02 Decentralised Decision Making: What Are Dash's Core Values?

[DeepBlue]

This post is Part 2 of Dash Decentralised Decision Making Strategy: What Are Dash's Core Values?

The purpose of this post is to identify, define and agree upon DASH's core values as a cryptocurrency.

We should consider the values from different perspectives. The values need to be defined for the technology, the community and how we conduct business as a cryptocurrency.

Once decided and agreed on, all decisions we make as a project going forward should be in-line with Dash's Core Values if we are to retain integrity as a reliable money.

One of the most important factors in sound decision making is to ensure that we make our decisions in line with DASH's core values. Making decisions based on our core values ensures that the DASH project retains its integrity. Identifying our core values help MNOs and proposal owners make consistent decisions that are in line with what we believe to be important as a project. These values should never be compromised but should be reviewed periodically to ensure they are still relevant.

The core values are not only applicable for decisions involved in development of the software and infrastructure of the network, but they are also applicable to how community members come to governance decisions.

I see DASH's core values as follows:
1. DASH must be non corruptible (both now and for the future),
2. Radical transparency (in code and investment),
3. Decentralisation (not possible to exploit Dash by minority group of individuals),
4. Efficiency (both Investment and Coding efficiency)
5. Trustlessness (quality decisions can be made without the need to trust any one individual or group.
6. Payment solution - make tech usable by anyone.
7. Integrity
8. An innovative leader in the cryptocurrency space.

Other values I see as important in a decentralise environment are maintaining a healthy and collaborative spirit to the project.

Healthy collaboration is crucially important in a decentralised organisation because the very fabric of the project is held together by positive relationships in collaboration.

I have seen on occasions behaviours by contributors that have not been in line with DASH core values. This has invariable led to harm and sometimes destabilisation of the DASH project.

Core values are one of our most valuable marketing assets and message
DASH core values not only help keep us on track with making the right decisions but they form a basis on how external entities and potential customers perceive us. People buy into and align with projects who's core values match their own. When conducting interviews or when undertaking marketing our core values need to be advertised so that people understand what Dash is about.

It is important we discuss and agree upon what are DASH core values and from now on refer to these core values when decisions are being made on behalf of the network.

I would be interested to know what other MNOs think are Dash's core values or if you have comments on the ones I've listed above. We need to clearly define and agree upon what these values. Once the core values are clearly defined they act as guiding principal for all our decisions made by the network going forward.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

How to be non-corruptible when key DCG decision makers refuse to be subjected to a lie detector test? The CMO answered on their behalf, saying that all code is made public, therefore malicious activity would become immediately obvious. Well, bitcoin is open source but it didn't stop it's takeover by Bitstream. What is DCG's relationship with the FBI and others? Conspiracy theory, yes, but Bitstream is proof that shit like that happens.

 

[vazaki3]

How to be non-corruptible when key DCG decision makers refuse to be subjected to a lie detector test? The CMO answered on their behalf, saying that all code is made public, therefore malicious activity would become immediately obvious. Well, bitcoin is open source but it didn't stop it's takeover by Bitstream. What is DCG's relationship with the FBI and others? Conspiracy theory, yes, but Bitstream is proof that shit like that happens.

Good questions. Especially now , where Dash started to use code written in c# which is based on .NET!!!!

As a CLI implementation of Virtual Execution System (VES), CoreCLR is a complete runtime and virtual machine for managed execution of .NET programs and includes a just-in-time compiler called RyuJIT.[28][a] .NET Core also contains CoreRT, the .NET Native runtime optimized to be integrated into AOT compiled native binaries.

As everyone understand, the one who controls the virtual machine controls Bitcoin and Dash!

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Good questions. Especially now , where Dash started to use code written in c# which is based on .NET!!!!

As a CLI implementation of Virtual Execution System (VES), CoreCLR is a complete runtime and virtual machine for managed execution of .NET programs and includes a just-in-time compiler called RyuJIT.[28][a] .NET Core also contains CoreRT, the .NET Native runtime optimized to be integrated into AOT compiled native binaries.

As everyone understand, the one who controls the virtual machine controls Bitcoin and Dash!

Would someone at DCG like to comment on this???

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Good questions. Especially now , where Dash started to use code written in c# which is based on .NET!!!!

As a CLI implementation of Virtual Execution System (VES), CoreCLR is a complete runtime and virtual machine for managed execution of .NET programs and includes a just-in-time compiler called RyuJIT.[28][a] .NET Core also contains CoreRT, the .NET Native runtime optimized to be integrated into AOT compiled native binaries.

As everyone understand, the one who controls the virtual machine controls Bitcoin and Dash!

According to your reference, CoreCLR is open source. Is there any dash product using a closed source virtual machine?

 

[DeepBlue]

Microsoft has realised that in order for them to stay in the game as a leading software provider they have to go open source on some of their core products that developers can use to build apps. They have also invested heavily in open source projects. Their new business monetization model is to make revenue from end products such as Azure this is why they have made .NETCore and C# open source and cross platform. .NET will be eventually phased out and transferred to .NET Core which will be the successor to the .NET framework. It is not necessary, however, for developers to use Azure if they develop with Microsoft open source technology.

You can search all technologies from Microsoft that have been released to the open source community here:

https://opensource.microsoft.com

Microsoft has already released 60,000 of their patents to the open source community:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...00-patents-proving-it-really-does-love-linux/
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/10/microsoft-adds-60000-patents-to-the-open-invention-network/

The youtube video below discusses Microsoft strategy regarding open sourcing their software. The interview is with Julia Liuson, Vice President of Visual Studio and .NET

Therefore, from what I can tell, Microsoft is no longer in control of .NET core, C# or CoreCLR these are now fully open source technologies. Microsoft however is steering the open source projects but they still remain open source.

The licensing for CLI is discussed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Infrastructure

It would not be a sensible business move for Microsoft to move back to a closed source model for their .NET and C# core technologies. Open source enables developers to build applications to run on Azure platform which is where Microsoft will make its money. The world is now moving to an open source model for core infrastructure technology. The money is now being made on specialist end applications and services such as Azure. Microsoft also realised they cannot compete against open source projects which have millions of developers and contributors. They have to go open source to stay in business.

I am not a lawyer, however, my understanding is if Microsoft were to revert back to a closed source business model the technology released before that point will remain open source. In effect it would be like a fork and therefore the code before that fork could continue to be developed freely and independently of any closed source software. Once released to open source the code cannot be reverted back to close source - only new code developed later.

It is important to know that in the next few years .NET will be completely phased out and replaced by .NET Core. However, when this phasing out happens, .NET Core will be simply called .NET and it will be fully open source technology. If an organisation wants to develop software using the .NET framework, it makes sense to develop on .NET Core, and not .NET.

I am not yet clear if the regular .NET framework is actually fully open source. However, I know that .NET Core is fully open source, and if developers want to feel certain about developing apps that are open source and cross platform they should use .NET Core and not .NET.

You can read about .NET Core here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Core

 

[GrandMasterDash]

@DeepBlue Thank you and I appreciate your response. However, it didn't really answer my question; does DCG use any closed sourced virtual machines in any of it's products, including Dash Platform?

I am not happy at all that dash uses Microsoft products but it's a trade-off I have to accept.. but a closed sourced virtual machine of any kind would be alarming and utterly irresponsible.

Even with open source, Microsoft is so in bed with the government, that zero-day-exploits are very conveniently left hanging around. This is the same company that intentionally extended the mp3 format to execute arbitrary code.

 

[vazaki3]

@DeepBlue Thank you and I appreciate your response. However, it didn't really answer my question; does DCG use any closed sourced virtual machines in any of it's products, including Dash Platform?

I am not happy at all that dash uses Microsoft products but it's a trade-off I have to accept.. but a closed sourced virtual machine of any kind would be alarming and utterly irresponsible.

Even with open source, Microsoft is so in bed with the government, that zero-day-exploits are very conveniently left hanging around. This is the same company that intentionally extended the mp3 format to execute arbitrary code.

It is not only whether a virtual machine is open source or not. The problem resides in the nature of the virtual machine itself.

Suppose I have an opensource virtual machine which you trust and you use it into your masternode. Who compiles the virtual machine? Almost nobody. The virtual machine is send as a binary, and (most important) its updates are also send as binaries.

So I could send you my updates, signed by myself (you trust me, dont you?) that could theoritically target your specific IP (your masternode) and send specific troyan horse updates, specially designed only for your IP address and your masternode. These updates will steal your Dash coins, then they will destroy themselves and delete whatever traces, log files or files that are signed by me (in order for you not to be able to prove that you have been attacked by me).

This is the main problem of the virtual machines, and not whether they are open source or not.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

It is not only whether a virtual machine is open source or not. The problem resides in the nature of the virtual machine itself.

Suppose I have an opensource virtual machine which you trust and you use it into your masternode. Who compiles the virtual machine? Almost nobody. The virtual machine is send as a binary, and (most important) its updates are also send as binaries.

So I could send you my updates, signed by myself (you trust me, dont you?) that could theoritically target your specific IP (your masternode) and send specific troyan horse updates, specially designed only for your IP address and your masternode. These updates will steal your Dash coins, then they will destroy themselves and delete whatever traces, log files or files that are signed by me (in order for you not to be able to prove that you have been attacked by me).

This is the main problem of the virtual machines, and not whether they are open source or not.

Understood. The alternative is for DCG to build their own virtual machine, but that brings with it a different set of problems, not just bugs but whether DCG was infiltrated. Seems appropriate to post this link:

Facebook Helped the FBI Hack a Child Predator
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v7gd9b/facebook-helped-fbi-hack-child-predator-buster-hernandez

It would be nice if DCG built their own VM but I think it's much more important they use Dash Platform to build an unstoppable github and app store.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

@vazaki3 https://app.dashnexus.org/proposals...ndent-security-audit-and-code-review/overview

 

[forro]

Seems reasonable to have a thorough audit before mainnet release. It can only add to everyone's confidence, helps marketing.
An ongoing bounty program, too, which I think there is already.

@vazaki3 https://app.dashnexus.org/proposals...ndent-security-audit-and-code-review/overview

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Seems reasonable to have a thorough audit before mainnet release. It can only add to everyone's confidence, helps marketing.
An ongoing bounty program, too, which I think there is already.

Yes, don't get me wrong, I think testing and bug bounties are essential, but I also think it's extremely important to have something that is more substantial and independent. Projects like cardano are heavy on academic scrutiny and tezos is strong on formal verification.

 

[Sadan Ali]

That's true. I agree with your point.

 

[DeepBlue]

How to be non-corruptible when key DCG decision makers refuse to be subjected to a lie detector test? The CMO answered on their behalf, saying that all code is made public, therefore malicious activity would become immediately obvious. Well, bitcoin is open source but it didn't stop it's takeover by Bitstream. What is DCG's relationship with the FBI and others? Conspiracy theory, yes, but Bitstream is proof that shit like that happens.

The main goal of this post is to clearly identify, define, and agree on what Dash's core values are. Raising issues on how we can enforce the values is something we can address later, after we have first actually defined and agreed on the values. Having said this, your feedback is still valuable because it suggests we need to look again, and more closely, at the values list if we cannot enforce any value on it.

I made some suggestions for Dash's core values in my first post in this topic. However, that does not mean to say these are Dash's values, until the majority agree upon them. You have raised a concern about how we can ensure one of the core values that I suggested could be met. This was the core value that DASH needs to be "non-corruptible, both now and in the future".

Firstly, what do you think about the actual list of DASH Core values I posted? More specifically, should this be our list of values? Or, should there be others on this list? This is irrespective of if we can actually meet them at this stage.

If you think non-corruptibility is a worthwhile DASH core value, you have raised a valid point on how we can ensure that DASH retains its non-corruptible nature.

If we cannot maintain a value on our list, e.g. non-corruptibility, it points to the fact that there may be some additional values that need to be added to the list. These additional values could well enable us to ensure we meet our values. One additional value that comes to mind could be the value of accountability, which is not yet on the list of core values.

Your concern, that we cannot meet the core value of incorruptibility, is valuable feedback because it points to the fact we may well be missing some other core values.

Therefore my question for you, and for others, is as follows:

1. " What do people feel about the core values that are listed in my first post in this topic? Are these values that the DASH community feel we should ideally uphold, protect and have?

2. "What other additional core values should the DASH project ideally have?

I would suggest at this stage we simply identify, define and agree on the core values first. Then we can worry about how we are going to meet them later.

 

[forro]

Accountability seemed to be implied but better if it is explicit. When you feel this is ready for a vote post an address and I will donate one dash.
I hope there is more participaton if/when funding is coming directly out of our pockets.

 

[DeepBlue]

Accountability seemed to be implied but better if it is explicit. When you feel this is ready for a vote post an address and I will donate one dash.
I hope there is more participation if/when funding is coming directly out of our pockets.

Thanks forro for your feedback and contributions to these posts. I agree with your view. With decentralised decision making we need to explicitly state what our values are and to have a system to vote on them and then document them.

I have posted another forum message about the concept of the Dash Decentralisation Charter (DDC) which documents and records our decentralised decision making philosophies, values, principals, best practises, experience and most valuable learnings etc which would act as a guiding set of principals that the Dash project could live up to.

You can read more about the concept of the DDC here:

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...-the-dash-decentralisation-charter-ddc.50379/

The DDC would act rather like the Declaration of independence for the USA by the founding fathers. However the difference is that a decentralised charter will be a fluid document that is constantly refined and updated. Each principal that enters the charter would be voted on by MNOs before it can enter the charter. This also will help with our decision making processes in the Governance system because this document would act as a set of agreed, worked out principals that MNOs can refer to.

I have spent a lot of time thinking about decentralised decision making for the past few months. Most of the issues identified there are solutions to most of them. However we need input from MNOs to challenge, contribute and enrich and eventually vote on each principal. I have also thought of a way for this also to be achieved in a decentralised way however it would require quite a lot of development work however it is important to start the process. Effective decentralised decision making is of critical importance for the DASH project's success.

 

[vazaki3]

The main goal of this post is to clearly identify, define, and agree on what Dash's core values are. Raising issues on how we can enforce the values is something we can address later, after we have first actually defined and agreed on the values.

I disagree.
We should first discover a way to enforce the Dash's core values , and then after having the means to enforce, we could decide what the values are.
Or at least we should both enforce our values and decide our values, at the same time, in parallel.

"War is the father of all and king of all" - Heraclitus

 

[vazaki3]

One additional value that comes to mind could be the value of accountability, which is not yet on the list of core values.

I agree that accountabiliy is a very important value.

 

[DeepBlue]

We should first discover a way to enforce the Dash's core values , and then after having the means to enforce, we could decide what the values are.

Actions taking out of a logical order will be ineffective. Actions taking out of order will cause more damage than good. People will not vote for an enforcement procedure before they agree on what is of value to be enforced because there is low motivation, no "buy in" and therefore low commitment. When actions are taken out of order they will be ineffective because people need to feel motivated that what they are voting for is right.

Case in point: I have just noticed that there is a poll posted at DashCentral https://www.dashcentral.org/p/poll-immediate-independent-security-audi

I believe the above poll, unfortunately, will be ineffective in achieving its goals. For the following reasons:

1. Pre-discussion There was no detailed pre-discussion about this poll before it was posted at DashCentral. Therefore, there is little to no "buy in" by the great majority of MNOs before the poll was posted. In a decentralised environment it is essential there is an opportunity for voters to think on the reasons for posting the poll in the first place. This helps participants think if the poll would be worthwhile and how it should be worded. Discussion on a poll before posting also provides invaluable feedback to the person posting the poll in order to know how to correctly word the poll to have maximum clarify and voter participation.
2. Wording: The wording of the poll is ambiguous with more than one decision rolled up into a single poll. The poll should have been worded with just one clear outcome e.g. focusing only on the code review for security purposes or only on DCG accountability - not both in the same poll. Why because now someone that may not want to hold DCG accountable but does want to have a security review will not know how to vote. Therefore the poll is now splitting the voters on two themes will lead to confusion and therefore lack of clarity in voting.
3. Timing: Actions must be taken at the correct time. This poll for code review is not posted at the best time in the code development in my opinion.
4. Order: Actions need to be taken in the correct order for them to be effective. The spontaneous posting of this Poll without going through the logical steps I've listed here is unlikely to pass. Order of events is crucially important.

Since the current poll mentioned above is lacking all of the above points it is likely to be ineffective in achieving its objectives. It will also make future polls on DCG accountability less effective.

My personal view is that this poll could actually do more harm than good and will confuse matters when we actually need to do future effective polls on DCG accountability and code security.

You don't have to agree or disagree with me on what I've written here. We just need to wait for the result of the poll and we will see if what I have written above is correct or not.

 

[forro]

I think vazaki was joking, it got a chuckle out of me. Of course none of this is enforceable. Masternodes are going to vote for what they want no matter what. I think that's fine. Still, I think this whole exercise is worthwhile. One, it will show that MNOs can reach some degree of consensus on some fundamental values other than self-interest. Two, it can show proposal owners what sort of framework they should us to increase the chances of their proposal passing, and increase the chances that proposals are actually useful.
It can show new MNOs what things they should be looking for when evaluating a proposal.

For now all it takes to pass a proposal is a good sales pitch. That has to change.