between 2 budget cycles to get new proposals propagated and voted properly but it's risky and can lead to chain split if not executed in timely manner because with no protocol bump there is no way to safely cut off old nodes.

There was an idea somewhere (in original thread?) to compute fee for the next cycle based on the use of previous budget(s) which I like actually - it sounds pretty close to diff adjustment we have for PoW, so why not? I think that one worth investigating a bit more...
I think it's fine if the contractor, e.g. core team, is willing to obey the signal like your dev team is UdjinM6 :) I'm thinking more generally in the commercial world contracts aren't enforcable without joint agreement around a consideration, i.e. if a client commissions a developer to build an app using a contract (proposal), then they want to change something later, the original contract still stands unless the developer agrees to a new contract (and gets paid for it), the only enforcement by the client is to revoke the original contract if they refuse. So I guess yes the core team will follow signals but in future there might be other bodies or DAOs etc that will just stick to the obligations of the contract they did agree on. One solution (for future) could be to build in the milestones / deliverables that have been talked about which could penalize the contractor financially if they didn't do certain things e.g. follow signals within an agreed framework.

Like the dynamic fee idea and yes I see what you mean, it could be done without a protocol bump although not the safest option then :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: stan.distortion

Stealth923

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
352
404
233
This is a cross post from Slack from @Bridgewater which I thought was an awesome writeup:

"Regarding proposal fee reduction discussed earlier, I see it as bad thing, and a rising cost of entry as good--not just for weeding out scammers but for growth in general. IMO, it means increasing responsibility of contractors, who should actually be doing bigger and bigger projects as Dash itself grows and the proposal fee gets higher because of that growth. This is an economic self-balancing factor that need not be touched unless you're playing micro-management government overreach. You built the system and gave the rules to everybody, and then grew because of it.

Remember the point of crypto? You can't invest and produce in an economy where somebody can keep changing the rules. No-one will play. You need something with clear understandable rules and then people will figure out how best to use it. You can't do it for them, because it kills all creativity and innovation. Dash is not, or should not try to be a heavy-handed government; it should facilitate free market capitalism. If Dash gets bigger, people are free to band together and form entire organizations devoted to micro-projects that help Dash. The MN can easily vote for said organizations based on proven performance and professionally prepared auditing reports. Those contractors could even run their own Dash-compatible DAO to do their own voting and funding. But that's only possible when you have something large and _stable_ backing it up.

Dash needs to be able to scale to bigger and bigger projects, and you can't do that with micromanagement. Are you going to adjust the coin supply too because dash gets "too expensive" and not enough people can have 100 dash? Just as dash is infinitely divisible, so too is management.

Progress does not come from going backward, but forward. If Dash has passed the phase where it needs 5 dollar proposals because its market cap is now in the hundreds of millions, that is a GOOD thing. What happens when dash market cap is 500 Billion? Let's have the MN vote on some kid proposing to fund a Dash sticker for his bicycle--Really? The answer is that if we keep thinking like this we will never reach 500 billion market cap, because the big money only comes from scaling through delegation. This is also the same reason many small companies never become large companies, btw. /rant"
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
I totally understand this proposal and I am 100% voting AGAINST it! and I would advise other masternode owners to do the same, think carefully do u really want to create a hard fork?
The hard fork will occur in case you vote against the decreasing of the proposal fee. In that case the new generation of Dashers will understand how stupid, greedy and lazy the Dash generation of 2014-2016 is, and that they refuse to change. So the new Dashers will leave to another more fair coin. This is the hard fork you should be afraid of.

It is the hard fork of the community you should be afraid of, and not the hard fork of the code. Because money is nothing without a community to believe to it. And the biggest the community is, the stongest the money is.

If you refuse to diminish the proposal fee you will never become big, because this bad decision reveals your real character. You are fat rich lazy guys and you are afraid of the work that is required in order to evaluate proposals. You are stupid guys and you are afraid of taking governance decisions thats why you set the question price so high. You are suspicious guys, you suspect that people will spam you, but spam has not occured yet. Who wants to join a community that is lead by lazy, suspicious and stupid guys that delegate their leading role to others or to employees-slaves? If you refuse to diminish the proposal fee you will bleed. You will lose both people (especially the new generations) and faith.

And remember, your value does not increase because your dollar price increases. Your value increases whenever you manage to compete the dollar guys, and not whenever you serve them. The dollar guys control the births and the deaths here in Dash. They increase Dash's price with their dollars, and suddently new ignorants arrive here. They decrease Dash's price with their dollars, and people leave. So dont be proud of it. You are still dollar's filthy slaves and you will always remain like that unless you increase the total number of the masternodes. Increasing the number of the masternode operators will have also another positive effect, it will decrease the laziness, the stupidness and the suspiciousness of the leaders of Dash (the decrease will happen because the concentration of these three vices is dense in the masternodes operators who happen to have nowadays the leadership responsibility of Dash)
 
Last edited:

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
This is a cross post from Slack from @Bridgewater which I thought was an awesome writeup:

"Regarding proposal fee reduction discussed earlier, I see it as bad thing, and a rising cost of entry as good--not just for weeding out scammers but for growth in general. IMO, it means increasing responsibility of contractors, who should actually be doing bigger and bigger projects as Dash itself grows and the proposal fee gets higher because of that growth. This is an economic self-balancing factor that need not be touched unless you're playing micro-management government overreach. You built the system and gave the rules to everybody, and then grew because of it.

Remember the point of crypto? You can't invest and produce in an economy where somebody can keep changing the rules. No-one will play. You need something with clear understandable rules and then people will figure out how best to use it. You can't do it for them, because it kills all creativity and innovation. Dash is not, or should not try to be a heavy-handed government; it should facilitate free market capitalism. If Dash gets bigger, people are free to band together and form entire organizations devoted to micro-projects that help Dash. The MN can easily vote for said organizations based on proven performance and professionally prepared auditing reports. Those contractors could even run their own Dash-compatible DAO to do their own voting and funding. But that's only possible when you have something large and _stable_ backing it up.

Dash needs to be able to scale to bigger and bigger projects, and you can't do that with micromanagement. Are you going to adjust the coin supply too because dash gets "too expensive" and not enough people can have 100 dash? Just as dash is infinitely divisible, so too is management.

Progress does not come from going backward, but forward. If Dash has passed the phase where it needs 5 dollar proposals because its market cap is now in the hundreds of millions, that is a GOOD thing. What happens when dash market cap is 500 Billion? Let's have the MN vote on some kid proposing to fund a Dash sticker for his bicycle--Really? The answer is that if we keep thinking like this we will never reach 500 billion market cap, because the big money only comes from scaling through delegation. This is also the same reason many small companies never become large companies, btw. /rant"
You are going backward. Progress is the decentralization. Your whole proposition, and your whole way of thinking is towards a centralized bullshit. The Dash generation of 2014-2016 to be the centre of the world. How much stupid someone may be, to believe in such a nonsense?

Cryptotards... You inherited the stupidity genes of bitcoin directly into to your brain cells, and no mutation has happened yet.:rolleyes::(
 
Last edited:

Acedian

Member
Mar 17, 2017
243
71
88
Dash Address
XeMABbcebB5yeZH2HxsV7yLNJA9hbzMgpz
Hi Acedian

I won't comment on the actual fee I think we should have right now. But just to point out, these proposals that just ask a question aren't always going to get results because proposals only work when they pay someone to do something (this is the fundamental incentive modal of the budget system). For example, this proposal should really pay a dev (whoever) to implement the code change and PR it to the dashpay repo.

There is the argument that e.g. the core devs are employed by the Core Team dao which is subcontracting to the network on a rolling monthly basis - therefore a decision like this must be followed. I agree with that to a point, but really budget proposals are supposed to financially incentivize people to take action. This proposal isn't financially incentivizing anyone so I wouldn't be surprised if these type of proposals are often contentious / not followed in Dash's future.

Andy Freer

EDIT: BTW, this requires a hard fork, so it's not something we can just change back and forth easily right now so we should put a lot of thought behind it (i agree 5 is too much right now personally but i would be more conservative with the reduction for security / technical reasons)
The block size/scaling question was asked in this way, with no financial incentives. Wasn't it?
A hard fork is of course a concern. Perhaps this is a use for sentinel. I don't understand it fully, but couldn't it be used to make the fee an easy thing to change or even have a dynamic fee?
 

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
353
705
163
The block size/scaling question was asked in this way, with no financial incentives. Wasn't it?
A hard fork is of course a concern. Perhaps this is a use for sentinel. I don't understand it fully, but couldn't it be used to make the fee an easy thing to change or even have a dynamic fee?
Yes absolutely. That was a core team proposal though, I just mean that signalling by a 3rd party without consideration won't always work. Paying people to do things usually works.

Agree on the dynamic fee I think see what Udjin thinks about it.
Andy
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
I'm glad to see that I am no longer the lone voice of reason among MNOs. Still not enough, but it's a step in the right direction.

If your idea isn't good enough for you to put in your own money, why should everyone else?

Willing and Able. Just because you had an idea does not make you able to execute it. Sitting in your mom's basement, hitting the bong, dreaming up ideas; this is a waste of the MNs' time. If you haven't succeeded at anything else in life, then, yeah, you probably cannot afford the fee... If you haven't got the resources or experience, we don't need to hear about your pie-in-the-sky anyway.

Posting on the forums is free. Submitting proposals is not. Learn the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: akhavr

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
I totally understand this proposal and I am 100% voting AGAINST it! and I would advise other masternode owners to do the same, think carefully do u really want to create a hard fork?
The consequences of a hard-fork are known and have manageable limits.

The consequences of the unchecked stupid that motivated this suggestion are limitless... As we say in legal self-defense: "threat of grave bodily harm and/or death."

Such an extreme degree of stupid is far more unsettling than a hard-fork. Stupidity this extreme becomes a matter of survival. Kill it with fire.
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
I'm glad to see that I am no longer the lone voice of reason among MNOs. Still not enough, but it's a step in the right direction.

If your idea isn't good enough for you to put in your own money, why should everyone else?

Willing and Able. Just because you had an idea does not make you able to execute it. Sitting in your mom's basement, hitting the bong, dreaming up ideas; this is a waste of the MNs' time. If you haven't succeeded at anything else in life, then, yeah, you probably cannot afford the fee... If you haven't got the resources or experience, we don't need to hear about your pie-in-the-sky anyway.

Posting on the forums is free. Submitting proposals is not. Learn the difference.
Posing questions is governance and politics, it has nothing to do with implementation proposals. Having questions was always free and it will always be. Only the slaves stop the questions. And if you believe that everyone should be the slave of your generation, and they should not ask questions to you, you are simply stupid. You must answer all the questions when you are a leader. The only excuse for not answering a new question is when you have already answered a similar one. Masternodes are the leaders of Dash, so answering governance questions is their job.

Money's existence is also considered as a question. Money exists because some people answered yes in this question. So the questions are above money, and they are free. Politics is above money, everybody except the stupid understand that.

@camosoul, you do not understand the new governance system that arises and you think that Dash should remain in the concept of the old budget system. You are an old dasher, your mind is stuck in the past. The generation gap. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited: