Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1479. (Read 9723803 times)

Evan you are not transparent enough. Having just read that you alone control the budget system and can pass all budgets with 10% of the vote bothers me. I'm sure you are a busy man but for this system to work and gain momentum you need to stop creating situations where you unfairly control portions of the system.

Otoh, I respect your right to make investments however the size of your investment in DASH gives you a lot of power. This is something I believe is holding potential investors back.

^This^ is true if there are no controls on taking money.  Sure if everyone is taxed, they want their money back.  But when you have to actually contribute to get paid, it doesn't collapse.  This is a fundamental uniqueness with the current Dash voting system.  Budgets get voted in only if masternodes have confidence it will improve Dash.  There is always the threat of no votes, so it is a self correcting system.

Pretty much every economic system is controlled by the top 100 richest people/corporations.  Even the best governments have been bribed to get certain laws/benefits passed growing government until it collapses.  It isn't anything new.  Is there even any democratic system in place anywhere?

The only thing I can say for a representative system, such as a Republic vs a Democracy is that in a Democracy, everyone turns into factions, majority rules, and stomps on the minority, whereas a Republic will protect the minority's interests - at least better than a Democracy. 

Democracies also vote themselves money until the entire society collapses on itself, landing in, usually, some sort of totalitarian system. 

For all, who are still pointing theirs miners to CEX [Edit - ghash.io]. Dash mining pool is suspended since 15th of December 2015, so those 400 Mhashes are wasted, please devs post the info on your twitter.
The removal of the trading pair is 21st of December, and looks like folks have till 15th of Jan 2016 to remove coins from there.

Official link:
https://support.cex.io/hc/en-us/articles/214379428-Multipool-Suspension-and-Altcoin-Removal

Make peeps aware.

[Edit 2]

Coins not removed after 15th, will be eaten by wallet maintenace fee, 0.00015 btc worth of those coins a day (e.g. with todays price, every day 0.028 dash will be removed from users dash account, until it reaches 0).

I'm not likely to post often here but I have been reading this thread daily since page 1500 or so.

Absolutely not!  With the internet the is no reason someone can't vote for themselves.  Once you move your vote to a proxy, that proxy controls the outcome.  Dash is the first 'fair' voting system.  There isn't a group of people moving vote counts around or counting votes....This is truly unique, let's not screw it up.

I do agree with TanteSteffana, we need more time to vote.  4 weeks seems fair, 5 days like the last one was tough.  I don't see any need for discussion before hand.  Whoever wants to make a proposal either gets opinions before hand, or doesn't.  Just give a few more weeks time to vote and then everyone should be able to participate, if they want to.

Let's just create a proposal deadline.  Get your proposal in by x days before or it gets bumped to the next months budget.  Simple.

So another option could be that people getting paid from a proposal can't vote on it.  I have mixed views here...Any owner of dash should be able to vote, but the vote will sway toward those that benefit. A more fair approach is just to bump the % to get over the hurdle of the I have enough node % to vote my proposal in.

Think if we had the blockdebate vote.  I bet we would have 98% participation with a 48% to 50% vote.  Your vote may not make much of a difference on simple proposals, but with a heated topic that vote will be worth a lot.

Then you make the problem even worse, by making it harder to vote and thus lowering voter participation!!

Exactly. People vote when it matters to them which is why it's reasonable that the ones who ARE voting deserve to be heard over those that aren't IMO.

In the Scottish referendum on independence, people came out of the woodwork from all over the place to vote - people who had never even registered to vote before. There was such strength of feeling on both sides that nearly the entire population voted. On the other hand, in European elections - which actually do matter regarding certain areas of policy - you're lucky if 30% turnout.

The thing about Dash's voting system is that - unlike democracy - you can buy yourself votes.

Earlier today, emitkirby made this remark:


Although I think this is a reasonable view with regard to democracy, I don't really think it's reasonable with regard to governance of a capital asset. The whole point of commercially traded assets is that you weild more influence over their governance the more you acquire. So the fact that Dash is doing justice to this principle should attract investors, not inhibit them. This principle applies universally in commerce. The fact that Steve Jobs held a huge number of shares in Pixar didn't inhibit people from investing in Pixar. Dash is a private currency - not a public one created by a central bank and backed by public debt.

Clarity is required. I don't see any other way that allowing large holders to wield more influence than small ones. In fact I think it's essential - it just gives them more responsibility thats all because the merits of their decision making (or in Dash's case, the decentralised will of the holders) will determine the propensity for others to invest.

If the governance process (however many participate) makes crap decisions then the asset will go down the tubes. If it is seen to take sensible, well thought out and generally 'safe' decisions then  the asset will grow and attract more users.

In conclusion I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference whether 1 person votes or 1000. It's not the number of votes but the quality of the decision making that's important. If only 20 people care passionately whether Dashwhale gets a blockchain sponsorship and only those 20 people vote, then thats better than 200 people voting where the other 180 don't have a particular view IMO.

However, the fact that many people can "jam their foot in the door" in a crisis over a critical issue if so required is a hugely powerful backstop against corruption.

I like Dash's governance model. Everytime I try to "think my way out of it" I keep coming back to the way it is - an uneasy but ultimately very powerful and well secured blend of capital & popular democracy. It also puts a lot of trust in the holders to make good decisions so it's an open book which makes it "alive" and appealing.

You could have a decentralized data base that holds a (initially) empty record of each masternode, where the holder has to insert his priv key in order to initiate a vote possibility from that node, so each one would effectively have to be registered.
Then, a question of being bothered to vote or not would be switched on its head for large owners because they would have to register hundreds of times, where as with most of us it would only be once or twice, I can't see Otoh ever getting round to it

(or more simply just disable the vote many commands, lol)

This is a great idea, but unenforceable. Dash is an anonymous cryptocurrency, so we don't know who (person) is who (masternode).

Absolutely not!  With the internet the is no reason someone can't vote for themselves.  Once you move your vote to a proxy, that proxy controls the outcome.  Dash is the first 'fair' voting system.  There isn't a group of people moving vote counts around or counting votes....This is truly unique, let's not screw it up.
...

But by "not voting" you'll still be voting. Look what happened in your rural community - your passive action was the most impactive of everone's. No escape 

(I feel a quantum analogy involving cats coming on  )

So another option could be that people getting paid from a proposal can't vote on it.  I have mixed views here...Any owner of dash should be able to vote, but the vote will sway toward those that benefit. A more fair approach is just to bump the % to get over the hurdle of the I have enough node % to vote my proposal in.

A representative system could be worth considering, imho it'd be an ideal thing to test out the ID and trust systems on. There's likely to be a lot of proposals covering areas that few really give a damn about but someone they trust might and would let them decide on their behalf if given the option.

but I still won't be voting - especially if I care deeply about an issue.        

This is the question people have been asking since the first experiments with democracy in Athens. Nobody has ever solved the problem, so I doubt we're going to either. The best anyone can come up with is: a) civic responsibility, b) sometimes your vote really does matter.

How quickly we forget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000

Exactly. People vote when it matters to them which is why it's reasonable that the ones who ARE voting deserve to be heard over those that aren't IMO.

In the Scottish referendum on independence, people came out of the woodwork from all over the place to vote - people who had never even registered to vote before. There was such strength of feeling on both sides that nearly the entire population voted. On the other hand, in European elections - which actually do matter regarding certain areas of policy - you're lucky if 30% turnout.

The thing about Dash's voting system is that - unlike democracy - you can buy yourself votes.

Earlier today, emitkirby made this remark:


Although I think this is a reasonable view with regard to democracy, I don't really think it's reasonable with regard to governance of a commercial asset. The whole point of commercially traded assets is that you weild more influence over their governance the more you acquire. So the fact that Dash is doing justice to this principle should attract investors, not inhibit them. This principle applies universally in commerce. The fact that Steve Jobs held a huge number of shares in Pixar didn't inhibit people from investing in Pixar. Dash is a private currency - not a public one created by a central bank and backed by public debt.

Clarity is required. I don't see any other way that allowing large holders to wield more influence than small ones. In fact I think it's essential - it just gives them more responsibility thats all because the merits of their decision making (or in Dash's case, the decentralised will of the holders) will determine the propensity for others to invest.

If the governance process (however many participate) makes crap decisions then the asset will go down the tubes. If it is seen to take sensible, well thought out and generally 'safe' decisions then  the asset will grow and attract more users.

In conclusion I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference whether 1 person votes or 1000. It's not the number of votes but the quality of the decision making that's important. If only 20 people care passionately whether Dashwhale gets a blockchain sponsorship and only those 20 people vote, then thats better than 200 people voting where the other 180 don't have a particular view IMO.

However, the fact that many people can "jam their foot in the door" in a crisis over a critical issue if so required is a hugely powerful backstop against corruption.

I like Dash's governance model. Everytime I try to "think my way out of it" I keep coming back to the way it is - an uneasy but ultimately very powerful and well secured blend of capital & popular democracy. It also puts a lot of trust in the holders to make good decisions so it's an open book which makes it "alive" and appealing.

This is the question people have been asking since the first experiments with democracy in Athens. Nobody has ever solved the problem, so I doubt we're going to either. The best anyone can come up with is: a) civic responsibility, b) sometimes your vote really does matter.

How quickly we forget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000