Vote: Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
Solarminer
Well-known member
A couple of suggestions/tweaks:
- Denominating projects in US$ is ok, but eventually I think DASH will be "The stable currency". The plan should be to get to a DASH only bid system. We are also not limited to US contributors. I would expect these projects to be worldwide. Maybe the website that enters the projects converts the US$, Euros, SDRs ... to equivalent DASH and the proposals are entered into network as DASH. If the project is paid in US$ equivalent at the end of the project, that final block number will be constantly changing.
- Some projects will require a long waiting period to be funded. Maybe the payouts can be done more frequently like every 2 weeks for man-hour type projects (IE developers can work as they get paid).
eduffield
Core Developer
I was actually thinking 10% is earmarked for this process, if we don't use it it's not going to be created.
Solarminer
Well-known member
This is actually groundbreaking!
- Masternodes don't vote no to a project because they lose rewards. They vote because they see the value in the projects. (No greedy masternodes voting to keep the funds)
- The funds are never given to a specific party automatically, so there is no way to waste the funds. The projects need to have value to get voted in. (No pork barrel)
JGCMiner
Active member
Alright. So I did understand the proposal correctly...
This will need to be explained to the masses very carefully. People will raise one eyebrow when the block reward is changed (again) and another eyebrow when certain blocks "suddenly" generate a large number of coins.
Sounds like a good test for balu and kot and any others participating in the new Delivery Exellcence Initiative.
However, it does find a nice common ground between the people worried about greedy masternodes and those worried about "pork barrel" spending so color me impressed. :smile:
Solarminer
Well-known member
Alternatively, instead of the unused 10% getting burned, it could go to miners. Either way, the fundamental decision process is sound.
Lebubar
Active member
Yes why not the miner, a lottery, the MN (not necessarily good idea this can lead to a greedy comportment to not vote for project), anything, but the coins have to be produced... I think we cannot afford us to change (again) the emission rate.
I still dream of a technical solution where the p2pool mining network is more advantageous than pooled mining.
That would blow all centralization issues out of the park. Dear devs, do these new protocol changes allow for such a thing?
Maybe instead of burning coins they could be redirected to a known p2pool nodes? The nodes could submit a p2poolprivkey to the network and get deterministically voted on just like MN's ? Just a slight offset would cascade p2pool nodes and miners! Heck, in this day and age, every miner might even run their own p2pool node just for ping advantage!
.
That would blow all centralization issues out of the park. Dear devs, do these new protocol changes allow for such a thing?
Maybe instead of burning coins they could be redirected to a known p2pool nodes? The nodes could submit a p2poolprivkey to the network and get deterministically voted on just like MN's ? Just a slight offset would cascade p2pool nodes and miners! Heck, in this day and age, every miner might even run their own p2pool node just for ping advantage!
.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is what it is right now.... Gotta work with what you've got. I'm confident this "bug" will be addressed in the near future.
.
crowning
Well-known member
I'm not exactly happy that we change the Dash emission rate, and I've never been a friend of "super-blocks", however I see that this is a reasonable compromise to make most Masternode owners happy.
The general public WILL be confused because there's additional Dash made out of nothing, inflation critics will show up etc...
It makes me quite happy that YOU are the one to explain this :tongue:
As much as I would like the current USD value in the network (so I wouldn't have to fetch it myself all the time) I don't think it's a good idea. Why USD and not EUR or Yen?
When USD breaks (and it WILL in the next years) projects will get an insane amount of DASH.
Propose a project with price in DASH and once it's accepted by the Masternoodlers pay that DASH.
And if you really have to pay a project in USD and DASH goes down just make another proposal for the missing amount.
The general population doesn't even grasp the concept that USD/EUR/YEN are made out of nothing!!
I do get your point, don't get me wrong. It's just that I'm not really worried about what the general population think.
More worried about what the general population think they think.
The issue here is real life mainstream "problems". Bills are still 99.99% payed in FIAT. The USD is still the planetary reference point.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
I updated the monitoring nodes on Dash Ninja to .23.
Also added a votes page, will add more vote over time graph when I get enough data:
https://dashninja.pl/mnvotes.html
Also added a votes page, will add more vote over time graph when I get enough data:
https://dashninja.pl/mnvotes.html
This is not how I am understanding the system, what I am gathering is the reward goes down for a period of time... so the emission briefly slows down... and then when the time to vote comes... the system prints a super block to fund the projects but there is not additional money created is just the portion that the network did not create while on the slower emission... and after that super block then the emission catches up and matches the current emission curve so that there is no change on emission or additional inflation... The advantage this way is there is no need for an escrow account or for money sitting idle, but I dont think there is any additional money created.... Now take this with a grain of salt, as I have not confirmed with the developers... but is just how I read the announcement.
This sums it up pretty well. It is awesome in my opinion it solves all concerns.
The one thing I would like to see is a ledger showing potential funds that have not been created, but are ready to be paid and when they're created and paid out. In a simple but clear manner. This would be generated by the block chain, and a web page would be dedicated to maintaining the information in an easy to follow order.
We need to be able to see where the projects stand and where the blockchain stands at all times.
RenegadeMan
Member
Hello everyone
I'm sorry to be putting forward a less-than-flattering commentary on this whole process of voting via our MNs but, as theoretically pure and balanced as it is, I can't see this working.
In many democracies around the world, when there's a referendum on some critical issue that requires the voting populace to vote 'YES", those referendums are rarely carried through by the YES voters, the normal outcome is NO, because groups opposing the YES create so much FUD and confusion about potential downside of voting YES, the NOs often unequivocally win from the sheer inertia of the YES vote needing a massive proportion of the voting public that will even take enough interest to carry the motion. An example is Australia where there have been around 44 referendums since federation in 1900 and only 8 of those were carried
It comes from the fact that there'll only ever be a percentage of people that are interested in either a firm YES or NO. For argument's sake, let's say that percentage of people who actually have a view is 75% (which I think is potentially on the high side; in many democracies where life's relatively easy it's likely to be far less) that generally means the 25% who don't hold a view are simply either not going to turn up to the polling booth on the day or leave their ballot paper blank (which is effectively a NO) or just vote NO because either they don't understand what's being voted on or they don't care. So for a YES to be carried, it needs to be voted by more than 66% of that 75% (to get the overall vote above 50%) and this is where the great challenge of most referendums is. To get more than 66% of people voting to vote YES is often a monumental task for the YES campaign. And like I've noted, in reality it's probably much higher than 66% of all voters needing to vote YES as there's likely to be many more people not voting at all than the 25% I've suggested above.
And this is the challenge we're going to have with this whole concept. There will be masternode owners that have jumped straight in and voted immediately, there will be others who're still considering the proposal and discussing aspects of it on these forums prior to voting, there'll be others still thinking "I must get onto that" and a fourth type who haven't even heard about it yet because they're not consistently on these forums. For a proposal to carry, it needs to have a massive YEA vote because there are so many MNs that will just be left at ABSTAIN.
I think we're seeing this phenomenon in the figures already. According to Elbereth's Dashninja MN votes page YEA is currently 28.1%, NAY is 0.2% and ABSTAIN is 71.7%. The sheer inertia involved of needing every MN owner to act and cast their vote is going to make it almost impossible to get YEA votes carried and I'll be surprised if even this first "Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain" proposal to set the whole budgeting system in place is going to be carried.
Maybe we need to think of other ways to do this as I can't see this working effectively for this or future votes on proposals.
I'm sorry to be putting forward a less-than-flattering commentary on this whole process of voting via our MNs but, as theoretically pure and balanced as it is, I can't see this working.
In many democracies around the world, when there's a referendum on some critical issue that requires the voting populace to vote 'YES", those referendums are rarely carried through by the YES voters, the normal outcome is NO, because groups opposing the YES create so much FUD and confusion about potential downside of voting YES, the NOs often unequivocally win from the sheer inertia of the YES vote needing a massive proportion of the voting public that will even take enough interest to carry the motion. An example is Australia where there have been around 44 referendums since federation in 1900 and only 8 of those were carried
It comes from the fact that there'll only ever be a percentage of people that are interested in either a firm YES or NO. For argument's sake, let's say that percentage of people who actually have a view is 75% (which I think is potentially on the high side; in many democracies where life's relatively easy it's likely to be far less) that generally means the 25% who don't hold a view are simply either not going to turn up to the polling booth on the day or leave their ballot paper blank (which is effectively a NO) or just vote NO because either they don't understand what's being voted on or they don't care. So for a YES to be carried, it needs to be voted by more than 66% of that 75% (to get the overall vote above 50%) and this is where the great challenge of most referendums is. To get more than 66% of people voting to vote YES is often a monumental task for the YES campaign. And like I've noted, in reality it's probably much higher than 66% of all voters needing to vote YES as there's likely to be many more people not voting at all than the 25% I've suggested above.
And this is the challenge we're going to have with this whole concept. There will be masternode owners that have jumped straight in and voted immediately, there will be others who're still considering the proposal and discussing aspects of it on these forums prior to voting, there'll be others still thinking "I must get onto that" and a fourth type who haven't even heard about it yet because they're not consistently on these forums. For a proposal to carry, it needs to have a massive YEA vote because there are so many MNs that will just be left at ABSTAIN.
I think we're seeing this phenomenon in the figures already. According to Elbereth's Dashninja MN votes page YEA is currently 28.1%, NAY is 0.2% and ABSTAIN is 71.7%. The sheer inertia involved of needing every MN owner to act and cast their vote is going to make it almost impossible to get YEA votes carried and I'll be surprised if even this first "Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain" proposal to set the whole budgeting system in place is going to be carried.
Maybe we need to think of other ways to do this as I can't see this working effectively for this or future votes on proposals.
Solarminer
Well-known member
I can see this happening with a messed up governmental system where both candidates are the same except for some colors and jokes about each other. I think you will see the masternoders are a smart involved group. The projects will be much more useful than anything happening with a 100+ year government/financial system.
The Ninja site isn't as accurate as this one that Crowning sent a link for:
http://178.254.18.153/~pub/Dash/masternode_payments_stats.html
We already have a 36.8% yes vote on day 2. I would say this is pretty good. If we do start to have issues with low votes, we can move to a lower threshold system with 40% yes votes, but only if the no votes are less than 10%. This still enforces a majority vote. Or maybe Evan can figure out a way to stop payments to non-voting masternodes - that would sure push up the vote %! Or encourage voting by sending a DASH to each masternode that votes. We have a lot of options and can tweak this as time goes on. Fear not.
Solarminer
Well-known member
Thanks. I also think it is pretty amazing that there is a solution that we both actually agree on.