Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1171. (Read 9723748 times)
April 09, 2016, 07:32:10 AM
I think we should make it so if you don't vote the system holds your payments untill you cast your vote that way everyone will be rushing to cast there vote. Just my thoughts
April 09, 2016, 06:20:18 AM
I'm considering some sort of endorsement committee, which is elected by the network to review what's happening and produce short overviews. We could start with just a simple business committee, to review the legitimacy of the projects. There could even be multiple of these committees eventually and a masternode operator could mirror their voting habits if they liked the research.
I recommend allowing the masternodes to delegate their votes.
A major problem with dash governance is the problem with all voting systems, rational ignorance. A guy with a single masternode is very unlikely to cast the winning vote and any individual vote will only marginally effect his dash holdings, so he has very little incentive to cast an educated vote. Even reading a summary of each proposal is unlikely to make it onto his to do list, probably even voting isn't going to make it. However if he has only one decision to make(who would best represent my interests?) that effects all of the proposals then he has a reasonable level of incentive to educate himself about his options and check in occasionally about what his delegate is doing.
Isn't this the basis of the current political system? Maybe one day Dash will be big enough to have Dash political parties and Masternode Senators!
Walter
Only partially, that's a representative system while Dash seems to be heading in the same direction as Liquid Democracy/Feedback and the aim of that is a system that allows for both representative and direct participation. They're working well, there's an alternative route around the power grabbing aspect of representative systems and influence tends to gravitate to those that aren't actively seeking it and have a good track record.
April 09, 2016, 05:13:44 AM
U.S. Senate Bill Seeks to Ban Effective Encryption, Making Security Illegal
https://rietta.com/blog/2016/04/08/feinstein-burr-encryption-bill/
https://rietta.com/blog/2016/04/08/feinstein-burr-encryption-bill/
Been there, done that, didn't work, and finally, is incredibly stupid. Where do these people come from? Do we as a people really vote for them?
It won't happen anytime soon...and USA has backdoors already to give you illusion of security
April 09, 2016, 04:56:28 AM
...You know what's a far better decentralised mechanism for all this than anything thats been suggested so far ? That Proof of Labour proposal 
It actually addresses all the concerns being aired here and has them thought through in detail. It also does so in a way that directly amplifies the value of the currency.
I just reread the paper, it is a fascinating proposal, way out there, TBH I only understand 1% of it, but I remember thinking that when I first goto into cryptocurrencies.It actually addresses all the concerns being aired here and has them thought through in detail. It also does so in a way that directly amplifies the value of the currency.
Does it allow flexibility of the money flow and supply and is not restricted by a how many coins are in existence?
And the proof of labour is about buying shares in a proposed work 'contract' ?
For example if someone owns only 100 Dash, they can buy into a project, have proportional voting rights and receive the potential rewards from that proof of labour, the more risky projects presumably have higher potential rewards (similar to stocks)
Or am I way off base understanding this
Edit: So basically offering loans like a bank does, and getting paid interest at the end of the contract.
April 09, 2016, 04:24:50 AM
The way I see proposals for funding projects, they must match minimal structure with at least first 4 dimensions:
1. Scope
2. Budget
3. Delivery time frame (or milestones)
4. Quality of delivery (satisfaction of sponsor/community)
5. Metrics and KPIs
1. Scope
2. Budget
3. Delivery time frame (or milestones)
4. Quality of delivery (satisfaction of sponsor/community)
5. Metrics and KPIs
I think it depends on the nature of the proposal. Some proposals might warrant that type and degree of structured approach, some might not. Maybe Evan's thinking way down the line, like $100,000 projects or something.
Project management is a very people-oriented process. The blockchain is good for actually delivering the funding once it's been approved, but thats all it's good for IMO.
...being a switch.
You know what's a far better decentralised mechanism for all this than anything thats been suggested so far ? (IMHO, of course). That Proof of Labour proposal
It actually addresses all the concerns being aired here and has them thought through in detail. It also does so in a way that directly amplifies the value of the currency.
April 09, 2016, 04:13:20 AM
I'm considering some sort of endorsement committee, which is elected by the network to review what's happening and produce short overviews. We could start with just a simple business committee, to review the legitimacy of the projects. There could even be multiple of these committees eventually and a masternode operator could mirror their voting habits if they liked the research.
I recommend allowing the masternodes to delegate their votes.
A major problem with dash governance is the problem with all voting systems, rational ignorance. A guy with a single masternode is very unlikely to cast the winning vote and any individual vote will only marginally effect his dash holdings, so he has very little incentive to cast an educated vote. Even reading a summary of each proposal is unlikely to make it onto his to do list, probably even voting isn't going to make it. However if he has only one decision to make(who would best represent my interests?) that effects all of the proposals then he has a reasonable level of incentive to educate himself about his options and check in occasionally about what his delegate is doing.
Isn't this the basis of the current political system? Maybe one day Dash will be big enough to have Dash political parties and Masternode Senators!
Walter
April 09, 2016, 04:07:09 AM
The current and new system is post-emptive. I think we just need something to track people and companies as they use our system. I think you're thinking I'm trying to solve the human element. The human element in a system like this is critical to it's success.
As I say, I can understand the basis, I just don't see why a project submission template has to be coded into the blockchain.
Whats wrong with this process ?
Proposer: "I've got this proposal"
Arbitrators: "It's a bit vague, could you submit a more structured proposal with some milestones"
Proposer: "Ok"
The way I see proposals for funding projects, they must match minimal structure with at least first 4 dimensions:
1. Scope
2. Budget
3. Delivery time frame (or milestones)
4. Quality of delivery (satisfaction of sponsor/community)
5. Metrics and KPIs
...
Without structure any proposal is very fluidly described and could lead to wasting of time and dash...
If blockchain could help in structuring and reporting great... but I think it is more at the entrance stage of proposal where we should focus with defining rules..
in other words trash IN, most likely trash OUT is coming
April 09, 2016, 02:57:34 AM
The current and new system is post-emptive. I think we just need something to track people and companies as they use our system. I think you're thinking I'm trying to solve the human element. The human element in a system like this is critical to it's success.
As I say, I can understand the basis, I just don't see why a project submission template has to be coded into the blockchain.
Whats wrong with this process ?
Proposer: "I've got this proposal"
Arbitrators: "It's a bit vague, could you submit a more structured proposal with some milestones"
Proposer: "Ok"
April 09, 2016, 02:17:57 AM
U.S. Senate Bill Seeks to Ban Effective Encryption, Making Security Illegal
https://rietta.com/blog/2016/04/08/feinstein-burr-encryption-bill/
https://rietta.com/blog/2016/04/08/feinstein-burr-encryption-bill/
Been there, done that, didn't work, and finally, is incredibly stupid. Where do these people come from? Do we as a people really vote for them?
i thought that banning encryption is like banning math isnt ?
April 09, 2016, 01:51:30 AM
U.S. Senate Bill Seeks to Ban Effective Encryption, Making Security Illegal
https://rietta.com/blog/2016/04/08/feinstein-burr-encryption-bill/
https://rietta.com/blog/2016/04/08/feinstein-burr-encryption-bill/
Been there, done that, didn't work, and finally, is incredibly stupid. Where do these people come from? Do we as a people really vote for them?
April 09, 2016, 01:04:38 AM
... I'd probably have to sell all my Dash just for the pleasure of not having to read them.
Isn't this the source of our problem? We can't read everything. If there's 10 companies using the system and an average of 5 pages of reports per month, you'd need to sit down for a few hours to get through it all. Masternode operators are simply unable to perform such a task, therefore we must find another solution.
I'm considering some sort of endorsement committee, which is elected by the network to review what's happening and produce short overviews. We could start with just a simple business committee, to review the legitimacy of the projects. There could even be multiple of these committees eventually and a masternode operator could mirror their voting habits if they liked the research.
I dont think that will work, eventhough its selected from a decentralised network these kind of endorsement committee's will be very centralized by nature and more importantly will not convey the behaviour
of a larger crowd (the so called wisdom of the crowd). If you put a mandatory selection to it then you just end up with masternode owners in there who will still be desinterested in the voting process and
they will get completely overshadowed by the few who are interested .. and all of this taking place in a very small group.
I think we should keep the masternode voting as how it is working currently, without any smaller panels weighing budget proposals for the larger group.
Maybe create some analysing tools for masternode owners to more efficiently analyse budget proposals and their progress.
April 09, 2016, 12:29:07 AM
I'm considering some sort of endorsement committee, which is elected by the network to review what's happening and produce short overviews. We could start with just a simple business committee, to review the legitimacy of the projects. There could even be multiple of these committees eventually and a masternode operator could mirror their voting habits if they liked the research.
I recommend allowing the masternodes to delegate their votes.
A major problem with dash governance is the problem with all voting systems, rational ignorance. A guy with a single masternode is very unlikely to cast the winning vote and any individual vote will only marginally effect his dash holdings, so he has very little incentive to cast an educated vote. Even reading a summary of each proposal is unlikely to make it onto his to do list, probably even voting isn't going to make it. However if he has only one decision to make(who would best represent my interests?) that effects all of the proposals then he has a reasonable level of incentive to educate himself about his options and check in occasionally about what his delegate is doing.
April 08, 2016, 11:19:13 PM
Dash: The Future Internet Of Money?
https://www.rebelmouse.com/dashnation/the-internet-1715527827.html
https://www.rebelmouse.com/dashnation/the-internet-1715527827.html
April 08, 2016, 10:49:42 PM
April 08, 2016, 10:33:28 PM
... I'd probably have to sell all my Dash just for the pleasure of not having to read them.
Isn't this the source of our problem? We can't read everything. If there's 10 companies using the system and an average of 5 pages of reports per month, you'd need to sit down for a few hours to get through it all. Masternode operators are simply unable to perform such a task, therefore we must find another solution.
I'm considering some sort of endorsement committee, which is elected by the network to review what's happening and produce short overviews. We could start with just a simple business committee, to review the legitimacy of the projects. There could even be multiple of these committees eventually and a masternode operator could mirror their voting habits if they liked the research.
April 08, 2016, 10:26:11 PM
I never said any of that, nor would I want a system that required that level of reporting. We need to find the minimum level to stop abuse and keep the network informed. I think if we have zero reporting requirements (such as where money is being spent) we'll run off a cliff.
OK. I'll have to have a think about that.
I also have been wondering how to hold blockchain funding applicants to account, but I would do it post-emptively, not pre-emptively because that puts the blockchain in a position of weakness.
I think there are better ways to do it that push the problem back out to the holders.
The current and new system is post-emptive. I think we just need something to track people and companies as they use our system. I think you're thinking I'm trying to solve the human element. The human element in a system like this is critical to it's success.
April 08, 2016, 10:21:10 PM
Ok, I just read Macrochip's post on Dashtalk and now understand the problem better.
Quote
So we need to have a discussion on how to remove the component of dependency on goodwill and trust within our governance model
I'm sorry. This cannot be done.
Dependency and goodwill are the essence on which ALL great creations, business projects and enterprises rely. That's exactly what's great about the current incarnation of Dash's governance system.
It provides a basis for the holders and contractors to interact informally. Over time, some bad apples will be paid good money but also some gems will be discovered. It's an organic interaction that takes time to evolve - how do you think any great company develops ? Through getting to know their partners and trusting them.
That trust is nothing to do with the blockchain - it's a people to people thing. It's voters pitted against contractors and thats just something that takes a lot of time, discussion, argument and growth. No way around it, but the fact that Dash has that dimension of commercial evolution to it is a huge strength IMO, not a weakness. Yes - money will get wasted on crap contractors. They just won't get another look-in and the ones that have integrity and productivity will.
You could never match that level of project consciousness with an automated process.
Actually I don't really want to automate very much. I just want the system to track reporting and who's doing what. Everything else is human driven.
April 08, 2016, 09:24:48 PM
I respect your opinion, but I think you are in the minority on this issue. I sure Evan will listen if a significant number of community members echo your concerns.
Yes indeed. I'll shut up now and let everone else have their say while I checkout some cheese sandwiches
April 08, 2016, 09:15:04 PM
it is they who are responsible for assigning that portion of the blockchain reward and they've never asked for such project management tools.
Sounds like some better project management tools are needed
April 08, 2016, 09:07:36 PM
Why don't we wait to see what he comes up with before throwing shade on the whole idea...
Because this is nothing to do with the declared Dash roadmap or anticipated technical priorities.
It's also something that is in the domain of holders, not developers since it is they who are responsible for assigning that portion of the blockchain reward and they've never asked for such project management tools.
(Even if they had done, they don't need to come from the protocol. Google docs will do).
I respect your opinion, but I think you are in the minority on this issue. I sure Evan will listen if a significant number of community members echo your concerns.
Jump to: