Topic: [ANN][DCR] Decred - Community Governance | Bitcoin Devs | Lightning Network - page 17. (Read 1201096 times)
September 13, 2019, 04:49:55 PM
What exactly was inaccurate in what I said? I would guess most users that received the airdrop don't have a computer on 24 hours a day with a high reliability internet connection. There's a big spike up in ticket price visible on the all time chart here https://dcrstats.com/ around early 2017 followed by a slight change in slope upwards which would be my guess as to when the stake pool software was released allowing broader participation.
September 13, 2019, 04:40:32 PM
Ok. So the devs started staking the premine from that block, which was well in advance of the introduction of stake pool software, correct?
This is totally inaccurate. The stake pool software is not required to vote or stake. It's a third party service which allows users to leave their wallet offline and have a third party relay their vote for them when a ticket gets chosen. Everybody could vote and stake from the beginning, only by running an online wallet. Which was available before block 1 even existed. I know for a fact because I'm not a dev and I did it pretty easily...
September 13, 2019, 03:31:12 PM
...
I thought the devs started staking from day one, and there wasn't any stake pool software available for quite some time, and they were staking the premine, so they basically collected all staking rewards for the first six or twelve months. I didn't mean literally compound, just that the premine was 10% and they staked it, partially during a time when very few others and no one with as large a bag was, resulting in it now being significantly more than 10% of the total supply. They don't show that in the pie chart breakdown, but I think the premine effectively extends into a not insignificant portion of the staking rewards pie slice.
The POS started from a specific block. All have been notified about the block number since day 1.
This is easily verified in blockexplorer. The tickets are all registered there.
Ok. So the devs started staking the premine from that block, which was well in advance of the introduction of stake pool software, correct?
Look, I'm not trying to say Decred is a scam, please don't lump me in with gembitz. I'm just saying that a governance system that allows very large holders to push changes through maybe isn't the best way. Maybe it would take the devs, placeholder, bittrex, Poloniex, and Coinbase custody to push something thru, not just devs and placeholder, but there is some small set that exists today, whether it's two or ten entities. If Bitcoin used this system then Barry Silbert would have activated segwit2x in like thirty seconds, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Apparently the market as a whole is skeptical as well that Decred is "bitcoin upgraded" considering it's price versus BTC has dropped by over 50% in the last six months.
Again, please don't lump me in with gembitz. It's basically the worst thing you could do to someone
But if you give me free coins of course I reserve the right to come here and talk shit about them.
September 13, 2019, 02:54:53 PM
...
I thought the devs started staking from day one, and there wasn't any stake pool software available for quite some time, and they were staking the premine, so they basically collected all staking rewards for the first six or twelve months. I didn't mean literally compound, just that the premine was 10% and they staked it, partially during a time when very few others and no one with as large a bag was, resulting in it now being significantly more than 10% of the total supply. They don't show that in the pie chart breakdown, but I think the premine effectively extends into a not insignificant portion of the staking rewards pie slice.
The POS started from a specific block. All have been notified about the block number since day 1.
This is easily verified in blockexplorer. The tickets are all registered there.
September 13, 2019, 02:50:03 PM
...
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
This is misleading, imo. If there's a contentious hardfork, the losing party can modify the codebase to allow their chain to continue. They're going to hardfork anyway. There's no magic protection against people making a one off or permanent change to the rules of the system to allow their form to live.
That's my point. There's nothing that can stop a determined minority from splitting away from the main chain. But with Decred, it might be the true community majority made up of small HODLERS who delegate their votes to pools.
With Decred it could be the devs and placeholder capital forcing through any change they want, and the more Decred poor 99.999% forking off as well.
the preposterous PREMINE is held tightly by a handful of dev-insiders and bittrex exchange cartel...there is no community :-D pfft
LOL the fudders decided to make a coordinated attack.
As has been said a thousand times before, but gembitz e jwinterm ignore, the premine was distributed via airdrop to the community and the other half was not for "the developers" but for the "development fund", which is also used to pay marketing, designers, events, etc.
About the vote, you must also have more than 60% of your total votes for your proposal to be validated.
You may have the most votes "yes", but if many of the other people clicked "no" on your proposal, you will need more votes to reach 60% of the total (yes+no).
As has been said a thousand times before, but gembitz e jwinterm ignore, the premine was distributed via airdrop to the community and the other half was not for "the developers" but for the "development fund", which is also used to pay marketing, designers, events, etc.
About the vote, you must also have more than 60% of your total votes for your proposal to be validated.
You may have the most votes "yes", but if many of the other people clicked "no" on your proposal, you will need more votes to reach 60% of the total (yes+no).
you cannot perpetuate this premine fraud (see fake airdrop) without being noticed by officials from the S.E.C.
===>" dev fund" = lambos, hookers & cocaine!!>_>sure hope they take action whoop ass to put an end to your shenanigans
~ fuck off chump !! September 13, 2019, 02:49:12 PM
LOL the fudders decided to make a coordinated attack.
As has been said a thousand times before, but gembitz e jwinterm ignore, the premine was distributed via airdrop to the community and the other half was not for "the developers" but for the "development fund", which is also used to pay marketing, designers, events, etc.
About the vote, you must also have more than 60% of your total votes for your proposal to be validated.
You may have the most votes "yes", but if many of the other people clicked "no" on your proposal, you will need more votes to reach 60% of the total (yes+no).
As has been said a thousand times before, but gembitz e jwinterm ignore, the premine was distributed via airdrop to the community and the other half was not for "the developers" but for the "development fund", which is also used to pay marketing, designers, events, etc.
About the vote, you must also have more than 60% of your total votes for your proposal to be validated.
You may have the most votes "yes", but if many of the other people clicked "no" on your proposal, you will need more votes to reach 60% of the total (yes+no).
September 13, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
I don't know about bittrex, but with the premine compounded by staking and from what I understand placeholder made a very large investment (now compounded by staking), I'd guess they would be close to being able to push votes through. I'm not saying the system is broken, I'm just not sure this is the best way to do governance on chain (if there is a best way).
That's not how it works... you can't compound by staking with Decred because only 30% goes to POS, (60% goes to POW) So everyone who had tickets since launch, today has less tickets. Unless they are continuously investing new money (either buying more Decred on the market, or running a sizeable mining operation). Personally, I'm down to ~13% of my initial stake.
It is by design and big investors face the same issue.
I thought the devs started staking from day one, and there wasn't any stake pool software available for quite some time, and they were staking the premine, so they basically collected all staking rewards for the first six or twelve months. I didn't mean literally compound, just that the premine was 10% and they staked it, partially during a time when very few others and no one with as large a bag was, resulting in it now being significantly more than 10% of the total supply. They don't show that in the pie chart breakdown, but I think the premine effectively extends into a not insignificant portion of the staking rewards pie slice.
September 13, 2019, 02:13:37 PM
I don't know about bittrex, but with the premine compounded by staking and from what I understand placeholder made a very large investment (now compounded by staking), I'd guess they would be close to being able to push votes through. I'm not saying the system is broken, I'm just not sure this is the best way to do governance on chain (if there is a best way).
That's not how it works... you can't compound by staking with Decred because only 30% goes to POS, (60% goes to POW) So everyone who had tickets since launch, today has less tickets. Unless they are continuously investing new money (either buying more Decred on the market, or running a sizeable mining operation). Personally, I'm down to ~13% of my initial stake.
It is by design and big investors face the same issue.
September 13, 2019, 01:17:21 PM
I don't know about bittrex, but with the premine compounded by staking and from what I understand placeholder made a very large investment (now compounded by staking), I'd guess they would be close to being able to push votes through. I'm not saying the system is broken, I'm just not sure this is the best way to do governance on chain (if there is a best way).
September 13, 2019, 11:55:50 AM
No, the hardfork voting system is fully automatic and without human interference.
The devs are working to all be done automatically in Decred soon
The devs are working to all be done automatically in Decred soon
aka "SKYNET" *the very moment it's done automatically the real serious hacking begins!!weeeeeeee
===> #EXPECT_BITCOINERZZZ #OCCUPY_CRYPTO
...
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
This is misleading, imo. If there's a contentious hardfork, the losing party can modify the codebase to allow their chain to continue. They're going to hardfork anyway. There's no magic protection against people making a one off or permanent change to the rules of the system to allow their form to live.
That's my point. There's nothing that can stop a determined minority from splitting away from the main chain. But with Decred, it might be the true community majority made up of small HODLERS who delegate their votes to pools.
With Decred it could be the devs and placeholder capital forcing through any change they want, and the more Decred poor 99.999% forking off as well.
the premine is held tightly by a handful of dev-insiders and bittrex exchange cartel...there is no community :-D pfft
September 13, 2019, 04:58:32 AM
...
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
This is misleading, imo. If there's a contentious hardfork, the losing party can modify the codebase to allow their chain to continue. They're going to hardfork anyway. There's no magic protection against people making a one off or permanent change to the rules of the system to allow their form to live.
That's my point. There's nothing that can stop a determined minority from splitting away from the main chain. But with Decred, it might be the true community majority made up of small HODLERS who delegate their votes to pools.
With Decred it could be the devs and placeholder capital forcing through any change they want, and the more Decred poor 99.999% forking off as well.
September 13, 2019, 01:27:09 AM
...
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
This is misleading, imo. If there's a contentious hardfork, the losing party can modify the codebase to allow their chain to continue. They're going to hardfork anyway. There's no magic protection against people making a one off or permanent change to the rules of the system to allow their form to live.
That's my point. There's nothing that can stop a determined minority from splitting away from the main chain. But with Decred, it might be the true community majority made up of small HODLERS who delegate their votes to pools.
September 12, 2019, 04:59:20 PM
Nothing will be released without being 100% secure.
ETH DAO served to show some flaws
For now it still takes some people to push some buttons
ETH DAO served to show some flaws
For now it still takes some people to push some buttons
September 12, 2019, 01:34:51 PM
No, the hardfork voting system is fully automatic and without human interference.
The devs are working to all be done automatically in Decred soon
The devs are working to all be done automatically in Decred soon
September 12, 2019, 11:23:49 AM
A question about blockchain governance. My friend debates that Decred suffers from "tyranny by the majority". When the majority decides to approve a design-decision, it marginalizes the minority that doesn't want it.
Wouldn't that put Decred at risk of what blockchain governance was supposed to prevent, a hard fork by the minority?
Wouldn't that put Decred at risk of what blockchain governance was supposed to prevent, a hard fork by the minority?
At Decred, who has most skin in the game has the most voting power and not necessarily the majority.
And this is very good in a company or entity, as we know that most people are dumb while those who have the most to lose will think hard about decisions.
That's part of my point. If Decred was like Bitcoin, it would then be possible for a scenario which the richest merchants, miners/NYA, which was the minority, "won", and got their 2X fork.
Quote
In any case, Decred's hybrid mining system, where POS confirms the POW blocks, was designed to make a hardfork like ETH and bitcoin impossible without community consensus.
If POW miners attempt a hardfork without consensus, ticket owners will decline and it will not happen and vice versa.
A hardfork in decred only happens if there is consensus between POW miners and ticket owners (POS).
https://blog.decred.org/2018/10/15/Politeia-in-Production/
I'm asking about a contentious hard fork, that deliberately splits the chain.
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
devs control EVERYTHING right?
~not centralized at all? hmm 
Lol!! September 12, 2019, 09:26:18 AM
...
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
This is misleading, imo. If there's a contentious hardfork, the losing party can modify the codebase to allow their chain to continue. They're going to hardfork anyway. There's no magic protection against people making a one off or permanent change to the rules of the system to allow their form to live.
September 12, 2019, 08:51:18 AM
A question about blockchain governance. My friend debates that Decred suffers from "tyranny by the majority". When the majority decides to approve a design-decision, it marginalizes the minority that doesn't want it.
Wouldn't that put Decred at risk of what blockchain governance was supposed to prevent, a hard fork by the minority?
Wouldn't that put Decred at risk of what blockchain governance was supposed to prevent, a hard fork by the minority?
At Decred, who has most skin in the game has the most voting power and not necessarily the majority.
And this is very good in a company or entity, as we know that most people are dumb while those who have the most to lose will think hard about decisions.
That's part of my point. If Decred was like Bitcoin, it would then be possible for a scenario which the richest merchants, miners/NYA, which was the minority, "won", and got their 2X fork.
Quote
In any case, Decred's hybrid mining system, where POS confirms the POW blocks, was designed to make a hardfork like ETH and bitcoin impossible without community consensus.
If POW miners attempt a hardfork without consensus, ticket owners will decline and it will not happen and vice versa.
A hardfork in decred only happens if there is consensus between POW miners and ticket owners (POS).
https://blog.decred.org/2018/10/15/Politeia-in-Production/
I'm asking about a contentious hard fork, that deliberately splits the chain.
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
This is why decred's governance is immensely ahead of other cryptos. Shit's not condoned here. And this is the main advantage of Decred over severely manipulated coins such as ETH, BTS and now BEOS and other DPOS coins. And when u take a closer look at the top 30 in the CMC, it buffles me so much that nobody has yet realized the potential benefits Decred has that can be used to refactor and enhance crypto economy.
September 12, 2019, 06:49:01 AM
A question about blockchain governance. My friend debates that Decred suffers from "tyranny by the majority". When the majority decides to approve a design-decision, it marginalizes the minority that doesn't want it.
Wouldn't that put Decred at risk of what blockchain governance was supposed to prevent, a hard fork by the minority?
Wouldn't that put Decred at risk of what blockchain governance was supposed to prevent, a hard fork by the minority?
At Decred, who has most skin in the game has the most voting power and not necessarily the majority.
And this is very good in a company or entity, as we know that most people are dumb while those who have the most to lose will think hard about decisions.
That's part of my point. If Decred was like Bitcoin, it would then be possible for a scenario which the richest merchants, miners/NYA, which was the minority, "won", and got their 2X fork.
Quote
In any case, Decred's hybrid mining system, where POS confirms the POW blocks, was designed to make a hardfork like ETH and bitcoin impossible without community consensus.
If POW miners attempt a hardfork without consensus, ticket owners will decline and it will not happen and vice versa.
A hardfork in decred only happens if there is consensus between POW miners and ticket owners (POS).
https://blog.decred.org/2018/10/15/Politeia-in-Production/
I'm asking about a contentious hard fork, that deliberately splits the chain.
In case of a hard fork voting, the decred code does not allow the existence of 2 blockchains. The "defeated" blockchain "dies".
Hard fork happens automatically and takes everyone in the same direction.
It is impossible for a group to continue on the old blockchain and keep it alive.
It's impossible to happen at Decred what happened to ETH and BTC.
The devs took great care in developing this.
It is one of the main differentials of decred.
September 12, 2019, 06:21:56 AM
Hahaha. I already added him in my ignore list. But why is he so resolute on trolling Decred of all cryptocurrencies? Is there a historical lesson I should learn about this person?
He is trolling around since he missed to register his airdrop - just put him on ignore. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18421713
i registered and was "accepted" ..now wheres my fucking coins? :\ (((we never forget >>>we never forgive)))
YOU didn't submit an address for them to send the DCR! No shit you didn't get coins.
Go derp around elsewhere, you don't even legs to stand on here
yes i got the acceptance email and everything..
then these turkeys tried to dox me!! whereas everyone in crypto knows me already~we had a coin on bittrex BEFORE DCR was ever listed!!!
through this process i've found others who have been DEFRAUDED by this decred / bittrex cartel, so it's not a isolated incident.
Have fun waiting for the S.E.C. to shut you down for good. ...pit of snakes you are.
I have included your name in the book of glory, a famous scripture lying on a pedestal of grace in the hall of nobility. I have always known that u be a prolific male. Now is your turn to prove that to me. Go to the cabin where I keep your bovine wife and beget a young pedigree of sons and daughters of fuck. Dalliance with an oxen is a paradigmatic experience that is to take u to a new level of being, open your eyelids and let the lights of adams garden to impregnate your eyes.
September 12, 2019, 01:50:15 AM
A question about blockchain governance. My friend debates that Decred suffers from "tyranny by the majority". When the majority decides to approve a design-decision, it marginalizes the minority that doesn't want it.
Wouldn't that put Decred at risk of what blockchain governance was supposed to prevent, a hard fork by the minority?
Wouldn't that put Decred at risk of what blockchain governance was supposed to prevent, a hard fork by the minority?
At Decred, who has most skin in the game has the most voting power and not necessarily the majority.
And this is very good in a company or entity, as we know that most people are dumb while those who have the most to lose will think hard about decisions.
That's part of my point. If Decred was like Bitcoin, it would then be possible for a scenario which the richest merchants, miners/NYA, which was the minority, "won", and got their 2X fork.
Quote
In any case, Decred's hybrid mining system, where POS confirms the POW blocks, was designed to make a hardfork like ETH and bitcoin impossible without community consensus.
If POW miners attempt a hardfork without consensus, ticket owners will decline and it will not happen and vice versa.
A hardfork in decred only happens if there is consensus between POW miners and ticket owners (POS).
https://blog.decred.org/2018/10/15/Politeia-in-Production/
I'm asking about a contentious hard fork, that deliberately splits the chain.
Jump to: