What? Money is being diverted from miners either way, but one way means that it only gets diverted if a majority of voters wish it, the other way means it gets diverted anyway and nobody has a say in the matter.
Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
What? Money is being diverted from miners either way, but one way means that it only gets diverted if a majority of voters wish it, the other way means it gets diverted anyway and nobody has a say in the matter.
moli
Well-known member
What about shared masternodes? Suppose there are 10 people sharing a MN, who gets to vote? All of them or none of them?
alex-ru
Well-known member
I think It should be defined by the charter of the corresponding MN-shared-hosting service.
Last edited by a moderator:
moli
Well-known member
What's that? charter?
The agreement they have entered into to create that MN.
In a shared masternode there should be only one vote because any other thing would be unfair for the other MNs. How they reach agreement is something they'll have to work out among the participants.
moli
Well-known member
Fair enough.
Cool to see that we can't reach consensum even now
How about working a bit more as a company? Internal crowdfunding is very hard to reach. I really think this is a great idea but we need some tuning, or it will destroy rather then build.
I don't know, I count two people so far who are against the proposal. One of whom lost all credibility a long time ago with "OMG Evan broke my walletz and all my coinz is gone. Darkcoin is broke sell sell sell" and "Darkcoin is obviously broken because even though hundreds of other people can figure out how to set up a masternode it's not working for me so I'm out of here."
Weighing those two voices against the several dozen that have lauded the proposal both here and on BCT and I think you're pretty damn close to a consensus. Code the system, push the update, and find out!
The shared MN I run has shareholders in the ratio 5:2:1:1:1 so I was going to run it as 1 (sub)vote per 10% share. As wallet holder I'll cast the vote.
Hopefully there will be a method for my shareholders to verify that I have indeed voted as I should have, via some RPC call or something so that anyone can see how an MN address voted on whatever issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
darkwing
Active member
I hear what you are saying (even if I find the language you are using unnecessarily antagonistic) the trouble I'm having with what you are proposing is how to cycle the project funding up and down. It sounds massively complicated to do. Also there will be a combination of budget and project. And create more of a hell no situation whereby people react to the their payments as miners or MN dropping periodically for something some of them don't want. Where as with the set route payments are regular.
The set amount route means their is a pot to compete for. You see this as the route to cronyism I see this as the route that will bring in a lot of new/outside people competing to get things done and get some money to achieve it. I see that as a good thing. Some things you will agree with some not. Some will work better than others. Such is life.
If you don't like a project/budget/just vote no. If you do vote yes.
To me no has to count as no not abstain and a certain majority has to be reached according to % spend.
Instead of yes/no/abstain it could be a scale of 1 to 10 as in disagree strongly to agree strongly thereby gathering opinion as well as vote. Or 5 to -5 or whatever.
However it is done is better than people trying to outshout/ "win" debates with each other on forums. (That is a general comment not a dig at you.)
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not against the proposal at all!
I am saying that the concept needs further optimization. I don't think that 50%+1 of the nodes will vote Y, I don't think 50%+1 of the nodes (much less actually) will have the competence to understand what is more or less important to queue, I don't think that 50%+1 of the nodes will be able to evaluate a proposal being adequate from the technical/business/mktg/operation/whatever point of view
I think we need just to fix this "excess" of democracy and give more power (and responsibilities) to someone that is able to lead the process accordingly
Not referring to you at all. I agree that the idea needs to be fleshed out and optimized. I'm sure it will be awhile before we see this in code.
My point was that the only two people who appear to be dead-set against this are lonecrouton and camosoul. Everybody else either a) thinks it's a good idea, or b) thinks it's workable after some modifications.
In the Dash network, for purposes of enforcement, we consider 80% a consensus. I think we have consensus here: that the basic idea is sound, even if it needs more work.
That is because some people enjoy being argumentative.
About the project itself,
-The emission is the same whether you direct a portion of the rewards to the development of the ecosystem or not. It means the coins are going to the market no matter what. The network needs to decide what is the best way to direct those funds so that it can ensure, mining, development, promotion and masternode operation.
A good way to think about it, is asking yourself. What would benefit a regular Dash end user the most? These are the people that are not miners or masternode operators. The emission dillutes the capital of the regular user no matter what, whether it goes to masternode operators or miners. So is it not better for the regular user for a portion of rewards to be directed at the development and promotion of the ecosystem, as his only chance for profit is actual coin appreciation and that can only come from value created?
-The rewards initially belong to the network and the network should distribute it depending on what it needs, this is the Dash model where 100% of the reward does not go to mining(securing the network), it has changed before to incentivize what was most needed at the moment, and now it is looking to ensure it can develop and grow in an independent way. What if Evan says tomorrow that he honestly can not continue working on this full time and that he is going to have to get a job? Same with Udjin, what do we do then? Go to MIT, they wont bail out Dash, we need to learn from Bitcoin experience.
- The business model is changing, masternode operators don't get to keep the development funds as they simply dont belong to them, they belong to the network. This is also not a donation model, you can only donate what belongs to you. Masternode operators are just chosen as an assembly of stewards because they have a vested interest in the future of the network. Also they all keep their capital, so they get to keep their capital, receive 45% direct reward and vote on how to reinvest 15% of the emission. That sounds like a good deal to me.
- Everything babygiraffe has said since this discussion started. Seriously, read all his posts.
About the mechanics,
I certainly agree we need to define some of the mechanics, and I would love to hear Evan's ideas after he has been reading all the feedback.
- I like Tao's idea of maybe having a revision every 24 months, that could be an option.
-
This is blatant nonsense. Neither of us have said any such thing. I just think the process needs modifying to prevent waste and abuse.
Or maybe it's because we care about the project and know full well how this is going to play out?
I can see the $$$ signs whirring in the eyes of certain folk who have Evan's ear, they think they've hit the jackpot with a perma-fountain of easy money here.
I've made my case, I'll shut up. Unless Moli wants to step in and give me some rough stuff.
BS all the way !
really, this nonsense with
"the rich people are whispering into evan's ear"
"$$ signs of people who whisper into evan's ear"
bla bla bla
is this really what you are thinking of the Dev Team and Foundation ?
WTF happened to you
And this is the heart of the issue. How do you get, possibly as many as 1000 people to vote every time a proposal is put before the community? How do you ensure the funds are spent wisely, and if DASH becomes worth the equivalent of 1000 Euro/Dollars, will we need 40,000,000 a month to pay for infrastructure/core development, etc?
I think we all agree we need a checks and balance system and a flexible payment structure. Question is, how is it built? And how do you get 51% of the vote on each project funded, on each "report card" of the project to see if funding continues, etc...? THAT is the challenge. NOW is the time for us to put our money where our mouth is. We complain about how wasteful the government is, yet they too have to deal with a huge infrastructure. Can we come up with a better system now that there is a blockchain? How smart are you guys? :wink: This includes me, with at least 34 years of complaining behind me :grin:
That's true, we're still young, we can back up and change the structure still, especially with the spork. Yet, at some point, the spork must be gotten rid of because it puts too much power in a trusted authority (unless it is modified to merely drop the network back to the last wallet somehow instead of turning enforcement off - but I think that will soon be resolved anyway, as enforcement has only affected MN payments)
As far as the diverted coins, the coins were marked to go to the Masternodes. It's the masternodes that are having their funds diverted this time, like it happened to the miners. So income for the miners is not changing.
Tungfa, I have to say, though I don't think this way of anyone NOW, I know con-men will come in when they smell money. And con-men are good at conning! We need to make this with checks and balances, and a way to encourage spending only what needs to be spent. I'm not worried about the immediate future, as we could probably use 1 million dollars a year, and are only proposing half that at the moment. But as the funds become worth more, the fund could get huge in value. If it's not spent, it will hurt liquidity, if it's spent, it may be wasteful and abused.
But I have no doubt we will come up with a flexible solution. A LOT can be done to ensure productivity at a decent price, and a return of funds to the ecosystem when there is an abundance.
There have to be definitions:
What the core development team is expected to do, what is the maintenance responsibility?
Marketing may be the easiest, as a certain % could be allocated toward marketing, and of course, oversight on how well they're spending those funds.
Other projects should have strict requirements. Something like, does this project benefit the whole DASH ecosystem? Maybe my beloved decentralized exchange doesn't meet the requirement?
This can all be coded into a decentralized autonomous corporation/entity whatever you want to call it. Don't worry how it'll be coded, that's for the developers to do, worry about. Don't put up road blocks in your heads. Think of how it can work, the rest will come! Anything you can think of can be implemented.