We should change voting from Masternodes to EVERYONE

Technologov

Technologov

Active member
Hi All,

Today I was in Bitcoin Israel in Tel-Aviv, trying to convince the people to switch over to Dash. I spoke about BTC transaction getting stuck and that Lightning Network has a broken and unproven economic model.

One of the problems that they dislikes about Dash is that in order to be eligible for voting, new users need a Masternode.

I definitely agree this is a problem. $66,000 on Dash is a very high sum for small investors.

I would like to have a proposal, that can be voted on from block X. I.e. flag "D day", and anyone, that has Dash in their wallet at height of "Block X" on the "D day", can vote with all of his(her) coins.

It would be much better and much more convincing to the public.

EDIT: I support 1 Dash = 1 vote. Minority coin holders can't damage the system. They really can't, even if allowed the vote.

-Technologov
 
Last edited:
UdjinM6: Crypto-currency is not just a network protocol, but also a social protocol between humans. We need to improve our social protocol to give even 0.01 DASH holders a chance to vote.

This way a lot more people can be convinced to join Dash. People must not perceive it as "only for the rich".

Moreover traditional shareholder voting in traditional corporations is done via brokers, and users can only vote if they hold a share of company Y at the end of Day D. (market close)
 
Last edited:
Technologov said:
UdjinM6: Crypto-currency is not just a network protocol, but also a social protocol between humans. We need to improve our social protocol to give even 0.01 DASH holders a chance to vote.

This way a lot more people can be convinced to join Dash. People must not perceive it as "only for the rich".

Moreover traditional shareholder voting in traditional corporations is done via brokers, and users can only vote if they hold a share of company Y at the end of Day D. (market close)
Click to expand...

Have you not thought about bad actors and if we let everyone vote they can easily vote to hurt the network??

The reason to have the barrier of entry so high to vote is it will ensure the people who vote are doing so to benefit the network, not hurt it. If they vote to hurt the network they stand to lose their own investment. Think of the MN owners as board members of the network, not every man and his dog who thinks they have a say when they dont put their money where their mouth is.

The people who say voting is only for the "rich" is silly, a masternode a long time ago cost $4000usd.

Also with Evolution, shared masternodes will allow votes to be counted from shared masternodes that are owned by multiple parties. I assume they would have their own internal vote then the outcome of that would count as a single vote.
 
> Have you not thought about bad actors and if we let everyone vote they can easily vote to hurt the network??

No. They can't hurt. Why ? Out of 7.2 million coins, 4.2 million is locked in a Masternodes. So there are only 3 million coins not in Masternodes. They don't comprise a majority. Having more voters benefits decentralization.

And it's like saying that having minor share-holders with 1 share of Intel somehow hurts Intel. Joke.
 
Stealth923 said:
The reason to have the barrier of entry so high to vote is it will ensure the people who vote are doing so to benefit the network, not hurt it. If they vote to hurt the network they stand to lose their own investment. Think of the MN owners as board members of the network, not every man and his dog who thinks they have a say when they dont put their money where their mouth is.
Click to expand...

Your argument make no sense. It is irrelevant how much you set the vote barrier, the quality of voting does not depend on this. What counts is the individuals, the persons, and how many Dash those indivuals have comparing to their total fortune in other coins. It is Dash/fortune that counts.

For example an operator may have a lot of masternodes, but his fortune in dollars may be even bigger. Another may be a state's secret agent, having the fortune of the whole state behind him, which finances him in order to control the Dash network. Both of them they will harm the Dash network with their decisions, as long as they are really interested in the future of their dollars, and not in the future of Dash.

It is the "Dash/total fortune" that an individual (or organization) has that is related to the quality of voting. A person who owns 1 Dash coin, he will try to vote as good as he can, if this Dash coin is the only kind of money he has.

Give Dash (and a computer) to the total poor and give them voting rights, and the quality of voting will increase, or if not the quality at least the good intention and the good will.
 
Last edited:
RGXDK said:
That's a terrible idea. Voting should be reserved for those who have skin in the game, because those are the ones with the most to lose.
Click to expand...

This argument is stupid. The most to lose is not calculated by counting the amount of DASH someone has. The most to lose is calculated by the formula :
TOTAL_DASH/TOTAL_FORTUNE_IN_ALL THE_OTHER_COINS
The bigger this number is, the most to lose.

The problem is of course that we dont know the total fortune of someone, so the most to lose cannot be calculated, unless someone is obviously totally poor (third word people, beggars e.t.c.) So give to the total poor people a computer, one Dash and voting rights, and the quality of voting will boost, or if not the quality at least the good intention and will.

This is yet another reason why a universal dividend and a Web of trust is needed for Dash to evolve from a collectable item it is today, to real cash.
 
Last edited:
Technologov said:
We need to improve our social protocol to give even 0.01 DASH holders a chance to vote.
Click to expand...

So I invest let's say 100 DASH (that's peanuts for hacking a system) and submit 10000 of those 0.01 votes.

And because I'm evil I'll do this once every second. On 10 servers in parallel because I happen to have those. With changing IP addresses in case the IPs get banned.
That's 100000 votes per second. 8640000000 per day. And that's just from me. Imagine someone using a botnet for that.

Welcome to the world of cheap denial of service.
 
UdjinM6 said:
this project is about building payment network. Serious investors can vote directly, everyone else can vote by buying/selling coins i.e. by (not) using services network provides.
Click to expand...

And what if the serious investors, are your rivals who want to destroy you? This is a rare case in case you deal with commodities, because those who produce commodities can be counted and they are almost known. But when we talk about money objects, almost everyone who own a lot of money in another money object is considered as your rival, and your rival is anonymous.

You confuse this in your mind, you believe that an investor in a money object has similarities to the investors in commodidities. This is not the case, we are in a new era, we never had investors in money objects until now. So their behavior cannot be predicted and it is not similar to the behavior of the commodities investors. The stupids of course strongly believe that we are living in the past, and that a "money object" investor behaves exactly like a commodity investor does. The stupids are going to learn the truth in the hard way.
 
Last edited:
Technologov said:
Hi All,

Today I was in Bitcoin Israel in Tel-Aviv, trying to convince the people to switch over to Dash. I spoke about BTC transaction getting stuck and that Lightning Network has a broken and unproven economic model.

One of the problems that they dislikes about Dash is that in order to be eligible for voting, new users need a Masternode.

I definitely agree this is a problem. $66,000 on Dash is a very high sum for small investors.

I would like to have a proposal, that can be voted on from block X. I.e. flag "D day", and anyone, that has Dash in their wallet at height of "Block X" on the "D day", can vote with all of his(her) coins.

It would be much better and much more convincing to the public.

-Technologov
Click to expand...


As @crowning an others said, the system is designed to prevent sybil and ddos attacks. The voters (now and back in the days where darkcoin was only one small project) are the people who can lose if the decisions are wrong.
The system is simple, elegant and is working fine.

On the other hand, anyone can fork DASH and create his own clone with a different set of rules. This is the beauty of open source projects.

FYI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack
 
aleix said:
On the other hand, anyone can fork DASH and create his own clone with a different set of rules. This is the beauty of open source projects.
Click to expand...
You dont even understand what is the beauty of the open source.
The beauty of open source is valid whenever the new program is created in order to be used by the same community.
In case of a Dash fork it is not the beauty of the open source that prevails, but the ugliness of the community split.
 
demo said:
You dont even understand what is the beauty of the open source.
The beauty of open source is valid whenever the new program is created in order to be used by the same community.
In case of a Dash fork it is not the beauty of the open source that prevails, but the ugliness of the community split.
Click to expand...

I am a member of several (and sometimes opposite) communities in crypto and real world.
Split means diversity, means competition and complementary approach.

Do not be afraid of that.
 
aleix said:
I am a member of several (and sometimes opposite) communities in crypto.
Split means diversity, means competition and complementary approach.
Click to expand...

No. Split is weakness, split is promoted by those who are against the crypto concept. They advertise the split of the crypto communities as being a good thing, and they are tying to percuade the people that forking the code and forking the community are similar (and beneficial) things. They are doing this because it is in their interests the divide and conquer.

You dont understand the layers, the crypto world is different to the real world, and the community fork is different to the code fork. The correct thing for the crypto community is to have one single solid community, and different forks residing inside the same code bundle, ready to be ignited upon vote. This is what prevents the divide and conquer deficiency . This is what governance stands for.

UdjinM6 said:
This project is not about building electronic democracy.
Click to expand...
Of course it isnt (necessarily). The project should be about discovering the optimum governance mechanisms in order to unite the split cryptocurrency community against the common enemy, the current world monetary system.
 
Last edited:
The fact that only masternodes can vote is a feature - not a bug. I would definitely not change that. Crowning slam dunked it - if anyone who incidentally buys 0.1 Dash on an exchange can vote you're basically opening up 'governance' to non-stakeholders en masse.

It isn't a recipe for 'unity' it's s recipe for disintegration.

Anyway, masternode shares are increasingly the popular option and Evolution will probably make them trustless so the idea that 1 masternode = 1 person is rapidly disappearing.
 
toknormal said:
The fact that only masternodes can vote is a feature - not a bug. I would definitely not change that. Crowning slam dunked it - if anyone who incidentally buys 0.1 Dash on an exchange can vote you're basically opening up 'governance' to non-stakeholders en masse.

It isn't a recipe for 'unity' it's s recipe for disintegration.

Anyway, masternode shares are increasingly the popular option and Evolution will probably make them trustless so the idea that 1 masternode = 1 person is rapidly disappearing.
Click to expand...


You are a liar, you lie to the others and to yourself.
If you really believe that the optimum governance can be applied only by the masternodes, then why are you afraid of proving it?
 
Things as currently stand prevent some Bitcoin investors from moving over to Dash.
Meni Rosenfeld, the head of Bitcoin Israel community said that voting should be fair for all people, not only the rich.

Social protocol is just as important, if not more so, than a network protocol.
In reality it will not change very much, because MNs have most of the coins. But (!). We should allow the small people get heard.
 
I dont agree its a problem at all, 4300 is pretty dame decentralised. I mean up until this point most of the largest corporations in the world have decisions made by a handful of people that can sit around one table. But regardless I still think that eventually anyone who wants to vote that holds some dash will be able to via shares in nodes and then if 51% or more of the shares in a particular node vote in one direction thats what the vote of that node will become.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top