Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 827. (Read 9723733 times)

Yep, it probably can be worded out in a better way, so the way it works is actually "at least 10% more of masternodes have to vote yes than no" or smth like that. And yes, ABSTAIN option is implemented in 12.1 https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/governance-vote.h#L22

Everyone Has a Say !

The good thing about Dash is that all stakeholders have a say, and each stakeholder group's influence is focused by a different mechanism.

All are needed for it to be successful so there are balancing forces. No-one can pursue their own interests at the expense of another stakeholder group without simultaneously screwing themselves.

Well, that's certainly much better, but the official Dash wiki says "If that proposal is approved by at least 10% of the masternode network, then at the end of the month a series of "superblocks" will be created. At that time, the block rewards that were not paid out (10% of each block) will be used to fund approved proposals. The network thus funds itself by reserving 10% of the block reward for budget projects."  https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=84672534

Assuming that you're right and the wiki is wrong, well, that certainly alleviates most of my concern, although I have to wonder what threshold have to vote for it to be approved.  I.e, what constitutes a quorum of voters -- how many masternodes have to participate in the voting, for a valid vote to be held?  And are votes carried over to the next month if they aren't decided?

For that matter, there should be 3 options for voters -- YES, NO, and ABSTAIN -- where ABSTAIN voluntarily removes that voter from being counted YES or NO, and thereby reduces the number of votes necessary for a quorum (however defined).  In this way, voters can express either a "don't care" opinion (thus voluntarily giving others the power to choose) or a "recusing myself from a conflict of interest" vote.

I won't comment on the whole post, but you are mistaken about the meaning of the 10% threshold for approving proposals. It is not realistic for Evan & the rest of the Core team to past a self-serving proposal against the wishes of the rest of the community since the formula for approval is YES VOTES - NO VOTES > 10%. In other words, so long as Evan and Core own less than 54.9% of the MNs (since 54.9% - 45.1% = 9.8%) they can't do anything like you describe above.  And no, there is zero evidence that they own even 1000MNs much less than the approx 2400 nodes you would need for that attack.

The current system may indeed have yet undiscovered flaws, but a small group of people with a lot of MNs overriding the wishes of the entire community is not one of them.

Ok, so, I've been gone for a couple of years.  I'm back and.... well, I like some of what I see, I don't like some of what I see.

I like the rebranding (I had to upgrade to a Dash wallet.... I was on Darkcoin when I left.... a couple hundred DRK in it).  I've been following the price of DRK/DASH on Coinmarketcap, and this time with the pump to over .02, I decided to cash out, since there seems to be a regular "wash, rinse and repeat" cycle going on, and I've regretted not jumping in on past >.02 situations and getting my initial BTC investment back.  As of now, I have divested myself of all but a handful of Dash, and I hope to buy back in at around .012.

I like the major GUI upgrades.  It looks much prettier now.  I like Masternodes.  I like the idea of self-governance and having a budget.  I like the way the development is happening in general.  I don't think that 10% of Masternodes is nearly enough to commit funds --unless all "members of the board" / "employees" / devs / power-brokers recuse themselves from voting in every case where there is any possible conflict of interest.  Otherwise the "vote" is a complete sham.  Why even pretend to be democratic when only 10% of an already-elite group can make all the decisions?  You might as well just be Bitcoin.  If a higher percentage (at least 50% of masternodes) isn't required, then, Evan, et al (not sure who the other higher-ups all are -- but certainly anyone who is paid any kind of a salary out of the proceeds of the "development fund") need to publish their Masternodes and not vote -- let "outsiders" vote according to the merits of the proposals.

I see this as being like the ideological battle between communism and capitalism.  Bitcoin is, in a way, communist; 100% of the rewards go to the laborers (miners) (never mind that owning a decent mining setup nowadays requires a ton of real-world capital).  I like the fact that Dark/Dash has come up with a way for people to also earn rewards for simply owning enough capital.  I also like that the incentives are aligned; Masternode owners have to lock up their funds, so they can't trade in and out -- they've got to be long-term hodlers, and as more Masternodes are brought online, more Dash are locked up and out of the reach of the traders, thereby lowering supply and hopefully driving the price upward -- which rewards Masternode owners, miners, and small-time hodlers alike.  It's win-win-win.

But it's not win-win-win when somebody can propose something that exclusively enriches a certain few people, and those certain few people have enough power to make that proposal effective.  This is an effective kleptocracy, and I don't think that anybody really wants to be associated with that.  Yes, we all want to make money, but a system that basically ensures that the rich get richer is pretty sleazy IMO.  The Masternodes already do enough in that regard.  And Masternode owners are supposedly in this for the long-haul.  At current prices, a Masternode is over $20,000 -- that's a pretty hefty amount.  Masternode owners are keeping that money invested in order to earn a return -- paid in Dash.  Those Dash will be worthless if people decide to abandon the currency due to concerns about propriety among the whales / owners / developers (because they are largely the same people).  Think long-term.  The best possible proposals, for the long-term success of Dash, would be:

A) Change the voting requirement to 50% of MN owners;
B) Change the voting requirement to include some percentage of miners;
C) Dedicate some portion of the "10% funds" to trading accounts on major exchanges which is run exclusively to manipulate the price of Dash upwards.

That's my piece.  I may follow this thread a bit more, but I don't have the kind of time that I used to have for this kind of stuff anymore.  I do appreciate the further development of Dash, but I fear this self-serving "governance" is leading us all down a blind alley.

they get emotional when there is a price rise or fall.. they act out on their emotions and can't / don't think rationally

The trolling is slowing down now as the price stabilizes, funny how that always seems to happen.

In the bull period,  a sharp upward trend is  two~four weeks. And modification is 50%  comparing the top in the bull time.
Comparing to BTC, Dash speculator should hold about 2~4 week, bull time.  If Btc go to the moon, Dash go down to half.

(add)
Only BTC and DASH are pumpping state now.
So collect btc or dash during pumpping.

ref)newbium.com
For past data link https://twitter.com/gusterfafa/status/834344155908169728

They must be a cancer on the crypto world.

We should see about getting them eradicated.

BTW, since I have icy on ignore, I assume he was in full agreement as to the scam that is that M-coin.

Their gui wallet doesn't even function properly xD
Funds go missing, transactions lost
Zero usability.. and their lead dev is usually found on the poloniex trollbox talking smack about random things..
Does not bode well for them

uh oh

Does this mean this Moanero coin is a ponzi? A scam?

Is it being actively developed?

I thought they were going to have a gui a year ago.

Huh. I wonder what happened. I wonder where all of their efforts have gone...

Those two things all sound like things that are just inherent cons that will come with a true form of digital cash.

Either way, going long on Dash for the time being. I think we can break back into the .022BTC zone.

High inflation, combined with a blockchain that can't be inspected or verified, failure to integrate with other systems. bubble popped. Not looking good for Monero.

Dash just getting started

Thanks, it is something to keep in mind .. specially for those of us busy with planning the march 2017 dev-team budget proposals  
(yes, i'm looking at you Ryan....  )

i think it is march 4th

That's the point

Despite the price per coin, the inflation rate is way higher.
And altcoins mkt are not very prone to inlfation rate.

There are 2x Moanero than dash - 85% or something close of the total value will be mined by this year (and it's still better than the 50% in the 1st year or so).
Something quite common in ponzi schemes.

It's funny given the instamine meme they have - 10% mined in 2 days, indeed, for a mistake in the algo (and some % since then) VS 80% mined on PURPOSE in 20 moths... and nothing then

Also Dash is about to get the annual -7.1% cut on blockrewards
Anyone know when that is scheduled again ?

Dash = 2246
Monero = 6213 *


* doesn't include any secret coins, that no one knows about, because the block explorer doesn't show the output values... 

No idea about Monero, but DASH should be roughly around 2000 a day?

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/#@inflation

i'm thinking not a whole lot versus a whole lot .. am i close ?