Do you see value in categorizing proposals as "core" or "community"? Why/why not?

DashNation said:
Do you have more faith for project.manager or proposal.submitor ?
Click to expand...


Who cares about those people who are trapped into a faith? The power resides not in people who have the faith but in people who can inspire a faith to the others.

So , to answer your question, I have more faith to the one who is capable to inspire and inculcate that faith to me the better. Regardless whether he is a project.manager or a proposal.submitor it is his personal talent to inspire the others that matters.
 
Last edited:
At first I was not comfortable with the label "core proposal" vs "non core proposal". It sounded like a creation of a wall between "us" and "them", or the attempt to "message" the community what is "original" and what is "pirate".

Now I understand that "core" only wants to signal that the proposal comes from that specific group of people (and not the specific individual submiting the proposal): Meaning "this specific group of persons are equally responsible for this commitment"; the reputation of each individual from this group guarantees that this is a honest proposal... that's simply a joint liability.

I guess, likewise, other groups may be formed, and be given a "name", and have their proposals labeled under the group signature.

What still I find very uncomfortable, though, is the eventual use of "non-core". That could be dispensed, IMO.
 
I was seeing it more along the lines of "core" being things that impact the very nature of the coin and should be handled by those who have serious experience. non-core being feature tweaks, adds, totally new ideas, etc...

What bothers me is the "MNOs do as told by core dev team" being completely the opposite of what governance is meant to be. There are multiple angles why that's not really valid right now, the most important of which is that most MNOs are simply not fit to make those choices, so being subordinate at this time is actually sensible.

But, at what point will it come that the MNOs are actually in charge of something and actually making the calls? Calling it "governance" by a body of voters who don't actually have any say in anything is kinda not governance at all...
 
camosoul said:
But, at what point will it come that the MNOs are actually in charge of something and actually making the calls? Calling it "governance" by a body of voters who don't actually have any say in anything is kinda not governance at all...
Click to expand...

The voting system doesn't have a way to enforce change. It doesn't have a government police force, jails, or even a legal entity to prosecute. It can only fund opportunities. So calling it governance make this that much more confusing. With 12.1, programmable features will be added. If we rename this system, it will make a lot more sense. Plus, we will be making Ethereum the way it should have been made; focused on the funding....not contracts that somehow get enforced by generosity with absolutely no way to resolve a conflict.

The name I propose is: Programmable Collateralized Voting Budget.

In real news, we have someone interested in adding 2FA from the bounty we put up. It is still not clear how or when it can be done, but at least it has a chance. Real change happens when there is a price put on it.
www.dashnation.com/gigs
 
Solarminer said:
The voting system doesn't have a way to enforce change. It doesn't have a government police force, jails, or even a legal entity to prosecute. It can only fund opportunities.
Click to expand...

The budget system doesn't have a way to enforce change.
But you can add a taxation system in the protocol of dash.
Taxation can be used to enforce change, or to financially punish someone who is not compatible with the decisions of the community.
 
demo said:
The budget system doesn't have a way to enforce change.
But you can add a taxation system in the protocol of dash.
Taxation can be used to enforce change, or to financially punish someone who is not compatible with the decisions of the community.
Click to expand...
Taxation doesn't work in crypto. You can't force someone to pay something - they can just create a new wallet with a new 'identity'.

A government can put you in jail....(unless you are running for president or a CEO)...that has a little more pull than a taxing a dead wallet.
 
Solarminer said:
Taxation doesn't work in crypto. You can't force someone to pay something - they can just create a new wallet with a new 'identity'.

A government can put you in jail....(unless you are running for president or a CEO)...that has a little more pull than a taxing a dead wallet.
Click to expand...

Taxation may work for the budget system only.

How do you pay those who implement a budget proposal? They are forced to give a dash wallet address in order to get paid.

So if you want to punish them you can implement taxation punishment into the dash protocol, for those specific dash wallets that are paid by the budget system. You may also trace the transactions in the blockchain and prevent anonymization for a period of time, for all those specific dash wallets that are affiliated to the budget, so even if they will try to create a new wallet identity, this identity will also be traced.

It all depends on the protocol of dash. Taxation may work in crypto, if you say so.
 
Last edited:
demo said:
Taxation works, for the budget system.

How do you pay those who implement a budget proposal? They are forced to give a dash wallet address in order to get paid.

So if you want to punish them you can implement taxation into the dash protocol, for those specific dash wallets that are paid by the budget system.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you can stop paying someone that has a budget paying them. That isn't a tax. That is just defunding future work. A government can tax you and go after all your assets and put in jail depending on if you pay. There is a big difference.
 
Solarminer said:
Yeah, you can stop paying someone that has a budget paying them. That isn't a tax. That is just defunding future work. A government can tax you and go after all your assets and put in jail depending on if you pay. There is a big difference.
Click to expand...

I didnt mean just stop paying him.
The protocol may also include the option for all his dash wallet that is affiliated to the budget to be confiscated, if this is the decision of the dash community. Confiscation is taxation.
 
demo said:
I didnt mean just stop paying him.
The protocol may also include the option for all his dash wallet that is affiliated to the budget to be confiscated, if this is the decision of the dash community. Confiscation is taxation.
Click to expand...
Besides for setting a really bad precedence that any wallet can be zeroed at the touch of a button, why would anyone keep funds in the same wallet if they knew it would be confiscated. They would just transfer to another wallet. Mix it. Send again. (wallet isn't really the right term but I am making this simple)

Crypto isn't like a credit card - you can just charge up a debt on someone. There is no social security number to track an identity and take future earnings.
 
Solarminer said:
Besides for setting a really bad precedence that any wallet can be zeroed at the touch of a button, why would anyone keep funds in the same wallet if they knew it would be confiscated. They would just transfer to another wallet. Mix it. Send again. (wallet isn't really the right term but I am making this simple)
Click to expand...

I dindt said ANY wallet may be confiscated. I said specific wallets, affiliated to the budget system should be confiscated if something bad happens. For those specific wallets affiliated to the budget, transactions and money transfer should be recorded and rollback if neccessary, and mixing should be prohibited by the protocol, for a predefined time period.

And I didnt said "at the touch of a button" those specific wallets to be confiscated. I said "after a decision-vote of the community".

It is tottaly different what I proposed, and what you understood. By allowing in the protocol the confiscation of specific targeted wallets after the decision of the community, this threat could enforce people to behave properly. This will turn dash closer to a nation. If you are only based in the good will, and if you dont have a mechanism to enforce and to threat, then it is likely to fail.
 
Last edited:
demo said:
I dindt said ANY wallet may be confiscated. I said specific wallets, affiliated to the budget system should be confiscated if something bad happens. For those specific wallets affiliated to the budget, transactions and money transfer should be recorded and rollback if neccessary, and mixing should be prohibited by the protocol, for a predefined time period.

And I didnt said "at the touch of a button" those specific wallets to be confiscated. I said "after a decision-vote of the community".

It is tottaly different what I proposed, and what you understood. By allowing in the protocol the confiscation of specific targeted wallets after the decision of the community, this threat could enforce people to behave properly. This will turn dash closer to a nation. If you are only based in the good will, and if you dont have a mechanism to enforce and to threat, then it is likely to fail.
Click to expand...

Although it might not be going *exactly* that way, we are moving in that direction with programmable budgets.
 
demo said:
I dindt said ANY wallet may be confiscated. I said specific wallets, affiliated to the budget system should be confiscated if something bad happens. For those specific wallets affiliated to the budget, transactions and money transfer should be recorded and rollback if neccessary, and mixing should be prohibited by the protocol, for a predefined time period.

And I didnt said "at the touch of a button" those specific wallets to be confiscated. I said "after a decision-vote of the community".

It is tottaly different what I proposed, and what you understood. By allowing in the protocol the confiscation of specific targeted wallets after the decision of the community, this threat could enforce people to behave properly. This will turn dash closer to a nation. If you are only based in the good will, and if you dont have a mechanism to enforce and to threat, then it is likely to fail.
Click to expand...

You can't rollback a transaction without redesigning code. This is what Ethereum is trying to do with the DAO problems. It is ugly to say the least. If they do it then it allows the possibility to do it in the future - weakening the faith in Ethereum and it's fungibility. If they don't do it the attacker gains a lot of ether.

So even assuming you could 'rollback' a transaction. You would only be able to get back the amount that you paid that person. But more likely that person has already sold their Dash to fiat and the current holder is the one you tax. Think about screwing with fungiblitiy! But even getting back funds you paid someone...that isn't a big incentive to enforce someone to act. The government has much stronger ways (police, jail, or docking future paychecks).
 
Solarminer said:
that isn't a big incentive to enforce someone to act. The government has much stronger ways (police, jail, or docking future paychecks).
Click to expand...

It isnt a big incentive for sure. But it is still a small incentive to enforce someone to act. And something small is always better than nothing at all.
 
Solarminer said:
You can't rollback a transaction without redesigning code. This is what Ethereum is trying to do with the DAO problems. It is ugly to say the least. If they do it then it allows the possibility to do it in the future - weakening the faith in Ethereum and it's fungibility. If they don't do it the attacker gains a lot of ether.
Click to expand...
Fortunately for their market cap, none of the cryptotard bagholders have any idea what this means; 1000% fuxored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top