SnowHater
Active member
I've found this table.
So, 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
Pre-Proposal Discussion: Jury Duty
- Thread starter oaxaca
- Start date
I've found this table.
So, 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
I've found this table.
So, 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
That makes sense. Interesting.
Have to percolate on that one
.Pablo.
SnowHater
Active member
Maybe we should hire some experts to do such summaries about a batch of users proposals through the budget system itself. If one summary costs 10 DASH then 50 DASH will cover this batch with five real people opinions. If someone covers all the proposals wisely, unbiased and well then he/she can actually earn some money by it. In case that one of the experts skips proposals now and then or covers them with poor attention and biased then he/she just won't be paid based on masternodes votes eventually. The main thing mastenodes should remember in this case though: experts do not have to make the same conclusions that you do. You should only check if their conclusions are unbiased and based on logic / deep understanding of how things work. Think of them like of judges.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Last edited by a moderator:
I think in general this is a great idea , it would help 'normal' (not so engaged) users to make decisions without reading pages and pages on DT
I am agansinst a mandatory selection, you can not force anybody
it is still a tricky process to 'suggest independently' as you can approach this as a straight up business deal , community engagement , optional might fail but bring a lot good along the way ,.... many angles in this as we saw with the fiat dash proposal.
+ there is a time issue, as close to the superblock these discussions heat up and proposal owners might give good/ interesting facts late.
I believe a group of trusted community guys who revive proposals , maybe even put certain into simple English (proof of something proposal) would definately improve and streamline the voting process as there is a lot of information and reading to do and most people just do not have the time to work through all these pages , a simple , short 'translation' + suggestion would definately do the trick
I am agansinst a mandatory selection, you can not force anybody
it is still a tricky process to 'suggest independently' as you can approach this as a straight up business deal , community engagement , optional might fail but bring a lot good along the way ,.... many angles in this as we saw with the fiat dash proposal.
+ there is a time issue, as close to the superblock these discussions heat up and proposal owners might give good/ interesting facts late.
I believe a group of trusted community guys who revive proposals , maybe even put certain into simple English (proof of something proposal) would definately improve and streamline the voting process as there is a lot of information and reading to do and most people just do not have the time to work through all these pages , a simple , short 'translation' + suggestion would definately do the trick
Sometimes it will be poor. "Yeah, this proposal rocks!"
Sometimes it will be great. "Our 7 point quantum anaylsis shows..."
Yes, and WE ARE those experts and enthusiasts.
TheDashGuy
Well-known member
I wouldn't trust this community with being my jury.... no offense but I would be hanged by the neck for witchcraft if that were to happen i'm sure..
TheDashGuy
Well-known member
qwizzie
Well-known member
Last edited by a moderator:
An interesting snapshot of the problems with Bitcoin governance and small groups controlling the decision making process:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/495866/the_rbtc_china_dispatch_11_summary_selected/
I think this article is interesting. I posted it in this thread because it is tangentially relevant to our discussion, although I admit the comparison is a high level one. Hope you all find it an interesting read.
Pablo.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/495866/the_rbtc_china_dispatch_11_summary_selected/
I think this article is interesting. I posted it in this thread because it is tangentially relevant to our discussion, although I admit the comparison is a high level one. Hope you all find it an interesting read.
Pablo.
Otaci
Member
Very interesting
I just had to LOL at this
"[Core] develop a surprising level of confirmation bias: that is, when you have a certain view, you will tend to do everything you can to collect evidence to prove that your view is correct while selectively ignoring evidence and facts which conflict with your established view.”
I just had to LOL at this
That's the prerogative of the MN owners. Abstaining from voting is a valid choice as well. Maybe they want to wait and see how others vote, or wait on a decision 'til more discussion is done.
MN owners have already put up a lot of capital to have the network secured and stable. They should not be forced into participating on a vote. I think that goes against the ideals of crypto currency in general and especially those of Dash.
The fact that everyone "should" vote seems to me like a very American ideal, and also very Jingoist. Like it's a civic duty and a "privilege".
Well maybe so, but it's no longer a privilege if I'm forced to participate.
I'm glad to see the ideas flowing, but this is one that I personally can't get behind on a philosophical level.
Otaci
Member
Its not unheard of to require voting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#Current_use_by_countries lists 22 countries.
n00bkid
Member
If there's one thing Evan does well in development of Dash, it's aligning incentives with desired outcomes.
Incentives. Not punishments.
If there is a general desire that a quorum of people write up reports summarizing various budget proposals, the people who want it should fund it. If a majority of masternodes want it, we can vote to allocate funds to just such a quorum.
Incentives. Not punishments.
Perhaps a market will arise around publishing detailed reports on budget proposals? Is that not how CoinTelegraph, CoinDesk, BraveNewCoin and so many more sites make their money? By doing some research and publishing some results.
If Dash gets as big as I think it will, there will be websites publishing their own analyses of budget proposals. And they'll monetize those sites. And the problem of information is then solved.
Markets work using incentives. Nation-states work using punishments. Let's be like the former.
Incentives. Not punishments.
If there is a general desire that a quorum of people write up reports summarizing various budget proposals, the people who want it should fund it. If a majority of masternodes want it, we can vote to allocate funds to just such a quorum.
Incentives. Not punishments.
Perhaps a market will arise around publishing detailed reports on budget proposals? Is that not how CoinTelegraph, CoinDesk, BraveNewCoin and so many more sites make their money? By doing some research and publishing some results.
If Dash gets as big as I think it will, there will be websites publishing their own analyses of budget proposals. And they'll monetize those sites. And the problem of information is then solved.
Markets work using incentives. Nation-states work using punishments. Let's be like the former.
As I said before, IMO DASH is already going in the wrong direction. It should focus on being CASH, but the "voting" part seems to be the main focus to the community now. DASH has already got a good enough voting system, that's all we need, because it is simple.
We do not need some complicated system, with many casuistic rules and exceptions.
We do not want a pool of people to represent ourselves, AT ALL! At least I do not want DASH to even try to become what I despise from the governments of these countries I so despise.
In DASH each Masternode has got it's brain and its vote. Period. No need for stupid committees. No need for lobbies. No need for information manipulation. No need for lies. No need for deception..........................
IF there is too many proposal and no way to concentrate on it all, the solution is to tighten the "proposal submission requisites", instead of ELECTING a bunch of corrupt politician to filter information.
Are there too many proposals already? But, strangely enough, some pople here are even complaining that "oh, it's so unfair, DASH must provide accessibility for the impaired poor souls who cannot pay 5DASH for it!!!
Man, what is our problem? Is it too many proposals or to few?
In my opinion the idea is god (we are even working on similar idea in the core team).
The major concern here is the fact that not all of MN owners is an experienced VC, PM or delivery manager (they usually have specific type of skills, knowledge and experience need to assess project proposals - and this people need also help of experienced IT architects). Let's assume that people from all professions are MN owners. Therefore it would be extremely hard to e.g. graphical designer, professional hokey player or a farmer to properly understand the details of every sophisticated IT proposal and make an assessment whether it is good or not.
I think that it should be rather a team of "consultants", who serve as advisers to the MN owners and share analysis and recommendations about project proposals.
raganius - I agree that our main direction should be CASH (with all implications). Newertheless we should not let ourselves to waste the money.
The major concern here is the fact that not all of MN owners is an experienced VC, PM or delivery manager (they usually have specific type of skills, knowledge and experience need to assess project proposals - and this people need also help of experienced IT architects). Let's assume that people from all professions are MN owners. Therefore it would be extremely hard to e.g. graphical designer, professional hokey player or a farmer to properly understand the details of every sophisticated IT proposal and make an assessment whether it is good or not.
I think that it should be rather a team of "consultants", who serve as advisers to the MN owners and share analysis and recommendations about project proposals.
raganius - I agree that our main direction should be CASH (with all implications). Newertheless we should not let ourselves to waste the money.