Topic: The Official Mastercoin Foundation, Master Protocol & Mastercoin Thread - page 17. (Read 165310 times)

I share this opinion, in particular because there is no distinct line where (almost any) "blacklisting" should start or end, or whether it's justified or not.

Furthermore I would assume exchanges have an inceive to act in good faith, as a negative or positive outcome may have implications for their own business.

But this is still an interesting point: users would have to move tokens from an exchange to participate in a vote, which creates friction to some degree, but I don't see a quick solution for this.

It would be nice though if Omni Wallet for example, or other wallets, would provide any means to facilitate a vote by offering an option to cast a vote. This is just a guess, but given that there was basically no end user faced release of a desktop wallet since the MasterChest wallet, it's likely that most active tokens are either held in a web wallet or exchange.

As a side note some reading material about block chain based voting to learn from for the future:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1255-blockchain-voting/

Thinking more about it this is along the lines of Bitcoin address blacklisting, and my opinion there is that blacklisting "dirty" coins causes more problems than any problems that are perceived to be associated with allowing use of said coins.

What I meant was, if we were to exclude services and exchanges from voting in an automatic fashion, how would you differentiate the coins withdrawn from an exchange from the coins still in an exchange that are not in one central address.

And thinking more about it, another approach could possibly be to have an electoral bylaw where candidates must disclose any conflicts of interest they may have regarding any organization they may be affiliated with?

Not sure I understand your question..

How do you differentiate coins withdrawn by customers from an exchange from coins in an exchange in mixed addresses?

Not practical at all, BTER still holding everyone's coins after the BTC "hack".

Agreed Mish, services and exchanges are not allowed to vote with others' omnis. Good catch.


How might we enforce this? The community can audit the votes and we can rely on the honor system so much, but can we think of a way to programmatically ensure that such votes are not counted?

Edit: I suppose agoristically, one way the whole community could work against this is to remove their omnis from a centralized exchange or service to counter this. Not very practical, but voluntaristic. I also think such an action by a service would be self-defeating in terms of reputation so that's another counter. Additionally, we have good relationships with the exchanges so I don't think an operator would feel too inclined to do such a thing with their customers' funds against our will.

You will have to exclude 1MaStErt4XsYHPwfrN9TpgdURLhHTdMenH from voting, since they hold ~25K of users' coins, and so are other exchanges like BTER and Poloniex.

The blog is unfortunally currently not readable for users with AdBlock or similar browser plugins, but I forwarded this issue and it hopefully should get addressed soon.

What projects you think have larger development now? Both project really have stay in same situation really long and looks like Dex not really working like it was planned to go over year ago. Side chains will come and beat...?

5, as per the blog post, albeit information I should've repeated.

How many board seats are up for grabs? 

Has the shine been worn off all Bitcoin 2.0 tech like Counterparty and Mastercoin? Seems like development hasn't stopped on the counterparty/mastercoin projects, but that larger development for bitcoin 2.0 tech is happening elsewhere.

Oh no, my copy and paste must've deleted a character. My original post will be updated too, again, many thanks DexX

David Gilman's voting address should be:
15fH5mspYMqqRkbUvY1gVbVuiQpsEwMa9F

My sincere apologies, again, working from a phone.

This is not a valid address.

I encourage it! These people are the ones that want to represent the Omni community and token, they should be able to vote with a proportional stake that they may or may not personally have. It keeps their skins in the game.

Thanks, this leaves no questions from my side!

Maybe one last question, which might be interesting for some: are candidates allowed to or going to participate in the vote?

Anyone is allowed to vote, but seeing as the voting mechanism is determined by omnis, presumably those that have the private key to an omni-holding BTC address can vote.

Voting ends at 20th March 2015 12:00 am EST
No special omni transaction is necessary aside from any redistribution of votes that you would like to separate addresses. For example, if you intend to vote for candidate A and candidate B and have N omnis in an address, you would send a proportional amount of omnis to a second address that you would assign to candidate B, and send a BTC dust transaction from the first address to candidate A and a BTC dust transaction from the second address to candidate B.

The final omni balance in a voting address at the close of the elections is the amount of votes that will be counted towards a candidate. This means that if a voter wants to change their vote, then they would move omnis from the address they voted from to a fresh address and send a new dust transaction from the new address to the candidate they prefer.

 Did I leave anything else open for interpretation? Thank you for watching out for me Dexx. I don't believe we need an exodus transaction because a dust transaction from an omni holding address is enough of a marker for us to tally the votes. The size of the miner fee probably isn't important because I think 0-confirmation transactions is sufficient for this type of election, in the case we have voters at the voting cutoff date. But please advise as necessary.

Littleblue, in our so-called "Great Transition", mastercoins are now termed omnis to reflect the universal nature of the token and protocol. There is no practical or technical difference aside from the name change. The Mastercoin Foundation, incorporated in 2013 in Austin, TX, USA still has custody of the Exodus Fund, of which remains the devMSCs (now presumably to be referred to as devOMNIs or what you wish) and as such, this foundation, which is separate from the newly incorporated Omni Foundation in Switzerland, has responsibility for the disbursement of this fund towards whatever the board as representatives of the community deems to be in the community's and protocol's best interests. The Omni Foundation, on the other hand, is responsible for representing the sponsors of our protocol to direct software development according to the needs of said sponsors that use the Omni Protocol.

Any further clarification needed, please ask away!

Antony

Hi vokain,

those instructions are a bit short in my opinion. In particular:

- Who is eligible to vote?

- When does the vote end? 20th March 2015 12:00 AM EST

- How does one vote?

Assuming eligible voters are Mastercoin holders, and from what I read of your message, it appears holders should send dust to the above mentioned destinations. I further assume votes are going to be counted based on the Mastercoin balance when the vote ends, but it's unclear to me, if there is any relation between the amount to send (e.g. 0.00001 BTC or 0.001 BTC) and the vote weight? Or does sending "any" amount of BTC equal "vote with the weight of the whole balance I have"?

Is a standard Bitcoin transaction sufficient, or does it require a special Master/Omni transaction, or an output to the Exodus address?

.....Omnicore 0.0.9.1 reday for the launch
https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/mastercore/issues/298