Stupids and Spies bought masternodes in order to stop governance.

Would you like a proof of individuality for the Dash community?

  • Total voters
    31
Status
Not open for further replies.
demo

demo

Well-known member
There is an initiative to make the governance questions cheap, in order for the masternodes to be able to govern the DASH coin. But some stupids, and some spies, dont want that. They want to keep the governance questions expensive, to prevent masternodes from governing.

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/REDUCE_PROPOSAL_FEES_TO_1_DASH

Just count how many persons in the dashcentral commented positively in the above proposal. There is only one or two persons who argue against the proposal and their arguments are pure FUD. But there are still 250 masternodes who vote against this usefull initiative for cheap governance questions!!! The 1 Dash proposal fee is in danger not to pass, because of the stupids and the spies.

Spies are spreading FUD , claiming that millions of spam proposals will occur in case the governance questions will become cheap. Spies have been instructed by their employers to destroy the DASH governance system, at all costs. And the easiest way to destroy the governance system of DASH is to make the governance questions too expensive. This is one of the reasons why DASH's dollar price increases. The employers of the spies tremble with fear when they realize that a cryptocoin will occur that will have effective governance, so they want to control it and intercept it, so they buy in order to gain voting rights and vote against whatever proposal is towards the effective governance goal.

The dash community should find a way in order to spot all the masternode operators who are spies (or stupid), identify them with a number or with a nickname, spot their voting patterns and take precautions against them. But on the other hand in the name of the darkcoin tradition protect the spy's and stupid's privacy and do not expose their real names (and the names of the people who fund them in order to destroy DASH's governance). The dash community should implement ASAP a proof of individuality and pseudonym parties.
 
Last edited:
MN votes are the only ones that count. As for forum voting, that could be anyone, it may not consist of people with serious business proposals, for that, dash would need to survey people outside of the forum.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
MN votes are the only ones that count. As for forum voting, that could be anyone, it may not consist of people with serious business proposals, for that, dash would need to survey people outside of the forum.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference among the serious business proposals (who have an implementation deadline) and the governance questions.

The governance questions have no deadline, most of them are always timely as questions and they should be accepted by the current majority, some of them dont even require implementation, and most of the governance questions are considered serious (even the self-evident governance questions are serious because not everyone understands the self-evident)
 
Last edited:
demo said:
serious business proposals (who have an implementation deadline) and the governance questions
Click to expand...

I think "business proposals" and "governance questions" is a false distinction. There is *nothing* in the Dash budget/governance system that compels an answer to a governance question to be implemented. Let's say this proposal to reduce the proposal fee is passed. We are then entirely dependent on the kindness of strangers to write the code.

If you really want this to happen, you need to write a proposal that funds a developer to write the code. It would have to be a multi-month proposal with milestones clearly defined so that the funding can be stopped if the milestones are not met. Because that is all that the MN network can do -- they can fund/not-fund.
 
jimbursch said:
I think "business proposals" and "governance questions" is a false distinction. There is *nothing* in the Dash budget/governance system that compels an answer to a governance question to be implemented. Let's say this proposal to reduce the proposal fee is passed. We are then entirely dependent on the kindness of strangers to write the code.

If you really want this to happen, you need to write a proposal that funds a developer to write the code. It would have to be a multi-month proposal with milestones clearly defined so that the funding can be stopped if the milestones are not met. Because that is all that the MN network can do -- they can fund/not-fund.
Click to expand...


Of course not. You are tottaly wrong and you have a twisted and reversed view of what governance really is. It is like expecting for the parliament to implement the laws. The parliement votes the laws, this is its job.

As long as a serious business proposal requires a lot of effort and money, the governance proposals will help the developers to identify accurately the will of the masternodes, and thus make proposals that fit better to the needs of the masternodes.

Otherwise the risk will be only from the part of the buisness proposals. The masternodes should initialy commit to a governance question-answer, in order for the buisness proposals to start flourish (and compete eachother). This is exactly what the parliement and the markets are doing. Only a stupid is unable to understand that a "law" commitment is always required, for the business and the market to evolve. The governance questions/answers are these "laws".
 
Last edited:
demo said:
It is like expecting for the parliament to implement the laws.
Click to expand...

But in the Dash system there is no other branch of government to implement laws. The only power that exists in the system is "to fund" or "not to fund" and that power is held and exercised by the MN network through the budget system.

Some might think that the Core Team is like an executive branch of government, but it is not. To draw out the analogy with government, the Dash code is the constitution, and the only branch of government that it has created is a legislative branch with the power to fund/not-fund proposals.
 
All that being said, there is nothing wrong with using the budget proposal system to poll the MN network to get some idea of where it stands on certain issues. However, I wouldn't call that governance.
 
jimbursch said:
But in the Dash system there is no other branch of government to implement laws. The only power that exists in the system is "to fund" or "not to fund" and that power is held and exercised by the MN network through the budget system.
Click to expand...

Of course it is not the only power that exists, and of course you are wrong.

The 7th proposal (and most voted question ever) in the dash budget system was a clear governance question and it was clearly not a "fund" or "not to fund" question. Have a look at it, and please stop talking inaccurately, thus mislead the dash community.
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/2mb-blocksize
https://www.dashninja.pl/budgetdetails.html?budgetid=2mb-blocksize

Of course the above governance question was set up wrong, it should last at least 12 month and not being finalized in 1 month, thus give to the masternodes the chance to change their mind.

http://dashvotetracker.com/history.html?ProposalID=7
 
Last edited:
What you call a "governance question," I would call an "opinion poll."

The Core Team responded to the opinion by coding the 2mb blocksize, out of the kindness of their heart and their own assessment of what is in their own best interest.

demo said:
the above governance question was set up wrong
Click to expand...

I agree. It should have been set up like a contract for services, with clearly defined milestones and funding conditioned on meeting those milestones. This empowers the MN network to express its satisfaction by continuing to fund the project, or express dissatisfaction by defunding the project.

What if the Core Team had decided, "Eh, we don't want to increase the block size." The MN network would have no recourse, except to pull the plug on funding for the whole Core Team and find some other group of developers to do the work.
 
jimbursch said:
Second to last paragraph of https://www.dashcentral.org/p/2mb-blocksize


That was an opinion poll, not governance.
Click to expand...

It is not an opinion poll. It is a decision poll that waits for implementation. It is the same as a voted by a parliament law, which motivates the market to implement the decision within the context of the law. Thus it is clearly a decision poll (or governance poll) and not just an opinion poll.

This is the essence of the governance. We are talking about decisions, not just opinions.

The enemies of the masternodes community dont want that of course, they dont want the masternodes to decide, thats why they tend to downgrade their decisions to inoscent opinions. The defamatory naming is a part of the structured methodology of the spies, which aims at destroying the DASH governance system.

So please stop using the spies terminology. We are talking about decisions of the masternodes, not just opinions.
 
Last edited:
I guess it's possible to link proposal outcomes to spork contracts, such that 2MB blocks are accepted / rejected by MNs.
 
Sounds like without an executive and a judiciary branch, those are just opinion polls. But if the core developers were to disregard them the backlash might drop the price and make everybody consider the "governance" of dash a joke.
 
jimbursch said:
But in the Dash system there is no other branch of government to implement laws. The only power that exists in the system is "to fund" or "not to fund" and that power is held and exercised by the MN network through the budget system...
Click to expand...

jimbursch said:
... There is *nothing* in the Dash budget/governance system that compels an answer to a governance question to be implemented. Let's say this proposal to reduce the proposal fee is passed. We are then entirely dependent on the kindness of strangers to write the code.

If you really want this to happen, you need to write a proposal that funds a developer to write the code. It would have to be a multi-month proposal with milestones clearly defined so that the funding can be stopped if the milestones are not met. Because that is all that the MN network can do -- they can fund/not-fund.
Click to expand...


Hi Mr. Jim

Your answers are helping me understand why this proposal FAILED.
Even when it seems hard to obtain an explanation from MN, regarding your answer it also seems that what weights the most on MN desicion has been how well armored a proposal is against an agreement breach attempt. In second place (but not less important) seems to be the openness of the code and the decentralization of a solution.
¿what do you think?
 
demo said:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/REDUCE_PROPOSAL_FEES_TO_1_DASH
...There is only one or two persons who argue against the proposal and their arguments are pure FUD. ...
Spies are spreading FUD ...
The dash community should find a way in order to spot all the masternode operators who are spies (or stupid), identify them ..., spot their voting patterns and take precautions against them.
Click to expand...

Hi demo:

The (Obvious [IMHO]) answer to your survey is NO.
The reason is very simple: If you lived in Venezuela, Colombia, or any other country like these, and you possesed 1000 Dash (Or more) you'd become the perfect target for kidnapping, provided that your ID were available. (In Venezuela you'd be arrested by the intelligence service, without any legal grounds).
By the other hand, it is contrary to the original rules of the game. What you suggest here is CENSORSHIP.
Initial rules of the game gave the MNs the power to vote without having to give any explanation.
The theory behind this is that the investors are supposed to make the best decisions for their own interest, wich will agree with dash community interests as well. Crowd wisdom will do the rest.
Of course, there is a small chance that this may give rise to manipulation.
But there is another possibility: Crowd wisdom is working and everyone of us has a lesson to learn from this experience.
 
juliomoros said:
The (Obvious [IMHO]) answer to your survey is NO. The reason is very simple: If you lived in Venezuela, Colombia, or any other country like these, and you possesed 1000 Dash (Or more) you'd become the perfect target for kidnapping, provided that your ID were available. (In Venezuela you'd be arrested by the intelligence service, without any legal grounds).
By the other hand, it is contrary to the original rules of the game. What you suggest here is CENSORSHIP. Initial rules of the game gave the MNs the power to vote without having to give any explanation. The theory behind this is that the investors are supposed to make the best decisions for their own interest, wich will agree with dash community interests as well. Crowd wisdom will do the rest. Of course, there is a small chance that this may give rise to manipulation.
Click to expand...

demo said:
Of course there is a method that works. You can organize cryptoparty assemblies, where people appear physicaly and give their digital credentials without revealing their identity or give any social security number.

You can organize an assembly (once every 2 years for example), where all masternode owners should appear physically and ask their number of votes, as long as they can prove to the others how many masternodes they own. Those masternode owners do not need to present any social security number, and in case the meeting is a closed door meeting, they can also be disguised. The physical presence is what matters, so masternode owners only need to give a nickname of their choice to be accosiated with the number of votes they claim.
Click to expand...

demo said:
You will not travel with your private keys! You will travel with a public key of your choice, printed in QR code (here is an example on how you can print a public_key == dash_address in QR code . Warning, you should never create a key-pair online as the above site suggests. You should download the code, check he checksums and run it offline ). In the assembly, you put this printed public key into a physical ballot box. Everyone who attends the assembly do the same. Then the printed public keys are counted and expected to be equal to the number of people that attend the meeting. Everyone leaves the assembly having the list of all public keys. Those keys are considered now as a proof of individuality, that can be used for now on in the internet in order to prove that you are a real person. Many similar assemblies can be organized in several towns, as long as those assemblies are absolutely concurrent, and a web of trust among those assemblies is established. Having this proof of individuality in your hands, you can now claim in the internet your masternode votes, by signing the public keys (aka: the dash addresses) of the masternodes with the private key of the printed public key (aka: the empty dash address you created in order to attend the cryptoparty) you put into the physical ballot box.
Click to expand...
notb.jpg


juliomoros said:
But there is another possibility: Crowd wisdom is working and everyone of us has a lesson to learn from this experience.
Click to expand...
demo said:
If in your mind voting and paying is the same thing then you may confuse governance's and crowdfunding's meanings. Many people are confused and they say that the more money someone has, the more voting power should have. But governance is not the same as crowdfunding, and voting is not the same as paying, because what happens in the reality is below:
The more loyal or slaves you have, the more money you have. The money you own exists because people believe in it or because you force them to believe in it. If you have no loyal or no slaves, then whatever money you have is tottaly useless. In case you have loyal and faithful people your vote/opinion is what really counts and not your money. In case you have slaves, your power/force (against them) is what really counts and not your money. So money totally depends on someone's vote/opinion and on someone's power/force, and it is impossible to exist otherwise.
Click to expand...
demo said:
Many people are confused and they say that the more money someone has, the more voting power should have. If they are not forced to say this, they say it because they are loyal and faithful to the rich. Being faithful and loyal to the rich without being forced, this is the ultimate stupidity. Crowdfunding cannot be considered pure governance because it implies an underlying (and imposed) faith to the rich. In that sense of course, neither Dash, nor PIVX, nor Decreed can be considered as a pure governed coins. Because the governance system of all these coins also implies the same faith to the rich people, and this faith is subtly imposed (like many other things in the design of these coins) by the smart spies into the empty mind of the stupids.
Click to expand...

<vote history>
Would you like a proof of individuality for the Dash community?
*yes 4 vote(s) 28.6%
no 9 vote(s) 64.3%
other 1 vote(s) 7.1%
</vote history>
 
Last edited:
If I understood fairly well your answer, I can conclude 3 things:

1.- You agree that (in this case MN's) voting should be keept in secret. I agree with you.

2.- You belive that a "Credit Union" scheme will work much better than a traditional "Shareholders" paradigm.

demo said:
View attachment 4334
... Many people are confused and they say that the more money someone has, the more voting power should have...
Click to expand...

That's your politic opinion. We may spend on it days of debate without any or little progress... (That's the nature of politics) and I'm not good with words, so I'm almost sure I'm going to loose the debate.

demo said:
View attachment 4334
... Crowdfunding cannot be considered pure governance because it implies an underlying (and imposed) faith to the rich....
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, you may be right, but the essentials of the problem remains unsolved. Both views may and eventually will have flaws. In some cases the "one person - one vote" is better than "one vote per share". But not always. What is specially better in the case of DASH?

The "must be" is that if you invested a lot of money (and 1000 dash is a LOT today) in some project, you expect to see it grow, and you will take the best decisions for your interests, which should turns out to be the best for the dash price. (Not to be confused with dash original principles).
In the most cases, changing principles of a decentralized crypto turns out to affect the price of such coin.
But by the other hand you may have the banking sector, leveraging investments with money they do not fear to loose, because they created it with this purpose in a loan. And that's a serious risk for any crypto community.
In my opinion, this would be a very complicated and unpredictable way to do some harm in the special case of dash. The easyest way, is what has been done with ICO's, but that's another story.

In the case of "one-person-one-vote", what's the difference? You're still voting to decide the best for your interests. With the only exception that may be, your interests are aligned to the dash principles. But that's harder to predict than the "trusting to the rich" effects. I'm not making moral judgments. Not saying that "faith to the rich" or to the person is right or wrong, I'm just saying that, IMO, interests are more correlated in the shareholders paradigm in this special case of dash.

3.- What you propose is still full of safety bugs...

demo said:
View attachment 4334
... Of course there is a method that works. You can organize cryptoparty assemblies, where people APPEAR PHYSICALY and give their digital credentials ... as long as they can PROVE to the others how many MASTERNODES THEY OWN ...
Click to expand...

What part of KIDNAPPING wasn't clear? Showing up in a "Masternodes" event is way worse than giving your ID card or Social Number. It may be safe in your country, but it isn't everywhere in the world. You can be followed or arrested after the event, and you're done!

demo said:
View attachment 4334
... In the assembly, you put this printed public key into a physical ballot box. Everyone who attends the assembly do the same. Then the printed public keys are counted and expected to be equal to the number of people that attend the meeting. ...
Click to expand...

What IF the number of atendees and number of papers doesn't match? An electoral process with a physical "ballot box" is a centralized process. Who's going to be in charge? Why should we trust them?

And let's suppose that all of this, all this complicated process, the travelling, the event, the safety and bodyguards and so on, is paid by the dash blockchain. Then what? We will still have people voting on budget proposals to protect their own financial interests, and a crowd wisdom walking in that direction, with no guaranty that the new governance scheme will give a significant difference or results.

Regards
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top