Budget Proposal - Proof of Labour

[stan.distortion]

This bit here at the start of section 5:

Since many of the cryptocurrencies have been designed as a fork of the Bitcoin platform, it
would be admissible to introduce some definitions in the basis of the architecture of Bitcoin
code. It is convenient to consult a good textbook about Bitcoin [4].

+UTXO: A positive unspent transaction output. Is the same regular transaction output,
holding “normal” coins [5].

-UTXO: A negative unspent transaction output. Let’s suppose we have an improvement in
which transactions with negative coin value can be validated by the nodes of a
cryptocurrency network. It would require a “hard” fork in the most of the cryptocurrencies
on the market.

Maybe that's just there to aid in explanation (only re-reading as far as that bit at the mo) but I'd be very strongly against actually implementing that. The idea of someone being able to issue contracts for future work, goods, services, whatever... hell yes, I'd be all for that and would likely use it myself but not for the network its self to carry debt.

 

[InTheWoods]

This bit here at the start of section 5:


Maybe that's just there to aid in explanation (only re-reading as far as that bit at the mo) but I'd be very strongly against actually implementing that. The idea of someone being able to issue contracts for future work, goods, services, whatever... hell yes, I'd be all for that and would likely use it myself but not for the network its self to carry debt.

I believe all these 3rd layered apps that will work on the 2nd layer are not impacting the network directly, not really built-in into Dash but use the Dash network. Perhaps the proposal creator can clarify this part so that it's clear for everyone.

 

[SnowHater]

Why not just create full copy of Ethereum's smart contract engine based on top of masternode quorums?

 

[juliomoros]

Still reading through it and there's a lot good so far but personally I'd be strongly against it, it's introducing debt and I feel that would be extremely harmful to Dashes reputation. Possibly something other than debt based units, contracts to pay a sum of credit maybe (essentially the same thing) but debt based money... no.

I understand your concern (I hope), and I think is due to the risk of inflation.
(If you have a different concern, please let me know why are you against debt)
The risk of not to be able to manage the total amount of positive coins.

Nonetheless, the proposed system address this issue by several ways:

1.- Inside the flow scrip system, debt is destroyed after every trading period, and after EACH buying/selling transaction. So liquidity is never accumulated, relieving the inflationary pressure.
2.- A flow scrip, as contract is a kind of future (Derivative contract). It trends to stabilize prices. Another releiving valve for inflation.
3.- Outside the flow scrip system, the debt that any individual can create, is limited by agreements of reputation and the total amount of business shares this person holds. So you can not create an arbitrary amount of debt.
4.- There is no interest rate over any kind of debt in this system. Your motivation to pay the debt is to restore your reputation level, and to be able to keep investing in the system, to make grow your wealth (In business shares). So people will have personal reasons to destroy the debt.

In any solution for new money creation alternatives, will allways be the inflation concern. And it is independent on the debt (Creating negative coins) mechanism. To introduce new alternatives for money creation you always increase the money mass (Even if you don´t leave behind a trace of negative coins). So the main concern here is how to destroy the debt.

The paper is long enough like it is, but there are a lot of options to assure the debt destruction.

5.- To invest into a project there may be (there should be) services linked to flwo scrip contracts. So that kind of payments destroys money.
6.- Without negative coins (without debt) you are reducing the options to destroy money mass. Paying debt is a valid way here to increase your wealth and to relieve inflationary pressure.

7.- This is not mentioned in the paper (Is already too long), but you may include a little fee in all transactions destined to pay debt. If you generate the transaction from a reputed wallet, the fee-payment goes directly to your debt (If there is no debt, there is no fee). If it is generated from an anonymous address, the fee may be randomly scattered among several reputed addresses with negative balance (Not belonging to a business wallet). And to be included in this raffle, you may rise a flag announcing to the system your debt, to receive little paymens from every anonymous transactions.

But, take in mind this is an extra alternative. There may be many others. Fore example: " -coinbase " transactions can destroy coins without any output. If some amunt is held as collateral, in a compromise not fulfilled, that coins may be destroyed.

There is a lot to be discussed though. The paper is not a "last word" in anything. But I believe, debt is convenient in order to design new ways of money creation.
Negative impacts on the reputation on a cryptocurrncy, may be due to the very bad backgrounds that this concept has in the fiat money systems, and is natural for the people to be sceptial towards its useage. So, I hope a little open mindness to undertand radical new options like our proposal.

Regards

 

[juliomoros]

Why not just create full copy of Ethereum's smart contract engine based on top of masternode quorums?

That is not a bad idea, indeed, there is a lot of work advanced already towards smart contracts in ethereum.
The problem is to know how to integrate one thing to the other. The putting togheter all the needed pieces (Buecuse there is not only ethereum giving a lot of solutions, there are many others) in a syncronized way, is the work we want to do, and put in test.

 

[juliomoros]

I believe all these 3rd layered apps that will work on the 2nd layer are not impacting the network directly, not really built-in into Dash but use the Dash network. Perhaps the proposal creator can clarify this part so that it's clear for everyone.

That is right. The solutions do not need to impact any pre-existent network. It may run as colored coins (Again there may be many options). The purpose of the worrk we want to do is to analize in detail pros and cons, and find by consensus the best way to implement these ideas.

 

[stan.distortion]

Thanks for the reply. I'm still only about half way through the paper and to be honest, this appears to be an complete alternative currency that's had Dash elements added afterwards and while I've nothing against that it doesn't mix too well.

I'm only speaking from my own point of view here but I'm confident I'm in the majority, negative Dash transactions will not be implemented. There's a lot of good points in the paper and I'd imagine many of the proposed features would be widely supported but not that one, debt is evil in the world of cryptocurrencies. I don't honestly see that as a problem though, a platform to issue smart contracts and from there the ability to issue contracts for all the points I've read through so far would be a huge benefit and from there the ability for someone to issue contractual debt is only a small step but the important point there is its the individual issuing debt, not the network.

I don't see this proposal as favourable in its current form but hopefully it can be shaped into something that is and a clear plan for implementation built from it as I feel some of the points covered in the paper would be a huge benefit to the Dash system but I'd humbly suggest separating it into more easily digestible stages of development with a proposal for each rather than a single large scale project.

 

[juliomoros]

Thanks for the reply. I'm still only about half way through the paper and to be honest, this appears to be an complete alternative currency that's had Dash elements added afterwards and while I've nothing against that it doesn't mix too well.

I'm only speaking from my own point of view here but I'm confident I'm in the majority, negative Dash transactions will not be implemented. There's a lot of good points in the paper and I'd imagine many of the proposed features would be widely supported but not that one, debt is evil in the world of cryptocurrencies. I don't honestly see that as a problem though, a platform to issue smart contracts and from there the ability to issue contracts for all the points I've read through so far would be a huge benefit and from there the ability for someone to issue contractual debt is only a small step but the important point there is its the individual issuing debt, not the network.

I don't see this proposal as favourable in its current form but hopefully it can be shaped into something that is and a clear plan for implementation built from it as I feel some of the points covered in the paper would be a huge benefit to the Dash system but I'd humbly suggest separating it into more easily digestible stages of development with a proposal for each rather than a single large scale project.

Your point of view is very wellcome dude!!

I personally don't expect to change the pre-existent structure of any cryptocurrency sys.
But there are several ways how to address this fact of the life, like in example, coloured coins.

And now I see your concern!!!...

"the important point there is its the individual issuing debt, not the network."

And I indeed agree. Money, can not be created by a single individual. In order to have an agreement you need another person giving you the "YES".
And that is not different in the money creation agreement.

The individual can not issue by himself his own credit line.
He/she don't give him/her-self his/her own reputation. Is the community.
That is why the proposal require a backing pool as "godparents" for every reputed wallet.

But once agreed the credit line, (calculated from the reputation level) you should be free to use it when you please.

Thank you very much for your interest in this project. And do not hesitate to ask or replay, and take yur time. Is a very knotty subject.

 

[tungfa]

just as a general thought
the community voted back in the day reg Currency vs Dash Tor network, ... other external features based on the masternode network
and the vote went for currency 1st

 

[InTheWoods]

just as a general thought
the community voted back in the day reg Currency vs Dash Tor network, ... other external features based on the masternode network
and the vote went for currency 1st

Not sure this is the right way to put it.

A decentralized exchange would be all about currency and could facilitate Dash access to fiat and fiat to Dash without going through KYC/AML which is somewhat defeats the purposes of having a privacy oriented currency.

 

[tungfa]

Not sure this is the right way to put it.

A decentralized exchange would be all about currency and could facilitate Dash access to fiat and fiat to Dash without going through KYC/AML which is somewhat defeats the purposes of having a privacy oriented currency.

decentralized exchange
whups
i got distracted by smart contracts and the likes comments above
do not mind me then
:wink:

 

[raganius]

Cheers from a Latin-American neighbour :wink:

I have had a look at your paper, and your idea seems to be very exciting. Congratullations for the well organised way it was planned, prepared and presented to the DASH community. Please, help me understand further the idea, as I can see something important being born here.

So, the proposal is for the creation of a "flow scrip system" to run "on top of" the DASH network. My questions are:

1. Will such system, in any way, "limit" or "disrupt" DASH's current characteristics (by demanding soft or hard forks, for example)?
2. Will the "core" DASH network (1st and 2nd tier) remain independent from the system to be created?
3. Will this proposed system be granted the "power" to actually issue yet new DASH in addition to the current DASH total supply, or in spite of the miners or Masternodes?
4. If the answer to the above question (3) is positive: You said that it is also possible that the system functions based on coloured coins. In this case (the system running based on coloured coins issuance) will it still be necessary granting the system "DASH emission powers"?
5. Regarding trust, and user reputation, what solutions to "sybil attacts" are being considered? (Please, bear in mind that the DASH community - privacy oriented - may not be acquiescent to proof of existence methods, neither to disclosure of identification documents or of biometric data.)

Points 2 and 3 are the "most important" concerns I myself have with such proposal, but as a whole, the above questions are what I have found important, from this first reading of your paper, in order to have better and clear vision, so as to understand the implications of this idea. Other questions may still arise from my part, anyway.

Thank you, and, please, do your best.

 

[juliomoros]

Cheers from a Latin-American neighbour :wink:

I have had a look at your paper, and your idea seems to be very exciting. Congratullations for the well organised way it was planned, prepared and presented to the DASH community. Please, help me understand further the idea, as I can see something important being born here.

So, the proposal is for the creation of a "flow scrip system" to run "on top of" the DASH network. My questions are:

1. Will such system, in any way, "limit" or "disrupt" DASH's current characteristics (by demanding soft or hard forks, for example)?
2. Will the "core" DASH network (1st and 2nd tier) remain independent from the system to be created?
3. Will this proposed system be granted the "power" to actually issue yet new DASH in addition to the current DASH total supply, or in spite of the miners or Masternodes?
4. If the answer to the above question (3) is positive: You said that it is also possible that the system functions based on coloured coins. In this case (the system running based on coloured coins issuance) will it still be necessary granting the system "DASH emission powers"?
5. Regarding trust, and user reputation, what solutions to "sybil attacts" are being considered? (Please, bear in mind that the DASH community - privacy oriented - may not be acquiescent to proof of existence methods, neither to disclosure of identification documents or of biometric data.)

Points 2 and 3 are the "most important" concerns I myself have with such proposal, but as a whole, the above questions are what I have found important, from this first reading of your paper, in order to have better and clear vision, so as to understand the implications of this idea. Other questions may still arise from my part, anyway.

Thank you, and, please, do your best.

Thanks for your interest dude!!!

Regarding your first 3 questions. If there is something difficult, risky and delicate is to disrrupt a system which already works.

This is the first thing to bear in mind. I hope to make some clarifications because the campaing goes very wrong as you can see, and must be mainly because of what you have said about bio-data and proof of existence.

The proposed system describes a different blockchain currency from what dash is today. Dash may evolve towards somthing similar. But it depends on sandboxes, tests and look how may work an alternative system. The very good thing about dash is its flexibility to do changes through a simple democratic strategy: Dash Whale!.

The answers are (for 1, 2 and 3): May be... Proposed system may generate a hard fork. Tiers may remain independent or may change. And the structure of dash for money creation may change or may remain the same. Dash needs whatever makes it work the best.

The (4°) fourth question: If the system run as a layer over dash, dash system will need to do the best to keep its market value. Likely minery don't have to affect the reputation of a cryptocurrency, but as alternatives for money creation appears in which a creation / destruction balance occurs, it may impact on the very reason to be of the blockchain paradigm and the proof-of-work.

Let's remember the main reason of existence of the blockchain: Authenticate transactions in a decentralized fashion. But masternodes can already do part of this work as a decentralized clearing-house!. So is valid to start wonder about if the reasons for the prof of work and blochchain to exist remain the same. If there were a sistem letting a human being selected in a similar way masternodes are, to attend a conflic in transactions, the minery may fall into disuse. But even the attending call guy may be athomatized in a more sophisticated prof of service procedure. Minery may become outdated.

So, all the money would be created without any problem in a system based on proof of labour.

The fifth (5°) and likely the most important question. I think the grate failure that is happening with our proposal is the fear of the community that this project may become dash into a de-anonimized system.

Cryptocurrency systems shouldn't change if already work as they are. We propose a solution for sybil attack based on two alternative elements, and the dash community may discard the one they don't like. And even so, the system may be compatible with dash:

#1.- One reputed wallet for each person.
#2.- One flow scrip contract to each business wallet.

How to prove you are one person? Is a tricky subject. I think it may be solved by some form of a "pay it forward" system that creates your reputation (look at the page 6 of the paper). An internship, some work for help to your community, and so on. If this were the only criteria, you may have many reputed wallets, but only paying the due services to the community, for each wallet.

This way you have a minial reputation, to use as form of credit transaction as you please.

But by the other way, let's pay some little attention to systems of service like Uber. Would you step into the car of someone you don't know?

In order to ease a trading based community, people sholud walk out from the anonimity shadows. You may remain anonymous, but under such condition you woudln't offer too much services or products. Some personal info may be available about you. Just the needed. I know that structures like Uber are centralized, but as rule of thumb, if it works in centralized fashion, there is at least one solution to work as decentralized way. One option are these sponsor and bakers pools giving reputation to wallets, and the line of credit working as collaterals. Full info about the user the pool sponsor may be possible as well.

I hope to be useful with my answer. Please let me know any further issue.

Regards

 

[stan.distortion]

It sounds like you've some well thought out ideas and clear thoughts on the issues around them, what sort of resources and experience does your team have for this kind of project?

Btw, dashwhale is a service built on the Dash network and independent from the network its self, it makes things much simple and provides a platform for discussion but doesn't manage the proposals, voting, etc, just makes them much easier to manage. The system is usually called distributed governance by blockchain or DGBB for short.

 

[juliomoros]

It sounds like you've some well thought out ideas and clear thoughts on the issues around them, what sort of resources and experience does your team have for this kind of project?

Btw, dashwhale is a service built on the Dash network and independent from the network its self, it makes things much simple and provides a platform for discussion but doesn't manage the proposals, voting, etc, just makes them much easier to manage. The system is usually called distributed governance by blockchain or DGBB for short.

I've been involving in the money design subject for about 4 years. In 2014 I tried to get involved in some community initiatives, but the political issues in my country limited a lot any kind of progress in this sense. The polarization on people here turn some knocking doors into slam in the face doors. I'm electrical engineer, so I'd used my knowledge on project management to improve many of the ideas there are in circulation.

Two years ago I met Oscar, who liked the proposal I've developed to that moment. He is software developer, and he helped me a lot in the understanding of cryptocurrencies.

We turn interested into the subject of smart contracts triggered by ethereum around august 2015, and I saw an interesting project named "swarm" (By Joel Dietz, but now becoming in weifund) and we realize the urgent need the whole cryto-nation has right now of a new kind of smart contract (Which we defined as "Smart Trust" the cryto version of the administrative banking trust).

We realized that a lot of work is being developed already on that subject, and we wanted to give some solutions we see. Just imagine all the things, all the business can be done with a tool like the Smart Trust. How usefull would become the crowdfunding paradigm, offering to the backers real paying-dividend-shares.

I mean, if this product existed already, I would be the first in promoting and exploit it.

Then we see that the whole project we have proposed, had elements already developed today, in the cryptocurrency market. We decided to ask for financing because of the economic nightmare we're living here in Venezuela. I think, you need some peace of mind in order to do a good job. And earning 14 $ per month as professionals, is a headache (I'm sorry but I have to be honest in this point).

We keep our hopes, even if this campaign doesn't were successful, we like to invite whoever liked to participate in the developing of this important tool: The Smart Trust.

Regards.

 

[raganius]

Thank you juliomoros for your swift reply. Its indeed a great idea you brought to the DASH community. I just wished it wouldn't need to touch the 1st and the 2nd tiers of the core DASH network, but better, I wish it could be built on top of the existing structure, but maintaining DASH as is: your idea could improve a lot DASH, while it would still be benefiting from DASH's sound structure.

 

[oscarmolivera]

Hello everybody I'm the other guy:grin:
Just to clarify some things, what is written in this paper (as some of you already had express),is a new way of thinking about crypto currencies that can be a step forward in the right direction to update our current monetary systems. Not only are we are going to make money this this implementations, we are going to protect our assets against finacial bubbles and we are going to create a new paradigm into an already new paradigm that is the crypto-sphere. Now, are this changes are going to happen here in Dash is yet to be seen. But I strongly suggest to everybody interested to read it an get on board.
Regards

 

[stan.distortion]

It's too big. Re-writing money... its a huge and extremely important subject but far too big for a single budget proposal (one I'd be very interested in discussing in another thread though). As I see it there are 2 areas in your paper that fit in with current development in Dash and one in particular with a lot of cross platform potential and could even be considered a currency in its own right, that's the trust system.

At the moment Dashes DAPI is under development and that includes user identities, in my opinion that's an extremely important area and I feel it will be at the very centre of how we use the internet in the near future and should be a key area of development. There are several arguments against that, the most important is Dash is a cryptocurrency project, not a social platform and I'd agree to some degree, Dash is digital cash, the money we're familiar with in digital form and social connections have no part in that. However, trust can be considered a currency and has been recognised as one in the past and likely will again in the future but in the present day it's an alien concept.

Another argument against any kind of development budget is development already has a budget. Personally I think we're at the point where that needs some consideration, a general budget has been very effective up to now but the project is growing fast and has several areas that could be developed independently so some sort of sub-division of development funds could be needed at some stage.

That leads to the second area where parts of your proposal coincide with current development, there has been some discussion on an update to the budgeting system and part of that is contracts. Discussion so far is on contracts as part of budgets, contractual obligations, funding cancellation clauses, that kind of thing but I think it's likely that will develop into a smart contract system to perform a wide range of budgeting operations automatically. That's a key part of the budgeting system though and I doubt there'd be much support for independent development, an independent trust system using simple identities provided by the Dash network would be the most favourable direction imho.

That would be a major undertaking though and would likely need a good reputation to get any kind of support, have you any open source projects, github repositories etc. as examples? I'd like to see Dash supporting development of a wide variety of independent projects but we seem to be at a turning point for that at the moment and it will probably take a lot of reputation building for any independent project to be funded up-front, ie. projects would need to be developed and then request funding rather than request funding for development.

 

[juliomoros]

Thank you juliomoros for your swift reply. Its indeed a great idea you brought to the DASH community. I just wished it wouldn't need to touch the 1st and the 2nd tiers of the core DASH network, but better, I wish it could be built on top of the existing structure, but maintaining DASH as is: your idea could improve a lot DASH, while it would still be benefiting from DASH's sound structure.

I apologize for not being able to answer yesterday to your comment.
Do you know what I think raganius? Your concern about any disruption over the dash tiers are the very concern of those who has being skeptical to the proposal.
Specially a concern related to any disruption bringing "negative dashes" to the platform.

As I told you in a former comment: If there is something difficult, risky and delicate is to disrrupt any system which already works.
And dash is not the exeption. This is not a proposal to disturb the mechanics that already dash has, because it would affect awfully the dash price in the market, and that would obviosly hurt us all.

The proposal is a way to expose a solution to real needs. And here "solution" should be read as an "alternative". Which alternatives do not exist right now?

An elaborated smart contract to emulate the regular banking administrative trust. Think of the power of a solution like this. Total freedom from any stock exchange chamber.
The ability to ofer to anyone real paying-dividends-shares of your business. The ability to create really fair crowdfundings. The ability to offering a really secure clud minery, safe from any kind of the scams.
A smart contract to help a bunch of people to organize themeselves to create a business, and to operate one in the way to be able to create money (flow scrip system). And related to these ideas, there is a concept of -UTXO, to be tested, but also a concept of -coinbase, that could work as well. And over all: The option to use whatever alternative will work better and discard whatever which don't.

These alternatives do not exist today.

The same way, negative coin concept, is an alternative to be tested in side chains or colored, in any way that it don't affect the today mechanics of dash, otherwise it would be a silly suicide to dash.

But I don't think dash helping to develope and test new and creative alternatives would damage its reputation. Let's remember that in order to be decentralized, all the code created needs to be open source. Open to anyone to imporve it or test it.

I want this idea, not oly to be usefull to dash, but also watching carefully the suggestions of the dash community, as we advance in our work.

Thank you for your interest!!!

 

[InTheWoods]

I suggest you put out that video asap. It would help getting the desired number of votes. Most people don't really understand what you're trying to achieve here, which is why you're not getting many votes.