Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1170. (Read 9723748 times)

Masternode operators are going to always lack specific domain knowledge that is required to make competent decisions about where to spend the money. Governments solve this issue by having boards of advisors, such as the administrative cabinet, the counsel on foreign relations, the economic advisory committees, etc. Can't we just alter this strategy slightly for our purposes?  For us, we're going to need to setup some kind of simple advisory boards for business, economics, technology, etc. What if at a few billion dollars we have four or five of these types of committees, where the masternodes are electing whoever they want into the roles. After that these people would do the research and publish reports.

These advisors could be expensive later on as well, I think they'll need significant experience in the domain in question. For economics, it might mean you have a PhD and have published. Those types of people are going to be too expensive to hire alone, I think it makes more sense for the network to band together.

If we use a setup like that, the masternodes could start by reading the research done by these committees about various decisions they need to make, then they could make up their own mind.

Dash isn't a democrracy.  Votes are based on the amount invested.  More like shareholders.

There will only be 6000 or less masternodes.  It isn't unreasonable for each of those to research and vote on each proposal when each masternode is worth $100k.  And then each node will probably be shared by a few owners.  Each node owner may hire advisors to help read and decipher proposals.  Each node may have an internal voting strategy between owners.  And it is also possible to have each proposal be a group of projects that internally decide how they move forward.  So those 2000 proposals may be 20 with 100 projects under them.

The core voting mechanism needs to be done by those actually risking capital.  Every project is kept honest by the threat of losing funds, every voter has a vested interest and votes in the best interest of Dash.

You are absolutely correct. As Churchill once said:

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

But until somebody invents a better system, we keep coming back to it =)

^ This I think. My Ethers are going down the pan too.

This looks like a coordinated dumpfest for all altcoins. I wonder if this is a manipulation to cause panic sell or whales are just cashing out in anticipation for BTC takeoff.

Democracy is terrible. Delegative democracy is probably less terrible. Delegative democracy without egalitarianism(you have to have 1000 dash to vote) might actually work.

Who is dumping so hard?

Plus, this is voting for budget. Delegating vote = allowing others to write checks to themselves by proposing something themselves directly or indirectly (camouflaged budget proposal by supposedly 'third parties').

Is it ever a good idea? Maybe not. But when systems get too large and too complex, stakeholders typically end up electing representatives. When a real-world community gets too large, they elect representatives because there is no way that everybody can show up every day to vote on every decision (Athens tried; it was a disaster). You see the same in the corporate world, where shareholders cannot be expected to individually vote on ever single business decision, so they delegate that power to a Board.

Dash may follow a different course. Somehow I doubt it--if/when Dash has a $1 million monthly budget, if the average budget is around $5000, it's hard to see every MN educating themselves, voting on, and following up on, 200 different proposals. What if/when Dash has $10 million in monthly budget funding, and it's about 2000 different proposals every month?

I could be wrong, but history suggests that it's likely to happen.

I don't understand why the idea of someone else voting for you is ever a good idea.  Do senators ever vote to benefit voters?  Doubt it.   Educating masternode owners is the best way to have a functioning voting process.

I agree with Tok that excessive reporting is a waste of time....probably not how he put it.  The idea of reports may not apply anyway.  Think if each proposal used a video explaining it.  With the possibility of each proposal having significant funding, making a video is worth the extra effort.

I am interested to see what Evan comes up with.  I don't understand how you can confirm an identity with crypto.  Maybe it is tied to a collateral input.  Or a certain amount of Dash is held in escrow to give an incentive to follow through on commitments.  Otherwise, you could just create new wallets and new identities and dump old identities.  Maybe there is a reputation system, but how do you keep that based on real people....I am sure Evan has a creative way to solve this.

stop it !! that question alone is shutting down my brain  

Exit pump or superior cryptography?...

you sir just won Bingo 

I don't know what you mean   Maybe the only one with a 2 digit negative percentage?  

damn, one particular cryptocurrency in the top 10 of coinmarketcap sure is taking a beating (massive dump / dumps since yesterday)
while another one is staying remarkably stable for some time now.

I've been thinking a lot lately about how people could make a living by doing nothing other than working on Dash. One idea I considered is that DAOs might pay respected community members to lobby for their proposals.  This similar to Evan's idea, only in reverse I suppose.

I can definitely see a future where respected community members either hold the proxy votes of others (mnprivkeys) and vote directly for proposals (sort of like a senate), or where trusted community members gather all the proposals for the month, explain the pros and cons, and then issue a recommendation (sort of like investment guys labeling stuff as "buy" "hold" "sell"). This could either be a paid (Consumer Reports) type model, or free (blogging type model).

On the encryption issue--the last time this battle was faught (Clipper Chip) was just prior to the dawn of the WWW. What are the odds that if this bill did get passed, companies would just shut down their online banking, online shopping, etc., since user information would no longer be safe from hackers?

That's what's so dangerous, IMO. This could easily shut down the internet in the United States, because the internet is built on strong cryptography. It's amazing that legislators are so blind and stupid.

Tok, do you have issues with WHAT Evan is working on, or with WHO is working on it?

I could be completely wrong, but I am getting the impression that you don't mind some sort of system (perhaps a more informal one) being developed. However, you don't think it should be a priority of the development team. As you say here, you think it should be the "domain of holders, not developers."

Consider that Evo is still being developed at full speed. Unless I'm mistaken, other aspects of 12.1 (contracts, PrivacyProtect v2) are still being developed at full speed. We have extremely competent developers working on both these priorities, so as far as I know, we are not actually falling behind on the things that you (and I) believe we should be working on.

What if we think of it this way...think of it as Evan taking a break from core protocol work and doing independent research on a high-risk high-reward project that's tangential to core development. What if we think of Evan acting here as a "holder" and not a core developer?

I'm just saying that we have many competent developers working on all the agreed-upon priorities, and one brilliant visionary working on something related, but tangential, to core development. Would you still be opposed if you looked at it this way?

Who said anything about a "project submission template" that is "coded into the blockchain"? I'll try to be much more explicit.

People will be able to create entities on the blockchain (groups, users, companies), these are really simple objects and only have a publickey and a name basically. They allow someone to own an alias which represents something in the real world, like my identity on here. By the way this is exactly the way the evolution documents describe the process of implementing these systems, these are the "network primitives". Next, using these identities you'll be able to create a proposal or contract, which is then controllable in the future. You can add things to it, like reports.

Reports have a date and a url. It's just a really simple abstraction of exactly what we're going to need over the next 5-10 years and nothing more. They'll live elsewhere, perhaps all over the internet.

Groups of people working together are managed with decentralized autonomous organizations. We could have DAOs for DashCORE, DashResearch (vending machines, etc?), DashFoundationLLC, etc. So when the foundation wants to get funding for something, we can group all of the requests together and see how much funding they've gotten total and other metrics. Graphing these metrics out over long periods of time is going to allow people to study our currency and figure out how it's growing, what is working and what is not.

Here's a comment from my code of the layout of the network:

I'm totally behind in reading but does anyone ever feel, during this process, that we're like the founding fathers minus the July humid heat in a small closed up building?  It just keeps coming back to me.  We're making many of the same arguments, it's amazing!  Can't wait to read the last 4 or so pages when I get back

There are many possible configurations of the principle, but essentially, it amounts to monetising new productivity and economic value - exactly as happens in "the real world".

The reason I cited it here is that the Dash governance system started off as simply a consensus based trigger mechanism for moving funds to a pre-determined address. No problem there.

But now the discussion has unconsciously meandered into themes of decentralised micro economies and group based commercial contracts. That is a very different and huge field - one which those guys have developed in some detail (and were about to develop in even more detail if they had got that proposal approved). I'm just saying that if we took this little discussion about blockchain governance to its logical conclusion we'd possibly end up somewhere in the ballpark of what's described in that proposal.

So we might as well shortcut straight to it given that they already spent 4 years working out the whole solution.