It looks like 1DP is going to fail but it's been a better response than 0.1 dash. Maybe we're getting closer to agreement. Let's keep it simple and call this a compromise.
Pre-Proposal: Reduce Proposal Fee to 2 Dash
- Thread starter GrandMasterDash
- Start date
demo
Well-known member
You are trying to imitate a vote with numbers.
Why not adding a poll that asks the proposal fee to become 12 dash?
Why not adding a poll that asks the proposal fee to become 100 dash?
Let them free to select the proposal fee from 0 Dash to all Dash coins (=7,247,462)
For the puprose of allowing the freedom of choice, you must add 7,247,463 polls.
Or if you dont want to add 7,247,463 polls, just add a single poll and let it be a "vote the numbers" poll.
The way the community will vote will reveal to any external objective observer how many spies and stupids exist inside the community.
Why not adding a poll that asks the proposal fee to become 12 dash?
Why not adding a poll that asks the proposal fee to become 100 dash?
Let them free to select the proposal fee from 0 Dash to all Dash coins (=7,247,462)
For the puprose of allowing the freedom of choice, you must add 7,247,463 polls.
Or if you dont want to add 7,247,463 polls, just add a single poll and let it be a "vote the numbers" poll.
The way the community will vote will reveal to any external objective observer how many spies and stupids exist inside the community.
Last edited:
TroyDASH
Well-known member
There is still over a week left for voting, I wouldn't count the other one out just yet. I actually think it has a good chance of passing.
Of course, we don't really know how the core team is going to respond to it either way. Remember they were originally going to lower the fee in the 12.1 release (which would have been a convenient time to do it because we were already hardforking anyway) but it was changed back at the last minute out of caution.
Of course, we don't really know how the core team is going to respond to it either way. Remember they were originally going to lower the fee in the 12.1 release (which would have been a convenient time to do it because we were already hardforking anyway) but it was changed back at the last minute out of caution.
demo
Well-known member
Yep
Note also that the 5 dash proposal fee was never voted by the masternodes. It was just a hardcoded number.
Lets put a proposal asking to keep the Proposal Fee to 5 Dash. I bet that the 5 dash proposal fee will not pass.
If the 5 dash proposal fee fails, this will be a proof on how much stupid the masternode community is. If the 5 dash proposal fee passes, and as long as this 5 dash was initialy imposed and not voted, this will prove how much conservative the masternode community is.
Good idea, you should definitely spend 5 dash and propose it!
demo
Well-known member
I have not 5 dash. I have only 1.
demo
Well-known member
So lets go back before the arrival of @Technologov.
Is anyone interested in creating a multisig address, and do a fundrasing in order to reach the amount of 5 dash and be able to add a proposal in the governance system asking the 5 dash proposal fee to remain the same?
Lets start a list of the people who are interested in this fundrasing. Whenever the list reaches the 5 dash goal, we are going to vote for the person who we trust he creates the multisig address, and vote the minimum (m) number of signatures required to spend the money. Everyone may gives whatever he/she wants, even a single duff is welcome, and he/she may defines whatever terms or conditions he/she desires in order to give the amount. The only expected is to keep his/her promise.
The list follows (it will be updated accordingly):
1. Myself @demo ( XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX ) : I initially offer 20% of my entire fortune in Dash for this puprose ( 20% of my Dash fortune is currently set to 0.1899 dash, since the above Dash address is the only non-empty I possess). Until the creation of the multisig address I keep the right to reduce or increase what I offer. But after the multisig address has been created, I hereby declare, on oath, that I will give the declared amount.
lynx
Active member
Yeah, let's try that out... Suppose all but one of the 4400 masternodes vote to lower the fee to 0.01 Dash. And the one other votes for the fee to be 7,247,463 Dash. The fee will then be raised to the average of 1,647 Dash.
demo
Well-known member
You hardcoded the mean average selection process.
You should use the double vote <number, selection process>
In your example , if the selection process is voted to be the mode average, then the result will be 0.01 Dash.
Last edited:
TroyDASH
Well-known member
Since when was your vote the numbers not based on the mean? I don't think you have mentioned this before. Regardless, you would want to use the median, not the mode.
demo
Well-known member
I think you dont really understand what my proposition about voting the numbers really is.
Please read here and here.
I have never hardcoded any average. My proposition is about the average in general, including all possible types of average. Although I personally like the mean average, then the mode average, and I mostly dislike the medium average, I think that the voters should be able to chose their prefered selection process when voting, buy using a double vote. (actually the correct vote is a "triple vote" <number, selection process, minimum participation percentage> but I will explain this later on.)
Last edited:
Acedian
Active member
The people that voted no on 1 Dash seem to think that a high fee means that only high quality proposals will be submitted and also that a high fee for governance issues is fine too.
So, my new stance on this is a fee of 400 Dash. Now, if you are risking 400 Dash you must have a good proposal and wouldn't even think of spamming.
So, my new stance on this is a fee of 400 Dash. Now, if you are risking 400 Dash you must have a good proposal and wouldn't even think of spamming.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
At 400 dash, realistically no one would submit proposals for less than 800 apiece (too risky to ask less for the project than the reimbursement cost), which would mean fewer than 9 proposals per month would be possible. That would indeed scale, but the Masternodes can handle more than that. I would say the average proposal cost really can't go below 60 dash, that would be over a hundred proposals
I'm not sure why you think that?!... Mode average is most useless sense there are a few that own 100+ masternodes. One of those could very easily qualifiy as the mode, in which case, they have full power. The mean average is also useless because of the outlier votes. One person with a lot of masternodes can vote with a large number and pull the average significantly in one direction. The idea of ostracising those that are trying to be disruptive is pure nonsense. The median is obviously most relevant here... it's almost impossible to manipulate without controlling 51% of all masternodes. Median should be used over mean when outliers can potentially have a large impact on the final value.
Last edited:
demo
Well-known member
My arguments in favor of the mode average and against the median average are as shown below:
Maybe it is, but it is a old time tradition in human relationships for centuries. It may looks pure nonsense, but if it is really a nonsense, then why it is such a common behavior for so long time? There must be a reason...
Last edited:
That simply isn't true when those 1 or 2 people control 100+ masternodes... Show me how these 1 or 2 people can manipulate a median, then I'll listen... I think you need to go back to the drawing board on this one.
demo
Well-known member
Of course 1 or 2 people who control 100+ masternodes can manipulate the median, because 100+ masternodes means 100+ votes. And also means they have a lot of money, so they can give bribery to the median. Finnaly, in case of polarization they can simply remove one of their votes and thus become the median who decides.
If you dont like 1 or 2 people who control 100+ masternodes to manipulate the vote result, then you can alternatively implement a proof of individuality and an ostracism scheme. The threat of ostracism for the irrational and the distruptive is always much more effective than any other method. I am a proponent of temporary ostracism . If the irrational and distruptive individual changes his votes and becomes rational and stops the distruption, then he should automatically be welcome again, himself and all his votes.
Last edited:
You are too funny. They will just need to figure out all the votes in the median area and pay them off... Probably only need to figure out 100 or so to make a (small) difference, lol. Shouldn't take too long to figure out who those people are since this information is published and all, right? I suppose they could also collude to control 51% too.
Have no clue what your talking about... Supply a link. You need 51% to CONTROL the median, otherwise your just controlling the vote by putting your votes around the median anyway... Seriously @demo, sometimes it's best just to concede and admit defeat, lol... Take my advice, will help you a lot in your personal life too.
Unless the Finnaly case is related to 2 votes tied for the median and one was removed so the other was used... If that's the case, then that's the weakest argument I've ever heard. The difference in median values with this many votes is minute and you haven't controlled anything. Again, please provide a link!
Last edited: