Universal Dividend and Web of Trust for Dashcoin

[demo]

well, as far as I could understand it, our voting system does not claim the power to decide the fate of humanity. It's a tool that aims to help administration of the budget, pure and simple.

You are right. This is the case. You are allowed to administrate the budget, and you can do it for whatever reason. Pure and simple. Including of course some reasons that are about to decide the fate of humanity. Its up to you to decide, and you are allowed to spend your budget however you wish.

If you believe that you should not be allowed to administrate the budget for some specific reasons, then those reasons should be written of course. But as far as I know, currently there is not any restriction on that.

 

[TroyDASH]

My proposal is real. Do you want the budget voting system to change, and MO to be able to vote also with numbers? This is the proposal.

But I cannot ask that question to the real masternode owners. I need for someone to help me put that proposal into the budget system.

IMO, the budget system does need to change, but the "voting with numbers" method that you are describing is a really bad idea. I think we should accommodate for the minority to be heard, and responded to, but if one person or an extreme minority thinks that the entire block reward should go to x, that doesn't mean we should actually divide their vote by the total votes and give them that percentage to do x. That's just not a good way to do governance in my opinion. You will also find that even if a particular idea is popular, that doesn't mean it is technically feasible and no amount of voting or fundraising can fix that.

If you really do want to proceed with a budget proposal on this, if you are willing to provide the funds for the proposal (5 DASH), I do hope someone here will be willing to assist you to submit it to the network. From what we have seen from the responses on the forum though, don't get your hopes up that the masternodes will respond much differently.

 

[demo]

IMO, the budget system does need to change, but the "voting with numbers" method that you are describing is a really bad idea. I think we should accommodate for the minority to be heard, and responded to, but if one person or an extreme minority thinks that the entire block reward should go to x, that doesn't mean we should actually divide their vote by the total votes and give them that percentage to do x. That's just not a good way to do governance in my opinion.

I do not really understand your argument. You are saying that voting with numbers is not a good way to do governance, but you do not explain the reason why it is not a good way. Why we should not divide the minority votes by the total votes? Why we should not respect the minority point of view?

I think respecting minorities is a good way to do governance. If you do not respect the minorities, this is called "tyranny of the majority" and this is a bad way to do governance. The tyranny of the majority is established, when we have only a yes/no system of voting.

 

[TroyDASH]

I do not really understand your argument. You are saying that voting with numbers is not a good way to do governance, but you do not explain the reason why it is not a good way. Why we should not divide the minority votes by the total votes? Why we should not respect the minority point of view?

I think respecting minorities is a good way to do governance. If you do not respect the minorities, this is called "tyranny of the majority" and this is a bad way to do governance. The tyranny of the majority is established, when we have only a yes/no system of voting.

Are you talking about budget allocation, or are you talking about project direction? Because what you are proposing would involve both an allocation from the budget and a major change in the project direction from a technical standpoint. Even if you had the funds approved in the budget, this would not do anything to actually implement this universal dividend you keep asking for.

If there is a less-than-5% minority opinion about the project direction, the core developers are obligated to completely redesign the entire project vision to accommodate this? If 1% of people say, "I think we should change the protocol and increase the block reward 1,000,000-fold", and 99% of people think this is a bad idea, this means that in order to be "fair" we should only increase the block reward by 10,000 times? If ten people say they want the developers to build 1000 square circles, and 990 people (including the developers) say no this is a bad idea, then why should that mean in order for the developers to respect the minority, they should endeavor to build only 10 square circles? This is clearly not a good model. The core developers can't be rewriting the whole protocol to implement every idea that gets put forward.

The people who are working on this project don't seem to share your vision of what this cryptocurrency needs to be like. If you don't like it, or if you can find a group of developers who share your vision, then build it, compete in the marketplace and prove us all wrong! But I think we've gotten to the point here where many of us have heard your arguments and although I can't speak for everyone, it seems we just don't share your vision, and don't agree with your economic model. I don't mind that you are having us talk about your ideas, but it's an entirely different thing if you insist that we accommodate them.

 

[raganius]

I think respecting minorities is a good way to do governance. If you do not respect the minorities, this is called "tyranny of the majority" and this is a bad way to do governance. The tyranny of the majority is established, when we have only a yes/no system of voting.

@demo, I agreee with you in that aspect. I also do NOT like democracy, but I am coerced (by use of force, aggression threats from the governments) to submit myself to it.

I don't like democracy exactly due to the reason you brought: "it does not respect minorities". The only real minority is the individual. And, as you have said, the individual is ignored in democracy.

Now, back to DASH's budget voting system. One of the rules assures us that

"only proposals that reach a minimum threshold of acceptance from the community of voters will have the right to be funded from the communal budget."​

Mind you that this threshold is not even something incredible, like a 51% or a 75% threshold. Much to the contrary, it is a much lower one.

So, it doesn't mean that the MAJORITY of voters must agree with an idea for it to be approved. But, at least, there is a minimum margin of consent that will justify the delivery of common monnies to some project. One can say that DASH established a "moral limit": or better, a clear limit that signs when it is a morally acceptable decision to fund some proposal from its budget.

Now let's say that a proposal is not good enough to convince even 10% of voters (like the one brought in OP, for instance). Would it still be morally acceptable to fund it with "community money"?

As I have said before, MORALLY, the only REAL MINORITY is the INDIVIDUAL. If an eventual group of individuals believe in an idea, but most of the other individuals from the community does not want it, it would be a CRIME to have this idea funded from the common budget!

In this case, the morally acceptable is that each interested individual provides money from his own pocket, instead of forcing all others to consent.

Or else, the dissatisfied should better go away from the community, create a parallel community with its own budget (secession), for instance: that would be the morally correct decision.

 

[demo]

If there is a less-than-5% minority opinion about the project direction, the core developers are obligated to completely redesign the entire project vision to accommodate this? If 1% of people say, "I think we should change the protocol and increase the block reward 1,000,000-fold", and 99% of people think this is a bad idea, this means that in order to be "fair" we should only increase the block reward by 10,000 times? If ten people say they want the developers to build 1000 square circles, and 990 people (including the developers) say no this is a bad idea, then why should that mean in order for the developers to respect the minority, they should endeavor to build only 10 square circles? This is clearly not a good model. The core developers can't be rewriting the whole protocol to implement every idea that gets put forward.

I think I already said that.
We should vote with numbers, only in case a number is put hardcoded and has no theory behind.
So if the core team can explain why they put a number like that, then of course we should not vote that number.

 

[demo]

As I have said before, MORALLY, the only REAL MINORITY is the INDIVIDUAL. If an eventual group of individuals believe in an idea, but most of the other individuals from the community does not want it, it would be a CRIME to have this idea funded from the common budget!

In this case, the morally acceptable is that each individual provides money from his own pocket, instead of forcing all others to consent.

You are talking without numbers.

You said "If an eventual group of individuals believe in an idea, but most of the other individuals from the community does not want it, it would be a CRIME to have this idea funded from the common budget!"

Ok, but how many are this "eventual group"? How many are "most of the other individuals"?

If you do not quantify your talk with specific numbers, then your talk makes no sense.

 

[TroyDASH]

I think I already said that.
We should vote with numbers, only in case a number is put hardcoded and has no theory behind.
So if the core team can explain why they put a number like that, then of course we should not vote that number.

In this instance are you referring only to the hardcoded block reward allocation? 45% PoW miners, 45% masternode miners, and 10% DGBB?
Debating the merits of those allocations is entirely different from debating the merits of funding and implementing a universal dividend.

 

[raganius]

You are talking without numbers.

The Devil will use NUMBERS to justify his acts.

 

[demo]

The Devil will use NUMBERS to justify his acts.

This is not a answer, you avoid to answer me what "most" and "eventual" is in number.

 

[demo]

In this instance are you referring only to the hardcoded block reward allocation? 45% PoW miners, 45% masternode miners, and 10% DGBB?
Debating the merits of those allocations is entirely different from debating the merits of funding and implementing a universal dividend.

I tried to generalize the number voting. Thats why I said this about hardcoded numbers, for you to be able to understand when it is correct to vote with numbers and when it is not.

The universal dividend, or the the hardcoded block reward allocation are just specific cases of the number voting method. Please dont look at the tree, look the forest.

 

[raganius]

This is not a answer, you avoid to answer me what "most" and "eventual" is in number.

Sorry, but I refuse to acknowledge moral relativism.

 

[demo]

Sorry, but I refuse to acknowledge moral relativism.

Moral relativism is considered your below phrase.

"If an eventual group of individuals believe in an idea, but most of the other individuals from the community does not want it, it would be a CRIME to have this idea funded from the common budget!""

You do not define the numbers, so that your moral to be relative to your personal interests.

And I say that as long as there is no theory on what "eventual" or "most" should be, those numbers should be voted. And this is not moral relativism.

 

[TroyDASH]

I tried to generalize the number voting. Thats why I said this about hardcoded numbers, for you to be able to understand when it is correct to vote with numbers and when it is not.

The universal dividend, or the the hardcoded block reward allocation are just specific cases of the number voting method. Please dont look at the tree, look the forest.

Yeah I'm not saying your method is valid for either case, but I'm trying to get an idea of what point you are trying to make.
If we are trying to answer the question "Who decides what the block reward allocation is?", currently the answer to that doesn't involve a vote. The only piece that gets decided via a vote is how the 10% from the DGBB gets distributed. And the way the voting works within that 10% is that proposals compete and the proposals with the most support get funded. It won't work if proposals only get partially funded based on the percentage of yes votes.

 

[demo]

Yeah I'm not saying your method is valid for either case, but I'm trying to get an idea of what point you are trying to make.
If we are trying to answer the question "Who decides what the block reward allocation is?", currently the answer to that doesn't involve a vote. The only piece that gets decided via a vote is how the 10% from the DGBB gets distributed. And the way the voting works within that 10% is that proposals compete and the proposals with the most support get funded. It won't work if proposals only get partially funded based on the percentage of yes votes.

Yes of course. Voting with numbers requires some changes to your code. You can try a demo, and see how much the fund will be on each proposal , in case a number voting is established.

 

[TroyDASH]

Yes of course. Voting with numbers requires some changes to your code.

Can you at least put forward the model you are going for by answering some of these questions in your ideal cryptocurrency? Even though I really don't think any of the changes you are describing will ever happen, why not go down your rabbit hole as a thought exercise.

How is the percentage of the block reward going towards DGBB determined?
What is the criteria (if any) for a DGBB proposal to be funded at all?
Do proposals always get entirely funded with respect to the requested amount, and if not, how is the funding amount determined?
What happens when there are many proposals that are popular and the amounts exceed the DGBB total allocation, or even the entire block reward allocation?

 

[demo]

Can you at least put forward the model you are going for by answering some of these questions in your ideal cryptocurrency? Even though I really don't think any of the changes you are describing will ever happen, why not go down your rabbit hole as a thought exercise.

How is the percentage of the block reward going towards DGBB determined?
What is the criteria (if any) for a DGBB proposal to be funded at all?
Do proposals always get entirely funded with respect to the requested amount, and if not, how is the funding amount determined?
What happens when there are many proposals that are popular and the amounts exceed the DGBB total allocation, or even the entire block reward allocation?

Thanks for the questions. I ll answer them as soon as possible. bye for now.

 

[rustycase]

Wow !
Discussions on democracy here on a forum for a payment tool ... Fascinating !

I may be a Newbie here, yet it's not my first cruise.

Democracy comes to us from the ancient Greek.
Pretty much, it is defined as Mob Rule.

All mobs become irrational.

In my years, perhaps the best example of democracy in action would be described as 3 wolves and 1 sheep, sitting down at the table and taking a vote upon what to have for dinner.

IMO, the DASH PoW/PoS method of voting masternodes should be quite representative of direction DASH needs to go in order to provide the best service to the most people.

Best
rc

 

[demo]

In my years, perhaps the best example of democracy in action would be described as 3 wolves and 1 sheep, sitting down at the table and taking a vote upon what to have for dinner.

It is a wrong example, because in a democracy you are not allowed to prohibit voting.

If the wolves eat the sheep, then the sheep is dead ,and a dead sheep cannot vote. So the wolves are not allowed to eat the sheep. In a democracy it is not allowed to kill, because killing results the loss of a voting right, which is not allowed by definition.

 

[demo]

How is the percentage of the block reward going towards DGBB determined?

It should be voted. Those who have voting rights should cast a triple percentage vote. For example I say 30-40-30, and Evan says 45-45-10, so the result is
37,5 Mining reward-42,5 MasterNode reward-20 Budget

What is the criteria (if any) for a DGBB proposal to be funded at all?

It will be funded even with one dash. People can change their vote, and turn it to 0 dash, if someone do not funish his work.

Do proposals always get entirely funded with respect to the requested amount, and if not, how is the funding amount determined?

Yes proposals get funded not to the requested amount, but to the amount it is given to them. The funding amount is like an auction. I ask an amount, they give me another, and I sign or not the contract in order to start working.

What happens when there are many proposals that are popular and the amounts exceed the DGBB total allocation, or even the entire block reward allocation?

The votes are expressed as percentage of the total allocation , so the amounts cannot exceed the DGBB total allocation.

Finnaly, there is also a tree like voting. For example:
First we cast a percentage vote about Mining reward-MasterNode reward-Budget. And then in a poll that depends on the result of the first, we cast a percentage vote on the Budget for specific proposals. The second voting depends on the result of the first one. Thats why we say that polls are dependant eachother. The result of a poll affects the result of another poll. Thats why a dependant poll structure should be built.