Time to Demonstrate Dash Governance Again?

DashDude

DashDude

Active member
Looks like Bitcoin will fork again come November and will again demonstrate a lack of effective governance. I think it would be nice for Dash to demonstrate it's governance again.

Given the price rise, one way might be for us to decide that we will switch to mDash as the default display for all consumer facing UIs and recommend all partners do the same. We could make it contingent upon a 12 week moving average price being over $500 or something if we wanted to.

Anyway, we don't have to use this specific idea, but I think it would be a good time for a demonstration! Thoughts? Other governance demonstration ideas?
 
DashDude said:
Looks like Bitcoin will fork again come November and will again demonstrate a lack of effective governance. I think it would be nice for Dash to demonstrate it's governance again.

Given the price rise, one way might be for us to decide that we will switch to mDash as the default display for all consumer facing UIs and recommend all partners do the same. We could make it contingent upon a 12 week moving average price being over $500 or something if we wanted to.

Anyway, we don't have to use this specific idea, but I think it would be a good time for a demonstration! Thoughts? Other governance demonstration ideas?
Click to expand...

let's get 2 MB block going in september and than we can vote on 4 or 8 ;)
that should do
 
Yes, this is certainly something that needs further discussion... It could cause some temporary confusion with exchanges etc.. because if not everyone implements this at the same time it could cause confusion and perhaps lead to a loss of confidence... So, it would have to be handled and implemented very carefully.
 
Super8 said:
Yes, this is certainly something that needs further discussion... It could cause some temporary confusion with exchanges etc.. because if not everyone implements this at the same time it could cause confusion and perhaps lead to a loss of confidence... So, it would have to be handled and implemented very carefully.
Click to expand...

i totally agree
tried to make a joke and jumped the gun here a little :rolleyes::eek::D
 
mDASH?

I see no reason why grown adults can't learn how to use a decimal point. Catering to a minority of vocal snowflakes ends up being seen as very off-putting to the majority of non-snowflakes.

If a tri-genreded otherkin gets special treatment, what about the rest of us? Why are you catering to idiots when you could be catering to a much larger base of non-idiots? Is this really your focus? Maybe I need to re-think DASH... This is what happens when you do stupid shit.

Yes, I realize that was just an example. I used it as an opportunity to make my own example... I swear, some people...

The 2MB block size was already voted upon, consensus reached. That example already exists.

Satoshi Labs makes a very good argument for SegWit... Perhaps? Would seem odd for Eveyryone running MNs out of their Trezors to vote against that... Heading to HD Wallet, same argument will apply to Dash Core. Pretty sure the Devs are already planning to do this, but on deliberately short notice, just to prove exactly the point this thread was started to prove.
 
Last edited:
I think that lowering fees is just as important as the 2 MB block. Fee for instant transaction is becoming too high to be practical
 
@camosoul ,

Regarding - "I see no reason why grown adults can't learn how to use a decimal point." Knowing how to use one and being required to use one aren't the same thing. My math skills are just fine, but I'd rather pay 2 mDash for a cup of coffee than 0.002 Dash - it's a familiarity/usability issue.

Regarding - "The 2MB block size was already voted upon, consensus reached. That example already exists." We need to keep hammering away on the governance issue. I read a lot of other forums like bitcoin, bitcoin cash, ethereum, etc. They are barely discussing governance issues and when they do DASH almost never comes up. With the bitcoin Segwit2x fork coming up in 3 months we should be carpet bombing the entire crypto community on the topic of governance.
 
DashDude said:
@camosoul ,

Regarding - "I see no reason why grown adults can't learn how to use a decimal point." Knowing how to use one and being required to use one aren't the same thing. My math skills are just fine, but I'd rather pay 2 mDash for a cup of coffee than 0.002 Dash - it's a familiarity/usability issue.

Regarding - "The 2MB block size was already voted upon, consensus reached. That example already exists." We need to keep hammering away on the governance issue. I read a lot of other forums like bitcoin, bitcoin cash, ethereum, etc. They are barely discussing governance issues and when they do DASH almost never comes up. With the bitcoin Segwit2x fork coming up in 3 months we should be carpet bombing the entire crypto community on the topic of governance.
Click to expand...
It demonstrates a lack of understanding on what's going on.

Users want to see the the Doillar, Euro, etc. price. Whatever the DASH equivalent to that is, is a nice footnote, but they really don't care.

Nobody is buying anything for 0.0002 DASH, or .2milli DASH, or any other sub-denomination. It's irrelevant. It's just a reference that you look at and say "yeah, that looks about right" and move on.

They're buying something for $5. Wchich is currently 0.0203252032520325 DASH. Nobody cares if it's represented that way, or 00.203252032520325deciDASH or 002.03252032520325milliDASH or... It just doesn't matter.

Since it's nothing more than a quick reference to say "that looks about right," representing it in a bunch of different decimal arrangements just creates confusion, and does the opposite of making it easier to use. Consistency is more important.

I don't screw around with nanoDollars, either...

This is in the same realm as to why I say IX is broken. Being user-initiated fouls up the flow of business. It technically works. It seems properly implemented from a nerd perspective, just like microDASH on milliDASH. But, in the real world, it's a pain. So much of a pain that it's to the point of being broken and unusable.

I'm with you on the governance topic. But, the particular example you've chosen is a demonstration of the unrelatable echo chamber that crypto has become. PEople relate to their local Fiat currency. The transition to doing the exchange math is already asking a lot of their little snowflake brains. Lets not make them do floating point on top of it... Sure, I know a milliamp from a picofarad, but how many people started doing that in their head when they were 6 years old? One thing at a time...

I'd rather see this about SegWit than a wild division on top of a float.

Besides, the one thing I've seen people react to the most positively, is the realization that DASH is worth so much more than their guv fiat crap. That's usually the first thing that clicks. They already know that government is screwing them on inflation that goes the opposite direction. Seeing the contrast pretty much seals the deal. Even if they barely understand what's going on, they know that much, and it drives them to learn more.

When it comes to Bitclones, there's no reason to discuss governance, because there isn't any. Why would cats talk to each other about quantum physics?

I think the best "carpet bombing" will be a post of only a few sentences:

"Oh, yeah, we sorted the blocksize and segwit thing in a few hours. Here's the links: https://stuff.dash.org/winning.html"
 
Last edited:
About the mDash thing... Dash wallet / evolution. wallet/account settings. Set preferred denomination. solved. why don't we just do that

I do think we should vote on higher blocks though, again. Not necessarily as a stunt but because I think we should do it anyway. After the successful move to 2MB might be a good time, like @tungfa suggested
 
Sure, a block size increase would work. However, the second time would be less newsworthy than the first. Is there something of more importance we could tackle? If it's not at least a little controversial, then it's not really a governance issue...
 
Shouldn't we have another go at lowering the proposal fees (now almost 1500 USD to submit a proposal)?
If you really want to tackle a controversial topic, that is. :)
 
Another controversial topic we should consider is the amount of shares to own a Masternode. Here is how I see that one:

Leave it at 1,000 Dash arguments:
  • Don't want new/small/unsophisticated investors making poor governance decistions/votes
  • Don't want to increase the operating (server) costs by dividing one master node into many.

Reduce Dash Masternode stake arguments:
  • Be more "democratic" (though Dash does not claim to be a democracy)
  • Give more newcomers a chance to be a part of the voting community
  • Increase the Masternode count
  • Be less "elitist"
I've seen proposals discussing a Masternode stake as low as 100 Dash which is probably too small, but I also think that 1,000 is too high. There's probably a good compromise in the middle - perhaps 250 that has the following benefits
  • Doesn't increase server cost too much - 4x increase, but still reasonable
  • Makes Masternodes more reachable to a bigger portion of the community
  • Makes Masternodes more inclusive to newer members of the community.
  • Still maintains a large financial stake ~$75,000 at today's prices to help ensure sound governance motive
  • Would make Dash have more nodes than Bitcoin - a good selling/decentralization advantage to our critics
  • Would help Dash compete with NEM/Pivx and others. The very high cost of a Dash Masternode is one of the most frequent criticisms of Dash I encounter.
This would not be a governance gimmick as it is a legitimate issue and there is community disagreement on this topic!
 
With a masternode collateral decrease could be bad for dash. Thier are 4500 ish mns let's say we drop collateral to 250 as you said let's say a third of current mn owners decide to sell a forth of thier mn. So 1500 times 250. That could be 375k dash dumped onto exchanges. Which could cause a price drop. I have to say ye masternodes do help hold up the price of dash. Reducing collateral could cause a major price correction so why woul masternode operators sign off on something that could have major impacts on thier net worth.
 
DashDude said:
Another controversial topic we should consider is the amount of shares to own a Masternode. Here is how I see that one:

Leave it at 1,000 Dash arguments:
  • Don't want new/small/unsophisticated investors making poor governance decistions/votes
  • Don't want to increase the operating (server) costs by dividing one master node into many.

Reduce Dash Masternode stake arguments:
  • Be more "democratic" (though Dash does not claim to be a democracy)
  • Give more newcomers a chance to be a part of the voting community
  • Increase the Masternode count
  • Be less "elitist"
I've seen proposals discussing a Masternode stake as low as 100 Dash which is probably too small, but I also think that 1,000 is too high. There's probably a good compromise in the middle - perhaps 250 that has the following benefits
  • Doesn't increase server cost too much - 4x increase, but still reasonable
  • Makes Masternodes more reachable to a bigger portion of the community
  • Makes Masternodes more inclusive to newer members of the community.
  • Still maintains a large financial stake ~$75,000 at today's prices to help ensure sound governance motive
  • Would make Dash have more nodes than Bitcoin - a good selling/decentralization advantage to our critics
  • Would help Dash compete with NEM/Pivx and others. The very high cost of a Dash Masternode is one of the most frequent criticisms of Dash I encounter.
This would not be a governance gimmick as it is a legitimate issue and there is community disagreement on this topic!
Click to expand...

u have to remember that this is all about the network and nothing else
the network is happy and secure at 4500 MNs (or wherever we are) and that is whatnot is the most important in all of this !
 
I don't think that decreasing the collateral to 250 will help make MNs more accessible. Only in the short term...in the long term Dash is headed towards way more than 4x its current value in my opinion and then we are right back where we started
 
TroyDASH said:
I don't think that decreasing the collateral to 250 will help make MNs more accessible. Only in the short term...in the long term Dash is headed towards way more than 4x its current value in my opinion and then we are right back where we started
Click to expand...

agree
+
remember there seems to age some scaling in the pipeline (read that article of evan)
and to reduce the MN collateral to 250 would cut the MN income down to 1/4 but as by that article it seems we will scale the server usage / needs up !
the 1k and their payout are there for a good reason and we should let this play out further before messing with the economics ;)
 
I think what we are discussing is that the optimum number of masternodes needed to serve the network may be different than the number of people that we want to vote on governance issues. We might consider an additional class of staking that only votes.
 
DashDude said:
I think what we are discussing is that the optimum number of masternodes needed to serve the network may be different than the number of people that we want to vote on governance issues. We might consider an additional class of staking that only votes.
Click to expand...

Very good point. I would be open to that although I think that extending voting more will have the "diminishing returns" effect. Currently 60% of the network can vote. Each percentage point more will have an increasing marginal cost and a decreasing marginal effect on the vote outcomes
 
DashDude said:
I think what we are discussing is that the optimum number of masternodes needed to serve the network may be different than the number of people that we want to vote on governance issues. We might consider an additional class of staking that only votes.
Click to expand...
I think that's being invented as the savings account thing... They may be the contract system arbiters.

MN collateral is strictly about what the network needs, not what money hose cryptotards want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top