Your vote is still there, you just can't see it.when I grep my own nodes, they say abstain. looks like I lost my vote somehow?
Even if flare runs yours MN's you haveGetting an error when trying to vote:
masternode vote yea
Error upon calling SetKey
OP says to copy masternode.conf to the dash folder but no idea where to find the file. Flare runs the masternode servers for me.
I agreeYou're right, I re-voted, but the numbers did not change, so just a weird blooper.
Say, Crowning, you worked on the wallet, no? Could we make a voting tab, and on that tab it would show current proposals (which would be assigned a number) and you can insert that number into a field, or click on it and it automatically is inserted into the field, and then you can vote yea or nay on that particular project proposal? It would only work if you have a valid config file for your masternode?
The same tab could give real time updates on where the proposals stand and notifications when owner/operators are needed to do something like vote or update?
Could you tell me the exact path to masternode.conf ?Even if flare runs yours MN's you have
Wallet.dat
.conf file
What system you running on ?
1 MN or more ?
If you never backed it off or cold storage it should still be in your folder system in computer ?
if you do not know your path i imagineCould you tell me the exact path to masternode.conf ?
I actually already thought about this, but postponed the implementation until Evan has finalized the voting architecture.You're right, I re-voted, but the numbers did not change, so just a weird blooper.
Say, Crowning, you worked on the wallet, no? Could we make a voting tab, and on that tab it would show current proposals (which would be assigned a number) and you can insert that number into a field, or click on it and it automatically is inserted into the field, and then you can vote yea or nay on that particular project proposal? It would only work if you have a valid config file for your masternode?
The same tab could give real time updates on where the proposals stand and notifications when owner/operators are needed to do something like vote or update?
At the moment it looks like most projects will be quoted in US$ so that does make sense to base project values now. There will be a lot of changes over this coming year and anything can happen to currencies, gold, or silver. Our long term plan should be to base the projects on DASH only. I have little faith in any of the fiat stuff lasting too much longer.Along with what Minotaur said:
4. I don't see why not, except that gold is very volitile, silver is less so, so perhaps that would work? Even so, anything would work, as the purpose is to take the risk out of the contract from both sides (if DASH price goes down, we'll have to pay more toward the project, but if DASH prices rise, we'll have to pay less. It'll depend on the DASH market) So in the end, we could perhaps make it so that the payment is in a defined currency. Any currency that they developer wants to use. The contract will still be paid in DASH, but at the equivalent of the currency he wants, as long as there is an exchange for that currency.
Why there's different voting result on dashninja.pl?Voting status: Yea: 72.09% Nay: 0.15% Abstain: 28.06%
http://178.254.18.153/~pub/Darkcoin/masternode_payments_stats.html
Yeas:
1872
https://dashpay.io/binaries/current-vote.txt
https://dashtalk.org/threads/vote-s...vernance-by-blockchain.4825/page-8#post-53845Why there's different voting result on dashninja.pl?
A couple of big hitters ... Vote many and boomOutch, jump from 1200 to 1800 yea's within a few hours.
Somebody is really in control of roughly 600 MN = 600k DASH.
We laugh and joke but isn't the fact that there is a group of fairly large holders, enough probably to get close to 51% on every vote, going to be an issue? Sounds more like the US political system. Those with the most money control the most votes. Did I miss something here or are we just deciding to pretend this isn't the case with a big majority of the masternode's being controlled by a small number of hands.Outch, jump from 1200 to 1800 yea's within a few hours.
Somebody is really in control of roughly 600 MN = 600k DASH.
Yep!Those with the most money control the most votes.
This very first vote is the only one which needs a 51% majority of "yea" vs. "nay".Did I miss something here [...]
What about the fact that the majority might not want this change but the initial vote was skewed by the large holders to pass it?This very first vote is the only one which needs a 51% majority of "yea" vs. "nay".
Are you sure about this? Makes the whole thing a complete farce. Welcome to DASH's decentralised governance, where voting "No" doesn't matter!But no matter how many "nay" they throw at proposals they don't like, it won't matter, the one with the second most "yea" will still be implemented.
It's Otoh. It would be nice if people would stop handing him so much DASH for cheap, but it really doesn't concern me; I believe him when he says he's interested in the long term potential of Dash's 2-tier decentralized design.It's 600 votes out of 2600. 23% voting power is not enough for severe abuse. I suppose Evan knows, who is running these nodes. Maybe it's even Evan's nodes. Logging 2-3 votes will make it easy to group the public keys of this big player.
Best thing would be for Evan or somebody to step up and say, "hey, i control 600k of DASH, but i'll handle this responsibly". This would remove a lot of fear and would stop endless discussions about large bunch of coins beeing mined at the beginning. It would be a clever idea of Evan to say, how many coins he owns and what are the 1-2 largest owners (in compliance with their consent). There is a good reason for stock market listed companies to do so and would make a lot of people shut up.
I get your point. Even when "ignoring no" is an elegant way to avoid "denial of election (DOE)" attacks (a group of large holders could block every voting completely) I'm also not 100% happy with this solution.Are you sure about this? Makes the whole thing a complete farce. Welcome to DASH's decentralised governance, where voting "No" doesn't matter!
All aboard the gravy train, hurrah.![]()
The main "problem" with 1-2-3 "Otoh"-s at the moment: we don't have additional 1-2-3... hundreds of "Otoh"-s yet.It's Otoh. It would be nice if people would stop handing him so much DASH for cheap, but it really doesn't concern me; I believe him when he says he's interested in the long term potential of Dash's 2-tier decentralized design.
A group of voters choosing 'No' is not an 'attack' - it's the system working.I get your point. Even when "ignoring no" is an elegant way to avoid "denial of election (DOE)" attacks (a group of large holders could block every voting completely) I'm also not 100% happy with this solution.
This language isn't really the way we should be looking at this.Yep!
This very first vote is the only one which needs a 51% majority of "yea" vs. "nay".
The future voting on proposals is ordered by "yea" votes, so the big guys will of course be able to get the proposals they like most done first.
But no matter how many "nay" they throw at proposals they don't like, it won't matter, the one with the second most "yea" will still be implemented.
They should just chill off and leave the poor guy alone. These people should understand it's not a crime if someone is smart and capable to make a lot of money legally, and they should just bugger off.I really hope reactions like this is just people trying to be funny, and not some symptom of community antipathy for money...![]()
![]()