Dash needs new leadership and direction

qwizzie said:
"Dash needs new leadership and direction"

I totally disagree, and frankly i find the title of this thread very arrogant of nature. If OP is really that upset with the
direction that Dash is going then maybe it is time for OP to re-evaluate his involvement with Dash.
Click to expand...

The arrogant original poster says... yes, that's exactly what I was saying, I have re-evaluated my involvement. I had walked away from a small project and I've been re-evaluating my position regarding MNs. You and me are very clever because we came to the same conclusion.
 
TanteStefana said:
Ideas are welcome, but when they're rejected, one has to accept it. If one doesn't like it, one can go fork the project and do it their own way. There is nothing wrong with that, after all, it's the whole point of Open Source Projects. :)
Click to expand...

Of course it is wrong.

This is exactly the weakness of Open Source Projects. People writing open source have not the mentality to respect their community. They just want to write code for themselves, for their own fun. Thats why so many people are writting similar code, and so many code is wasted.

Uncontrolled Forking is not a good solution because it weakens the community. Because it makes many people to do similar projects, and this is a great spend on human resources. Forking should be the last move, you should not encourage people to fork without checking what their fork is, and without oblige them to report back to you whenever they fork.

Linus Torvalds uses GPL v2 license, which says that if you decide to fork his project, you should at least give your code back and let him decide if he wants to merge it or not. Linus never passed to GPLv3 or to any other free to fork open source license.

Do you think you are smarter than Torvalds, do you?

Dash should have a GPLv2 license, which forces everyone who is forking dash to report their code back, and then let Evan (or the community) to decide about the merge.
 
Last edited:
demo said:
Of course it is wrong.

This is exactly the weakness of Open Source Projects. People writing open source have not the mentality to respect their community. They just want to write code for themselves, for their own fun. Thats why so many people are writting similar code, and so many code is wasted.

Uncontrolled Forking is not a good solution because it weakens the community. Because it makes many people to do similar projects, and this is a great spend on human resources. Forking should be the last move, you should not encourage people to fork without checking what their fork is, and without oblige them to report back to you whenever they fork.

Linus Torvalds uses GPL v2 license, which says that if you decide to fork his project, you should at least give your code back and let him decide if he wants to merge it or not. Linus never passed to GPLv3 or to any other free to fork open source license.

Do you think you are smarter than Torvalds, do you?

Dash should have a GPLv2 license, which forces everyone who is forking dash to report their code back, and then let Evan (or the community) to decide about the merge.
Click to expand...

You're going to go far in life. :)
 
oaxaca said:
Torvalds sounds like a smart guy.
Click to expand...

Yes. And this smart guy never urges to uncontrolled forks, like TanteStefana does.

So the correct attitude is not "take the code and do whatever you want". It is "fork the code, then obligatory bring us back whatever you have done, so we will think if we want to merge with you".

The same principle applies to community. The correct attitude is not "leave community and built one of your own". The forked community should always be considered as a colony, ready to merge if this is the will of the metropolis.
 
Last edited:
GrandMasterDash said:
One of the big problems I have with dash is it's current obsession with fiat gateways at the expense of innovation in other areas. And with instant transactions and fiat so high on the list, ALL dash projects should be concentrating on the mobile experience.
Click to expand...

As a newbie I would think initial integration into the DASH model would be of significant importance. From my newbie stance, it's higher on a list of priorities than anything else.

I DO feel there should be great concentration of effort upon 'mobile experience' because that aspect is near the root of P2P inter-personal relationships.

As I view the DASH geographic map, I can see areas where DASH does not seem to have a foothold, for whatever reason, and it would be my thought effort should be made for geographic expansion with intent to increase commerce/P2P relationships.

Best
rc
 
If you look at the mess that Bitcoin is when it comes to its governance, DASH has established something that works much better. We have built in governance and a community that works together more than it does attacking each other. Just look how hard it's been to change the block size for Bitcoin.
 
DarkWater said:
If you look at the mess that Bitcoin is when it comes to its governance, DASH has established something that works much better. We have built in governance and a community that works together more than it does attacking each other. Just look how hard it's been to change the block size for Bitcoin.
Click to expand...

It has already been established that the block size vote for dash was simply a PR exercise, because as others have pointed out, no one can compel the core team to do anything. As much, in the same way, that Evan is going to wipe the budget system clean when the new (improved?) budgeting system is introduced. Changes like this are done in the same way as bitcoin; consensus by upgrading (or not), or using a fork.

That so called "governance" is hard wired into the code when, actually, it should probably be more of a plug-in architecture, so that MNOs can install third party components without having to fork, compile, seek permissions etc etc.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
It has already been established that the block size vote for dash was simply a PR exercise, because as others have pointed out, no one can compel the core team to do anything. As much, in the same way, that Evan is going to wipe the budget system clean when the new (improved?) budgeting system is introduced. Changes like this are done in the same way as bitcoin; consensus by upgrading (or not), or using a fork.

That so called "governance" is hard wired into the code when, actually, it should probably be more of a plug-in architecture, so that MNOs can install third party components without having to fork, compile, seek permissions etc etc.
Click to expand...

I think some of us (including myself) were getting too far ahead of ourselves. The masternode budgeting system was a step in the right direction, and it may even be improved upon, but it does not solve the decentralized governance problem on its own. I believe Evan and the core developers are well aware of this and I look forward to what is in store for the network. There are a lot of exciting things happening with DASH but in the end I think it is important that we don't lose sight of the governance issue. Out of all the cryptos out there, DASH is the one which is most aware of and is best prepared to deal with it, IMO, even if we don't have all the answers right now.
 
TroyDASH said:
I think some of us (including myself) were getting too far ahead of ourselves. The masternode budgeting system was a step in the right direction, and it may even be improved upon, but it does not solve the decentralized governance problem on its own. I believe Evan and the core developers are well aware of this and I look forward to what is in store for the network. There are a lot of exciting things happening with DASH but in the end I think it is important that we don't lose sight of the governance issue. Out of all the cryptos out there, DASH is the one which is most aware of and is best prepared to deal with it, IMO, even if we don't have all the answers right now.
Click to expand...

This right here. A lot of what DASH is doing is not only solving current problem but problem we could face down the road. I'm not saying we have a perfect coin, but I have far more confidence in this coin than I do in many others. Making a more user friendly currency I believe is something that should be built in, and not an external patch over.

We are always a work in progress, were always looking for improvements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top