Matthew 7:6

[camosoul]

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

After you not only burn, but nuke the bridge from orbit, don't send the one guy you think I'll be sympathetic towards to do your dirty work. I'm not stupid. I know the difference between you and he... Do you really think I'm such a stupid, simpering putz that I can't tell and everything will be OK?

It's not even about me... It's about YOU. Yes. You people: spoken with a tone of disgust and a snarled nose...

I'm not going to be a sucker for a bunch of Social Justice Warriors again. Not because I'm butthurt or mad or you hurt my feelings. But, because this community has a lesson to learn, and I'll not take it's chance to learn it away from it.

Some people only learn the hard way. Suck, but that's how it is. You don't get to play the victim, act like a bunch of entitled shits, treat the one person who actually did real work like absolute garbage, and then he'll come running back for more because he just loves that so much...

Grow up, or maintain your arrogance and find another way.

Look at all those approved budget pipe-dreams that'll never happen... If you spent even a fraction of that on the people who actually did something... Sitting around doling out someone else's free money is not "work" or "action." You haven't actually done shit. And if that money is wasted and squandered? No negative consequence is suffered. Until the world sees what a clown car DASH has become...

These topics don't seem related on the surface, but they are related. Very related. Just keep reading, you'll see why.

Miners are giving you half the block reward, and what are you doing with it? Perhaps it is a miner tax, seeing how it's squandered so badly... Only one category of money gets wasted on such stupid shit, so flagrantly; tax money! So, what masternodes get paid really is a tax, after all! It's easy to give away someone else's money. It has no value.

Now, if you ditched the stuperblock crapola, paid a percentage directly out of the blockchain... Well, then there'd be a value choice! When 10% is pulled no matter what, there's no value choice. It's happening regardless, so why not piss on it? Not even pay attention? It's a faux-vote. I told you it was a faux vote. I told you what would happen. Here it is.

The useless neo-soviets screamed "But then the masternodes will vote everything down!" And they successfully got their free 10% for nothing. Now it has no value, because there is no choice.

I used this example once already:
Build car.
Put one tire on it.
Observe that this works badly.
Set it on fire.
Declare success.

This is the current MN voting behavior. Why? Because the votes don't matter. The projects submitted don't have to prove their worth or value against anything of standing worth or value. They don't have to be worth more than doing nothing, which pays. So the projects we see are just as empty as the non-existent value challenge. Lets vote to force @camosoul to braid his ass hair every Thursday!

It has to be worth removing from the payout, or not be removed from the payout. There's no value challenge. Instead we've got "Well, this 10% is coming out no matter what, so we may as well blow it on some kinda dumb crap..." We have the blind pork barrel. There's no corrupt politician earmarking pork for themselves. But it's still pork. "That 10% is going somewhere no matter what" needs to become "There's a cap at 10%, but to be included, it has to be worth a shit to begin with."

And it needs 3 more tires. Part of why the budget system doesn't work, is because it's a car with 1 tire. It almost seems set up for failure because who in their right mind would have ever thought that this methodology would work in the first place? I sure as fuck didn't. I told you why, and here we are. It all came true. TOLJASO.

Oh, and the convenient "solution" to a problem thing that we knew damn well wasn't going to work, is to conveniently elect representatives who will dole it out appropriately, simply because the voting masses can't get their heads out of their butts? Are you kidding me? So, the blind pork barrel becomes a willful pork barrel with all the same pitfalls of exactly what this was supposed to avoid?

An artful ploy; if the audience is fucking retarded... Deliberately design something you know won't work and will be a disaster, so you can then suggest the same old corrupt system because it looks like a good idea compared to that total failure thing...

We need to vote on more than just "yea" or "nay." Rate and priority need to be a part of the vote process. No more base 10% to burn regardless. Oh, predictability matters? DOGE still exists, your argument is invalid.

Build the car. Put only one tire on it. Then declare "Oh well, that doesn't work, I guess cars are a bad idea and we need to go back to riding horses." Horses who are your buddies and will dole out the money however the man behind the curtain wants it done...

Give the voters the granularity of power that they need for this to actually work. Then, stand back and let them fuck up until they learn. As it is, you're asking them to drive, while blind folded, with one tire, and an accelerator that is boolean (all the way to the floor, or nothing at all). Who could ever learn to drive like that? Of course that doesn't work. It almost looks like you intended it not to work, so that you could then suggest the path of horrible corruption, and turning that blind pork into your own pork, and having it look like a good thing...

There's still someone here who isn't a fool, and I'm watching. Or did you think I wasn't?

 

[TroyDASH]

Perhaps we should use all of Matthew 7? It's a great chapter --

Matthew 7 (NIV)

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

 

[camosoul]

Perhaps we should use all of Matthew 7? It's a great chapter --

Matthew 7 (NIV)

It is! I was just focusing on that part that applies here, instead of pretending otherwise.

You, personally, might want to consider this part before you open your mouth again:

By their fruit you will recognize them.

What fruit have your borne? Trolling and deceptions. Which is why you were thrown into the fire of the ignore list!

What fruit was borne of the vending machine project? Throw those guys into the fire too! Keep voting for silly, unfounded crap! The one that tell you to grow up, burn him as badly as you can! Refer back to to 7:6!

Trying to twist The Word won't get you far with me, boy. You can tell a lot of lies, but that's a lie I will not abide.

 

[TroyDASH]

We need to vote on more than just "yea" or "nay." Rate and priority need to be a part of the vote process. No more base 10% to burn regardless.

Oh, and the convenient "solution" to a problem thing that we knew damn well wasn't going to work, is to conveniently elect representatives who will dole it out appropriately

From reading your post, I found that these two statements are really the core of what you're getting at.
I don't think it would be fair to characterize the budget system quite as negatively. How about the two extremes -- (1) The budget is spent only on projects based on merit and that actually have a positive ROI for the network, and (2) The entire budget is wasted on people who provide zero return value. The reality right now is between those two extremes, obviously, and I would think closer to (1) than (2). The goal as we move forward should be to move the dial more towards the former. Although I don't agree with the model for the next budget version as I understand it from Evan's interview, I can't say yet that I have a complete understanding of the model, at least until the more formal proof of concept is made available. Looking forward to more discussion on this topic --

 

[oaxaca]

At the risk of burning in hell for quoting myself, allow me to quote myself:
------------------------------------------
Why should masternode owners be forced to choose between 2 worthwhile projects because there is a magic number of DASH available in the budget system? Shouldn't each project stand on it's own merits? Shouldn't the masternode owners themselves decide what this number should be? The magic number in this case is the percentage of the block reward that was ordained back in the dawn of time of DASH (circa 2015). The origin of this number comes from the Holy Book itself:

"Make an offering of ten percent, a tithe, of all the produce which grows in your fields month after month."
- Jamaicans 14:2

I am proposing that this 10% number is an anachronism, belonging to another time. Let us allow the masternode owners to choose which projects are worthy.


Precedents in day to day DASH life

The total block reward itself is determined by the overall network hashing rate submitted by the miners. When more hashing power comes online, the block reward itself goes down. Miners will drop out of the network until an equilibrium is reached. When enough miners drop out of the network, block reward will increase enticing more miners to join until an equilibrium is reached.

The total number of masternodes is determined by the number of investors willing to create them. When more masternodes come online, the share of the total block reward for each masternode goes down. As this share drops, some masternode owners will take their 1000 DASH and use it for something else besides running a masternode. In this way, the invisible hand of the market will create an equilibrium in the number of masternodes.


In the current month approximately 7,500 DASH is deemed enough to keep the ecosystem running. This amount pays for development, builds roads and schools and represents 10% of the block reward. If more projects are deemed worthy, shouldn't we allow the masternode owners to decide whether to fund them? If we take the long term view of world domination by digital cash, isn't investing today worth having fat and happy times tomorrow?

What if the price of DASH goes up to $1020.32 USD (1:1 on the tao index) and a critical mass of humanity is using DASH for everday purchases? Surely the masternode owners can downvote proposals and cut back on expenses to increase the share of the block reward they (and the miners) receive. The magic number can be reduced down to 1 or 2 percent. Today when 2 worthwhile projects deserve funding, shouldn't the percentage deserve 11%?

How would this work? When each month is finalized, the "magic number" will be used for the split of the block reward for the next month. Easy.
-----------------------------------------
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dynamically-allocated-budgeting.8501/#post-90028

 

[TroyDASH]

At the risk of burning in hell for quoting myself, allow me to quote myself:
------------------------------------------
Why should masternode owners be forced to choose between 2 worthwhile projects because there is a magic number of DASH available in the budget system? Shouldn't each project stand on it's own merits? Shouldn't the masternode owners themselves decide what this number should be? The magic number in this case is the percentage of the block reward that was ordained back in the dawn of time of DASH (circa 2015). The origin of this number comes from the Holy Book itself:

"Make an offering of ten percent, a tithe, of all the produce which grows in your fields month after month."
- Jamaicans 14:2

I am proposing that this 10% number is an anachronism, belonging to another time. Let us allow the masternode owners to choose which projects are worthy.


Precedents in day to day DASH life

The total block reward itself is determined by the overall network hashing rate submitted by the miners. When more hashing power comes online, the block reward itself goes down. Miners will drop out of the network until an equilibrium is reached. When enough miners drop out of the network, block reward will increase enticing more miners to join until an equilibrium is reached.

The total number of masternodes is determined by the number of investors willing to create them. When more masternodes come online, the share of the total block reward for each masternode goes down. As this share drops, some masternode owners will take their 1000 DASH and use it for something else besides running a masternode. In this way, the invisible hand of the market will create an equilibrium in the number of masternodes.


In the current month approximately 7,500 DASH is deemed enough to keep the ecosystem running. This amount pays for development, builds roads and schools and represents 10% of the block reward. If more projects are deemed worthy, shouldn't we allow the masternode owners to decide whether to fund them? If we take the long term view of world domination by digital cash, isn't investing today worth having fat and happy times tomorrow?

What if the price of DASH goes up to $1020.32 USD (1:1 on the tao index) and a critical mass of humanity is using DASH for everday purchases? Surely the masternode owners can downvote proposals and cut back on expenses to increase the share of the block reward they (and the miners) receive. The magic number can be reduced down to 1 or 2 percent. Today when 2 worthwhile projects deserve funding, shouldn't the percentage deserve 11%?

How would this work? When each month is finalized, the "magic number" will be used for the split of the block reward for the next month. Easy.
-----------------------------------------
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dynamically-allocated-budgeting.8501/#post-90028

Under a dynamically allocated block reward as you are suggesting, if the budget goes above or below 10%, would the difference be allocated to/from the masternode PoS mining reward, or the PoW mining reward, or both?

 

[oaxaca]

Either or both. Whatever people decide.

 

[camosoul]

I say it flows right out of the block reward on a per block basis, just like the blocks themselves. Why re-invent the wheel with this stuperblock crapola? Silly... It's a nonsensically dysfunctional and complicated thing that was never supposed to work, so that a return to "corrupt elected officials doing the thinking for us" would seem like a good idea, an improvement. We'd end up asking to swallow the very pill we're trying to avoid. TACT: The ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip. Deception. Manipulation. The very reason why I am so deliberately tact-less and crude: I'm as honest as you'll ever get.

But, that's actually a distraction and tangentially related part of my original post's intent.

When you decide to be a pig that rips someone's arm off for the mistake of casting a few pearls, you're not getting that person's capacity to contribute back without an equal penance. Of course, something as arrogant as this community would never, ever admit to that, much less make amends. Don't go talking shit like I'm the one holding the grudge...

I got burned. Severely. Without so much as a thank you. A grudge, and learning one's lesson, are not the same thing. Don't pretend otherwise. Without any material change in the character (or lack of it as the case may be) of the community, what carrot is big enough to make me give a shit?

No lesson learned. No reason for me to be involved. It's not about the money. It's about shitty people being so shitty that they think their shittiness is capable of compensating for their shittiness. Like, when a bdumb girl says soemthing dumb, but then decides a bitchy attitude will make up for it when she gets called out. Originally, it was just a dumb thing that could have been correct with education, resulting in a net 0. Maybe even a gain of respect for admitting being wrong. But, really, when have you ever heard a woman admit she's wrong? She's talking about her feelings, right? How can she be wrong about her own selfishness? Who knows it better than she does? So, instead, we now have one defect, stupidity, being reinforced by acting like a cunt, two defects. So, instead of net zero, we have net -2. And since she's already "all in" and cannot un-ring the bitch bell; want to take bets on saying that her "combatant" is a wimp for not being any further interested in her? Net -3, that's 3 strikes for you jocks not familiar with math. Which means, she's out. But, she thinks she's the one who did all the rejecting.

It's exactly like dealing with "DASH people."

In fairness. Not all of you. In fact, I'd call it a 60/40 split on dumbshit entitled brats who think they're somebody, compared to rational, decent thinking people. But, a sufficiently large majority that it's just not worth my trouble. See, I learned my lesson. It's "The DASH people" who don't think they have to.

I've got shit to do. No one is paying me for babysitting and trying to force-feed life lessons to a bunch of neo-soviet Social Justice Warriors pretending to be capitalists in charge of a currency and using it as nothing more than a way to bait in the very people they want to beat to a bloody pulp for daring not to wear a Che Guevara shirt. Don't you know he openly called for the slaughter of gays? Morons...

 

[demo]

We need to vote on more than just "yea" or "nay." Rate and priority need to be a part of the vote process. No more base 10% to burn regardless. Oh, predictability matters? DOGE still exists, your argument is invalid.
Build the car. Put only one tire on it. Then declare "Oh well, that doesn't work, I guess cars are a bad idea and we need to go back to riding horses." Horses who are your buddies and will dole out the money however the man behind the curtain wants it done...
Give the voters the granularity of power that they need for this to actually work. Then, stand back and let them fuck up until they learn. As it is, you're asking them to drive, while blind folded, with one tire, and an accelerator that is boolean (all the way to the floor, or nothing at all). Who could ever learn to drive like that? Of course that doesn't work. It almost looks like you intended it not to work, so that you could then suggest the path of horrible corruption, and turning that blind pork into your own pork, and having it look like a good thing...

You are right.

It is a disaster to vote using only yes-no.
Voting with numbers is also needed.

"Here is wisdom, and whoever has a mind in him, let him vote the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man - 666."

“To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white vote with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it”

 

[Sapereaude]

I have to disagree with camosoul. I mean either way the vote only happens once per month, so I am unsure if granulating the vote will change much as the result is still boolean. Plus doesn't the number of yay vs nay votes does give some indication of granulation? The problem here seems to be lazy apathetic voters and scammers trying to take funds from worthwhile projects. So since we are unable to prevent the scammers and we are also unable to educating the unwilling, the only resonable method of preventing both is by a Benevolant dictator to tell them what to vote for. This is an easy way to direct apathetic voters and not get riled up about their incompetence, I mean they are not gonnna do much anyway.

I haven't been on the forum lately so I am unsure about what damage the social justice morons are doing, but the fact is they never get results. Just keep pointing that out and they will slink off to whatever feel-good everyone gets a certificate kindergarten they escaped from.

 

[demo]

The problem here seems to be lazy apathetic voters and scammers trying to take funds from worthwhile projects. So since we are unable to prevent the scammers and we are also unable to educating the unwilling, the only resonable method of preventing both is by a Benevolant dictator to tell them what to vote for. This is an easy way to direct apathetic voters and not get riled up about their incompetence, I mean they are not gonnna do much anyway.

Apathetic voters should be taxed.
That way they will stop being idiots, and they will become citizents.

 

[camosoul]

I have to disagree with camosoul. I mean either way the vote only happens once per month, so I am unsure if granulating the vote will change much as the result is still boolean. Plus doesn't the number of yay vs nay votes does give some indication of granulation? The problem here seems to be lazy apathetic voters and scammers trying to take funds from worthwhile projects. So since we are unable to prevent the scammers and we are also unable to educating the unwilling, the only resonable method of preventing both is by a Benevolant dictator to tell them what to vote for. This is an easy way to direct apathetic voters and not get riled up about their incompetence, I mean they are not gonnna do much anyway.

I haven't been on the forum lately so I am unsure about what damage the social justice morons are doing, but the fact is they never get results. Just keep pointing that out and they will slink off to whatever feel-good everyone gets a certificate kindergarten they escaped from.

The issue is the absence of a feedback loop, and even if it did exist, a total absence in feedback and/or control resolution.

It lacks feature set.

We expect people to learn, but the operation and feedback are so crude that they can't.

Blindfolded drivers of a car with one tire and a boolean gas pedal. Add to it, most of them are barely functional in the tech that applies, or understanding the responsibilities and concepts presented. It's way too much black hole.

I think that sticking them with a cattle prod under these circumstances would simply be cruel.

But, I do agree with your point. And agree with the fact, and have talked about it elsewhere, and been over these failings even before the budget system was put into existence; that an abstain option should be added so that:

1) The most important aspect of MNs, their vote, can be enforced as part of Proof of Service.
2) Those who have cast a vote can retract it without having to oppose it.

Not voting at all is not the same as abstaining. If you are forced to cast an abstain vote, you're at least paying attention. Ignoring it altogether is not abstaining, it is null, and the Proof of Service needs to have feedback according to this metric. We can't allow MNs to be treated like ASICs, they have to be forced to participate in the most important aspect of their function! Right now, the most important function is entirely ignorable! But, doing so must be useful, understandable, and controllable, which it currently is not. You can't just start zapping them in the dark... You have to give them the features and controls, first.

You do have to dis-incentivize the act of being oblivious. The only way to have that feedback is with the addition of an abstain vote. There has to be a punishment. But you can't just start flogging Helen Keller and expect results.

How is an abstain vote useful? When you force them to at least show up, you'll end up with reverse attrition. If you're going to go to the trouble of voting at all, and you have no choice, you have to, you may as well read a little and make the vote useful... If you have no choice to but to be involved or your money hose is going to get taken away from you, you may as well be usefully involved. Essentially, you're making them climb the hill. They may as well do something useful since they went to all that trouble.... Sure, some will still not bother, but some will.

Give Helen Keller some eyeballs, and a dial instead of a detonator. THEN you can bring the beatings for failure/refusal to use them.

How can you monitor for "MNs must cast a vote on at least 80% of budget proposals within the past 10,000 blocks" if we don't turn abstain into an event failure alarm? They still didn't vote yes or no, but they at least had to show up. If you want your money hose, do the thing you're supposed to be doing, or get fucked!

The rate and priority controls need to exist. Right now, all we have is "I didn't even know that existed" and "nuke it from orbit."

Yes, the payouts are fickle. This is not the problem. The problem is that people submitting the proposals can't get their head around CHANGE. We're trying to cater to a silly, outmoded concept where the applicants should be adapting to the way the payments work. Miners don't seem to mind that they are getting their payments per blocks. Proposal creators need to accept and understand this as well. There simply is no way to adapt the way the blockchain works to the conventional methods of a corporate budget. Isn't the whole fucking point of this, that it's different? Stuperblocks and "nuke it or be oblivious to it" controls are never going to work. I knew that before the budget system was even created...

Yes. There will be complaining proposal submiters who want everything the way they're used to. Miners cry like bitches every time they lose a money hose. That's how it fuckin' is! Quit trying to cater to them to such an extreme that you fuck up your system.

Lack of resolution in control and consequence
--Dials instead of one big red button.
Lack of enforcement
--Need provable feedback via abstain option.
Lack of adaptation
--Payouts come out of the blocks just like miners' share, don't like it, too bad! Don't do it then! Comply or go home.

That's what's wrong.

Don't give up and go back to "representative" voting.

Fix it.

This is not about "getting my way."

This is about what will work, and what will not.

Nothing short of this will work.

 

[Otaci]

I like the idea of including voting in the Proof of Service.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

This would tie in with the concept of Dash Nation where the goal is to achieve community-wide consensus on issues. By making voting a requirement, we are sure to get an accurate representation on the wishes of the entire body of shareholders. If we do this, though, we'd better do it sooner than later, because it would definitely cause a shakeup...

 

[demo]

But, I do agree with your point. And agree with the fact, and have talked about it elsewhere, and been over these failings even before the budget system was put into existence; that an abstain option should be added.

Of course we need another vote to be added between the yes and no votes, and of course we have to consider voting as a Proof of Service, thus indirect forcing people to participate in the voting procedure.

But this vote inbetween yes and no it should not be called "abstain". It should be called "other".

"Other" may include the meaning of "abstain", but includes also some other meanings that the core team prohibits to be voted, like voting with numbers and percentages, like the conditional vote (conditional vote is a special vote in the form of: if <condition> then I_vote_yes else I_vote_no), like the ranking vote e.t.c

I assume that the ranking vote and the number vote is well understood, so let me explain the conditional vote better.

Suppose someone proposes we go for a walk in the forest.

A stupid person votes yes.
Another stupid person votes no.
Another person votes "other", but "other" is not taken into account because it is unspecified.
The smart person votes: If it is raining, then no, else yes.

This is exactly what the core team prohibits, by only allowing us to vote either a yes or a no. They deny us the right to be smart. Conditional vote can be implemented in a computer enviroment. A computer programm checks the condition, and according to the condition extracts the appropriate vote and publishes the result of the poll.

 

[camosoul]

Of course we need another vote to be added between the yes and no votes, and of course we have to consider voting as a Proof of Service, thus indirect forcing people to participate in the voting procedure.

But this vote inbetween yes and no it should not be called "abstain". It should be called "other".

"Other" may include the meaning of "abstain", but includes also some other meanings that the core team prohibits to be voted, like voting with numbers and percentages, like the conditional vote (conditional vote is a special vote in the form of: if <condition> then I_vote_yes else I_vote_no), like the ranking vote e.t.c

I assume that the ranking vote and the number vote is well understood, so let me explain the conditional vote better.

Suppose someone proposes we go for a walk in the forest.

A stupid person votes yes.
Another stupid person votes no.
Another person votes "other", but "other" is not taken into account because it is unspecified.
The smart person votes: If it is raining, then no, else yes.

This is exactly what the core team prohibits, by only allowing us to vote either a yes or a no. They deny us the right to be smart. Conditional vote can be implemented in a computer enviroment. A computer programm checks the condition, and according to the condition extracts the appropriate vote and publishes the result of the poll.

I understand where you're going with this, but a proposal needs to be a static thing, not a choose your own story spaghetti blob.

If a proposal gets voted down by it's deadline, then look at what people said and change it. If you don't think it'll work any other way, there might be an empass.

"I propose Ice Cream!"

It gets voted down for vagueness.

I propose Ice Cream! Every Wednesday! Chocolate. A gallon delivered to your door."

It gets voted down because the majority thinks that Ice Cream means Butt Rape. But, also, some people don't see a reason why the blockchain should be sending them chocolate ice cream. Others doubt the ability of the proposer to actually pull it off. Others don't know how to vote. Others had no idea there was a vote thing they were supposed to do. A few are fat feminist social justice warriors who believe they are being oppressed by Camosoul for being born white and male, and want to whine about it and get fatter as they eat some free ice cream that they extorted from the blockchain by being the ones who submitted the proposal in the first place.

See how many choices, and the spiderweb of silly options you'd have to pick and include?

"If Ice cream is Butt Rape, no. Else, I don't know what to do because apparently I have no idea what Ice cream is because I thought it was Butt Rape."

"You mentioned Camosoul's name, and I hate that guy, so I vote no even thought this is not his proposal. Unless it is his proposal, then I vote no 3 times."

"What, I can only vote once? Unless I am a Feminist. Then you're oppressing me by not letting me vote once for each boob and once for my vagina. STOP OBJECTIFYING ME. DASH IS THE PATRIARCHY! I vote Zer."

"I vote yes if it happens because then it did happen so it must have. I vote no if there is a loaf of sourdough bread on the moon."

The main reason for so much cluelessness and chaos is that they're not being forced to pay attention and understand. Much of this would change if voting were in the proof of service. Even people choosing to abstain. Hell, some might even write an "abstain everything" script. But really, going to that much trouble just to shoot yourself int he foot? Even as s/he writes that script, s/he has to question why pissing in his/her own face is such a good idea... Why go to the trouble only to silence yourself? The Feminists are going to vote for truckloads of free ice cream if you don't wtop them. What will taht do for the net value of your masternodes? Eh, maybe pay attention? Sure, there will still be hardcore dickheads. I'm going to vote for my left nut in this election cycle. Just like the last 4 elections... None of the candidates are better...

MN operators need to grow up, but there's currently no incentive to do so. They vote on all kinds of crazy shit without any consideration for the follow through, is it even useful, etc... Since 10% is pulled out no matter what, there's no cost/benefit contest. Ideas don't have to prove their worth, and the people presenting them don't have to prove they can actually do it. They need to face the "Is this more likely to move the decimal point for DASH than simply doing nothing?" test. So, ideas that are worse than nothing get air time, and will be funded anyway no matter what because 10% regardless. There should be a 10% cap, and only the worthy get funds up to that amount. There's no sense in bothering with this much detail if you don't force them to pay attention to it and grow up. You can't just go zapping them with the cattle prod if you don't give them sufficient control and feedback to know what the hell is going on even when they are paying attention... A lot of the lethargy is not due to stupidity or immaturity. It's due to frustration with useless broken shit that doesn't work anyway... Why am I going to work really hard to solve a puzzle when the punishment for failure is getting shot in the face, and the punishment for success is working really hard to get shot in the face? No matter what I do I'm going to get shot in the face, so I may as well do nothing and at least it;s not my own fault that I got shot in the face. Or is it? Why am I even paying attention? I may as well ignore it and money hose my ASIC that isn't an ASIC....

 

[demo]

If a proposal gets voted down by it's deadline, then look at what people said and change it. If you don't think it'll work any other way, there might be an empass.
"I propose Ice Cream!" It gets voted down for vagueness.
"I propose Ice Cream! Every Wednesday! Chocolate. A gallon delivered to your door."
See how many choices, and the spiderweb of silly options you'd have to pick and include?
->"If Ice cream is Butt Rape, no. Else, I don't know what to do because apparently I have no idea what Ice cream is because I thought it was Butt Rape."
->"You mentioned Camosoul's name, and I hate that guy, so I vote no even thought this is not his proposal. Unless it is his proposal, then I vote no 3 times."
->"What, I can only vote once? Unless I am a Feminist. Then you're oppressing me by not letting me vote once for each boob and once for my vagina. STOP OBJECTIFYING ME. DASH IS THE PATRIARCHY! I vote Zer."
->"I vote yes if it happens because then it did happen so it must have. I vote no if there is a loaf of sourdough bread on the moon."

First of all not all propositions should have a deadline, and the best is to avoid deadlines in propositions unless it is inevitable.

Conditional vote is a vote where the conditions can be examined by a computer.
If the conditions cannot be examined by a computer, this is not considered as a conditional vote.
Maybe we should call it "computer aided conditional vote", or something like that.
In my example: "If it is raining then no else yes"
This is a computer aided contitional vote, because rain can be examined by computers, using rain sensors.
We should teach voters, to somehow do coding while voting.

 

[demo]

MN operators need to grow up, but there's currently no incentive to do so. They vote on all kinds of crazy shit without any consideration for the follow through, is it even useful, etc... Since 10% is pulled out no matter what, there's no cost/benefit contest. Ideas don't have to prove their worth, and the people presenting them don't have to prove they can actually do it. They need to face the "Is this more likely to move the decimal point for DASH than simply doing nothing?" test. So, ideas that are worse than nothing get air time, and will be funded anyway no matter what because 10% regardless. There should be a 10% cap, and only the worthy get funds up to that amount. There's no sense in bothering with this much detail if you don't force them to pay attention to it and grow up. You can't just go zapping them with the cattle prod if you don't give them sufficient control and feedback to know what the hell is going on even when they are paying attention... A lot of the lethargy is not due to stupidity or immaturity. It's due to frustration with useless broken shit that doesn't work anyway... Why am I going to work really hard to solve a puzzle when the punishment for failure is getting shot in the face, and the punishment for success is working really hard to get shot in the face? No matter what I do I'm going to get shot in the face, so I may as well do nothing and at least it;s not my own fault that I got shot in the face. Or is it? Why am I even paying attention? I may as well ignore it and money hose my ASIC that isn't an ASIC....

Again, the source of the problem is the hardcoded 10% that core team added.
No hardcoded numbers! We should vote for the numbers. Let community decide if 10% is good or bad, by voting with numbers. You say 10%, I say 14% and the result is the average, 12%. A poll with no deadline is needed, where this percentage can always be voted by active members, and then the result is applied dynamically as an initial value to the dash code.

But voting with numbers is prohibited by the core team, remember? This is what I am shouting to many threads around.

See, how all wrongs fit together? A simple mistake, prohibiting voting with numbers, forces the core team to put hardcoded numbers (10%) that do not and cannot fit to the dash community, to the present and to the future one. Why 10% is the correct nunber? Can someone explain? He cannot. So 10% is a hardcoded number without a theory behind (and now comes what I have said, coding without theory is not coding at all). So if there is not theory behind a number, then voting should occur, because this number is only a matter of taste.

What happens now? We have to wait for Evan to come and fix this 10%, but hell no, this it not the correct way.

10% should be voted, and any other hardcoded number that initializes dash should also be voted, in order to fit the needs of the active members of the community. And when I say active members, I mean the ones who are citizens and who vote and not the idiots who dont vote.

 

[TroyDASH]

There isn't *no* cost/benefit going on with the current system. It's just that the cost/benefit is being weighted relative to other proposals, rather than in terms of absolute value/ROI. Not an ideal setup but it's not the end of the world either. A complex problem. I don't think that incentivizing voting will help much, unless you somehow manage to incentivize *good voting* which would be a tall order.

 

[demo]

I don't think that incentivizing voting will help much, unless you somehow manage to incentivize *good voting* which would be a tall order.

Conditional voting is *good voting* isnt it?
Tree structured polls that one's existence depends on the resut of the other, is also *good voting*, isnt it?

If you think that mastenodes owners do not vote good, then do not blame voting, blame masternodes owners instead.