Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

crowning said:
And that's exactly the GOOD thing about it.
If everyone could decide whether money is "taken away" or not we would be exactly where we are now, a couple of enthusiasts donate and 99% of the rest is doing nothing.
Click to expand...
The welfare entitlement lie again?

"We have no choice but to steal from the rich because how else will we get our free stuff?"

Uh, work for it? Oh, yeah, that's not free... You actually have to do something... What a terrible suggestion...

The suggestion that MN operators would hate the idea of their investment increasing by several orders of magnitude is stupid. Just hodling it won't do that, and MN operators, unlike most cryptotards, know this. Valid, useful projects will get funded by vote, welfare won't. Where's the problem? Oh, yeah, you want to mooch welfare so obviously you don't like that idea...

The idea of a pool being faster is an outright lie. The pool has to accumulate in the first place, right? Are blocks suddenly being found faster if you stare at bfgminer hard enough? It's placebo to the small mind... Besides, even if it were true, taking a brief pause to actually think about where this money is going i a good thing. Except if you don't want people seeing that or thinking about that cuz you're porking it...

15% of a block is 15% of a block. Blocks are found so fast... It accumulates at the same rate whether you are staring at it or not. It's the "watched pot never boils" notion. You IMAGINE that it's faster because you were slow to think of the idea to spend it on. But the same time to accumulation still passed, you just weren't watching it happen... It gets done no faster because your proposal didn't even exist yet...

The tiny illusion of an advantage that doesn't actually exist in the pork barrel approach is not worth all of the awesome REAL upsides to not doing the pork barrel approach.

My primary arguments aren't even against the welfare supporters. It's about front-end control of the supply, which you cannot walk away from if you want your coin to be taken seriously by anyone, ever. And, the simplicity of implementation and enforcement that are only available in that model. The fact that welfare porkers are so desperate to mis-represent any transparent argument they can only displays the urgent need to stick with the same front-end control model that already exists in crypto for this obvious reason...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
5KMI: Agreed. Just trying to figure out how such a reimbursement would work which indeed highlights how difficult such a thing would be. To me any excess should be just go to the dev fund.
 
Glad to see we're at least reading the same book. :) I wasn't trying to rip your idea apart as much as I ended up doing, it all just kinda spilled out at once as a general response to everything I've read on this topic the past few days. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
darkwing said:
5KMI: Agreed. Just trying to figure out how such a reimbursement would work which indeed highlights how difficult such a thing would be.
Click to expand...
Which is why the front end control model should not be abandoned.

We don't accumulate a pork barrel for a miner that goes offline and then re-imburse it later if he doesn't come back online in a certain period of time...

It's an enormous clusterfuck in the name of something that offers only placebo (fake) advantage.
 
What if the 15% gets taken away and there is a record of how much coins each masternode has contributed to the funding pool.

Then when it's voting time you have the options to don't fund anything since you don't like any projects but you will not be able to vote later on the projects approval. The DASH you contributed gets returned to you so no pork building up.

If you find projects interesting you can vote yes and even distribute your DASH taken from the 15% as you would like (maybe 3 DASH for this project and 8 DASH for this one).
Projects that get the green light get the DASH from the yes people. You must spend the DASH if you vote yes.

Basically this clears the pork thing and somehow lets you fund what you find interesting WHEN you find it.
 
ichigo13 said:
What if the 15% gets taken away and there is a record of how much coins each masternode has contributed to the funding pool.

Then when it's voting time you have the options to don't fund anything since you don't like any projects but you will not be able to vote later on the projects approval. The DASH you contributed gets returned to you so no pork building up.

If you find projects interesting you can vote yes and even distribute your DASH taken from the 15% as you would like (maybe 3 DASH for this project and 8 DASH for this one).
Projects that get the green light get the DASH from the yes people. You must spend the DASH if you vote yes.

Basically this clears the pork thing and somehow lets you fund what you find interesting WHEN you find it.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that record exists, it's called the blockchain.

But, it still doesn't change the fact that the advantage you imagine is still imaginary...
 
darkwing said:
I liked your venom directed at trolls on btctalk. In this debate I find it irksome and somewhat point clouding.
Click to expand...
Dancing around a sugar coating only takes longer to get to the point. Mis-representing it as venom displays your desire for distraction, not mine.
 
camosoul said:
Golly, I wish I got money for nothing...

Its a circular argument, too...

"I think all the excess funding for the dev fund should go to the dev fund."

Wha...?
Click to expand...

It's not just the dev fund. I'm talking a bout a project achieved for less than allocated.

What do you do with the excess? Reimburse? If so how?

Or just put it back in the dev fund where it then can be reallocated to another project
 
camosoul said:
Dancing around a sugar coating only takes longer to get to the point. Mis-representing it as venom displays your desire for distraction, not mine.
Click to expand...

Not distraction. Clear concise thinking. I find the ranting detracts from your points. But that is my opinion.
 
darkwing said:
It's not just the dev fund. I'm talking a bout a project achieved for less than allocated.

What do you do with the excess? Reimburse? If so how?

Or just put it back in the dev fund where it then can be reallocated to another project
Click to expand...
Still thinking like a budgeteer...

If we have front-end control, it costs what it costs. The doer of this project doesn't come back and say "Oh jeez I have $5 left." It's spent, we voted that it was worth X, we paid X because it was worth X to do it, that's the end of it.
 
camosoul said:
Still thinking like a budgeteer...

If we have front-end control, it costs what it costs. The doer of this project doesn't come back and say "Oh jeez I have $5 left." It's spent, we voted that it was worth X, we paid X because it was worth X to do it, that's the end of it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. So a project based quoting system.
 
darkwing said:
Not distraction. Clear concise thinking. I find the ranting detracts from your points. But that is my opinion.
Click to expand...
Several pages of failing to stay on topic are much more of a distraction than my hyperbolic examples, which are designed to bring focus, and do so quite well.
 
Imaginary advantages are not worth disposing of the front-end control model ubiquitous throughout crypto for damn good reason

I think the current arguments on this topic are coming from:

1) people who don't realize that they are promoting an imaginary benefit at great detriment
2) pork barrel welfare moochers

I believe 99% fall into category #1.
 
ichigo13 said:
If you find projects interesting you can vote yes and even distribute your DASH taken from the 15% as you would like (maybe 3 DASH for this project and 8 DASH for this one).
Projects that get the green light get the DASH from the yes people. You must spend the DASH if you vote yes.
Click to expand...
This is just reducing the plan down to a blockchain integrated direct donation model. I believe we can do this already without any voting. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe MN operators do have the option to divert x% of earnings to a given address.
 
camosoul said:
Several pages of failing to stay on topic are much more of a distraction than my hyperbolic examples, which are designed to bring focus, and do so quite well.
Click to expand...

We are going off topic right now :)

So in point form and without hyperbolic bile how would you do it.
 
darkwing said:
We are going off topic right now :)

So in point form and without hyperbolic examples how would you do it.
Click to expand...
Fixed your attack for you.

Also,

Already explained it several pages ago, before all these off-topic distractions of budgeteers who can't wrap their head around the fact that their suggestions are imaginary and detrimental.

It's been at least 3 pages of herding cats with the palsy since I nailed it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top