Poll: Dash + Email = Wrong Decision

Evolution and email

  • Email should be required

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • Email should be optional

    Votes: 12 48.0%

  • SMS or alternative method, required

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • SMS or alternative method, optional

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • Zero email. Zero sms

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • Total voters
    25
GrandMasterDash

GrandMasterDash

Well-known member
Masternode Owner/Operator
It seems Evolution is still pursuing it's use of an email address, e.g. password recovery etc. What the devs fail to realise is that there are millions of people around the world that barely ever use - or ever want to use - email. For anyone that thinks email is universal, you're living in a bubble, there are plenty of places, such as China, where email is seen as something that is old fashioned, insignificant, slow and unreliable (think wechat etc).

For those arguing that email prevents the creation of multiple accounts, it doesn't. An email signup process can be easily automated and abused. Alternative methods exist to stem the flow of false accounts, including, for example, a small fee that is payable on the very first transaction.

This is your chance to let the devs know what you think.
 
I can understand peoples' aversion to having their email linked to their DASH. And that some people dont even use email. But there is a perfectly good option for this group - the dash client.

However, there is also a group of people out there who value convience over privacy. And they will prefer an email linked dash account.

Isnt it just a case of users deciding what is best for them?
 
halso said:
I can understand peoples' aversion to having their email linked to their DASH. And that some people dont even use email. But there is a perfectly good option for this group - the dash client.

However, there is also a group of people out there who value convience over privacy. And they will prefer an email linked dash account.

Isnt it just a case of users deciding what is best for them?
Click to expand...

exactly
options are key
email (use fake if u want)
text message
Whatsup ....
(all comes down to the same to be honest - i prefer email as i at least can create an email address for each account in need somewhere - TxT and phone u are really screwed)
 
To me the system should NOT depend on email. It should support a variety of verification methods. The first of course would be to burn a small amount of Dash. This would be the best anti-spam provision as there are literally an unlimited number of emails (I can just create a catchall email domain and use it to register a trillion accounts);

As an alternative to burning dash, maybe other systems such as e-mail can be used. In addition, it can be used to provide a level of usability to those who want it. That way, everyone is satisfied. Those who want usability and those who want privacy.
 
xdashguy said:
To me the system should NOT depend on email. It should support a variety of verification methods. The first of course would be to burn a small amount of Dash. This would be the best anti-spam provision as there are literally an unlimited number of emails (I can just create a catchall email domain and use it to register a trillion accounts);

As an alternative to burning dash, maybe other systems such as e-mail can be used. In addition, it can be used to provide a level of usability to those who want it. That way, everyone is satisfied. Those who want usability and those who want privacy.
Click to expand...

remember it is supposed to be super simple so "even your mum can use it" :rolleyes:
 
As far as I know email will not be required. It is an option that the user can chose to be able to get certain functionalities like password recovery, but it is not mandatory. As for other methods, that sounds great, but first we need to have one and then build new ones.
 
halso said:
I can understand peoples' aversion to having their email linked to their DASH. And that some people dont even use email. But there is a perfectly good option for this group - the dash client.

However, there is also a group of people out there who value convience over privacy. And they will prefer an email linked dash account.

Isnt it just a case of users deciding what is best for them?
Click to expand...

Will the client provide all the same easy-to-use features? I don't want to choose between email or difficult / too involved.

@fernando thinks the email is optional, so hopefully it stays that way. I just hope the lack of an email doesn't limit the feature set too much.

Can we use Google Authenticator instead? (or similar)
 
A google Authenticator would be great.

The thing that worries me the most is the mixing. Despite all the improvements, it still has some inherent limitations:
1. Its slow
2. Its expensive (relative to other privacy solutions)
3. It has an image problem (people equate mixing with laundering)

It also feels a bit clumsy and "buggy".

I know there has been talk of alternatives but there hasn't been much detail.

@babygiraffe & @eduffield mentioned on the bitcoin bus some sort of credit system. Is that an alternative privacy solution? Or just a scaling solution?

I think another core member also mentioned a privacy solution at the protocol level for evolution. What does that mean? Is there another alternative in the works?

What is the long long term view on privacy? Is it even possible to switch privacy solutions at this stage, or is mixing a core feature that is too difficult to change?

Is it possible to have another dash detailed interview with the core team to just discuss privacy solutions? -
@amanda_b_johnson
 
GrandMasterDash said:
Will the client provide all the same easy-to-use features? I don't want to choose between email or difficult / too involved.

@fernando thinks the email is optional, so hopefully it stays that way. I just hope the lack of an email doesn't limit the feature set too much.

Can we use Google Authenticator instead? (or similar)
Click to expand...
The idea is that it will only be required for those features in which it is needed. There is no intention to hoard email addresses in exchange of features.

Some people may like Google Authenticator more than email, but email is far more universal. According with Google Play, Google Authenticator is between 10 and 50 million downloads (so much for accurate data :cool:) and Authy is between 0.5 and 1 million. I agree that it is not the perfect solution, but none is perfect. It makes sense to start with the big pieces and then fill the voids.
 
fernando said:
The idea is that it will only be required for those features in which it is needed. There is no intention to hoard email addresses in exchange of features.

Some people may like Google Authenticator more than email, but email is far more universal. According with Google Play, Google Authenticator is between 10 and 50 million downloads (so much for accurate data :cool:) and Authy is between 0.5 and 1 million. I agree that it is not the perfect solution, but none is perfect. It makes sense to start with the big pieces and then fill the voids.
Click to expand...

Yes but...
  1. It would be relatively easy to prompt someone to install an authenticator at the time of signup
  2. When dash gets an Evolution mobile app, it should be relatively easy to incorporate and automate authentication within the app itself... and we do plan to have a mobile presence, right??
 
I am at Trezor hackaton today. It already support for 2FA. It actualy plans to have first 2FA with password (or rather PIN because it constists of numbers you can insert to the device via touchscreen)

Hardware wallets are getting to be more and more of great devices for everyday security.
 
<vote history>
Evolution and email
Email should be required 2 vote(s) 14.3%
Email should be optional 5 vote(s) 35.7%
SMS or alternative method, required 0 vote(s) 0.0%
SMS or alternative method, optional 3 vote(s) 21.4%
Zero email. Zero sms 4 vote(s) 28.6%

participation 14 votes 0.2616%
abstain 5336 "votes" (all the rest) 99,7383%
</vote history>

A selection process is not yet defined. So how can we extract a decision from this poll? Shall we re-vote the first two poll options? Or maybe select the most loved one? A double vote of the type <poll_option, selection process> is obviously needed here.
 
Last edited:
And what about voter participation in this poll? If very few people participated, are we allowed to decide? Shall we let the core team to decide if there is no participation in a decision?

And who decided that if there is no participation, then the core team is allowed to decide? Is this voted somewhere, and how many participated in that?

Do you read the small letters?
 
<vote history>
Evolution and email
Email should be required 3 vote(s) 18.8%
Email should be optional 6 vote(s) 37.5%
SMS or alternative method, required 0 vote(s) 0.0%
SMS or alternative method, optional 3 vote(s) 18.8%
Zero email. Zero sms 4 vote(s) 25.0%

participation 16 votes 0.2990%
abstain 5334 "votes" (all the rest) 99,7009%
</vote history>
I voted zerocash!;)

Still the participation in this poll is soooooooooo small.
I think a minimum voter turnout should be decided, otherwise a decision should not be allowed to be taken.

Do you read the small font letters?
 
Last edited:
halso said:
@babygiraffe & @eduffield mentioned on the bitcoin bus some sort of credit system. Is that an alternative privacy solution? Or just a scaling solution?
Click to expand...

As I understood that discussion, they were describing a way to make instantSend funds able to be immediately sent out again as soon as they are received. Currently when you get instantSend funds, they are at five confirmations immediately, but you can't send them out until they are "real" confirmations on the blockchain.
 
<vote history>
Evolution and email
Email should be required 3 vote(s) 14.3%
Email should be optional 10 vote(s) 47.6%
SMS or alternative method, required 0 vote(s) 0.0%
SMS or alternative method, optional 3 vote(s) 14.3%
Zero email. Zero sms 5 vote(s) 23.8%

participation 21 votes 0.4%
abstain 5357 "votes" (all the rest) 99.6%
</vote history>

I think the rate people subscribe to dashforum is bigger than the rate people vote here. We had 4 more votes here, but in the meanwhile 24 people subscribed in the forum.

Of course all those 5378 people are not the real electorate. The electorate are only the active ones, but this 5378 number includes not only the "alives", but also "the deads".

Unfortunately the forum software, although it reveals for everyone the last login information, it does not present this information of all people together into a table. So we cannot sort the most active users (for example of the last 4 months) , and ignore the inactives (that have not logged in, for more than 4 months). If we could do this , we could that way create a more narrow and accurate electorate, in order to get more accurate statistics about the voter turnout, and that way decide if we are allowed to take a decision depending on the the voters participation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top