When new Dash don't get created, that's a good thing, right?

[amanda_b_johnson]

Hi.

Just posting a question to make sure I really, truly understand what happens when not all available-to-be-created Dash are allocated in a budget cycle.

They just don't get created, right? Meaning there's a temporarily lower inflation rate in Dash. Meaning all existing Dash are worth more for it. Right?

That's what I thought, anyway, but I see words like "wasted" or "unused" thrown around places, which can't be correct -- because you can't use or waste what will never come into existence.

Do I understand correctly?

Thanks.

 

[demo]

Hi.
Just posting a question to make sure I really, truly understand what happens when not all available-to-be-created Dash are allocated in a budget cycle.
They just don't get created, right? Meaning there's a temporarily lower inflation rate in Dash. Meaning all existing Dash are worth more for it. Right?
That's what I thought, anyway, but I see words like "wasted" or "unused" thrown around places, which can't be correct -- because you can't use or waste what will never come into existence.
Do I understand correctly?
Thanks.

If there is money left over in the budget, the system will also support proposals for moving money into a “savings” account managed by a group of people.

.
They just don't get created, right? .

You have to get the source code of dash, read it, understand it, compile it, and then you will get the answer. If you are unaible to understand the code, then they can say to you whatever they want and you are bound to believe them.

I expect a real answer here. Whoever claims something, I expect him/her to point to the numbered rows of code that implement his/her claim.

 

[tungfa]

Hi.

Just posting a question to make sure I really, truly understand what happens when not all available-to-be-created Dash are allocated in a budget cycle.

They just don't get created, right? Meaning there's a temporarily lower inflation rate in Dash. Meaning all existing Dash are worth more for it. Right?

That's what I thought, anyway, but I see words like "wasted" or "unused" thrown around places, which can't be correct -- because you can't use or waste what will never come into existence.

Do I understand correctly?

Thanks.

correct
i can not explain the details - but in none tech terms
yes - budget leftovers will be burned - so less coins created - so the total number will drop from the 22 Mill = less coins / higher price

do not mind "demo" he has some 'number problem'

 

[UdjinM6]

Technically budgets work like this:
- every single "normal" block reward is reduced by 10% (https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1581)
- every 16616 blocks (https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/masternode-budget.cpp#L29) there is a place for 100 (https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/masternode-budget.cpp#L1817-L1818) superblocks (https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/masternode-payments.cpp#L237-L238) which can acquire 10% of monthly production (https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/masternode-budget.cpp#L778 https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/masternode-budget.cpp#L1824) at max in total.
In simple words, reward is reduced for every "normal" block and that way network is kind of reserving coins for superblocks ahead of time but superblocks can have less coins in total because there simply could be not enough approved budgets. So leftover coins are never actually created but, yep, some people referring to them as (potentially) "wasted", "unused" etc. IMO it's all about same old story - some people see their glass half full while some see their glass half empty

 

[David]

You are correct, and the Dash not being created at all is a good thing. However, the Dash being created and budgeted for something worthwhile is better.

Consider the current "Evolution Development - X11 Port" proposal which is currently supported by 25% of the network and costs 609 Dash. This will complete an important part of the work on Evolution, allowing it to be deployed sooner. That is a very, very good thing.

If we didn't spend that 609 Dash, then the value of Dash would (theoretically) be increased by 0.009369%, or about 0.0656 cents per Dash. Successful completion of the project, however, will add significantly more than 0.0656 cents worth of value to each Dash in existence.

Another way of looking at it is this: if lowering our overall emission rate created a better return than the budget system, then we could have simply done that. The creation and subsequent acceptance of the budget system implies that the network believes that spending this money on budget initiatives will create a greater value in the long run. If that had not been so, the network could have rejected the update and just pressed for a lower emission rate.

People say things like "waste" because it could be used to do even more good than it does by simply not coming into existence.

 

[TroyDASH]

You are correct, and the Dash not being created at all is a good thing. However, the Dash being created and budgeted for something worthwhile is better..

Key word being "worthwhile". The fact of whether or not there is still a remaining amount in the budget does NOT make a proposal any more or less likely to produce more long term value for the network than the amount it is requesting. Yet people often use the fact of there being a remaining budget as a reason to vote for something, which is not a good reason, IMO.

 

[rustycase]

Good thread !
rc

 

[demo]

Technically budgets work like this:
- every single "normal" block reward is reduced by 10% (https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1581)
- every 16616 blocks (https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/masternode-budget.cpp#L29) there is a place for 100 (https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/masternode-budget.cpp#L1817-L1818) superblocks (https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/masternode-payments.cpp#L237-L238) which can acquire 10% of monthly production (https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/masternode-budget.cpp#L778 https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/masternode-budget.cpp#L1824) at max in total.
In simple words, reward is reduced for every "normal" block and that way network is kind of reserving coins for superblocks ahead of time but superblocks can have less coins in total because there simply could be not enough approved budgets. So leftover coins are never actually created but, yep, some people referring to them as (potentially) "wasted", "unused" etc. IMO it's all about same old story - some people see their glass half full while some see their glass half empty

See ? Almost nobody understood how exactly your claims are proven, but everybody is convinced now that everything is ok. This is what happens whenever your talk has references to code. This is code's magic, the ignorants are speechless in front of code!

So everything is ok now, it is ok until....

(to be continued)

 

[BolehVPN]

See ? Almost nobody understood how exactly your claims are proven, but everybody is convinced now that everything is ok. This is what happens whenever your talk has references to code. This is code's magic, the ignorants are speechless in front of code!

So everything is ok now, it is ok until....

(to be continued)

If you know how to read the code, since it's public, and you can translate it for us, then please do so.
You asked for code references:

You have to get the source code of dash, read it, understand it, compile it, and then you will get the answer. If you are unaible to understand the code, then they can say to you whatever they want and you are bound to believe them.

I expect a real answer here. Whoever claims something, I expect him/her to point to the numbered rows of code that implement his/her claim.

UdjinM6 provides them. Now you're saying that the code references are worthless since no one knows what it is all about. What are you on about?

If you can read code and can prove that Udjin's references are not true, then please by all means, show it. In code too! I'm sure the more technical savvy people here would see it and if it's really a problem, then great, it's exposed or will get fixed.

Otherwise as per your own reckoning, it's all talk and cheap.

 

[demo]

If you know how to read the code, since it's public, and you can translate it for us, then please do so.
You asked for code references:
UdjinM6 provides them. Now you're saying that the code references are worthless since no one knows what it is all about. What are you on about?
If you can read code and can prove that Udjin's references are not true, then please by all means, show it. In code too! I'm sure the more technical savvy people here would see it and if it's really a problem, then great, it's exposed or will get fixed.

Otherwise as per your own reckoning, it's all talk and cheap.

You have to respect UdjinM6 because his talk has references to the code. I fully respect his answer too.

Testing the code is a hard job, and it is paid a lot.
Maybe you should pay people to discover bugs in dash code, this is a nice idea I think.

My talk is cheap because I am not paid to talk.

 

[Solarminer]

You have to respect UdjinM6 because his talk has references to the code. I fully respect his answer too.

Testing the code is a hard job, and it is paid a lot.
Maybe you should pay people to discover bugs in dash code, this is a nice idea I think.

My talk is cheap because I am not paid to talk.

I respect @UdjinM6 because he is the most active member putting code on the Dash github. He is also a model of how the core team or even any community member should behave.

Actually, there is no specific budget to test code. There are several members in the core that do test code but that is not considered to be paid a lot.

I proposed a pay per bug option in my splitting up of the core budget thread. It would give an incentive for the community to help.

 

[demo]

Actually, there is no specific budget to test code. There are several members in the core that do test code but that is not considered to be paid a lot.

Coders and testers are enemies. They should not be in the same team. The core team are coders, so they should not be paid at all when bugs are discovered by them. But if an outsider discovers a bug in a stable release, this should be paid a lot. And if you want to be more strict, if a critical bug is discovered by an outsider, this outsider shoud get his reward from the salary of the coders.

I proposed a pay per bug option in my splitting up of the core budget thread. It would give an incentive for the community to help.

Have you proposed such a thing in the budget? If yes, then you have to take into account that not all bugs are the same. Coders should define parts of the code where, in case a bug is discovered there, it will be critical, medium or non critical for dash operation. And then let the testers and hackers investigate the code and be paid per bug and per type of bug.

Core team should define the severity of bugs in specific parts of code, but how much those bugs should be paid, and whether they will be paid by the salary of the coders or not, this is a subject to vote among MNs (or even among all dash community), a vote using numbers.

 

[David]

Key word being "worthwhile". The fact of whether or not there is still a remaining amount in the budget does NOT make a proposal any more or less likely to produce more long term value for the network than the amount it is requesting. Yet people often use the fact of there being a remaining budget as a reason to vote for something, which is not a good reason, IMO.

Absolutely agree. The standard for "usefulness" should not be lowered just because there are budget funds left. At the same time, there are likely a very, very wide range of projects/activities that would produce an EV greater than the 0.000015255 cents per DASH that is theoretically gained whenever budget funds go unused and therefore uncreated.

*(1 DASH / 6,555,095 Current DASH Supply) * 100 Cents per Dollar

 

[Solarminer]

Absolutely agree. The standard for "usefulness" should not be lowered just because there are budget funds left. At the same time, there are likely a very, very wide range of projects/activities that would produce an EV greater than the 0.000015255 cents per DASH that is theoretically gained whenever budget funds go unused and therefore uncreated.

*(1 DASH / 6,555,095 Current DASH Supply) * 100 Cents per Dollar

You missed the $/dash conversion and I don't think that calculation will work.

Lets look at it from a 100 dash proposal amount and the value of 1 masternode(1000 Dash).

Current value of a masternode is 1000 Dash * $7/Dash = $7,000.

Now if you add 100 Dash into circulation (allowing a 100 dash proposal to go through) this is what changes. (Using today's coins available)

$7,000 x 6,555,790 / (6,555,790+100) = $6,999.893 This is about an 11 cent loss per masternode. This is still pretty minimal, but it does give some limit for passing nonsense proposals. But your are right. There are many things that would benefit Dash from a 100 Dash proposal passing and all that has to happen is an increase in the price of Dash by .0001 Dash to make it worth it.

So the metric for passing proposals should be, Can you increase the price of dash more than the other proposals? And does it pass the 0.0001 price increase requirement(per 100 dash proposal)? Pretty hard to guess at these or even measure when price goes up and down far more than this each day.

 

[David]

You missed the $/dash conversion and I don't that calculation will work.

Lets look at it from a 100 dash proposal amount and the value of 1 masternode(1000 Dash).

Current value of a masternode is 1000 Dash * $7/Dash = $7,000.

Now if you add 100 Dash into circulation (allowing a 100 dash proposal to go through) this is what changes. (Using today's coins available)

$7,000 x 6,555,790 / (6,555,790+100) = $6,999.893 This is about an 11 cent loss per masternode. This is still pretty minimal, but it does give some limit for passing nonsense proposals. But your are right. There are many things that would benefit Dash from a 100 Dash proposal passing and all that has to happen is an increase in the price of Dash by .0001 Dash to make it worth it.

So the metric for passing proposals should be, Can you increase the price of dash more than the other proposals? And does it pass the 0.0001 price increase requirement(per 100 dash proposal)? Pretty hard to guess at these or even measure when price goes up and down far more than this each day.

Sorry! I did miss an important step, didn't I? Whoops!