SnowHater
Active member
a little off-topic article here: http://theshapeofthings.org/2016/01/18/field-interview-wmatan-field-ethereum-devcon-1/
Governance question?
- Thread starter BruceLee
- Start date
Sure, they can do that but won't look good. It would turn lots of people away from the project. Why bite the hand that feeds? The community is feeding the development and helping out to grow the project.
Evan and few other foundation members decided unilaterally to buy the DASH.ORG domain but Evan offered to pay for the domain out of his own pocket in case community would have decided purchasing the domain was a bad idea. This happened because the domain purchase was being negotiated and making it all public beforehand could have driven up the price.
I basically see two main problems:
- If we have BTC as an example: There are tons of BTC investors who will not run a BTC full node, even though they know it is important to the network (their investment);
- Even if DASH investors are different, and are willing to donate "strong reliable nodes" (with the eventual requirements from the network to take the node into consideration - for example, to avoid sock puppet voters/sybil attackers), still voting for important decisions to the DASH community/network should be seen as something serious, involving real money invested, and should never be seen as a funny online game...
edit: (I hope) the more money one has invested in some investment (e.g. DASH), the more serious will be one's decisions regarding this investment (e.g. masternode owners vs any other "not invested user")... sorry for being a little unpleasant on this subject.
But, if there's a viable solution, that would be wonderful, indeed.
- If we have BTC as an example: There are tons of BTC investors who will not run a BTC full node, even though they know it is important to the network (their investment);
- Even if DASH investors are different, and are willing to donate "strong reliable nodes" (with the eventual requirements from the network to take the node into consideration - for example, to avoid sock puppet voters/sybil attackers), still voting for important decisions to the DASH community/network should be seen as something serious, involving real money invested, and should never be seen as a funny online game...
edit: (I hope) the more money one has invested in some investment (e.g. DASH), the more serious will be one's decisions regarding this investment (e.g. masternode owners vs any other "not invested user")... sorry for being a little unpleasant on this subject.
But, if there's a viable solution, that would be wonderful, indeed.
Last edited by a moderator:
lynx
Active member
I knooow! Maybe you view standard corporations as the CEO doing whatever he wants, but that is not the case for most corporations. Not the larger ones, at least.
CEOs can take important decisions unilaterally. The board is a fail safe in most cases, though some take very important decisions to the board. Pointless to argue this further since it's irrelevant to our topic.
The point is, whether we are talking about a CEO or a board, the decision making is not done by the foundation or the lead developers. The masternode operators are the core community members. They are far from being a board which is usually composed of a handful of people. Also, any community member can make budget proposals, which are then put to a vote. This is also very different as well as compared to a standard corporation where very few voices can be heard.
You have stated initially that I'm arguing towards making DASH more like a corporation. By the contrary, idea was to further decentralize it, to move it further away from a centralized top down standard corporation model.
Do we understand each other now?
SnowHater
Active member
raganius
I think that if I buy about 5 DASH, then voting for me will be something simillar to playing online game. And my influence on the whole network will be about 0.005 of 1 voice of a masternode. But if I buy 50 000 DASH then voting with my 50 masternodes will be more serious for me and for the network.
Which users do we have in majority - the ones who want to buy 5 DASH and try the whole functionality of the system with the ease of entering online game or the ones who want to buy let's say 500 DASH (2500$) and not to get that opportunity?
Full nodes in Bitcoin don't get paid. There is not any incentivisation. Masternodes in DASH have a) voting ability b) reward for service providing. Voting nodes should have voting ability but not reward (or smaller reward). So incentivisation for deploying masternodes stays.
I think that if I buy about 5 DASH, then voting for me will be something simillar to playing online game. And my influence on the whole network will be about 0.005 of 1 voice of a masternode. But if I buy 50 000 DASH then voting with my 50 masternodes will be more serious for me and for the network.
Which users do we have in majority - the ones who want to buy 5 DASH and try the whole functionality of the system with the ease of entering online game or the ones who want to buy let's say 500 DASH (2500$) and not to get that opportunity?
Full nodes in Bitcoin don't get paid. There is not any incentivisation. Masternodes in DASH have a) voting ability b) reward for service providing. Voting nodes should have voting ability but not reward (or smaller reward). So incentivisation for deploying masternodes stays.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wish we had an official weekly or bi-weekly newsletter because I think it might help to engage users and voters.. and I think that kind of info would benefit any future expansion of the governance system. But I'm dreaming, I have no idea who would do that...
BruceLee
Member
Problem is how to make sure centralization won't happen.
This corporate stock like voting system make sense in some way but still has problem to improve.
I think It can be improved through the diversify of the voting system.
Miner vote
3tier user vote
2ter (MN) vote
developer vote
As long as i know, rootstock use similar voting system.
It certainly worth think/discuss about.
This corporate stock like voting system make sense in some way but still has problem to improve.
I think It can be improved through the diversify of the voting system.
Miner vote
3tier user vote
2ter (MN) vote
developer vote
As long as i know, rootstock use similar voting system.
It certainly worth think/discuss about.
I like this approach this way masternode owners can't vote soley on masternode agenda projects that might negatively affect miners. I just dont want to see pay to vote type thing where budget system is gamed.
BruceLee
Member
Not English speaker here.
Sure this POS model make sense, but 3-tier n DASH holder should be able to make 1/m of 1 MN node. (plz note n!=m)
I think it is vital to DASH success cause It can help to prevent MN centralization tendency.
Let's assume group of rich guys in MN want more fee, more voting power, so they decide to eliminate competitiors.
They can do it by form a some kind of cartel(can be secretive!) then increase minimum required DASH deposit to become a MN.
How can we prevent it from happen?
One permanent solution I think is give 3-tier users some (at least fraction) voting power as 3-tier users won't want pay more fees for instantX.
+ miners should have some voting power too.
we should seriously study rootStock voting system.
Then we can make it better.
The issue is not greed.. this is capitalism... if it were overpriced, the demand would drop and feedback to the "greedy capitalists". The issue is collusion because that might be a form of centralization... and that's a hard nut to crack when stake holders are anonymous.
Exactly. In other words: The "Masternode Centralisation Issue" is a fallacy. If there's abuse from the Masternode owners, the dissatisfied "regular users" will dump DASH, ergo the MN owners will see their money "dissolve".
There's no incentive to Masternoders' abuse.... it's not like DASH has got the cryptocurrency monopoly.
Why would a bunch of "stinky rich guys" want "more voting power" for a "dumped currency"? it makes no sense...
As I said before, the ultimate vote a user can give on a cryptocurrency governance is
IMHO, It's a waste of time to try to give vote to "micro investors": It would deteriorate the quality of the decisions, from my perspective.
Sorry again.
edit: btw, regarding miners: likewise to the so-called "regular users", the miners do also have their own voting method already. The miners vote with their hashrate. They can "migrate to better coins" whenever they feel like "not satisfied".
Last edited by a moderator:
BruceLee
Member
First of all, I'm a libertarian and capitalist plz mind this fact.
Yes DASH is not monopoly of this market but you have to consider word "Decentralization".
Why use digital currency from the beginning? Why not fiat? How about newly developing Chinese digital currency?
supreme master's of Chinese communist party will handle CCPDC extremely efficiently.
It will be even faster and efficient than DASH!
What if some financial institution make almost exact clone of DASH? can we compete against them?
Decentralization is slow and painful but it's our strongest weapon!
I love the MN structure of DASH but we have to find the way for balance of power.
You think micro investor should not vote? I'm perfectly fine with that, than at least miners must act as a voter. (Balance of power!)
Otherwise DASH will not replace bitcoin, will not make great, It will serve just niche market at best.
From what I can see, the answer to your concern is simple: the "minimum MN deposit problem" is nonexistent. flailingjunk has already answered it for you, perfectly.
Full disclosure: I don't know where you are from, but at least here in Brazil I have seem (probably monero) trolls spreading a great deal of FUD about DASH: whenever our cryptocurrency is mentioned, these trolls say that DASH is a huge risk (ironically) because of "flaws that are never being fixed".... but they never specify such "flaws".... I believe this causes anguish to some newbies. But it's up to each investor the task of doing their own intelligent and critical research before making investment decisions.
edit: for the sake of illustration, regarding what I said of "DASH being constantly attacked in Portuguese speaking forums", here are some examples from the BTCtalk (sorry, in Portuguese):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1237224.msg12959706#msg12959706
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1136388.msg13629690#msg13629690
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1303389.msg13369542#msg13369542
(plenty other examples on Facebook, for instance)
Last edited by a moderator:
For sure, I can definitely be wrong in my assumptions. And I am glad that other ideas are brought to discussion. But as I see things, the "regular users" (micro-investors / customers ...) do have their voting power: by pumping or dumping DASH.
The same goes for the miners, as I have already said above.
And both hold as much power (if not more) as the Masternode owners, because, without the three of them, DASH will fail.
:wink:
Finally, regarding your decentralisation concern: rest assured, to classify DASH as centralised is a gross misleading error. DASH is far from being centralised:
Please, compare it with BTC.
Last edited by a moderator:
SnowHater
Active member
Masternodes also have pump and dump power. If they want they can sell their coins and sell their equipment or use it for being nodes of other cryptocurrency, right?
So this doesnt seems like equal powers,
users (+)have ability to pump and dump, (+)have no equipment costs, but (-)have not ability to vote,
miners (+)have rewards, (+)have ability to pump and dump, but (-)have not ability to vote and (-)have equipment costs.
Masternode (rich investors) (+)have rewards, (+)have abilitiy to pump and dump, (+)have ability to vote but (-)have equipment costs.
So this doesnt seems like equal powers,
users (+)have ability to pump and dump, (+)have no equipment costs, but (-)have not ability to vote,
miners (+)have rewards, (+)have ability to pump and dump, but (-)have not ability to vote and (-)have equipment costs.
Masternode (rich investors) (+)have rewards, (+)have abilitiy to pump and dump, (+)have ability to vote but (-)have equipment costs.
Sorry, but what you have just said makes no sense for me:
Please understand that:
1. If Masternoders dump their DASH they will be no longer Masternoders (or at least, they wil be hurting themselves);
2. Any user of any cryptocurrency can vote by migrating to better projects.... the same applies to the miners;
3. Masternoder do have equipment costs. And the more the network demands increase, the more demanding will be the Masternode costs;
Finally: A Masternode is a serious work, not a funny game. And the fact that they are or they are not "rich investors" doe not matter the least: I'm afraid the cryptocurrencies are not communist-anti-rich-projects... at least DASH does not seem like that to me.
raganius
You have made a statement which pretty much sums up your point of view and perhaps the point of view of some other people as well. You've said giving voting power to the micro investor would lower the quality of the decision making process. I believe this is your core argument.
I don't think we need to turn this into an ideological capitalist vs socialist argument because it's not really the case and it only lowers the quality of the debate, making some people think they should act in a certain way. Just like BruceLee I'm very much a libertarian capitalist myself.
The micro investor doesn't have $10k to buy a node or whatever the price of 1 masternode will be in the not so distant future. I believe it's sitting at $6k now. At some point you were able to get one for $1k. This means only people with fat chunks of money will be able to vote on development paths.
Just because someone has more money to spend doesn't mean that person can be make better decisions. I've given an example earlier on in a previous post. People in the banking sector earn the most money by far. If a venture capitalist, working for say Goldman Sachs, gets into DASH and buys shitload of masternodes will have more say than one geeky savvy developer that knows wtf's going on and is perhaps more of an idealist than a pragmatic backstabbing opportunist that got into banking to sniff coke and fuck as many chicks as possible. Another example would be some person that just inherited shitload of money or rich folks living from passive income like rents, who are stupid lazy mofos, living on passive income, who don't need to exercise their brain much. So that being said, I don't really believe purchasing power = quality decision making.
You have made a statement which pretty much sums up your point of view and perhaps the point of view of some other people as well. You've said giving voting power to the micro investor would lower the quality of the decision making process. I believe this is your core argument.
I don't think we need to turn this into an ideological capitalist vs socialist argument because it's not really the case and it only lowers the quality of the debate, making some people think they should act in a certain way. Just like BruceLee I'm very much a libertarian capitalist myself.
The micro investor doesn't have $10k to buy a node or whatever the price of 1 masternode will be in the not so distant future. I believe it's sitting at $6k now. At some point you were able to get one for $1k. This means only people with fat chunks of money will be able to vote on development paths.
Just because someone has more money to spend doesn't mean that person can be make better decisions. I've given an example earlier on in a previous post. People in the banking sector earn the most money by far. If a venture capitalist, working for say Goldman Sachs, gets into DASH and buys shitload of masternodes will have more say than one geeky savvy developer that knows wtf's going on and is perhaps more of an idealist than a pragmatic backstabbing opportunist that got into banking to sniff coke and fuck as many chicks as possible. Another example would be some person that just inherited shitload of money or rich folks living from passive income like rents, who are stupid lazy mofos, living on passive income, who don't need to exercise their brain much. So that being said, I don't really believe purchasing power = quality decision making.
Last edited by a moderator:
SnowHater
Active member
raganius
I understand your concerns about getting 'a mess' instead of 'well-functioning' system but you have to keep in mind that each successful company gets its success via supplying good services to its users. So, I think that DASH should serve its users first but not its masternodes). So, if each new user coming to DASH network and asking for adding new feature that he thinks will be useful for him (not for masternodes) will get answer about his ultimate voting power to switch to other cryptocurrency, I guess, he will do that eventually).
I understand your concerns about getting 'a mess' instead of 'well-functioning' system but you have to keep in mind that each successful company gets its success via supplying good services to its users. So, I think that DASH should serve its users first but not its masternodes). So, if each new user coming to DASH network and asking for adding new feature that he thinks will be useful for him (not for masternodes) will get answer about his ultimate voting power to switch to other cryptocurrency, I guess, he will do that eventually).
:smile:
This is a subject for looooong debates, which will bring back some of the most heated debates we had some months ago:
https://dashtalk.org/threads/self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4708
https://dashtalk.org/threads/vote-self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4825
Let's do it! :wink:
This is a subject for looooong debates, which will bring back some of the most heated debates we had some months ago:
https://dashtalk.org/threads/self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4708
https://dashtalk.org/threads/vote-self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4825
Let's do it! :wink: