Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
Choose a model, vote, implement, and evaluate.

This type of thing has never been done before, we're arguing based on our prior experiences.

Throw that out the window, as what we are debating is a completely different beast. I would submit that no one in this thread has the clairvoyance to see the results of either side's thinking, which both have merit.

Both sides draw up proposals, we vote, implement and evaluate on a trial basis.

If we choose the fund option, and camosoul is right it turns into a pork barrel, then we re-evaluate at the end of the term.

If we choose the no-funding option and Masternode owners do just look after number one, then we reevaluate at the end of the term.

We all know what the successful implementation of this groundbreaking program would mean for Dash, and by extention the world, so we will need real-world trials to help us mold it over time.
This is not yet a democracy, and with good reason... No need to vote about it, Evan and company will, I trust, do the least retarded thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strix

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
Lets look at the failure of the BitCoin Foundation as it is.

Pork Barrel. Regardless of whether you think they over funded or under funded, the bottom line is that they had a pork barrel and they didn't ever do shit with it. Virtually everything they did was silly, petty, nonsense that did precisely dick for crypto.

Will a mandatory tax fix that? Really?
 

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
Actually, if you're worried about funds on the blockchain, the model could just as easily be monthly. Any monthly excess goes back to the block rewards for the following month.?? I just thought yearly would have less "waves" of uncertainty and fluctuation in numbers of miners and mansternodes.
Actually, I am not worried about funds in the blockchain as they should be distributed as block rewards every 2.5 minutes. I am worried about the funds stored in a wallet. If there is some cool way to implement blockchain storage that I am missing, please tell.

Even with a monthly distribution, the threat of loss/abuse remains. Keep in mind once DASH explodes, the amount in this fund will be huge. Governments will try to tax it, bankers will try to get in the middle, it will probably be considered laundering money from terrorists from whatever false flag event. It will be more and more difficult to manage. Once a mandatory donation system is in place it will be impossible to go back. This is such a big deal for me, sorry to keep posting about it.
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
Neither option is retarded, my friend. They both have merit. Which one is the best, or could a hybrid be created? That remains to be seen.
That's why I said least retarded.

Option 1) Imaginary Benefit + Pork Barrel + Impossible to Regulate Refunds.
Option 2) Actual Benefit + Nothing.

I'm simply flying the flag of the option that is clearly the least retarded...

MN operators will not vote down everything, no one with a functioning brain can even suggest that would come to pass. It's just plain silly and flies in the face of all the factors at play. That's like saying that miners would prefer that value never increase... They don't consider it because it doesn't apply to them directly. They're hand-to-mouth base-level animals of the system. MNs are a level that is several steps up, and never been in any other coin. It changes the whole game and those presenting the arguments as if that were not true are either deliberately trying to deceive for the sake of the pork barrel they're drooling over, or genuinely ignorant about how this works...
 

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,841
2,649
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
Lets look at the failure of the BitCoin Foundation as it is.

Pork Barrel. Regardless of whether you think they over funded or under funded, the bottom line is that they had a pork barrel and they didn't ever do shit with it. Virtually everything they did was silly, petty, nonsense that did precisely dick for crypto.

Will a mandatory tax fix that? Really?
You can't compare that to this! The Bitcoin Foundation is a centralized entity getting funding from a few wealthy early adopters.

What we're talking about is voting in a decentralized way on how to spend a fund whose sole purpose is to improve the coin.

We can't compare this to any other model, because it simply has never been done before.

I see what you're saying, I do, but no comparison to any current model will do the DGBB justice...
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
Actually, I am not worried about funds in the blockchain as they should be distributed as block rewards every 2.5 minutes. I am worried about the funds stored in a wallet.
Even this doesn't worry me, as the blockchain itself can authorize in the same way it does mined coins. Kinda like a multi-sig, one of the signers of which is the blockchain itself.

My concern is that it's all just a bad idea to begin with. Budgeting; we can rebuild it. We ahve the technology. Why the fuck are we even considering passing that up?
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
You can't compare that to this! The Bitcoin Foundation is a centralized entity getting funding from a few wealthy early adopters.

What we're talking about is voting in a decentralized way on how to spend a fund whose sole purpose is to improve the coin.

We can't compare this to any other model, because it simply has never been done before.

I see what you're saying, I do, but no comparison to any current model will do the DGBB justice...
It wasn't a whole analogy, I admit, but it made the part of the point I was pressing on at the moment.

Now that this failure has occurred, we must learn from it.

Accusations will be made if there is a pork barrel. We have the ability to assure that these accusations cannot even be tabled. No pork barrel, no drama.

The advantages of the non-pork-barrel approach are just too much to ignore for an imagined temporal boost.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,841
2,649
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
Even this doesn't worry me, as the blockchain itself can authorize in the same way it does mined coins. Kinda like a multi-sig, one of the signers of which is the blockchain itself.

My concern is that it's all just a bad idea to begin with. Budgeting; we can rebuild it. We ahve the technology. Why the fuck are we even considering passing that up?
Yes, you may be right, but it's far from certain. I maintain that trials are needed.
 

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
We have already tried the donate to whatever project you like without consensus. It kind of works. Not very efficient though. Lets not do that.

How about we just start with the "Vote for each project donation model"? If no projects get voted in we revisit the idea. That is really the only downside, right?

If we do the (I'll just state it like it is) 15% Tax model, I don't think we will be able to go back. Masternodes will build in the loss of previously projected increases -15%, and sell off. Yeah, I know this model sounds familiar, but don't let that fool you. Every government and state uses this model under the threat of force/jail if you don't pay.
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
Example:

Day one:

Pork barrel has $1440 in it. Project costs $3000. Wait for funding.
No pork barrel. $3000 project is approved. $1440 applied. Wait for funding.

Whether the money comes on the front end or the back end, you still wait for it...

Pork Barrel's advertised benefit is imaginary.

What next, deficit spend on block futures? That's hardly predictable, eh? Where's GeorgeM? We need an animation of Ron Jeremy, wearing an XMR t-shirt, butt-raping the DASH blockchain, STAT!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 5kmi and Solarminer

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,841
2,649
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
We have already tried the donate to whatever project you like without consensus. It kind of works. Not very efficient though. Lets not do that.

How about we just start with the "Vote for each project donation model"? If no projects get voted in we revisit the idea. That is really the only downside, right?

If we do the (I'll just state it like it is) 15% Tax model, I don't think we will be able to go back. Masternodes will build in the loss of previously projected increases -15%, and sell off. Yeah, I know this model sounds familiar, but don't let that fool you. Every government and state uses this model under the threat of force/jail if you don't pay.
I agree with your trial idea, but not that we can't go back from either option. Markets are markets, they'll adjust either way.

We must get this right, and since this is a unique model, potentially several trials will be needed before we arrive at a solution. Like Evan said in the OP, no need to rush. Let's get it right, for all of our sakes.

Either model would be OK to try first, please don't try to bamboozle people.
 

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
FYI, I got a lot of likes on the post referencing trial the "Vote per project donation model".
So refining from there. Any feedback on the options I proposed below?

  • Vote per project donation model
  • 15% cap on rewards, which only come from masternode share of block rewards.
  • Majority vote – 51% to pass or 51% to stop (but I don’t have much of an opinion on the %) with 2 week time limit for voting
  • Projects prioritized by amount of yes votes, and put in queue any project voted with majority that can't fit under 15% funding cap.
  • Modify Voting from Yay/Nay to voting with a “Project Name”-Y/N
  • Modify wallet to include the masternode create project(2,12,Blinding, DASH Address) and masternode list projects.
  • Details about each project posted by the owner in a forum post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thelonecrouton

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
Example:
Day one:
Pork barrel has $1440 in it. Project costs $3000. Wait for funding.
No pork barrel. $3000 project is approved. $1440 applied. Wait for funding.

Whether the money comes on the front end or the back end, you still wait for it...

Pork Barrel's advertised benefit is imaginary.

What next, deficit spend on block futures? That's hardly predictable, eh? Where's GeorgeM? We need an animation of Ron Jeremy, wearing an XMR t-shirt, butt-raping the DASH blockchain, STAT!
LOL!
 

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,841
2,649
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
Example:

Day one:

Pork barrel has $1440 in it. Project costs $3000. Wait for funding.
No pork barrel. $3000 project is approved. $1440 applied. Wait for funding.

Whether the money comes on the front end or the back end, you still wait for it...

Pork Barrel's advertised benefit is imaginary.

What next, deficit spend on block futures? That's hardly predictable, eh? Where's GeorgeM? We need an animation of Ron Jeremy butt-raping the DASH blockchain, STAT!
That's a good example. I see your point.

What the fund option (potentially) does however, is accumulate even when there isn't valid proposals until one is proposed that does make sense. And in the meantime, the scope of what's possible increases. Or the amount of development projects could increase based on fund size.

I get what you're saying, that after the vote, the funding can be raised the same under either proposal, that's why I don't know which model will ultimately be best.

I'm just keeping an open mind for now as we are dealing with a new idea, prior experiences need not apply here.
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
I'm just keeping an open mind for now as we are dealing with a new idea, prior experiences need not apply here.
Some lessons should not be forgotten, lest they be repeated.... As my half-analogy demonstrated, pieces of the puzzle are already out there, don't ignore them.
 

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
FYI, I got a lot of likes on the post referencing trial the "Vote per project donation model".
So refining from there. Any feedback on the options I proposed below?

  • Vote per project donation model
  • 15% cap on rewards, which only come from masternode share of block rewards.
  • Majority vote – 51% to pass or 51% to stop (but I don’t have much of an opinion on the %) with 2 week time limit for voting
  • Projects prioritized by amount of yes votes, and put in queue any project voted with majority that can't fit under 15% funding cap.
  • Modify Voting from Yay/Nay to voting with a “Project Name”-Y/N
  • Modify wallet to include the masternode create project(2,12,Blinding, DASH Address) and masternode list projects.
  • Details about each project posted by the owner in a forum post.
Along these lines is the only sane way of doing it. If projects want funding they need to put forth a good case or it isn't going to happen. We want good projects organised and executed by talented people, not half assed crap that ends up getting funded because the money has got to be spent somehow anyway.

Competition breeds excellence. Handouts breed leeches.
 

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,841
2,649
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
Some lessons should not be forgotten, lest they be repeated.... As my half-analogy demonstrated, pieces of the puzzle are already out there, don't ignore them.
True. Parts are there, but the problem is that the other pieces are missing! :D We could debate this forever, but actions speak louder than words, and this situation is no different. Hash this out, vote, implement, and evaluate.
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
What the fund option (potentially) does however, is accumulate even when there isn't valid proposals until one is proposed that does make sense.
This tiny advantage is sooo not even close to worth the overhead, accusations and bickering that will come with it. It will undermine trust even with no valid reason. How? By the simple fact that we had the chance to avoid the mess and chose to step in it anyway... That's just bad decision making.

And in the meantime, the scope of what's possible increases. Or the amount of development projects could increase based on fund size.
You think that's not happening already? I'm putting together a perpetual advertisements proposal...

I'm just keeping an open mind for now as we are dealing with a new idea, prior experiences need not apply here.
Lets not say things like "prior experiences need not apply here." That's just saying "forget every similar life lesson and start over like you're a newborn."

Be open minded. But don't be so open minded that your brain falls out...

Please don't publish a MN Voting Guide... MN operators are supposed to be smart, remember? ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaoOfSatoshi

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
Competition breeds excellence. Handouts breed leeches.
Competition could be a race to the bottom, and often is. Competence, hard work, and intellect breed excellence.

I believe reputation could be a major factor in these projects, no matter how they are decided upon.

Two nearly identical feature proposals could be presented, one by Some New Guy for Cheap. And one by Udjin, for Expensive. I'll still vote for Udjin's project because I know he's worth it, some things are worth paying extra to get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moli and crowning

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,876
1,867
1,283
That's why I said least retarded.

Option 1) Imaginary Benefit + Pork Barrel + Impossible to Regulate Refunds.
Option 2) Actual Benefit + Nothing.

I'm simply flying the flag of the option that is clearly the least retarded...

MN operators will not vote down everything, no one with a functioning brain can even suggest that would come to pass. It's just plain silly and flies in the face of all the factors at play. That's like saying that miners would prefer that value never increase... They don't consider it because it doesn't apply to them directly. They're hand-to-mouth base-level animals of the system. MNs are a level that is several steps up, and never been in any other coin. It changes the whole game and those presenting the arguments as if that were not true are either deliberately trying to deceive for the sake of the pork barrel they're drooling over, or genuinely ignorant about how this works...
Your favorite option does make the system less agile and clunky though.. :tongue:

Quote:

Be open minded. But don't be so open minded that your brain falls out...

:D
 

strix

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Sep 14, 2014
140
121
193
The Shadow Lands
Well, it has taken 24 hours, but I have finally read the entire thread--thank you Tao of S. for the notice--I might not have seen it for another two weeks.:eek: This is clearly a momentous occasion; we are privileged to be witnesses to, and participants in, what future generations will study in school, and scholarly papers will be written about.

In view of that, and the huge burden of responsibility that I feel weighing on me, (thank you very much Tao:tongue:), I feel compelled to make the following extremely important suggestion that others have barely touched on.

One person (sorry, I forget who:oops:), noted that in today's world Yea and nay are rarely used, and suggested that votes be noted as "Yes," or "No." While this has merit, I think that in order to put a proper face on it that this requires further modification. I humbly suggest that we use "Aye," and "No." So that in the event of the successful passage of a measure we maintain correct posture...

That is to say--that the eyes should be above the nose.:what:

I share this primarily to keep anyone (including myself), from taking any of my further thoughts on this august thread too seriously.:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaoOfSatoshi

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
Your favorite option does make the system less agile and clunky though.. :tongue:

Quote:

Be open minded. But don't be so open minded that your brain falls out...

:D
In one way it does. But it makes it super-duper high-speed low-drag in other ways. Definitely a worthwhile compromise going forward.
 

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,841
2,649
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
Please don't publish a MN Voting Guide... MN operators are supposed to be smart, remember? ;-)
*Puts away draft* Aw, you ruined my fun!

OK, I'm out for now, good talking with you guys.

Baseball night! My Blue Jays are down in your neck of the woods taking on T-bay. They can't seem to beat them this year. :sad:

Cheers, I'll be back later to catch up on the 4 pages I'll miss...
 

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
That's a good example. I see your point.
What the fund option (potentially) does however, is accumulate even when there isn't valid proposals until one is proposed that does make sense. And in the meantime, the scope of what's possible increases. Or the amount of development projects could increase based on fund size.
Actually, if you look at both ways.
We vote:
Project A need 5% of the block rewards for x time = 5 DASH
Project B needs 10% of the block rewards for x time = 10 DASH

The Vote per project donation model.
5% of the blockchain immediately starts going to project A
10% of the blockchain immediately starts going to project B
Both projects start work and are finished in x time.

The 15% Mandatory Donation Model
15% of the blockchain starts to go into a general "fund".
At some point a distribution goes to project A - maybe each week or when full project amount is accrued?
And then is there a vote for each transaction that goes out of the wallet? Are the masternodes going to vote again on which amount goes to which project first?
Then when project A is funded, distributions go to project B.
In x+y time both projects are funded. I suppose partial distributions to each would work, but this probably will not be the case. The y is the time project B had to wait until it was funded.

Vote per project is a hands off approach without any coordinating when to pay projects, in what order. Also both projects start right away and potentially would be completed faster.

If project A needs a downpayment for a camera rental or something, they could ask an investor to upfront the money in exchange for the remaining fund distributions(maybe importing the wallet key). This isn't really possible with the mandatory donation model as all the project funds are co-mingled.

You see where that co-mingled wallet with super secret multikey + mn voting security gets to be a problem?
 

crowning

Well-known Member
May 29, 2014
1,414
1,997
183
Alpha Centauri Bc
Two nearly identical feature proposals could be presented, one by Some New Guy for Cheap. And one by Udjin, for Expensive. I'll still vote for Udjin's project because I know he's worth it, some things are worth paying extra to get.
Very good point. Looking at the number of Masternodes which are hosted by Masternode services there will always be a good percentage of Masternode owners who don't have your technical/social background (they may not even be forum members) and can't judge properly.

One of our future tasks will be to educate those.
 

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
Well, it has taken 24 hours, but I have finally read the entire thread--thank you Tao of S. for the notice--I might not have seen it for another two weeks.:eek: This is clearly a momentous occasion; we are privileged to be witnesses to, and participants in, what future generations will study in school, and scholarly papers will be written about.

In view of that, and the huge burden of responsibility that I feel weighing on me, (thank you very much Tao:tongue:), I feel compelled to make the following extremely important suggestion that others have barely touched on.

One person (sorry, I forget who:oops:), noted that in today's world Yea and nay are rarely used, and suggested that votes be noted as "Yes," or "No." While this has merit, I think that in order to put a proper face on it that this requires further modification. I humbly suggest that we use "Aye," and "No." So that in the event of the successful passage of a measure we maintain correct posture...

That is to say--that the eyes should be above the nose.:what:

I share this primarily to keep anyone (including myself), from taking any of my further thoughts on this august thread too seriously.:rolleyes:
I would also think voting with just a binary model will make this difficult. We should entertain a project-Y and project-N or something like that. I guess your method would be project-A vs Y, not really 100% with you on this, but I don't mind either way. We could also move to a + and - so other languages stay consistent.

That way during a vote you can specify the project and the vote. Otherwise, you will have the matrix of yes/no questions you need to answer for each vote. Those with more than one masternode will find this difficult.

Pasting in a few lines like this would be easy:
masternode vote Blinding-Y
masternode vote Troll-Defense-Association-N
or
masternode vote Blinding+
masternode vote Troll-Defense-Association-
 

strix

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Sep 14, 2014
140
121
193
The Shadow Lands
snip... I guess your method would be project-A vs Y, not really 100% with you on this, but I don't mind either way. We could also move to a + and - so other languages stay consistent. ...snip
It is an honour to meet you Solarminer.:) I have truly appreciated your level headed input, and the way you have clarified and collated the suggestions to this point. It really does help one to think about the options more clearly when they are laid out side by side.

My respect for you is even greater now that I suspect you may not be a native English speaker. My suggestion was a joke, and not serious. It was based on a word play using the phonetic similarity of "aye" (an archaic form of yes) and "eye;" and the plural of "no," and "nose." Sorry for the confusion.:oops:

And keep up the good work!:cool::D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solarminer

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
It is an honour to meet you Solarminer.:) I have truly appreciated your level headed input, and the way you have clarified and collated the suggestions to this point. It really does help one to think about the options more clearly when they are laid out side by side.

My respect for you is even greater now that I suspect you may not be a native English speaker. My suggestion was a joke, and not serious. It was based on a word play using the phonetic similarity of "aye" (an archaic form of yes) and "eye;" and the plural of "no," and "nose." Sorry for the confusion.:oops:

And keep up the good work!:cool::D
Thanks for the kind words. Actually, I reside in the US and am located in the midwest. Any language misinterpretations are clearly from my engineering background and nearly unused right brain. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: moli