Announcing DIP 5 - Blockchain Users

Can someone from Core please update regarding the state of DIP 5? It is almost once month since this post was made and there's been no update, either here or on the github. I'm sure development is continuing, I just hope this is not being quietly rushed through while ignoring feedback.
 
It is somewhat disconcerting that the very substance of Evolution i.e. usernames is not open to discussion. Isn't this the purpose of DIPs, to engage the community and adapt accordingly? When there's silence, it's like DCG is hoping to steamroll it through.
 
Thanks for the feedback everyone. There were quite a few discussions and "pre-DIP" documents internally over the previous year that covered some of the ideas above in the attempt to balance various factors (usability, security, flexibility, openness, accessibility, etc.) and be in alignment with the whitepaper. Your comments have been seen and there continue to be some discussions regarding the details to ensure future-proofing.

As with the previous Evolution-related DIPs (2/3/4), development initially occurs in the private repo and moves to the public one later so the lack of visible Github activity can be attributed to this. For example, you can see some public DIP-related PRs here.
 
thephez said:
Thanks for the feedback everyone. There were quite a few discussions and "pre-DIP" documents internally over the previous year that covered some of the ideas above in the attempt to balance various factors (usability, security, flexibility, openness, accessibility, etc.) and be in alignment with the whitepaper. Your comments have been seen and there continue to be some discussions regarding the details to ensure future-proofing.

As with the previous Evolution-related DIPs (2/3/4), development initially occurs in the private repo and moves to the public one later so the lack of visible Github activity can be attributed to this. For example, you can see some public DIP-related PRs here.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response. Can we have some feedback / analysis regarding these new suggestions? In particular, I would like to know if DCG consider short usernames a special case, given their limited supply / permutations. I have made the suggestion that 3, 4 and 5 character usernames be designated Gold, Silver and Bronze respectively. I don't care if it's a bad idea, I just want someone to tell me if it has merit or not, and why. My fear is that DIP 5 gets rolled out as-is simply because you're trying to meet deadlines. We have one shot at doing these usernames so let's do it right.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
Thank you for your response. Can we have some feedback / analysis regarding these new suggestions? ...
Click to expand...

Just wanted to link to some feedback from Andy that was posted in this thread - https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/opinion-on-dip5-blockchainusernamepricingmodel.41438/

AndyDark said:
Hi GrandMasterDash,

Regarding your proposal DIP 0005 Blockchain Users, as one of the DIP authors from Core I’ll give my opinion here so that the network has all the information...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top