Search results

I really don't think so. The need to justify block reward diversion before it happens is simple prudence. It avoids a whole host of problems that mandatory taxation brings, which have been detailed at length and to which you have not presented any counter-argument except, "MN ops are too stupid...

DASH is not a publicly traded company, and top management are renowned for their enormous self-awarded bonuses.

Are you for real? Here on Earth you'll find that the voting parties in government all-you-can-slurp schemes do indeed have a financial stake in the outcome. :rolleyes:

That's the point, we shouldn't necessarily be paying in full for a hundred simultaneously crap projects. We can vote to prioritise spending. $1400/day is a $4200/month salary for 10 full time devs.

Yes. You don't wander into the supermarket every day and hand them a fistful of cash just in case you might want something later. And you don't expect to ever see it back if you do. Particularly when the people who want this cash off you have repeatedly stated that under no circumstances should...

Everyone who spends money on mining hardware and mines is supporting DASH (albeit crappily via centralised pools :tongue:) and being directly rewarded, everyone who spends money on owning a Masternode is supporting DASH and being directly rewarded, every non-infrastructure investor is out for...

That's not how it works. Enough yes votes and the money is diverted from everyone, not just those who voted yes. This doesn't answer the question of why money should be siphoned off regardless of whether it's deemed needed or not. Only taking what the consensus deems needful is a simpler...

But we can't vote NO to begin with. Money gets taken anyway and we have no say about it. And because every voter knows that this 15% is going to end up spent anyway, hardly anyone is going to bother voting nay to any given project, making it very easy for the project proposers and their buddies...

Aaaghhrrr, I wanted to let this go but this contrived bullshit makes me sick. Call a fucking spade a spade. You want to slurp money off every infrastructure provider whether any of us want it or not, and whether there even exists a credible value adding project for it to be spent on or not. And...

tl;dr version of the most insightful post in this or any other thread, in case anyone skimming missed it:

This is blatant nonsense. Neither of us have said any such thing. I just think the process needs modifying to prevent waste and abuse. Or maybe it's because we care about the project and know full well how this is going to play out? I can see the $$$ signs whirring in the eyes of certain folk...

The shared MN I run has shareholders in the ratio 5:2:1:1:1 so I was going to run it as 1 (sub)vote per 10% share. As wallet holder I'll cast the vote. Hopefully there will be a method for my shareholders to verify that I have indeed voted as I should have, via some RPC call or something so...

What? Money is being diverted from miners either way, but one way means that it only gets diverted if a majority of voters wish it, the other way means it gets diverted anyway and nobody has a say in the matter.

1. They ought to be happier than, "15% is going to get spent regardless." 2. Decentralisation implies devolvememnt of responsibility. Fulfilling that responsibility needs a minute of your time now and again to cast a vote. After that the system/blockchain takes care of things. 3. No it does not...

They are not 'paying for everybody.' If 51% of MN ops think it's a good idea, block reward from all infrastructure providers gets diverted towards the project and it gets done. If not, whoever wants to spend the money will have to do more work to persuade people to support their idea. You can...

I'm with you on this, once that money is in my wallet you'd need a crowbar to pry it back out, but ticking a box in-wallet to allocate a portion of future block rewards to a a well thought out and presented proposal that I believe will increase the value of my DASH... is an entirely different...

This is your opinion. Do you have empirical evidence to back up exactly now many MNs we need, given userbase numbers and tx/IX/DS volume? I addressed this: keep a capped warchest for such necessities, the spending of which would still require consensus.

See my post immediately above. Guaranteed money still gets raised, but only as actually needed. For sensible proposals, I don't see achieving 51% being at all difficult to achieve. Especially with a well thought out and easy to use in-wallet voting system. How about we try it? Just because...

'Is it "fair" to "tax" masternodes?' isn't my argument. All currency infrastructure providers (MNs and miners alike) are losing revenue, but it's not even that that I object to. I object to siphoning off a large chunk of money for projects that have yet to even be proposed. I object to...

'wont' and 'need' are unproven and IMO unfounded assumptions there. Got anything against testing? Can Tungfa's Great Vegas Binge not wait a few weeks? I'm up for it. Since Tungfa has bagged Vegas.