Vote: Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

Outch, jump from 1200 to 1800 yea's within a few hours.

Somebody is really in control of roughly 600 MN = 600k DASH.
 
rango said:
Outch, jump from 1200 to 1800 yea's within a few hours.

Somebody is really in control of roughly 600 MN = 600k DASH.
Click to expand...

A couple of big hitters ... Vote many and boom
 
rango said:
Outch, jump from 1200 to 1800 yea's within a few hours.

Somebody is really in control of roughly 600 MN = 600k DASH.
Click to expand...
We laugh and joke but isn't the fact that there is a group of fairly large holders, enough probably to get close to 51% on every vote, going to be an issue? Sounds more like the US political system. Those with the most money control the most votes. Did I miss something here or are we just deciding to pretend this isn't the case with a big majority of the masternode's being controlled by a small number of hands.

Edit: An option perhaps start-many wallets should be considered as a single vote? Just playing devil's advocate here.
 
coingun said:
Those with the most money control the most votes.
Click to expand...
Yep!

coingun said:
Did I miss something here [...]
Click to expand...
This very first vote is the only one which needs a 51% majority of "yea" vs. "nay".

The future voting on proposals is ordered by "yea" votes, so the big guys will of course be able to get the proposals they like most done first.
But no matter how many "nay" they throw at proposals they don't like, it won't matter, the one with the second most "yea" will still be implemented.
 
crowning said:
This very first vote is the only one which needs a 51% majority of "yea" vs. "nay".
Click to expand...

What about the fact that the majority might not want this change but the initial vote was skewed by the large holders to pass it?

What makes it different from the "insta mine" concept. Isn't this just doing the same thing again with "insta voting"?

This question was only posed on the 6th. A lot of people I've talked to outside the one's that lurk on this forum haven't even realized this is happening, yet it's already been done passed and moved on. Didn't we want to work on not making the same mistakes?

Edit: I get it passed with a majority vote but in going off the building block that we know there are large players that can skew the vote which we are saying is ok just the first time?
 
crowning said:
But no matter how many "nay" they throw at proposals they don't like, it won't matter, the one with the second most "yea" will still be implemented.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about this? Makes the whole thing a complete farce. Welcome to DASH's decentralised governance, where voting "No" doesn't matter!

All aboard the gravy train, hurrah. :rolleyes:
 
It's 600 votes out of 2600. 23% voting power is not enough for severe abuse. I suppose Evan knows, who is running these nodes. Maybe it's even Evan's nodes. Logging 2-3 votes will make it easy to group the public keys of this big player.

Best thing would be for Evan or somebody to step up and say, "hey, i control 600k of DASH, but i'll handle this responsibly". This would remove a lot of fear and would stop endless discussions about large bunch of coins beeing mined at the beginning. It would be a clever idea of Evan to say, how many coins he owns and what are the 1-2 largest owners (in compliance with their consent). There is a good reason for stock market listed companies to do so and would make a lot of people shut up.
 
rango said:
It's 600 votes out of 2600. 23% voting power is not enough for severe abuse. I suppose Evan knows, who is running these nodes. Maybe it's even Evan's nodes. Logging 2-3 votes will make it easy to group the public keys of this big player.

Best thing would be for Evan or somebody to step up and say, "hey, i control 600k of DASH, but i'll handle this responsibly". This would remove a lot of fear and would stop endless discussions about large bunch of coins beeing mined at the beginning. It would be a clever idea of Evan to say, how many coins he owns and what are the 1-2 largest owners (in compliance with their consent). There is a good reason for stock market listed companies to do so and would make a lot of people shut up.
Click to expand...

It's Otoh. It would be nice if people would stop handing him so much DASH for cheap, but it really doesn't concern me; I believe him when he says he's interested in the long term potential of Dash's 2-tier decentralized design.
 
thelonecrouton said:
Are you sure about this? Makes the whole thing a complete farce. Welcome to DASH's decentralised governance, where voting "No" doesn't matter!

All aboard the gravy train, hurrah. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I get your point. Even when "ignoring no" is an elegant way to avoid "denial of election (DOE)" attacks (a group of large holders could block every voting completely) I'm also not 100% happy with this solution.

And when I look at how many Masternoodlers still haven't voted I'm not sure if a simple "yea" majority would help against DOE.

The only thing that could work would be if you let 2 proposals compete against each other, the people would have to vote either for proposal 1 or proposal 2 and the better one wins. The losing one will compete against the next one in the next voting round.
 
GNULinuxGuy said:
It's Otoh. It would be nice if people would stop handing him so much DASH for cheap, but it really doesn't concern me; I believe him when he says he's interested in the long term potential of Dash's 2-tier decentralized design.
Click to expand...

The main "problem" with 1-2-3 "Otoh"-s at the moment: we don't have additional 1-2-3... hundreds of "Otoh"-s yet.

But I believe we will attract them soon and distribution will become even better. I wish Otoh to multiply his contribution at least *10 - to adequately reward him and all others who put his faith into the project at an early stage.

So if plan is correct - it is just a temporary "feature".
 
crowning said:
I get your point. Even when "ignoring no" is an elegant way to avoid "denial of election (DOE)" attacks (a group of large holders could block every voting completely) I'm also not 100% happy with this solution.
Click to expand...

A group of voters choosing 'No' is not an 'attack' - it's the system working.

(Not addressed at you Crowning but...) I have noticed a lot of people cheer the free market, except, curiously enough, when those free market forces in action get in the way of their own agenda. Then suddenly it's a problem, and the socialist crap about 'fairness' starts.
 
Good for Otoh that he was able to buy so many DASH. Good for the DASH community that someone like Otoh believes in us and is willing to heavily invest in DASH.

It's a free market, and hopefully (if DASH really deserves) many other Otohs will come. And if they truly believe in DASH, and if they assume risks and invest, and if they buy lots of DASH and set lots of Masternodes, then it is simply fair and honest that they also have their voice seriously observed (with a strength proportional to their investments and the risks they have assumed) when it comes to making decisions inside the community.

The cryptocurrencies are about freedom

But, I don't know why people suddenly (misunderstanding freedom) decided to fancy the cryptocurrencies as some new magical wealth redistribution wand. It is not socialism. It is not equal money distribution.

It is monetary freedom. And that's already very good.

And I don't think ANY serious investor will ever be willing to put their (hard earned) money in a wealth redistribution machine (we've already got the governments pretending they do that Robin Hood thing - but actually doing exactly the opposite with OUR hard earned monies)
 
crowning said:
Yep!
This very first vote is the only one which needs a 51% majority of "yea" vs. "nay".

The future voting on proposals is ordered by "yea" votes, so the big guys will of course be able to get the proposals they like most done first.
But no matter how many "nay" they throw at proposals they don't like, it won't matter, the one with the second most "yea" will still be implemented.
Click to expand...
This language isn't really the way we should be looking at this.

Each proposal needs to add value and be worth voting yes for. If it meets the threshold, then it will move forward. It shouldn't matter if if the vote was met with a few large holders or not. Even a large holder may have investors/part owners that play a part in these votes too. I would also assume an investor with $500,000 at stake will take more time to understand a proposal than a $3,000 investor. The big investors also fund a larger % of each project and should get more say in how it is used.

This shouldn't be an us vs the big guys. We are all DASH supporters. Anyone that is willing to risk a large investment in DASH should be rewarded with a larger stake in the voting.
 
25akygz.jpg
I really hope reactions like this is just people trying to be funny, and not some symptom of community antipathy for money... :rolleyes:
 
Same old story ...
Today your best friend
Tomorrow your worst enemy

I think Otho has proven over and over that we can trust him and that he is on "our" side , for the coin and for the community !
Is he a big investor and here for money , definately and that is what investors do, big or small , so we are all in the same boat !

Our luck with Otho is that he is public and accessible , so give this man some credit and stop this good guy bad guy thing (switching how it fits your agenda)
Should have have a bigger vote (due to 600whatever Nodes) definately as he has much more hard $ on the table than any of us.
We looked through all the other options before proposing it and this is the fairest to all of us , as it has to be even and fair on all levels.

I am not sure where the sudden bickering is coming from , this all is nothing new , we all knew this before, 600whatever is not 51% !!
And better like that than having 6 idiotes with 100 each who do not care about coin and community. :wink:

Edit:
i do not even know if 600 is the right number, i just read that somewhere before
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top