Dash Nation Consensus Discussion
- Thread starter TaoOfSatoshi
- Start date
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
"Based on that problem in our community, how should we proceed:i did attempt to answer your question obviously
i commented on your SM example
The way it happened, with Evan making the decision to implement this new idea without consulting the community and not replying to community input?
Or, should Evan have announced his brilliant idea to the community, faced a discussion over pros and cons, and put it to a MN vote?
How do we want to proceed? Are we a DAO with decentralized governance, or are we a small group that does what it wants and the community is just a sometimes listened to supporting cast?"
That's the meat and potatoes of the question.
Personally I have so much trust in what Evan does that I would let him do the things and implement the solution first. If we have it on the testnet, then we can talk and work on the improvements and changes. Endless, theoretical talk on the forum is not very effective and goes to nowhere usually. Having PoC (testnet) gives much more options to discuss.
Another thing is to let someone else deciding whether Evan can/should implement something or not - it is fundamental misunderstanding in my opinion.
Another thing is to let someone else deciding whether Evan can/should implement something or not - it is fundamental misunderstanding in my opinion.
Last edited:
sure, this could have done in a different way
but you have to understand how evan work (and that should be respected)
head over heals in code and comes eventually out on the other side when done
sure for us 'none coders' he should've done this and that and why did he not ask us ....
well, different working styles ,.....Example: you paint a picture you will not stop after the outlines and ask others what they thing, as they will not see understand the whole picture.
you Finnish it to present it as a Finnish product and how it fits into the whole mural you are working on , and most others do not even see/understand the whole mural !
(Sentinel idea)
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
Thank you guys for being good sports. I'm going to bed, see you tomorrow..
flare
Well-known member
@TaoOfSatoshi Three words: Just. Do. It.
I am part of Dash since almost two years now. One thing that i was asking me since ever: Why do people spend endless hours with writing ideas in forums ("contributing ideas") instead of doing things?
Seriously: BCT lost its status as collaboration platform long ago. Me for myself even had the IP of the forum on my firewall blocklist for several months - since i couldn't stand the nonsense which gets posted there and drove my bloodpressure up. Additionally i voted for closing the ANN thread
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/locked-dash-announcements-thread-on-btc.6492/#post-71894
If someone wants to address concerns to Evan and notes that his forum posts are not responded to: [email protected] is the way to go. Or [email protected] or [email protected]. Don't expect Evan or other members of the core team to spend 2 hours each day to read forum posts. Our resources are scarce anyway...
Dash is beginning to build a DAO, we are not there yet. In the future I'd like to see several independent teams - just like "core team" - doing what they've laid out in their proposal. The budgeting code gets revamped in 12.1 (aka sentinel) to facilitate this.
Not really - you are making wrong assumption. Please read carefully what I wrote. I am simply placing the discussion/decision part in more reasonable time-frame (when there is actually something to discuss).Thank you! So then we are not a DAO with decentralized governance. We therefore have no right to say we are, do we?
You see where I'm going with this? It's a deep discussion, way deeper than what to call ourselves...
Endless theoretical discussions would kill the progress - there is no chance to have everyone thinking the same and agree on the same matters.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
Just want to point out, if members of the community disagree with a directional aspect of the project, eg. sees a problem with a new functionality that Evan puts in, there is no amount of "work" that they can do. You don't have to code anything because the version you think is better, already exists. Not every contribution has to be about fixing bugs. I am getting the message that core team is encouraging people to "actually do" work if they want anything to happen but this isn't adding up for me.
flare
Well-known member
I think your premise is not correct: There is nothing in existence. The new features are neither rolled out to mainnet nor testnet. Currently it's all on Evans/Udjins local source code repo, anyone could implement his own (better?) solution. As soon as Evan commits his work to github it's free for review, discussion and changes - the same would apply to any other implementation.
Who was talking about fixing bugs? Core team is currently working on 17 different projects (https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/march-2016-dash-core-team-monthly-report.8687) - pick one.
I don't get the point tbh.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
I'll put it another way. It's like the dev saying, I'm going to build a railroad system that goes runs from downtown Manhattan, goes over the skyscrapers, does a few loop-de-loops, and ends at Yankee stadium. Dev person is a very skilled engineer and can absolutely build such a system, but everyone says to wait until it's built for testing before we talk as a community about whether we even want a system with that functionality, or if there might be some unintended consequences?
Under what conditions should Evan or core team engage with the community about feedback over design plans? Is there a way we can foster a dialogue with actual core team devs without wasting Evan's or everyone's time?
Solarminer
Well-known member
Kot, you are misunderstanding Tao's post. This isn't about trusting Evan or not. This isn't about if the code will work or not. This is about a significant change to the budget system that potentially could cause future problems. I feel this is so significant that it will completely corrupt the budget system and take away the decentralized nature that we benefit today. Maybe you don't feel this way, which is fine. There still should be a significant discussion about this.
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
I'm in complete agreement. We shouldn't waste time on "endless" discussions, and we don't HAVE to. We have a beautiful gift thanks to Evan which is the MN network to resolve disputes and gain consensus among Dash Nation members. If an issue is sensitive enough and people bring up valid concerns, I don't think it's too much to have a week of debate followed by a Masternode vote so we can move on knowing the majority of stakeholders agree on the direction. I'm not saying to do this for every little thing as that would be ridiculous, but for the major unplanned changes it is reasonable.
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
To address your points:
Re. Just do it! Completely agree.
Re: BCT: Fair enough, another avenue of communication could be used for OPEN debate, not just private emails.
Re. Building the DAO: These discussions are exactly how we will achieve that.
Thank you for your comments.
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
The ideas behind your posts are exactly the reason why I started this thread. It's important to have the two potentially divided sides come together and work out a new possibly more inclusive way of doing things. Thanks!
And you honestly think Evan is not completely aware of these potential vectors of failure?
Let me put this another way. We're all here because we agree he's a genius crypto developer. All pilar features and major development came from his head. He think 5 steps ahead of everyone else. The simple fact that you're worried about something he very briefly described publicly and is currently head deep coding is more than enough reassurance that these "issues" will become clear as day to him while we weaves it all together with code.
And then, lets not forget that you, or anyone, will have more than enough time to subvert the system on testnet and actually make a point. That's the entire challenge of it. That is when all eyes and ears are open and you have 100% of Evan and dev's time, listening to your every word, eagerly awaiting for flaws and bugs to be discovered an suggestions are deeply thought on.
Not to be rude, and talking in general not pointing fingers at anyone, but in this field, and especially the hyper developing Dash, talk is not really worth much when the lead dev has made a breakthrough and his creative juices flowing! Do not disturb the man while he is pumped. After he commits to github, then you can look at what actually exists.
Testnet testnet testnet! That's the challenge! Prove him wrong! Break the system! No matter how deep your skill set everyone's invited. The more the merrier.
And please @TaoOfSatoshi - this is not black and white stuff, either/or, heaven or hell. Nothing has changed suddenly, just gradually evolving and thorough experimentation. We are definitely a DAO. There is no definition. We're currently writing the rule book. No one else has a self-funding model. We again are nº1 at that. We are pioneers. At least I believe so or I wouldn't be here.
Everyone doubted Masternodes, everyone doubted Darksend, everyone doubted Spork, everyone doubted InstantX, everyone doubted DGbB - numerous were the catastrophic doomsday scenarios. Everyone was wrong. No one has be able to break anything.
Have a little faith in the man.
Last edited:
Solarminer
Well-known member
Why waste time changing an entire budget system to act like a corporation when it will fail? The idea needs to be sound BEFORE time is wasted coding it.
And to say we have plenty of time before it gets released. How do we know? Is there going to be a discussion period?
How much time was giving with the public awareness to exchange awareness? Less than a week, with no real alternative. Combining 5 different projects making it very easy to like one, but having to vote for all because funding would be lost with no time to create a new proposal.
I don't go by faith. You lose almost every time. I assume the worst possible scenario. And what I am assuming right now is a Friday post that says. Ok 12.1 is released, download and update. Half the masternodes and miners say no to the update and don't update. We have a lingering battle to fix this release to something the community agrees on. Not good.
Let's assume 12.1 does get updated. Project managers get voted in. One of them makes a bad mistake(deletes a wallet with a 2000 dash project fund or something). Masternodes react and vote out all project managers as they all try to defend the guilty one. New project managers get voted in. Dash core group is out. Evan gives up. We start Dash V2.0. I am not against this because the core will get paid a salary....I am against it because it will likely get the core kicked out. I am also against it because the actual people making decisions do not hold collateral(the real cause of the problem above.)
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
That's a bit of a straw man. I don't recall posting anything where I doubted Evan. I'm simply trying to introduce a more cohesive way of doing things. Evan is a genius, I would follow him to the ends of the earth...
TroyDASH
Well-known member
I don't think it would be fair to portray that recognizing Evan is a human being is equivalent to doubting his abilities or questioning his wisdom. I'm just saying, with the project growing as it is now, the model some of you are describing puts a lot of weight on one person, and people are fallable. Even though it may be true that Evan is smarter than all of us, it does not strike me as a prudent thing to not ask for conceptual feedback, and to not be interested in any dialogue about it before coding, when a significant portion of the community is asking for it. I don't really think it would consume a ton of resources to respond to some of the community concerns. Would it help if we had someone compile some of the most prevalent questions together so that no one has to spend time sifting through threads? Or is it really that there is zero interest to respond until the train tracks are built for test runs? It can feel a little like the dev team is treating people on their own team as trolls by ignoring
Last edited:
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
There are added benefits to my proposal, too that we haven't discussed yet:
The elimination of the core team designation, going with one team: People who previously may not have contributed may now feel empowered to help out, where they weren't before. Feeling like you're a part of the team can be very motivating!
Debating key issues, putting them to MN votes: Proposals such as Sentinel, rather than just getting approved/disapproved, through the debate process may actually be able to be improved prior to work beginning, leading to an engaged community, and a more efficient development cycle.
More food for thought.
The elimination of the core team designation, going with one team: People who previously may not have contributed may now feel empowered to help out, where they weren't before. Feeling like you're a part of the team can be very motivating!
Debating key issues, putting them to MN votes: Proposals such as Sentinel, rather than just getting approved/disapproved, through the debate process may actually be able to be improved prior to work beginning, leading to an engaged community, and a more efficient development cycle.
More food for thought.