We should change voting from Masternodes to EVERYONE

[Technologov]

Hi All,

Today I was in Bitcoin Israel in Tel-Aviv, trying to convince the people to switch over to Dash. I spoke about BTC transaction getting stuck and that Lightning Network has a broken and unproven economic model.

One of the problems that they dislikes about Dash is that in order to be eligible for voting, new users need a Masternode.

I definitely agree this is a problem. $66,000 on Dash is a very high sum for small investors.

I would like to have a proposal, that can be voted on from block X. I.e. flag "D day", and anyone, that has Dash in their wallet at height of "Block X" on the "D day", can vote with all of his(her) coins.

It would be much better and much more convincing to the public.

EDIT: I support 1 Dash = 1 vote. Minority coin holders can't damage the system. They really can't, even if allowed the vote.

-Technologov

 

[UdjinM6]

This project is not about building electronic democracy, this project is about building payment network. Serious investors can vote directly, everyone else can vote by buying/selling coins i.e. by (not) using services network provides.

 

[Technologov]

UdjinM6: Crypto-currency is not just a network protocol, but also a social protocol between humans. We need to improve our social protocol to give even 0.01 DASH holders a chance to vote.

This way a lot more people can be convinced to join Dash. People must not perceive it as "only for the rich".

Moreover traditional shareholder voting in traditional corporations is done via brokers, and users can only vote if they hold a share of company Y at the end of Day D. (market close)

 

[Stealth923]

UdjinM6: Crypto-currency is not just a network protocol, but also a social protocol between humans. We need to improve our social protocol to give even 0.01 DASH holders a chance to vote.

This way a lot more people can be convinced to join Dash. People must not perceive it as "only for the rich".

Moreover traditional shareholder voting in traditional corporations is done via brokers, and users can only vote if they hold a share of company Y at the end of Day D. (market close)

Have you not thought about bad actors and if we let everyone vote they can easily vote to hurt the network??

The reason to have the barrier of entry so high to vote is it will ensure the people who vote are doing so to benefit the network, not hurt it. If they vote to hurt the network they stand to lose their own investment. Think of the MN owners as board members of the network, not every man and his dog who thinks they have a say when they dont put their money where their mouth is.

The people who say voting is only for the "rich" is silly, a masternode a long time ago cost $4000usd.

Also with Evolution, shared masternodes will allow votes to be counted from shared masternodes that are owned by multiple parties. I assume they would have their own internal vote then the outcome of that would count as a single vote.

 

[Technologov]

> Have you not thought about bad actors and if we let everyone vote they can easily vote to hurt the network??

No. They can't hurt. Why ? Out of 7.2 million coins, 4.2 million is locked in a Masternodes. So there are only 3 million coins not in Masternodes. They don't comprise a majority. Having more voters benefits decentralization.

And it's like saying that having minor share-holders with 1 share of Intel somehow hurts Intel. Joke.

 

[demo]

The reason to have the barrier of entry so high to vote is it will ensure the people who vote are doing so to benefit the network, not hurt it. If they vote to hurt the network they stand to lose their own investment. Think of the MN owners as board members of the network, not every man and his dog who thinks they have a say when they dont put their money where their mouth is.

Your argument make no sense. It is irrelevant how much you set the vote barrier, the quality of voting does not depend on this. What counts is the individuals, the persons, and how many Dash those indivuals have comparing to their total fortune in other coins. It is Dash/fortune that counts.

For example an operator may have a lot of masternodes, but his fortune in dollars may be even bigger. Another may be a state's secret agent, having the fortune of the whole state behind him, which finances him in order to control the Dash network. Both of them they will harm the Dash network with their decisions, as long as they are really interested in the future of their dollars, and not in the future of Dash.

It is the "Dash/total fortune" that an individual (or organization) has that is related to the quality of voting. A person who owns 1 Dash coin, he will try to vote as good as he can, if this Dash coin is the only kind of money he has.

Give Dash (and a computer) to the total poor and give them voting rights, and the quality of voting will increase, or if not the quality at least the good intention and the good will.

 

[RGXDK]

This project is not about building electronic democracy,

^^^ THIS ^^^. Couldn't have said it better.

 

[RGXDK]

0.01 DASH holders a chance to vote.

That's a terrible idea. Voting should be reserved for those who have skin in the game, because those are the ones with the most to lose.

 

[demo]

That's a terrible idea. Voting should be reserved for those who have skin in the game, because those are the ones with the most to lose.

This argument is stupid. The most to lose is not calculated by counting the amount of DASH someone has. The most to lose is calculated by the formula :
TOTAL_DASH/TOTAL_FORTUNE_IN_ALL THE_OTHER_COINS
The bigger this number is, the most to lose.

The problem is of course that we dont know the total fortune of someone, so the most to lose cannot be calculated, unless someone is obviously totally poor (third word people, beggars e.t.c.) So give to the total poor people a computer, one Dash and voting rights, and the quality of voting will boost, or if not the quality at least the good intention and will.

This is yet another reason why a universal dividend and a Web of trust is needed for Dash to evolve from a collectable item it is today, to real cash.

 

[crowning]

We need to improve our social protocol to give even 0.01 DASH holders a chance to vote.

So I invest let's say 100 DASH (that's peanuts for hacking a system) and submit 10000 of those 0.01 votes.

And because I'm evil I'll do this once every second. On 10 servers in parallel because I happen to have those. With changing IP addresses in case the IPs get banned.
That's 100000 votes per second. 8640000000 per day. And that's just from me. Imagine someone using a botnet for that.

Welcome to the world of cheap denial of service.

 

[demo]

this project is about building payment network. Serious investors can vote directly, everyone else can vote by buying/selling coins i.e. by (not) using services network provides.

And what if the serious investors, are your rivals who want to destroy you? This is a rare case in case you deal with commodities, because those who produce commodities can be counted and they are almost known. But when we talk about money objects, almost everyone who own a lot of money in another money object is considered as your rival, and your rival is anonymous.

You confuse this in your mind, you believe that an investor in a money object has similarities to the investors in commodidities. This is not the case, we are in a new era, we never had investors in money objects until now. So their behavior cannot be predicted and it is not similar to the behavior of the commodities investors. The stupids of course strongly believe that we are living in the past, and that a "money object" investor behaves exactly like a commodity investor does. The stupids are going to learn the truth in the hard way.

 

[aleix]

Hi All,

Today I was in Bitcoin Israel in Tel-Aviv, trying to convince the people to switch over to Dash. I spoke about BTC transaction getting stuck and that Lightning Network has a broken and unproven economic model.

One of the problems that they dislikes about Dash is that in order to be eligible for voting, new users need a Masternode.

I definitely agree this is a problem. $66,000 on Dash is a very high sum for small investors.

I would like to have a proposal, that can be voted on from block X. I.e. flag "D day", and anyone, that has Dash in their wallet at height of "Block X" on the "D day", can vote with all of his(her) coins.

It would be much better and much more convincing to the public.

-Technologov

As @crowning an others said, the system is designed to prevent sybil and ddos attacks. The voters (now and back in the days where darkcoin was only one small project) are the people who can lose if the decisions are wrong.
The system is simple, elegant and is working fine.

On the other hand, anyone can fork DASH and create his own clone with a different set of rules. This is the beauty of open source projects.

FYI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack

 

[demo]

On the other hand, anyone can fork DASH and create his own clone with a different set of rules. This is the beauty of open source projects.

You dont even understand what is the beauty of the open source.
The beauty of open source is valid whenever the new program is created in order to be used by the same community.
In case of a Dash fork it is not the beauty of the open source that prevails, but the ugliness of the community split.

 

[aleix]

You dont even understand what is the beauty of the open source.
The beauty of open source is valid whenever the new program is created in order to be used by the same community.
In case of a Dash fork it is not the beauty of the open source that prevails, but the ugliness of the community split.

I am a member of several (and sometimes opposite) communities in crypto and real world.
Split means diversity, means competition and complementary approach.

Do not be afraid of that.

 

[demo]

I am a member of several (and sometimes opposite) communities in crypto.
Split means diversity, means competition and complementary approach.

No. Split is weakness, split is promoted by those who are against the crypto concept. They advertise the split of the crypto communities as being a good thing, and they are tying to percuade the people that forking the code and forking the community are similar (and beneficial) things. They are doing this because it is in their interests the divide and conquer.

You dont understand the layers, the crypto world is different to the real world, and the community fork is different to the code fork. The correct thing for the crypto community is to have one single solid community, and different forks residing inside the same code bundle, ready to be ignited upon vote. This is what prevents the divide and conquer deficiency . This is what governance stands for.

This project is not about building electronic democracy.

Of course it isnt (necessarily). The project should be about discovering the optimum governance mechanisms in order to unite the split cryptocurrency community against the common enemy, the current world monetary system.

 

[Vedran Yoweri]

to unite the split cryptocurrency community against the common enemy

Yeah. let's unite and bite all trolls in the balls.

 

[toknormal]

The fact that only masternodes can vote is a feature - not a bug. I would definitely not change that. Crowning slam dunked it - if anyone who incidentally buys 0.1 Dash on an exchange can vote you're basically opening up 'governance' to non-stakeholders en masse.

It isn't a recipe for 'unity' it's s recipe for disintegration.

Anyway, masternode shares are increasingly the popular option and Evolution will probably make them trustless so the idea that 1 masternode = 1 person is rapidly disappearing.

 

[demo]

The fact that only masternodes can vote is a feature - not a bug. I would definitely not change that. Crowning slam dunked it - if anyone who incidentally buys 0.1 Dash on an exchange can vote you're basically opening up 'governance' to non-stakeholders en masse.

It isn't a recipe for 'unity' it's s recipe for disintegration.

Anyway, masternode shares are increasingly the popular option and Evolution will probably make them trustless so the idea that 1 masternode = 1 person is rapidly disappearing.

You are a liar, you lie to the others and to yourself.
If you really believe that the optimum governance can be applied only by the masternodes, then why are you afraid of proving it?

 

[Technologov]

Things as currently stand prevent some Bitcoin investors from moving over to Dash.
Meni Rosenfeld, the head of Bitcoin Israel community said that voting should be fair for all people, not only the rich.

Social protocol is just as important, if not more so, than a network protocol.
In reality it will not change very much, because MNs have most of the coins. But (!). We should allow the small people get heard.

 

[Fount4inhead]

I dont agree its a problem at all, 4300 is pretty dame decentralised. I mean up until this point most of the largest corporations in the world have decisions made by a handful of people that can sit around one table. But regardless I still think that eventually anyone who wants to vote that holds some dash will be able to via shares in nodes and then if 51% or more of the shares in a particular node vote in one direction thats what the vote of that node will become.

 

[demo]

and then if 51% or more of the shares in a particular node vote in one direction thats what the vote of that node will become.

What you are doing with this 51% threshold is to create masternode political parties. Nobody is happy inside political parties, because the ordinary people may agree with some ideas of a specific political party, but usally they also agree with some other ideas of another political party. If you apply this 51% then you trap the people inside the masternode political parties and you prohibit their right to express their opinion accurately.

Is this what you want? It is your right to want whatever you want, but on the other hand, shame on you. By applying a 51% threshold, you are trying to weaken more the vote of the poor.

The single vote of a shared masternode should be chopped in small independant pieces, having at least 4 decimals each one, and the pieces should be given to the shareholders. So that poor people having shares in one masternode to be able to be counted in the final result added together with other poor people having shares in another masternode (and having the same opinion with the first ones in the specific issue).

 

[bhkien]

Things as currently stand prevent some Bitcoin investors from moving over to Dash.
Meni Rosenfeld, the head of Bitcoin Israel community said that voting should be fair for all people, not only the rich.

Social protocol is just as important, if not more so, than a network protocol.
In reality it will not change very much, because MNs have most of the coins. But (!). We should allow the small people get heard.

Opportunities are always fair for everyone, but it not free or cheap. If someone who really wants to vote, he will try many ways to get enough Dash for a masternode.

 

[Technologov]

> If someone who really wants to vote, he will try many ways to get enough Dash for a masternode.

Ha ha ha. Are you for real ?

Do you know that at today's price Dash Masternode *already* costs more than a Real-Estate property in Kiev, Ukraine ? (there are lots of R.E. properties for the grab at around $30,000-to-$50,000)
And this is before most of the planet even realizes that Dash even exists !!! (even among computer geeks)

And what-if in several years a Masternode price breaks a $1 million dollar point ? (with Dash crossing a $1000)

 

[toknormal]

You are a liar, you lie to the others and to yourself.

Hey, thanks for letting me know.

At least I understand the "scientific method" though. I'm not quite sure you do looking at that proposal you linked

 

[toknormal]

> If someone who really wants to vote, he will try many ways to get enough Dash for a masternode.
Ha ha ha. Are you for real ?
Do you know that at today's price Dash Masternode *already* costs more than a Real-Estate property in Kiev, Ukraine ?

That isn't really a problem for the protocol to solve.

As far as the network is concerned, a node is the most granular unit of expression since the network is composed of nothing other than nodes and the collateral amount is largely arbitrary. (It's set in Dash so the market sets its exchange rate against other currencies). It could be set at 200 Dash and the market might then value that at several million dollars.

The protocol doesn't care about who owns what or how much. It only requires that a node issues a single coherent vote regardless of who, how or how many people control that node. How that gets done and how 'accessible' it is to everybody is a concern for holders, node operators and even markets, but not the protocol.

The fact that people are p*ssd off that they can't easily vote actually pleases me because it's a sign of how secure and well thought out the Dash voting system is. The protocol doesn't *require* anybody to own 1000 Dash before they can vote but it does require you to either:

1. co-ordinate constructively enough with other holders to be able to issue a coherent signal through a single node

or...

2. invest sufficient capital in the network to an extent that you don't have to

 

[bhkien]

> If someone who really wants to vote, he will try many ways to get enough Dash for a masternode.

Ha ha ha. Are you for real ?

Do you know that at today's price Dash Masternode *already* costs more than a Real-Estate property in Kiev, Ukraine ? (there are lots of R.E. properties for the grab at around $30,000-to-$50,000)
And this is before most of the planet even realizes that Dash even exists !!! (even among computer geeks)

And what-if in several years a Masternode price breaks a $1 million dollar point ? (with Dash crossing a $1000)

The masternode system is a way to get wisdom from people who have great faith in Dash, or people who has good financial capability to make decisions for every proposal.

Why we put so much important things to people who don't have enough capability or people who don't really believe in it?

If price of Dash go up, we have much better people to work for Dash ecosystem to make wiser decisions.

 

[Technologov]

>Why we put so much important things to people who don't have enough capability or people who don't really believe in it?

Because investors start small. When I had only $1000 dollars to invest, that's all I had after my Army service, I invested it in stocks, and went to investor meeting with it. And even voted with it. In traditional corporations, here in Israel. Investors grow mentally and financially, and we must allow such growth to exist, even if someone has only $100 dollars worth to invest.

Of course his vote will be very tiny, according to the amount of shares, but he should be able to vote and voice opinion.

 

[toknormal]

@Technologov I think you misinterpret the governance model.

The Dash network is not a democracy system. It isn't the "people" who have the vote, it's the nodes. The network is a machine and in order to 'steer' that machine it's necessary to get control of the steering wheel which is the nodes, just like if you want to take control of a ship you need to get control of the bridge, the engine room, the ancillary services and so on.

Transfering the voting power from the nodes to the holders directly would be potentially catastrophic and far less secure. The governance mechanism in Dash is decentralised. That means that the protocol does not concern itself with who controls a node or how many people, just like a ship does not concern itself with who crews it or what qualifications they need.

In years to come, if Dash continues its marketcap growth, almost no single person will hold enough Dash to control an entire node on their own. This will have the effect of forcing the holding community to structure itself in some kind of effective way that it can facilitate the management of nodes. I don't know how Evolution is gonig to advance this model but there's likely to be at least some changes in that direction.

 

[Nyk]

I know Evolution is already starting to change this masternode system (for the better imo), but people need to stop talking like the little guy who doesn't have a lot of money or wasn't involved in dash early doesn't matter(these people should be your target users)... First off you have no idea how invested someone is.. 60k$ is nothing to some people in this world and 6000$ is way to much for others.. I'd argue that someone throwing down their life savings of 6k$ would be way more invested in Dash and its future than a millionaire throwing in 60k$. I understand there's no way to calculate this, but to say "Dash is not a democracy" or "working as intended" is a bad mindset to have for the future of Dash. We should constantly strive to look for whats best for everyone.. In the end people will be using the crypto currency that gives them the most back.. If Dash doesn't do it someone else will

 

[Vedran Yoweri]

We should constantly strive to look for whats best for everyone.

Let's do what's good for Dash.
Leave the doing good "for the people" to your favorite politician.