Do you have any idea to refine this proposal besides being a roadside cheerleader and saying silly stuff?Are you waiting for something like: "I'm not lying! I swear!" ?
Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
At least one personal proposal for everybody in depression: "Be productive, not destructive... and positive (because we are not monero)".
Peace.
Like what, moli?
Ever since the name change you seem like a different person. Evan said the MNs will vote on the proposal. If he goes back on his word then complain. Otherwise, what more do you want?
Oh now you're bringing up the name change... Wasn't it supposed to be a vote for the name? So many people thought they were going to vote for a name and was surprised it was already done. I was just wondering if that could be a pattern here. Just wondering if something was done while I wasn't reading the thread. And why are you upset when people give a different opinion than yours? Aren't we all in this together and need to hear each other out?????!!!!
I am not upset. You said you wanted more and I simplify asked you to be specific. Also, I don't remember Evan saying anything about a vote for the name change. Are you getting confused with the logo contest?
The only thing I remember being said about the name change was that if the community didn't want the new name then it wouldn't be changed. I would have to go back and read the threads, but I remember the usual loud posters doing their thing... but I don't remember there being a big community push back against the name DASH. If anything, I felt a push for the new name. If you where around when Evan mentioned doing an airdrop.... now THAT is the definition of a community push back.
As for the proposal, I don't think the proposal is perfect, but Evan has done enough for this coin that if he says that he is going to let the MNs vote then I believe him. Plus, in essense, this proposal Evan is WILLINGLY turning power over TO the MNs. Given that, I am not even sure it will get voted down as is. I count more people for than against. It is just those who are against seem to post more and with more venom.
Anyway, without Evan there is no coin to even be arguing over. I saw that you and tungfa got into it earlier when I was looking over lonecroutons thread. I think you are letting all of this get to you just a little too much...
Yeeesh. So instead of pent up hostility and lashing out at all and sundry consider this. The decentralised voting system is a way of better achieving changes like the name change. If that had been a public vote it would have been an endless thread with people name squatting on anything that looked likely to succeed. Did the name change go well not particularly. But the voting system is being put in place to make accountability and voting possible. A public forum vote where you have no idea who is a real supporter or stakeholder is a pretty rubbish way of making a big decision. Particularly as we grow in size. Discussing debating etc can yield positive feedback. Self entitled ranting is only that.
Seriously, I suspect that Evan is reading this thread, and taking our ideas and sketching them out. I suspect that when he has something, or a few things to present, that can be done code wise and HR wise, he'll start presenting them. Maybe he'll let us hash it out some more, and refine the idea, then when the different mechanisms are hashed out, they can be voted on. Then when a mechanism or set up is voted on, the whole network can vote whether or not to implement it.
Or something like that
Give me a "D" ............................... D!
Give me an A ................................ A!
Give me an S ................................ S!
Give me an H ................................ H!
What does it spell?
DASH!
I can't hear you!!!
DASH!!!
YYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY!
Serious doesn't last long with me, sorry!
Or something like that
Give me a "D" ............................... D!
Give me an A ................................ A!
Give me an S ................................ S!
Give me an H ................................ H!
What does it spell?
DASH!
I can't hear you!!!
DASH!!!
YYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY!
Serious doesn't last long with me, sorry!
I don't like to talk about what's been done because it's already done. But since you brought this up, here's the thread where Evan said the name Dash was being considered and there would be a vote on it: https://dashtalk.org/threads/rebranding-followup.4266/I am not upset. You said you wanted more and I simplify asked you to be specific. Also, I don't remember Evan saying anything about a vote for the name change. Are you getting confused with the logo contest?
The only thing I remember being said about the name change was that if the community didn't want the new name then it wouldn't be changed. I would have to go back and read the threads, but I remember the usual loud posters doing their thing... but I don't remember there being a big community push back against the name DASH. If anything, I felt a push for the new name. If you where around when Evan mentioned doing an airdrop.... now THAT is the definition of a community push back.
Did the foundation members vote on it? Maybe I missed seeing it?
And afaik the legality of the trademark is still not clear from the court, unless I missed something.
Then two days later there was this thread: https://dashtalk.org/threads/official-statement-on-rebranding-to-dash.4297/
So you can read it for yourself. And for the record, I didn't bring up this issue here.
OK back on topic.
Evan,
What options are possible/impossible that have been brought up?
Evan,
What options are possible/impossible that have been brought up?
- Adding a variable to the voting mechanism? ProjectA-Y or ProjectA+
- Enforced time limit(like 2 weeks) on votes?
- A certain vote % automatically starts/declines a project?
- Each project modifies the Masternode block reward % as it gets % from block rewards?
- Masternode Create Project(description, X%,Xtime,Dash Address) command?
- Storing a DASH address with each project and directly distributing block rewards to a project owner?
- Setting a time for rewards to automatically start/stop on a project?
- Ability to no vote a project that was previously approved and stop funds?
- Ability for project owner to remove a project with a signed message or IP verified request?
- Check that masternodes need to be active for 2 weeks to vote?
It still looks like you are confused. But let's not derail the thread further. If you want to continue lets do it with PMs.
I am not caught up with all the comments on here so I am not sure if this idea has been thought of - but here it goes.
The entire DASH voting system should be based upon an elected, yearly proposal. A proposal could be list of recipients separated by three columns: Name, Receiving Address (Preferably multisig), Percentage.
Quick synopsis:
1. Every 210,240 blocks -- about a years time -- the proposal with the most "Yes" votes by masternodes is the defacto 15% recipient.
2. Once the proposal is selected and in action, masternodes that did not vote "YES" have the option to OPT OUT by voting "NO" if they had not already.
3. Every block, a random masternode is selected, if that node has a "YES" the entire 15% goes to the proposal.
But, if that node has a "NO" the 15% goes to the MNs. An "ABSTAIN" would count as a "YES" in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like this concept because it keeps the micromanaged stuff tangled into the proposal itself and not with the network. Also, it's great for long-term projects because an
initial "YES" vote to the proposal can not be changed once the proposal is in effect, unless we come up with some quarterly concept that allows changing.
The entire DASH voting system should be based upon an elected, yearly proposal. A proposal could be list of recipients separated by three columns: Name, Receiving Address (Preferably multisig), Percentage.
Quick synopsis:
1. Every 210,240 blocks -- about a years time -- the proposal with the most "Yes" votes by masternodes is the defacto 15% recipient.
2. Once the proposal is selected and in action, masternodes that did not vote "YES" have the option to OPT OUT by voting "NO" if they had not already.
3. Every block, a random masternode is selected, if that node has a "YES" the entire 15% goes to the proposal.
But, if that node has a "NO" the 15% goes to the MNs. An "ABSTAIN" would count as a "YES" in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like this concept because it keeps the micromanaged stuff tangled into the proposal itself and not with the network. Also, it's great for long-term projects because an
initial "YES" vote to the proposal can not be changed once the proposal is in effect, unless we come up with some quarterly concept that allows changing.
This is creative.
So the full 15% full time block reward distribution would only happen if 100% of the masternodes voted yes. This is a way to determine the % to go to the project by how many yes votes are cast. Interesting.
What if there were two projects? Would the masternodes only get to vote for one of them? Then each project is paid by the % of masternodes that voted for it.
It is still possible to end up with underfunded projects since there isn't a threshold or focus to direct the funding. If there were 5 projects and 3 projects get 10 votes and 2 get 49% of the votes. The projects with 10 votes have donations that can't be used as it isn't enough for the projects to move forward. The other two move forward with 30 less votes of funds that they could have used. This is a much bigger problem if there are more projects.
The way masternodes are paid now is that each one gets a block reward split every 4 days or so. The way your proposal is written, if a node votes yes, it will never get paid it's 15% and nodes that vote no will never pay the 15%. This digresses back to the voluntary donation model and the masternodes might as well just pay for a project directly without voting.
This could be changed with a portion of each masternode block reward is given to the project owner based on the portion of yes votes. That way all masternodes pay for projects with the same %. The underfunded project problem still exists.
S
snogcel
Guest
It feels like the last 25 pages have been spent over-thinking this and finding ways to make this more complex than necessary....
There will always be a need for funding -- always -- a good software dev pulls six figures, it's foolish to think that we can recruit top talent without real compensation. Without top talent we go nowhere. It's not like this won't be an ongoing need, even looking far into the future.
The thought of having a real budget to have a compensated development staff, that dropped my jaw when I first read this and I'm still thrilled at the idea. This won't be pork folks, this will be a game changer.
There will always be a need for funding -- always -- a good software dev pulls six figures, it's foolish to think that we can recruit top talent without real compensation. Without top talent we go nowhere. It's not like this won't be an ongoing need, even looking far into the future.
The thought of having a real budget to have a compensated development staff, that dropped my jaw when I first read this and I'm still thrilled at the idea. This won't be pork folks, this will be a game changer.
Got my first MN so I could participate
Happy to be supporting such a project with great fundamental beliefs in decentralization and anonymity!
Happy to be supporting such a project with great fundamental beliefs in decentralization and anonymity!
Agree that funding should be spent on DASH development. But it is critical how this funding is controlled. There is a lot to this decision and if we just throw money around willy nilly, it isn't going to be pretty.
Yes, a mandatory donation will bring in highly paid people. But will they do anything? Where is the mechanism to keep them honest? Have the funds controlled by the foundation? Who keeps them honest? Now the risk of a central fund or escrow account paying for projects. How do we keep that safe from tax, loss, theft?
Only when the funds are allocated and voted on from the masternodes will the people doing the work get vetted correctly and stay honest. If funds are not stored in any account, there isn't a possibility of loss. I think I have this narrowed down to a few options....see you on the next post.
Last edited by a moderator:
So these are the current options as I see it. Full details on the first three are on page 19. All options have a 15% maximum donation cap.
Voluntary Donation Model (This is what we have now)
Pros: No donations are forced.
Cons: No mechanism to stop partially funded projects. Less incentive to donate since project completion is not guaranteed.
Mandatory Donation Model (Proposed model)
Pros: Guaranteed funding.
Cons: Mandatory donations encourage wasted funds and less useful projects. Funds in escrow are subject to theft, loss, tax. MN selloff due to lower future block rewards.
Vote per Project Donation Model (Closed ended - Solarminer)
MNs vote on projects with a specific % block reward and time for rewards. Highest voted projects meeting 51% yes start first.
Pros: All projects will get full funding estimated by project owner. Ability to sell funding stream for upfront DASH. Funded directly from block rewards.
Cons: Possibility no projects gets funded.
Vote per Project Donation Model (Open ended - camosoul)
MNs vote on projects with specific % but no end date. Every 3 months the projects are reviewed and voted to stay or add new. 66% needed for funding, priority given to most votes.
Pros: Projects will get % desired. Funded directly from block rewards. Less restrictive on project timelines.
Cons: No guaranty a project will have enough funding to complete, but funds can be continued as needed on next vote. Possibility of no projects funded.
Vote yes = % Donation Model (fulltimegeek)
MNs vote on projects but only 1 project can get a yes vote per MN. Block rewards are distributed to projects with the % of yes votes. Every 3 months funding is reviewed with another vote.
Pros: % of funds a project gets is determined by the vote. Funded directly from block rewards.
Cons: Possibility of no projects funded. Possibility of partial funding on many projects that cannot be completed.
Now if we have a vote on this we should first vote on this question instead of all of them at once since the last 3 are similar:
Should the funding be mandatory(15%) or voted in as needed(15% Max)?
Voluntary Donation Model (This is what we have now)
Pros: No donations are forced.
Cons: No mechanism to stop partially funded projects. Less incentive to donate since project completion is not guaranteed.
Mandatory Donation Model (Proposed model)
Pros: Guaranteed funding.
Cons: Mandatory donations encourage wasted funds and less useful projects. Funds in escrow are subject to theft, loss, tax. MN selloff due to lower future block rewards.
Vote per Project Donation Model (Closed ended - Solarminer)
MNs vote on projects with a specific % block reward and time for rewards. Highest voted projects meeting 51% yes start first.
Pros: All projects will get full funding estimated by project owner. Ability to sell funding stream for upfront DASH. Funded directly from block rewards.
Cons: Possibility no projects gets funded.
Vote per Project Donation Model (Open ended - camosoul)
MNs vote on projects with specific % but no end date. Every 3 months the projects are reviewed and voted to stay or add new. 66% needed for funding, priority given to most votes.
Pros: Projects will get % desired. Funded directly from block rewards. Less restrictive on project timelines.
Cons: No guaranty a project will have enough funding to complete, but funds can be continued as needed on next vote. Possibility of no projects funded.
Vote yes = % Donation Model (fulltimegeek)
MNs vote on projects but only 1 project can get a yes vote per MN. Block rewards are distributed to projects with the % of yes votes. Every 3 months funding is reviewed with another vote.
Pros: % of funds a project gets is determined by the vote. Funded directly from block rewards.
Cons: Possibility of no projects funded. Possibility of partial funding on many projects that cannot be completed.
Now if we have a vote on this we should first vote on this question instead of all of them at once since the last 3 are similar:
Should the funding be mandatory(15%) or voted in as needed(15% Max)?
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole point here is for there to be funds, not touched by anyone, that are used to fund development. This way, everyone in the system is supporting development without some not contributing. The 15% will either create more miners, more masternodes OR fund development. Miners and Masternode owners will never see an actual increase in their payments because the number of miners or masternodes will increase/decrease, as they have in the past, with each increase in payments to masternodes. None of this will work if a % of the block rewards aren't always set aside to pay for development. That was the whole idea.
How to keep funds from being wasted or over funding the system is important, but has to be dealt with after the % of funds are set aside.
I don't see this working any other way. It'll be a constant, "Why should I vote for funding this project if others aren't and get to keep all the block reward % for themselves?" Can't you all see that? That's the whole reason for this proposal!
How to keep funds from being wasted or over funding the system is important, but has to be dealt with after the % of funds are set aside.
I don't see this working any other way. It'll be a constant, "Why should I vote for funding this project if others aren't and get to keep all the block reward % for themselves?" Can't you all see that? That's the whole reason for this proposal!
First donation model works like what I think you are saying - Vote no and don't pay. Vote yes and only yes' pay.
The last three are different. Even those that vote no still pay in. The vote also filters out the projects that dont have value.
With mandatory donations you vote for the best of a pool of projects and over time none of them have any value.
The last three are different. Even those that vote no still pay in. The vote also filters out the projects that dont have value.
With mandatory donations you vote for the best of a pool of projects and over time none of them have any value.
Good to see opinions of someone with an engineering background analyzing the proposal down to details, as they say engineers like to solve problems..
Solarminer, I don't understand the last sentence. "With mandatory donations you vote for the best of a pool of projects and over time none of them have any value." Could you please explain? What I don't understand is "over time, none of them have any value".
Eventually, the good features are implemented. With the same funding coming in, the later projects end up wasting money. Think 20 or 100 years from now.
You return extra money to the system, and if there is no need for funding remove the DAO. That's what we pay the core developers for. Why do you insist that Masternode owners will fund projects that don't help the network?
The only problem you bring up that is valid is, is the wallet that holds these funds safe? That question has to be answered by Evan er al, because I don't know how funds can be secured from theft completely.
But Satoshi Nakamoto's 400,000+ bitcoin wallet has been sitting there many years now, and I'm sure people are trying to grab it.
The only problem you bring up that is valid is, is the wallet that holds these funds safe? That question has to be answered by Evan er al, because I don't know how funds can be secured from theft completely.
But Satoshi Nakamoto's 400,000+ bitcoin wallet has been sitting there many years now, and I'm sure people are trying to grab it.
I completely disagree. Mandatory taxation is theft. Whether it's daylight robbery down the barrel of a gun, at threat of being locked in a concrete box, or being told "If you don't like it you can sell your DASH and bugger off," it's theft.
Were the US founding fathers (who I'm certain had most of their good sense beaten into them by the founding mothers) not pretty clear on the evils of mandatory taxation?
It absolutely should be a constant case of those wishing to spend money having to justify that expenditure to the people from whom the money is coming, and only getting paid when they actually deliver results. Take a look at the world around you, the very real and very ugly consequences of mandatory taxes spent on useless and idiotic nonsense are everywhere. Kristov Atlas correctly refers to the resultant system as Proof of Violence.
If someone wants to set up a DAO to organise and fund DASH development, great, but they have no right that I recognize to turn every DASH infrastructure provider into an involuntary charity-giver.
Last edited by a moderator:
When I speak of a proposal I mean a spreadsheet with all of the projects proposed for that year. It is an all or nothing system. Either you fund all the projects in the proposal (in which the funds get broken up by the % column for each project/recipient) or not. This is so people don't have to vote on single projects but all at once. This way MN ops have a year to find and study next year's spending proposal.
Regarding the underfunding problem, I believe this can be solved with witty "yearly proposal submitters". They can easily redirect all the funds for a specific project within the proposal if they need more money else where. All this detailed and nitty-gritty work would be thought through by the proposal creators themselves. If masternode ops like how the funds are being spent, then more would vote "YES" throughout the year and the projects would get even more funding.
One more thing, I previously said that a "NO" vote would go to MNs but it might be better if it just goes into escrow for next year's proposal, and so on.
Last edited by a moderator:
I like the way Solarminer presented it much better. Time scales in months or years are useless, you might as well go join the Bitcoiners.
This is a false comparison. The Great Satoshi Stash is not acting as a pork barrel that's ripe for plundering by people who have direct financial motivation to grind any opposition to their spending down, because they will get the $$$ and the opposors have already had that $$$ taken from them and are never getting it back.
One group will persevere to get the $$$, the other has little motivation to oppose as they have already been taken from.
How is this different from when it was taken from the miners and given to the masternodes? Why shouldn't a third arm that provides services (development) be paid?