https://dashtalk.org/threads/vote-self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4825/
Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 2208. (Read 9723926 times)
May 08, 2015, 04:08:50 AM
May 08, 2015, 03:40:23 AM
guys if i abstain from voting does it count as a no?
I believe so....
Asked, and the boss answered:
....
Let me get this straight.
51% Yea is required to pass.
However, 1872 Abstain? That means no pass.
Or, are we saying 1872 have yet to vote because vote starts with default set to abstain?
Or, are we saying 51% yea votes vs. nay votes, ignoring abstainers?
Sorry, only got one brain cell, and its thinking about the one thing it likes to think about most.
The vote requires 51% of the total masternodes to go through. Abstain is the default, so it means those nodes have not voted.
May 08, 2015, 02:53:14 AM
May 08, 2015, 01:32:35 AM
After the two weeks of voting period has ended history will look at the votes as follows :
% voted for YEA
% voted for NEA
% ABSTAIN --> not interested at voting
I would urge everyone that owns a masternode to take the time and actually put a vote out
which will directly influence the % for NEA and YEA votes.
Read more about the voting proposal here :
https://dashtalk.org/threads/vote-self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4825/page-3#post-53577
% voted for YEA
% voted for NEA
% ABSTAIN --> not interested at voting
I would urge everyone that owns a masternode to take the time and actually put a vote out
which will directly influence the % for NEA and YEA votes.
Read more about the voting proposal here :
https://dashtalk.org/threads/vote-self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4825/page-3#post-53577
May 08, 2015, 12:44:04 AM
cheers guys, im really not keen on this wallet holding funds, so prob will abstain from this one, alot of problems could arise. Also does this mean when evans 2 yr period with dash ends we might have to pay him for doing work on the coin? or has evan added more time to the project?
May 08, 2015, 12:32:47 AM
guys if i abstain from voting does it count as a no?
I believe so....
May 08, 2015, 12:14:27 AM
guys if i abstain from voting does it count as a no?
Well as I understood, as we need 51% (of total MN) of Yes, abstain is like a no in fact... May 08, 2015, 12:08:07 AM
guys if i abstain from voting does it count as a no?
May 07, 2015, 11:45:18 PM
My 2 Main concerns. A mandatory 10% tax will eventually turn into pork barrel projects along with an incentive for those getting the funding to increase that tax.
Your post is pretty misleading. One -- calling it a "tax" is VERY debatable and two -- it will not be 10% until 4/2016. We are starting out at a measly 1.25%. If you are right and this does turn out to be wasteful then there is plenty of time to change things before it is a big problem. As Evan says, there is nothing set in stone. If something doesn't work as intended then it will be fixed. That has been the mantra of this project since day 1 and the main reason why I still support the devs. They are always improving.
A central escrow/wallet for projects will cause problems with theft/loss/confiscation/tax.
Multisig in general is VERY secure and is proven in Bitcoin. Thus the temp implementation of having 7~10/15 multisig will not suffer from this problem. As for future implementations... well we have testnet. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill on this theft/loss issue.
May 07, 2015, 11:26:55 PM
-snip-
This is the decentralized vision that I see.
Each project owner controls his/her own wallet with the funds. Each project is directly paid similar to masternodes getting payments over time from block rewards, only the project owner receives and controls the funds. Quick, simple, no 'central fund' at risk, no fund manager/s. Each project would get paid their specific % of the block rewards they request so there isn't any funds sitting in a queue waiting accumulate before they can be sent out each month. The funding mechanism would also be the voting mechanism. 51% yes votes gets a project in the queue, and highest yes% gets priority until the 10% cap is reached. Projects get voted in every 3 months and each project has a set limit for 3 months of block rewards.
unless i'm missing something this seems like a much better/easier way to at least start this new system. the new/latest proposal seems very complicated but is probably the best for a long term plan as it allows more precision but at the cost of (temporary?) centralization.This is the decentralized vision that I see.
Each project owner controls his/her own wallet with the funds. Each project is directly paid similar to masternodes getting payments over time from block rewards, only the project owner receives and controls the funds. Quick, simple, no 'central fund' at risk, no fund manager/s. Each project would get paid their specific % of the block rewards they request so there isn't any funds sitting in a queue waiting accumulate before they can be sent out each month. The funding mechanism would also be the voting mechanism. 51% yes votes gets a project in the queue, and highest yes% gets priority until the 10% cap is reached. Projects get voted in every 3 months and each project has a set limit for 3 months of block rewards.
i guess the main complaint about evans original plan was that a project could be over funded. i see that as a small sacrifice to preserve a more decentralized system. seems like the dev could just return extra funds to a advertising wallet or something like that. if they did not they would be cut off.
it's all pretty complicated so i could be wrong.
Switching to the voting system today....This masternode voting system is bulletproof. I moved a masternode to a different IP address to see if it was possible to manipulate extra votes. It turns out as soon as the old node stops, that vote gets deleted. Even trying to use the same masternode key on 2 nodes didn't fool it. I am totally impressed!
The system is designed to be highly resistant to waste. I think once we get something on testnet and show how it will work and how these issues have been resolved, people will realize it should work pretty efficiently. The starting version is going to have a very low amount of money to be used, so the priorities of that money are going to be on things that are more urgent in nature. After a few iterations we should have something humming along, that has very few downsides and can react pretty quickly to waste and eliminate it.
As for your concerns with theft/loss/confiscation/tax, the way we'd implement multi-sig is highly secure and not subject to theft or loss. I think we can also work around possible confiscation/tax issues (which we could discuss later if we end up doing it). However, I think I've come up with a solution that gives the best of both worlds, exact payments directly from the blockchain. You know the mantra around here, nothing is ever written in stone. I'll write something up tomorrow.
Nice! Looking forward to reading more.
May 07, 2015, 11:18:59 PM
-snip-
This is the decentralized vision that I see.
Each project owner controls his/her own wallet with the funds. Each project is directly paid similar to masternodes getting payments over time from block rewards, only the project owner receives and controls the funds. Quick, simple, no 'central fund' at risk, no fund manager/s. Each project would get paid their specific % of the block rewards they request so there isn't any funds sitting in a queue waiting accumulate before they can be sent out each month. The funding mechanism would also be the voting mechanism. 51% yes votes gets a project in the queue, and highest yes% gets priority until the 10% cap is reached. Projects get voted in every 3 months and each project has a set limit for 3 months of block rewards.
unless i'm missing something this seems like a much better/easier way to at least start this new system. the new/latest proposal seems very complicated but is probably the best for a long term plan as it allows more precision but at the cost of (temporary?) centralization.This is the decentralized vision that I see.
Each project owner controls his/her own wallet with the funds. Each project is directly paid similar to masternodes getting payments over time from block rewards, only the project owner receives and controls the funds. Quick, simple, no 'central fund' at risk, no fund manager/s. Each project would get paid their specific % of the block rewards they request so there isn't any funds sitting in a queue waiting accumulate before they can be sent out each month. The funding mechanism would also be the voting mechanism. 51% yes votes gets a project in the queue, and highest yes% gets priority until the 10% cap is reached. Projects get voted in every 3 months and each project has a set limit for 3 months of block rewards.
i guess the main complaint about evans original plan was that a project could be over funded. i see that as a small sacrifice to preserve a more decentralized system. seems like the dev could just return extra funds to a advertising wallet or something like that. if they did not they would be cut off.
it's all pretty complicated so i could be wrong.
Switching to the voting system today....This masternode voting system is bulletproof. I moved a masternode to a different IP address to see if it was possible to manipulate extra votes. It turns out as soon as the old node stops, that vote gets deleted. Even trying to use the same masternode key on 2 nodes didn't fool it. I am totally impressed!
The system is designed to be highly resistant to waste. I think once we get something on testnet and show how it will work and how these issues have been resolved, people will realize it should work pretty efficiently. The starting version is going to have a very low amount of money to be used, so the priorities of that money are going to be on things that are more urgent in nature. After a few iterations we should have something humming along, that has very few downsides and can react pretty quickly to waste and eliminate it.
As for your concerns with theft/loss/confiscation/tax, the way we'd implement multi-sig is highly secure and not subject to theft or loss. I think we can also work around possible confiscation/tax issues (which we could discuss later if we end up doing it). However, I think I've come up with a solution that gives the best of both worlds, exact payments directly from the blockchain. You know the mantra around here, nothing is ever written in stone. I'll write something up tomorrow.
May 07, 2015, 10:24:09 PM
Hi community. I know it s too late but i am in 
It's never too late... 
Welcome on board.
May 07, 2015, 10:22:07 PM
Hi community. I know it s too late but i am in
May 07, 2015, 09:51:07 PM
I just downloaded windows zip file of the .23 wallet from Dashpay.io, or what I thought was Dashpay.io anyway, and when I run the dash-qt.exe in the 64 bit folder I get a message that says "Windows protected your PC." "Windows SmartScreen prevented an unrecognized app from starting. Running this app may put your PC at risk." When I click "more info" it says the publisher is unknown. I'm using windows 8.1 64-bit and have always used the 64-bit version of the wallet with no issues. My unzipped wallet is 28,113 KB, is that the same as some of you guys?
Download a tool which can create MD5 or SHA-256 hashes for files, like http://code.kliu.org/hashcheck/ or something similar.
Create the hash (it's saved in a new file) and check against the ones provided here: https://www.dashpay.io/downloads/
If they are identical, you're fine.
If not, DON'T RUN/EXECUTE THAT FILE.
Delete it, someone has changed it.
Just saw the post for video tutorials, thanks!
So cool, I finally know how to do that, and I feel infinity more secure down loadng!
May 07, 2015, 09:30:01 PM
-snip-
This is the decentralized vision that I see.
Each project owner controls his/her own wallet with the funds. Each project is directly paid similar to masternodes getting payments over time from block rewards, only the project owner receives and controls the funds. Quick, simple, no 'central fund' at risk, no fund manager/s. Each project would get paid their specific % of the block rewards they request so there isn't any funds sitting in a queue waiting accumulate before they can be sent out each month. The funding mechanism would also be the voting mechanism. 51% yes votes gets a project in the queue, and highest yes% gets priority until the 10% cap is reached. Projects get voted in every 3 months and each project has a set limit for 3 months of block rewards.
unless i'm missing something this seems like a much better/easier way to at least start this new system. the new/latest proposal seems very complicated but is probably the best for a long term plan as it allows more precision but at the cost of (temporary?) centralization.This is the decentralized vision that I see.
Each project owner controls his/her own wallet with the funds. Each project is directly paid similar to masternodes getting payments over time from block rewards, only the project owner receives and controls the funds. Quick, simple, no 'central fund' at risk, no fund manager/s. Each project would get paid their specific % of the block rewards they request so there isn't any funds sitting in a queue waiting accumulate before they can be sent out each month. The funding mechanism would also be the voting mechanism. 51% yes votes gets a project in the queue, and highest yes% gets priority until the 10% cap is reached. Projects get voted in every 3 months and each project has a set limit for 3 months of block rewards.
i guess the main complaint about evans original plan was that a project could be over funded. i see that as a small sacrifice to preserve a more decentralized system. seems like the dev could just return extra funds to a advertising wallet or something like that. if they did not they would be cut off.
it's all pretty complicated so i could be wrong.
Switching to the voting system today....This masternode voting system is bulletproof. I moved a masternode to a different IP address to see if it was possible to manipulate extra votes. It turns out as soon as the old node stops, that vote gets deleted. Even trying to use the same masternode key on 2 nodes didn't fool it. I am totally impressed!
May 07, 2015, 08:59:04 PM
It looks like kadrek is checking the hash of a "dash*****.zip.md5" file, not the actual "dash*****.zip"
YES! Ugh haha, I thought I had to check the properties of the .md5 file, I didn't know I had to double click it. I wonder why I'm getting a warning now, maybe something to do with windows updates. Thanks May 07, 2015, 08:50:48 PM
It looks like kadrek is checking the hash of a "dash*****.zip.md5" file, not the actual "dash*****.zip"
May 07, 2015, 08:14:06 PM
I just downloaded windows zip file of the .23 wallet from Dashpay.io, or what I thought was Dashpay.io anyway, and when I run the dash-qt.exe in the 64 bit folder I get a message that says "Windows protected your PC." "Windows SmartScreen prevented an unrecognized app from starting. Running this app may put your PC at risk." When I click "more info" it says the publisher is unknown. I'm using windows 8.1 64-bit and have always used the 64-bit version of the wallet with no issues. My unzipped wallet is 28,113 KB, is that the same as some of you guys?
Download a tool which can create MD5 or SHA-256 hashes for files, like http://code.kliu.org/hashcheck/ or something similar.
Create the hash (it's saved in a new file) and check against the ones provided here: https://www.dashpay.io/downloads/
If they are identical, you're fine.
If not, DON'T RUN/EXECUTE THAT FILE.
Delete it, someone has changed it.
Hmmm. I deleted that one and downloaded it from dashpay.io again and created the hash. I was just supposed to right click on the zip file and clicking create checksum file right? This is what I got
It looks OK to me
>> cat dash-0.11.2.23-win.zip.DIGESTS.txt
# MD5 hash
04c2f0405d258416c161467a01c6ab4c dash-0.11.2.23-win.zip
# SHA-256 hash
f3d7128eb8106b715daa7931f5de66e6d19cee179d5f2494542a3297fcaaad28 dash-0.11.2.23-win.zip
--
>> sha256sum dash-0.11.2.23-win.zip
f3d7128eb8106b715daa7931f5de66e6d19cee179d5f2494542a3297fcaaad28 dash-0.11.2.23-win.zip
>> md5sum dash-0.11.2.23-win.zip
04c2f0405d258416c161467a01c6ab4c dash-0.11.2.23-win.zip
I definitely wouldn't run the files inside if they don't match...
May 07, 2015, 08:10:02 PM
I just downloaded windows zip file of the .23 wallet from Dashpay.io, or what I thought was Dashpay.io anyway, and when I run the dash-qt.exe in the 64 bit folder I get a message that says "Windows protected your PC." "Windows SmartScreen prevented an unrecognized app from starting. Running this app may put your PC at risk." When I click "more info" it says the publisher is unknown. I'm using windows 8.1 64-bit and have always used the 64-bit version of the wallet with no issues. My unzipped wallet is 28,113 KB, is that the same as some of you guys?
Download a tool which can create MD5 or SHA-256 hashes for files, like http://code.kliu.org/hashcheck/ or something similar.
Create the hash (it's saved in a new file) and check against the ones provided here: https://www.dashpay.io/downloads/
If they are identical, you're fine.
If not, DON'T RUN/EXECUTE THAT FILE.
Delete it, someone has changed it.
Hmmm. I deleted that one and downloaded it from dashpay.io again and created the hash. I was just supposed to right click on the zip file and clicking create checksum file right? This is what I got
May 07, 2015, 06:57:39 PM
....
All credit to Buster and team
All credit to Buster and team
Monster Props to all!
+1
Thanks.
Jump to: