Separate names with a comma.
Please sign up to discuss the most innovative cryptocurrency!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by demo, May 8, 2016.
wait! .. @demo, are you by any chance an indigo child, now young adult ?
I dont know. Nobody officialy ever called me an indigo child . Actually I dont know very well what indigo theory claims, but it seems to me that it is pseudoscience.
There is absolutely no science behind it, because science has not evolved sufficiently to prove or deny it. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Sort of like a space-time asymmetry. Or a bananaless banana milk shake.
I think it's very probable you're an indigo child.
We are far away from the original subject of this thread.
It is ok for us to continue talking about everything into this thread, but at the same time we have to be rated as irrelevants.
So that people who are interested in universal dividend and WoT, to be able to filter this discussion, and read only the relevant messages.
So please add an "irrelevant" rating for posts.
Do you like a Universal Dividend and a Web of Trust to be incorporated in Dashcoin?
yes for both 1 vote(s) 2.6%
yes for Universal Dividend 0 vote(s) 0.0%
yes for Wev of Trust 1 vote(s) 2.6%
no 34 vote(s) 89.5%
other 1 vote(s) 2.6%
*Lets vote with numbers 1 vote(s) 2.6%
I would ask those 34 persons who voted an absolut "no" here, to change their vote to the option "Lets vote with numbers". And then let them vote 0% of the budget in that case. If you do this, and we extract the average of the votes, the universal divident will not exceed the 3%=(100*1+1*10+34*0)/36 of the total dash budget. Which is not a great number for you to give, in order to respect future dash users and newcomers.
So please dont vote no, dont be absolutist, and give a small chance to the universal dividend.
I vote 100% no.
universal divident will need to register wallet address to tie with your "proof of existence", even then some troll will register their sibling, their auntie and their pet. a faucet implemented into wallet still makes more sense, and it actually could boost Dash adoption.
What is this "respect" you keep referring to? The way an economy works, in order to gain something of value, you have to produce something of value. Nobody is entitled to a dividend for simply existing. The only thing future DASH users will not be able to do to the same extent that early adopters can, is that the amount of risk for buying/mining and holding DASH as a speculative investment will not be as high, even though it will still be pretty darn high like it is for Bitcoin or any other crypto. Do you think it is unfair to people who invest in Apple for the first time today, just because there were earlier investors who happened to get in on the ground floor and made a riskier investment and had a higher ROI? I never had the opportunity to invest in Apple's stock when it was under a dollar -- and if I was around, maybe I would have invested, maybe I wouldn't have -- what does it matter? At the end of the day, the fact is, other people made something great and I didn't have a hand in it, so why should Apple give me money? All I can do is use Apple's goods and services, or choose to invest in it now if I want. This isn't disrespectful, it is simply the reality of how the economy works.
You compare dash with Apple company, as if dash has done something really innovative and usefull for people's everyday life. The truth is that dash has not done something innovative, neither has done something that can be used in people's real life and facilitate people's life.
No, money is not something usefull or innovative. Money is only based in the trust of the people, the only usefull property of money (that applies in real life and facilitates it) is trust. If you create money and you do not invest in trust (in the trust of today and especially in the trust of the future) then your money is a failure. Of course there is also another way for a money to be succesfull, and this is to be imposed using violence, but this alternative is out of discussion. So trust is your only road.
I am waiting patiently. You have two roads in front of you, either you will decide to invest in the trust of the future generations and that way live as a money object in the future, or you will perish like most of the other cryptocoins of today.
I assume you want to add a faucet in the budget of dash. But a faucet is not respectful, because it is not a fair way to distribute money, because it gives advantage to computer geeks. How much does it costs, as a percentage of your budget, your faucet?
On the other hand, a universal dividend is respectful. The persons which will prove their individuality, all of them together, they will hardly earn 3% of the total dash budget, if you decide to vote with numbers and taking into account the spirit of your community.
Is this 3% of your dash budget a big deal for you to worry?
Doesnt worth to invest 3% of your budget in order for dash coin to be respected in the future?
Geee... riiiighhttt... opening wallet and clicking faucet button is mooooar geeky than opening wallet and registering your proof of existence... YAYYYY....
Let's vote with numbers. I think I should get 100% of the budget. If this vote goes 99 to 1 against, then that means it is reasonable for me to receive 1% of the budget? That's absurd.
I was comparing Dash to Apple before Apple changed the world.
The reason people can trust money is because you can trade it for something of value. If you don't have to produce something of value in order to get it, it undermines the whole concept. So yes, let's invest in trust, which means getting more people to accept Dash in exchange for goods and services. It doesn't mean universal dividend.
In order for people to accept Dash in exchange for goods and services, they have to trust dash first. Trust comes first, then everything else (including exchange goods and services using dash) follows.
If you dont respect newcomers and future users, newcomers and future users will not trust you. The majority of people of today think that cryptocurrencies are a scam, and they are somehow right. Because what the cryptocurrency proponents are doing today, is that they are stealing money from the future generations, and this is written in the protocol of their cryptocurrency. And stealing from the future is a scam. Stealing money from future generations is a major flaw of cryptocurrencies, inherited by bitcoin itself.
A faucet is not only more geeky, it is also unfair, because one person can have many wallets, and the more geeky that person is, the more wallets can have. Thats why if you want to distribute dash in a fair way, an anonymous or state issued proof of individuality is necessary.
Why do you think that newcomers are not being respected? You claim there is a theft involved, but where is there someone who is taking something that belongs to someone else? In order to have something stolen from you, it needs to belong to you.
Your argument is half right, and half wrong.
If dash does not belong to the future generations, then you are right, you are not stealing dash from them.
But If dash belongs to the future generations, then you are stealing dash from them, because your protocol allows you to mine almost all dash today, and you do not preserve some dash to be mined for the future. It is like earth, or like oxygen or like water. It does not belong to you, if you spoil all oxygen and all water and all earth today, and as long as future generations need them to survive, this is a theft.
You may consider that dash does not belong to future generations, in order to justify that mining almost all dash today is not a theft from the future. But if this is your position, and you think that dash does not belong to the future generations, then dash has no future.
Dash belongs to whoever buys it, or trades for it, or mines it. If you mine it then you are performing a service of securing the network. If you buy it then the money you bought it with is money that you earned by contributing to the economy. If you trade goods or services for it then you are producing something of value. Future generations or individuals who have not yet participated in this economy, are welcome to use it or not use it as they see fit, but no one is entitled to receive money for doing nothing. If Dash offers people something they want, then people will use it.
The only point I think you have in your favor is that people are more likely to use Dash and get involved if they actually have DASH. This is why I like to encourage giving away free tips and whatnot, but imo this should be left up to individuals.
ya rihgtt bro... ppl cant get dozen of proof of individuality if they can make money out of it anyway riihht??? i do have to tell u, u are wery wery smarht. i adore you truly form my heard...
Is it sad that this thread gets more activity than the rest of the forums or what?
When mining cryptocoins, you do nothing positive for normal people. Mining has only a negative effect, you are adding polution to earth because of the heat of the computer.Mining means you are solving a useless mathematical quiz, and also you are not doing it by yourself so it is not your personal work or effort. It is the computer which mines, and not you. Mining is tottaly geeky. You are not considered to be worthy of respect when mining, it is just like bulding the babel tower, it is a useless act. If this is what you believe, that no one is entitled to receive money for doing nothing (positive), then the same applies to miners also.
Mining (and miners) is yet another flaw inherited by bitcoin. It is yet another failure in bitcoin's initial design. Future cryptocoins , they will use bitcoin's blockchain, they will use a mathematical form in order to become scarce (as it has been introduced in bitcoin), but they will not rely on the difficulty of mining, neither they will depend on miners. The digital coins of the future they will be produced instantly although being scarce, they will be distributed to their first proponents, and then a universal dividend and a basic income written in the protocol will distribute those coins among generations.
People cannot get a dozen of fake proofs of individuality when those credentials are issued by states like US or EU. It is almost impossible to fake them, because on these credentials much more imporant things depend, and those states ensure that the digital credentials are reliable.
Also, people cannot get a dozen of fake proofs of individuality when a cryptoparty assembly takes place and people put their credentials in a physical ballot box. If it is considered almost impossible to fake a state's digital credential, in the case of cryptoparty assembly it is 100% impossible to fake the credentials.
Yes, mining is quite "geeky" which is why most people don't do it. But it is not worthless, nor is it below anyone's dignity to mine -- mining is an essential part of how the decentralized network is even possible at all. Frankly, if your goal is to eliminate mining altogether, then neither Dash nor Bitcoin is the project for you. You seem to have quite the vision of how the digital coins of the future will work. I think you will find (and have found already, considering this poll) that the Dash community does not agree with your model. I appreciate your input, but you may want to consider that Dash might not be the best fit for you. I hope that in time you may come to change your mind, and that our network will prove to be both sustainable and fair, but if not, no hard feelings.
If you really care about a decentralized network of coins, then this network must be decentralized not only in space, but also in time. If this is the case and you really care about a decentralized network of coins, then why almost all mining occurs in a specific time frame? Why there are so few coins left to be mined in the future? This is not decentralization at all! The mining of dash (and of bitcoin) is initially designed to be a centralized one. You may insist of naming your centralization by using the word "decentralization", but this is just a problem of definition, and everybody undestands your fraud. However you call centralization, even if you choose to name it "decentralization", it always remains centralization. Because the meaning is what it matters, and not the word you are using.
I think you can have a decentralized network of cryptocurrency that do not depends on mining. For example you can mine all coins at the begining, then distribute the coins using a random faucet. Or alternatively, introduce a universal dividend, or a basic income, or an air drop or whatever. In all cases decentralization must occur in space-time and not only in space, otherwise it is a fake decentralization.
There will always be mining though. And, even though the number of coins being created from the blockchain decreases over time, the value of those coins increases over time, and miners will eventually be rewarded more though transaction fees. I think you may be confused about what it means to have an ultimately deflationary currency.
The value of digital coins may increase over time, but the reason for this is secondarily because of their scarcity, and primarily because of the trust people have in them. The trust increases, thats why the value increases. However the scarcity may increases, if the trust happens to decrease, then the value is falling. There are many other scarce items, and many other mathematical forms and scarce strings that can solve a mathematical problem, that people do not trust them as coins, and those scarce items or mathematical strings have no value at all.
I didnt said that the number of coins being created from the blockchain should increase over time. The reverse is the correct, the number of coins being created from the blockchain should be stable, and this is essential in order for the coin to be scarce and in order to avoid a deflationary currency. This stable number of coins should be created almost instantly, it should be distributed to the initial wallets (this tends to be also dash's case, as long as it is more and more difficult to mine coins in the future), but after the creation of this stable number of coins, then the protocol should be responsible to distribute SOME coins across present and future wallets, so that a real space-time decentralization to become feasible. Τhis distribution may be the universal dividend, or the basic income, or maybe a faucet and any other random method. But in any case, the amount of coins to be distributed should be voted as a percentage, and should not be decided as a hardcoded percentage number.
Wait, so do you think the number of coins being created needs to permanently be the same over time towards an unlimited maximum, or decrease over time towards a maximum? You do realize that even if we allocated, say, 3% of the budget for a system such as this, the entire budget size itself will decrease over time because the block rewards will be smaller. Even if the percentage remains constant, the total number of coins being distributed would get less and less, and even smaller amount per person as more people enter the network.
3% of the budget right now is 203 DASH per month, and suppose there are only 1000 individual DASH users in the entire network, and suppose we (somehow) implemented a way to actually securely verify that everyone is actually unique and did not register multiple times. It works out to 0.2 DASH per user per month, which only gets smaller with more users signing up for free. This seems to me like *way* more trouble than it is worth. DASH users can already use Node40 to get a piece of a masternode reward though the proof of stake, and we don't even need to think about proving "individuality"..
There are some very interesting possibilities presented here in post #146 by demo...
As a newbie, I'll need to review it in detail !
TLDR demo want free monies for 3rd world country, and he want physical ballot box for virtual currency...
I edit it , but you answer before my editing. So please consider also my last phrase , as an answer to your questions.
Those who want to reveal their state's digital credentials and associate them to a dash wallet, they dont need to use the assembly and the physical ballot box procedure. But in that case they will lose their anonymity on what it concerns the money they receive as universal dividend into their wallet (which it will be a wallet accosiated to their name). On the other hand revealing your state's digital credentials and associate them to a dash wallet, does not prevent for you to open another wallet, an anonymous one, transfer coins into it and thus preserve that way your anonymity in transactions.
Those who want to get the universal dividend, and they still dont want a dash wallet to be accosiated to their real name, they have also the alternative potentiality to gather once every 2 or 4 years, form an assembly , put a printed anonymous wallet (or public key) into a physical ballot box, and that way receive the universal dividend whithout their real name to be accosiated to a wallet . Of course they also have to present some kind of credentials in order to enter into the assembly. The names of the persons that participated in the assembly should be known, otherwise we have to accept the flaw that those persons could get more dividend , one eponymous and more than one anonymous (as many as the assemblies the person attended).This may not be a big flaw indeed, if all assemblies are concurrent and occur the same time. If all assemblies occur at the same time then the maximum dividend a person can receive is the double, one eponymous (earned without participating in any assembly by using their state's digital credentials) and only one anonymous (earned when participating in one concurrent assembly, and as long as it is impossible for someone to be physically present in two or more assemblies at the same time!).
Knowing the names of the participants in the assembly is not tottaly anonymous, but it is a strong degree of anonymity, as long as the physical ballot box prevents us to know what wallet-public_key corresponds to what name. It is the same degree of anonymity that occurs in the polling stations, where we know the persons who voted there, but we dont know what they voted, and this vote is considered as an anonymous one. Finnaly In the case of the concurrent assemblies, there is no need of any state's credentials in order to attend them and the anonymity may be considered as a total one, as long as the concurrent assemblies could also be masked ones so neither your face is revealed.