We should change voting from Masternodes to EVERYONE

BagOfMonkeys

New Member
Apr 11, 2017
3
0
1
40
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.
What is to stop the NSA, FBI, any central government or bad actors buying up loads of Masternodes?
The fact that Masternode owners control the direction of the Dash project weakens the decentralization aspect of the currency in my opinion.
 

crowning

Well-known Member
May 29, 2014
1,414
1,997
183
Alpha Centauri Bc
What is to stop the NSA, FBI, any central government or bad actors buying up loads of Masternodes?
The price.
Once you buy 1000 DASH for a Masternode, the price goes up. Not significantly, but it does.
Buy 100 Masternodes and the price will go up significantly.
Try to buy 1000 Masternodes and you'd already have a _really_ hard time finding those 1000000 DASH on the market. And you'd still have less than 25% of all Masternodes.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,068
1,196
1,183
Well, if we can put our faith in 12 random people to uphold criminal law, then I'm sure it won't take 4000+ MNs to come to a reasonable decision. However - and it's a big however! - if we want dash (or any other DAO) to be successful, then we must break down every wall between the DAO and it's users, real or otherwise. Users want to know there is fairness and known determined outcomes. It's nothing to do with "democracy" etc, they simply want to feel inclusive. Bitcoin's blocksize debate is just one example; many people are in the alts because of uncertainty and they're sick of all the in-fighting. The majority of people expected an "Electronic Cash System".. it's no wonder they've arrived at Dash - Digital Cash. But where's the checks-and-balances? I've said this for years; in crypto, the only thing that matters is relevance. There's nothing mathematic, scientific or deterministic about reading forums and "listening" to your customers, there has to be a mechanism to close the loop and stay on track.
 
Last edited:

BagOfMonkeys

New Member
Apr 11, 2017
3
0
1
40
The price.
Once you buy 1000 DASH for a Masternode, the price goes up. Not significantly, but it does.
Buy 100 Masternodes and the price will go up significantly.
Try to buy 1000 Masternodes and you'd already have a _really_ hard time finding those 1000000 DASH on the market. And you'd still have less than 25% of all Masternodes.
Ok, but price can be manipulated to some extent, especially with the budgets available to the "bad actors" given in the example. I suppose the underlying issue is with the concept of decentralization in Dash - what is the difference between Masternode owners and a Central Bank? If decisions around Dash are only made by Masternode Owners, how is it a decentralized currency? Is Masternode Owner not another name for Central Bank?
 

crowning

Well-known Member
May 29, 2014
1,414
1,997
183
Alpha Centauri Bc
Ok, but price can be manipulated to some extent, especially with the budgets available to the "bad actors" given in the example. I suppose the underlying issue is with the concept of decentralization in Dash - what is the difference between Masternode owners and a Central Bank? If decisions around Dash are only made by Masternode Owners, how is it a decentralized currency? Is Masternode Owner not another name for Central Bank?
I guess (but don't know obviously) that there are 500-1000 unique Masternode owners. So with your reasoning we'd have 500-1000 Central Banks, spread over most continents.
Doesn't sound very "central" to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhkien

BagOfMonkeys

New Member
Apr 11, 2017
3
0
1
40
It doesn't sound central currently, but only because there are many Masternode owners, each owning relatively few Masternodes.

The worry in the future is if only a handful of Masternode owners end up controlling all Masternodes.

As a digital currency, I presume geographical location would be irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
3,068
1,196
1,183
Imo, 4k+ MNs is certainly enough but I think people want transparency; independent proof of distribution, that it's not all tied up in the hands of a few. It's just a pity we can't incentivise exchanges (and other KYC processors) to do some kind of audit. I think an independent audit is possible while protecting MNOs public identity.

The comparison with central banks is not that good because anyone with enough money (including protestors) can buy their way in... it's just that a significant minority is not willing to trust and that's why dash needs to deal with transparency and independent audits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas Head-Rapson
Apr 23, 2017
54
6
48
53
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.
They would be invested, just not so much as someone else with more skin in this particular game.

Sent from my GEM-701L using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Apr 23, 2017
54
6
48
53
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.
4300 is much more decentralised than some of the current global systems we have, but 7 billion or so
would be even more so, and completely inclusive.

Sent from my GEM-701L using Tapatalk
 
Apr 23, 2017
54
6
48
53
> 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)
An 18T economy, ie. Dash market cap, would lead to Dash reaching 1M USD(if all dash mined, greater if not) , and a MN needing 1B USD. Just some numbers to think about.

Sent from my GEM-701L using Tapatalk
 
Apr 23, 2017
54
6
48
53
I guess (but don't know obviously) that there are 500-1000 unique Masternode owners. So with your reasoning we'd have 500-1000 Central Banks, spread over most continents.
Doesn't sound very "central" to me.
It's a lot more central than 7 billion.

Sent from my GEM-701L using Tapatalk
 

solarguy

Active Member
Mar 15, 2017
865
413
133
61
It's a lot more central than 7 billion.

Sent from my GEM-701L using Tapatalk
Twelve banks make up the Federal Reserve Banking system. Each of those banks has just a tiny handful of shakers and movers, so let's say between 100 and 200 altogether.

4,300 and growing looks much better than a hundred or two.

And the number of people who will have influence on the system will go up dramatically with Evolution and proportional voting.

How many is enough in you opinion?
 

MrGold

Member
Jan 29, 2017
67
7
48
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.
I agree that Dash/life savings is how much skin one has in Dash. However, in the here and now without this web of trust thingy and so no real way to measure using that formula, I only want people with at least 1000 Dash of skin in my budget voting system. It doesn't help my Dash to waste developer time and other budget opportunities to add a few thousand or million people to our budgeting system all with little skin involved. We have nothing to gain, and everything to lose on the off chance of getting outvoted by this group of people with no skin.
 

MrGold

Member
Jan 29, 2017
67
7
48
@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.
"if Dash continues its marketcap growth, almost no single person will hold enough Dash to control an entire node on their own."
Won't the existing node operators remain operators? I don't think this will be a bad thing for Dash, which IMO is the only consideration here. We aren't here to do good directly, again IMO, we're here to do good indirectly by shepherding the best money ever into existence. Because money is at the center of the high division of labour, we get to improve everything with this fantastic product we have the privilege to shepherd.
But back to my point, if our masternodes get that valuable, we'll end up with a central wealthy priesthood of sorts that very much likes being financially wealthy and so is extremely incentivised to make good budget decisions. I don't see a downside.
 

MrGold

Member
Jan 29, 2017
67
7
48
The price.
Once you buy 1000 DASH for a Masternode, the price goes up. Not significantly, but it does.
Buy 100 Masternodes and the price will go up significantly.
Try to buy 1000 Masternodes and you'd already have a _really_ hard time finding those 1000000 DASH on the market. And you'd still have less than 25% of all Masternodes.
Yes! We want the NSA and the CIA and the FBI and the NRA and the.. :) We want them all to buy, buy, buy!
 

jmclarty

New Member
Mar 19, 2017
7
0
1
"
Won't the existing node operators remain operators?
No, they wont. Not a large fraction anyway. A human goes through a life cycle as they age, with changing degrees of risk tolerance, opportunity costs, and interests. Plus, people die. Or get hospital bills. Or want shiny things.

Excluding the holders from lower prices....the type of people able to risk buying a 100k USD MN (who truley understand the risks) are single/trust-fund--younge/executives/business-owners. At 500k, its founders/serial entrepreneurs/workoholics/1%-Americans. At 1M+ its hedge funds/roger-ver.

Even if you disagree with my ranges/stereotypes, my point stands that as time marches on, and if Dash rallies, MNs will be controlled by different kinds of minds.
 

MrGold

Member
Jan 29, 2017
67
7
48
No, they wont. Not a large fraction anyway. A human goes through a life cycle as they age, with changing degrees of risk tolerance, opportunity costs, and interests. Plus, people die. Or get hospital bills. Or want shiny things.

Excluding the holders from lower prices....the type of people able to risk buying a 100k USD MN (who truley understand the risks) are single/trust-fund--younge/executives/business-owners. At 500k, its founders/serial entrepreneurs/workoholics/1%-Americans. At 1M+ its hedge funds/roger-ver.

Even if you disagree with my ranges/stereotypes, my point stands that as time marches on, and if Dash rallies, MNs will be controlled by different kinds of minds.
I see. So its not so much that no individuals will be able to operate MNs as it is that non MN operators might not like those individuals? They have skin in the game and they're proven successes so how is it a problem? Or am I missing something?
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
Yes! We want the NSA and the CIA and the FBI and the NRA and the.. :) We want them all to buy, buy, buy!

This is exactly what the greedy 2014-2016 DASH generation wants to do.
They want to sell DASH to all the above.
That way they will become rich, but they will destroy the DASH coin at the same time.
 

jmclarty

New Member
Mar 19, 2017
7
0
1
They have skin in the game and they're proven successes so how is it a problem?
Im not sure if it is. But its a smack in the face to the intentions of this design if agents or delegates of people with skin in the game, or people with other peoples's skin in the game, start to outsource their vote.

Metaphorically, you'll never get a property manager who will do as good as job as you would with your own rental.

One other issue:
Would you buy a coin controlled by a bunch of hedge funds, billionaires, and multinationals?

You might. I might. But, ill speculate that many wont.

Im speculating across several dimensions.
 

demo

Well-known Member
Apr 23, 2016
3,113
263
153
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
One other issue:
Would you buy a coin controlled by a bunch of hedge funds, billionaires, and multinationals?

You might. I might. But, ill speculate that many wont.
.
Anyone who does not care about holding the digital cash of the future , and he is only searching for a quick rich scheme, he will buy a coin controlled by hedge funds and billionaires.

I already told you, DASH increases his value because hedge funds and spies are bying it, in order to control it and destroy it.
 

solarguy

Active Member
Mar 15, 2017
865
413
133
61
Anyone who does not care about holding the digital cash of the future , and he is only searching for a quick rich scheme, he will buy a coin controlled by hedge funds and billionaires.

I already told you, DASH increases his value because hedge funds and spies are bying it, in order to control it and destroy it.
So you say. But where is the evidence?

One could posit a theory that you are sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt to cause the community to doubt the leadership of the community in the hopes of destroying it.

My estimation is the the Masternode leadership and the Dash Core team and the miners are doing a demonstrably good job of it. Handwaving notwithstanding.
 

MrGold

Member
Jan 29, 2017
67
7
48
Im not sure if it is. But its a smack in the face to the intentions of this design if agents or delegates of people with skin in the game, or people with other peoples's skin in the game, start to outsource their vote.

Metaphorically, you'll never get a property manager who will do as good as job as you would with your own rental.

One other issue:
Would you buy a coin controlled by a bunch of hedge funds, billionaires, and multinationals?

You might. I might. But, ill speculate that many wont.

Im speculating across several dimensions.
Sounds like hypothesizing that there's bunch of rich people out there who are stupid enough to let someone else make decisions that could make them poor. I'm having trouble getting stressed aboot that possibility.

Would I buy coins controlled by hedge funds, billionaires, multinationals (I assume meaning transnational corporations)? What do you mean by controlled? If some or a lot of these organisations try to buy up all the Dash you and I and all us Dash holders are gonna be happy as the Dash value goes up up up. That would be more users which is what every thing which is hoping to be used as money needs in order to actually be used as money.
 

MrGold

Member
Jan 29, 2017
67
7
48
Anyone who does not care about holding the digital cash of the future , and he is only searching for a quick rich scheme, he will buy a coin controlled by hedge funds and billionaires.

I already told you, DASH increases his value because hedge funds and spies are bying it, in order to control it and destroy it.
What hedge funds, what spies, and how will they control and destroy Dash?
 

jmclarty

New Member
Mar 19, 2017
7
0
1
I'm having trouble getting stressed aboot that possibility.
Don't confuse me with the user "demo". That guy sounds stressed. Ill repeat, that I dont know if it is a problem.

My hypothesis and point is that the type of people who will be able to afford to buy and hold (the risk), of owning a MN, is transient and will change over time. Along with their ideas. Im not in the camp who believe that they will "buy up all the dash" to attack on purpose.

PS - lots of stupid rich people exist.
 
Apr 23, 2017
54
6
48
53
How many is enough in you opinion?
Like I said, maybe 7 billion; or rather, everyone.
Depends how decentralised you want the system to be.
So far, I haven't heard anything except the usual self interest used as a justification to limit decentralisation.
 
Apr 23, 2017
54
6
48
53
I guess (but don't know obviously) that there are 500-1000 unique Masternode owners. So with your reasoning we'd have 500-1000 Central Banks, spread over most continents.
Doesn't sound very "central" to me.

The point is, it's still a group with it's own special interests.
The terms "group" and "special interests" lose their meaning and their threat only when the group is everybody.
 
Apr 23, 2017
54
6
48
53
"if Dash continues its marketcap growth, almost no single person will hold enough Dash to control an entire node on their own."
Won't the existing node operators remain operators?
Of course they would. They will be uber-riche compared to everyone else, and motivated to keep that wealth. And even accumulate more, as this would take more Dash out of circulation and thereby further increase the value of their holdings. I wonder and fear if it this will not produce a feedback loop of accelerating deflation. I need to think more about what the consequences of such a deflationary spiral would be.
 
Apr 23, 2017
54
6
48
53
This is exactly what the greedy 2014-2016 DASH generation wants to do.
They want to sell DASH to all the above.
That way they will become rich, but they will destroy the DASH coin at the same time.
Do I understand you to mean that you are worried about runaway deflation?