Governance question?

BruceLee

BruceLee

Member
Not English speaker and it may stupid question.
But what if MN quorum decide to increase required DASH deposit? (want more fee/power/control)
From the beginning it wont be a rapid increase, but I think it can be a vicious cycle.(centralized currency!??)

DASH may not have block limit problem but it could have minimum MN deposit problem?
Plz someone answer this question. whether I'm complete idiot or not.
 
Not a stupid question. It is an interesting question that is definitely worth thinking about. My first thought about it is that the value proposition of Dash relies on it being a decentralized network. If a conspiracy of masternodes tried to do that early in the life of dash than it would just kill dash because no one would value it if it was becoming centralized. The conspiracy would gain nothing and lose their investment.

They might have a better chance with that scheme if they tried to pull it after Dash is more successful because people would be reluctant to abandon their investments in dash even if a conspiracy was centralizing the masternodes. It would be much harder at that time though because dash would be spread out amongst more people requiring a larger conspiracy and the scaling of the next generation of dash(evolution) requires smaller masternode collateral(more masternodes) in order to do more network actions per second.

k9fchH9.jpg
 
I think that MN collateral doesn't get smaller in terms of USD with the network growth.
1000 * 10 = 10000 USD
500 * 100 = 50000 USD
250 * 1000 = 250000 USD

Also, I think that participating in the governance process via voting is very interesting and attracting feature for new users. And with the network growing newcomers will have lower ability to enroll in this due to the growth of MN collaterals in USD. So I think it would be perfect if newcomers could take part in voting with weight of their voices being proportional their personal collaterals divided let's say 1500 (More than 1000 like with full MN) even if these collaterals are smaller than 1000 DASH.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see a need for cheaper MNs because as the user base grows there would be a larger pool of investors. I agree, it would be good to build an ecosystem that allows people to participate at all levels, but I think that might come as a third tier network e.g. smart contracts, insurance, conflict resolution, and so on. Okay, I'm just guessing, I just don't see it as a problem right now because the MN network is not shrinking, it's growing.
 
I don't propose cheaper MNs. I propose that more users would get ability to participate in voting even though they haven't enough money for running their own MNs. Of course it may cost higher for them to vote (higher then for MN hosters) because they do not do anything useful for the Dash network other than hold their money in it.
 
SnowHater said:
I don't propose cheaper MNs. I propose that more users would get ability to participate in voting even though they haven't enough money for running their own MNs. Of course it may cost higher for them to vote (higher then for MN hosters) because they do not do anything useful for the Dash network other than hold their money in it.
Click to expand...

Yes, because votes should only count when you have a stake in it's future. Not entirely sure, however, that votes should be simply bought. MN operators are at least smart enough to setup and maintain their nodes. That's what we should do, not just put money in and expect free money in return.
 
Yes, that's true. But participating in voting doesn't include getting profit. Actually it includes paying for voting and getting by this an ability to influence on the network development and to propose new features.
 
SnowHater said:
Yes, that's true. But participating in voting doesn't include getting profit. Actually it includes paying for voting and getting by this an ability to influence on the network development and to propose new features.
Click to expand...

In this case, I'm afraid the "price" charged for these non-masternode votes would have to be quite high. Expensive enough to avoid spam voting destroying DASH's governance.

Masternode collateral demand has got a reason, and that's not: "to limit the number of people profiting" (as the trolls seem to imply). Instead, the collateral serves to give the system resistance against sybil attacks.

Sorry if I'll sound unpleasant here, but the ultimate vote a user can give on a cryptocurrency governance is buy by selling it, to buy into an alternative currency he judges better. There's a free market of currencies out there, and no cryptocurrency will ever be able to please all demands from each and every person.

The Masternode owners know about this "currencies free market": they've got a lot to lose in case they make continuous bad decisions.

edit: fixed ridiculous typo, "buy" instead of "by" lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
raganius said:
The Masternode owners know about this "currencies free market": they've got a lot to lose in case they make continuous bad decisions.
Click to expand...
Ok, but don't Voting Nodes give resistance against sybil attacks too? I assume that if each 1 Voting node have collateral of 100 DASH (I would prefer smaller amount, though), than it should have 0,1 or something like 0,075 of voice weight in voting compared to MN's one. Aren't this voting nodes have something to lose in case they make continuos bad decisions too? I mean they have to put their own collateral which price will get lower in USD too if something bad happens. Moreover the network could take fees from VNs in order to proceed voting, and that fees could go in the budget supply.

Just think of a slogan like that: In DASH everyone is shareholder and everyone is CEO. All you need is DASH)).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
victorbx said:
I think creating voting nodes (VN's)
With collaterals of 100 dash Is a good idea
The VN's might be good as full nosed as well
No profit for VN's
:grin:
Click to expand...
Could we have a two tier voting system so full nodes or vote nodes can vote up proposals and masternode approves or rejects from blockchain...
 
I see. The intention is good, but for how long should the "voting node" have to be mantained online (with the same coins/vin and the same ip) before it is allowed to cast its first votes? Or will it be possible to create several different "ad hoc voting nodes" (even using the same coins, mixed again and again, to create "new sockpuppet voters") just in time for my next voting (because it would also be unfair to demand that the "non profiting voter node" hires an expensive static ip)? You see? It sounds beautiful as an idea, but seems quite risky from my point of view.

The notion of "fair" and "unfair" is quite subjective. And, to be honest, this is not a "country" where each person is a vote. It is more like a "company", from what I understand of the project... but I can be completely wrong with my opinions :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe VNs should send money to some account that will automatically lock their money for some period. And among that period they will have an ability to take part in voting. I do not know how to implement this technically. And I am curious about is it even possible and how hard it would take to implement such a thing and how would it be useful for the network.
 
VN could get 1/10 of a full node vote..... so when there are 10 full nodes fotes and 39 VN we will get the 13,9 votes over a proposal... that could be an idea for scaling the voting system over time....
 
splawik21 said:
VN could get 1/10 of a full node vote..... so when there are 10 full nodes fotes and 39 VN we will get the 13,9 votes over a proposal... that could be an idea for scaling the voting system over time....
Click to expand...
Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about.
 
splawik21 said:
VN could get 1/10 of a full node vote..... so when there are 10 full nodes fotes and 39 VN we will get the 13,9 votes over a proposal... that could be an idea for scaling the voting system over time....
Click to expand...

Or better (by seeing you, this idea came to my mind): by participating in a shared Masternode, each stakeholder will have the possibility to participate in a internal node "sub-vote" among each shared node stakeholder (coordinated by the shared node administrator). The result of this "internal sub-vote" will be the shared node's vote on the main network.

We only need to improve (the security of stakeholders in) shared Masternodes :wink:
 
SnowHater said:
Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

The problem with "non remunerated voting nodes" is: will there be relevant participation of users willing to pay for a stable node (static ip, etc)? For free? (case in point: bitcoin)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
raganius said:
Or better (by seeing you, this idea came to my mind): by participating in a shared Masternode, each stakeholder will have the possibility to participate in a internal node "sub-vote" among each shared node stakeholder (coordinated by the shared node administrator). The result of this "internal sub-vote" will be the shared node's vote on the main network.

We only need to improve (the security of stakeholders in) shared Masternodes :wink:
Click to expand...
Well to get the shared votes the masternode has to be created - that obligates the shareholders to phisicly move their coins over the node administrator - that needs a lot of trust toward the person who operates it. My experience shows that with price increase this is getting a problem now.

So letting the possibility to vote for the VN which will be 1/10 of a normal vote needs to be done a coding in a way where the network meaby sees the collateral of 100 in the same mode as 100 is done?
 
I think creating a 3rd tier of nodes could be an interesting solution. The 3rd tier of nodes could do things where Sybil attack won't be an issue. This 3rd tier (or alternative tier) could have low requirement/low barrier to entry as compared to the 1k masternode req.

This 3rd tier of nodes should also get voting rights. It's a shame this cool voting system we have is restricted to masternode owners alone since it's a great showcase of decentralized governance and not many get the chance to use it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
raganius splawik21

The Vote Nodes or VN can have more than just voting capability. It would be very smart actually to offload some bandwidth and storage burden from Masternodes to another low requirement node network. The Masternodes are set to do a bunch of things where Sybil attacks are probably not a threat. Those tasks could be transferred to the low requirement nodes and since they'll provide a useful service they should also be incentivized as keeping a node operational costs money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top