Welcome!

I will probably abstain from voting on this proposal. Though I do believe that shifting some of the BRA to either the DAO or the Masternodes would help, since we can get more value from those coins and only need a very small amount of mining. Indeed, the mining is a cost to us and providing us with very little benefit. My main reason for not supporting this proposal and the previous ones is the timing and disruption of the community.

BRA adjustments have in the past been Holy Wars for Dash, and with them, we've seen attrition each time as some POW die hards leave the network confounded. Making another BRA adjustment at this time when Dash is at a low price could be mangled as an act of desperation and send the 'wrong message'. I would support this change at the height of a bull market, when the change would most likely be seen in a more favourable light.

This:

>those coins and only need a very small amount of mining

and this:

>Indeed, the mining is a cost to us and providing us with very little benefit.

are both WRONG. You do NOT have the right to make these assertions without proof, and I have provided evidence that these assertions are false. Firstly, YOU DO NOT KNOW OR HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECLARE any amount of mining as "necessary or not". Dash did NOT CREATE MASTERNODES to get rid of mining. Dash DID NOT create chainlocks to get rid of mining. Dash SPLIT the block reward because MINERS CAN'T DO EVERYTHING.

**THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT MINING IS NOT NECESSARY**, and you repeatedly drawing this conclusion arbitrarily without cause is justification to have you banned from the network for bad acting/trolling.

There is NO JUSTIFICATION to attack miners or mining, it is an ESSENTIAL PART of ALL proof of work coins, which Dash is one of. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON **YOU AND YOUR CABAL OF TROLLS** to justify your repeated UNNECESSARY ATTACKS on Dash's mining infrastructure.

Traditional mining has many objectives, I will enumerate some of them.
1) Secure the network.
2) Provide Entropy.
3) Distribute the coins.
4) Add transactions to the block.
5) Keep a copy of the ledger.
etc.
In Dash, the Masternodes help secure the network from ironically a mining attack thanks to Chainlocks. In a recent upgrade, we moved from taking entropy from the miners and now use the Chainlock hash itself as the source of entropy. Notice that in Dash, coins are also distributed through the masternode network and the DAO, also note that in Dash, the Masternodes are required to run a non-pruned copy of the ledger.

In short, we have moved much of the functionality of mining into the Masternode network in Dash. Presently, the sole thing that miners do is add transactions to the block and Masternodes cannot refuse them, this is valuable, but is it 20% of the BRA valuable, or 10% or less? That is the topic of this proposal, IMO, we could drop the mining reward to as low as 5% of the BRA and not face any issues.

>In short, we have moved much of the functionality of mining into the Masternode network in Dash.

Wrong. The functions that we have moved to Masternodes are only superficial and not the main goal of mining. The main purpose of mining is to randomly distribute the coins in a FAIR MANNER to those who COMPETE WITH THEIR INVESTMENT to earn it. Masternodes can never do this as they are not designed for it.

ASIC machines provide a significant barrier to entry that prevents miner attacks while also INCENTIVIZING INVESTMENT into Dash mining. Dash was designed to emit coins until 2400, which means that removing mining before that IS NOT in alignment with the best interests of the network.

>Presently, the sole thing that miners do is add transactions to the block and Masternodes cannot refuse them, this is valuable, but is it 20% of the BRA valuable, or 10% or less? T

That's not 'the sole thing' that miners do, they distribute the block reward in a decentralized, fair and non-captured manner. Masternodes do NOT have the proper incentives that miners do in order to fairly distribute the block reward, as their stake causes them to hoard and hold, instead of selling immediately. You do not have the right to nitpick the amount of the reward that miners receive in favor of masternodes, masternodes are NOT DESIGNED to replace miners.

Its not about "not facing any issues", its about NOT ATTACKING MINERS who have invested in this coin. There is NO NEED for this proposal which is why I'm against it and your unfair characterization. Your arguments are garbage designed to look appealing so you can "appeal to MNO greed" which will force the blame for the damage these changes will cause onto the masternodes.

This is a form of trolling and it makes you a bad actor.

>>In short, we have moved much of the functionality of mining into the Masternode network in Dash.

>Wrong. The functions that we have moved to Masternodes are only superficial and not the main goal of mining. The main purpose of mining is to randomly distribute the coins in a FAIR MANNER to those who COMPETE WITH THEIR INVESTMENT to earn it. Masternodes can never do this as they are not designed for it.

Incorrect. The barrier to entry into mining is very steep indeed, firstly you need an ASIC that can mine X11. The D9 https://shop.bitmain.com/product/detail?pid=000202309172124394028JezetsS06F3 was selling for $5k a unit making it very expensive to get into mining. Worse, they are all sold out now, so if you wanted to enter Dash mining you would have to find another source for the miner. This barrier means the mining in Dash, similar to Bitcoin is highly centralised into a few individuals and fewer mining pools.

OTOH, anyone can buy as little as one Dash and stake it over at https://crowdnode.io/ and earn daily interest on their staked Dash which comes directly from the BRA, indeed, this https://mnowatch.org/crowdnodewatch/ page shows that there are hundreds more micro-MNOs that earn Dash without having to own a full masternode themselves.

In conclusion, I have shown that the Masternode network more efficiently and more fairly distributes new coins with a lower barrier to entry than mining.

>Incorrect

No, its correct.

>The barrier to entry into mining is very steep indeed, firstly you need an ASIC that can mine X11. The D9 https://shop.bitmain.com/product/detail?pid=000202309172124394028JezetsS06F3 was selling for $5k a unit making it very expensive to get into mining.

Right, which is the WHOLE POINT, that's why your point is wrong. By having a high barrier to entry, you foster competition which raises the price as more people compete harder for the rewards. This is the same cycle that BTC relied on and that Monero eschewed with their "anti-Asic" stance, much to their own detriment as we've seen recently. Weakening POW in Dash is the same as weakening Dash, which is NOT something someone who claims to be a fan of Dash should promote.

>Worse, they are all sold out now, so if you wanted to enter Dash mining you would have to find another source for the miner.

Again, this is ALL A GOOD THING. High demand for Dash miners is A FEATURE, NOT A BUG. You are basically arguing against proof of work which is a stupid way to argue in a proof of work coin. If you don't like proof of work then WHY ARE YOU HERE?

> This barrier means the mining in Dash, similar to Bitcoin is highly centralised into a few individuals and fewer mining pools.

This is not a problem at all, and it is the way it was initially designed by Satoshi. Satoshi even said that "people wouldn't have their own miners just like they don't run their own mail servers", mining was ALWAYS supposed to be a highly specialized, highly competitive INDUSTRY. You are parroting MONERO CRAP talking points about "asic resistance" and "low barrier to entry mining" which WEAKENS POW coins.

Buying Dash and staking it are NOT easy when there's no mining, stop making bad arguments! You can only buy Dash to stake it because NEW DASH has to be sold by miners in order to cover their costs. Remove miners and you remove easy access to Dash, which is my whole argument. Thank you for making my point for me.

>In conclusion, I have shown that the Masternode network more efficiently and more fairly distributes new coins with a lower barrier to entry than mining.

In conclusion you have NOT shown this, you have shown the opposite in fact. You have shown that Masternodes do NOT more efficiently distribute new coins due to the hoarding that they encourage, and that the ease of 'buying and staking' is only due to the fact that MINERS HAVE TO SELL THEIR COINS TO COVER THEIR EXPENSIVE HARDWARE.

Although you draw the incorrect conclusion, which is evidence you're a bad actor, I thank you for making my argument for me.

You are making no sense now. I can't argue with someone who is not a rational thinker. Once again, I leave it here and invite other readers of this forum to make their own minds up based on what they've read here today.

I am making perfect sense. Proof of work mining is designed to be a fierce competition. The result of that competition is the block reward is award to the winner. By switching from POW mining to Masternodes, you remove that competition as MNOs already have Dash staked, which doesn't incentivize them to spread the coin to new holders. Its not hard to understand, you are just being deliberately obtuse because you can't respond.

Thank you for admitting defeat and once again, STFU!

I have made the case that mining is not a more fair way of distributing the coins, you can squeeze a round peg into a square hole all you like, but I am out now. You are not logical.

You have NOT made that case. You have made THE OPPOSITE CASE while claiming to have made that case, which is illogical. And again you REFUSE to stop posting even though you said you would, which means that YOU ADMIT to being dishonest. Thank you.

YOU are the one being illogical here. Mining distributes the coin faster and harder than Masternodes because THAT'S WHERE THE INCENTIVES LIE. Masternodes are INCENTIVIZED TO HOLD AND HOARD, NOT TO SPEND. Miners are incentivized to SPEND.

Its not difficult to understand, you only pretend it is because YOU ARE BEING DISHONEST.

KNOCK IT TF OFF!

Voting no. You guys really should stop trying to change the block reward of Dash. Your "I despise revotings" statement is absolutely garbage as you have no proof that your "holiday" whatever is why the previous did not pass. This is why I wanted a moratorium on non-DCG members making decision proposals. You guys refuse to accept the vote and you are constantly trying to needle Dash into being less relevant.

1) The number of votes is IRRELEVANT, as long as the vote is cast that's all that matters. There is no proof that "timing" is the reason pmbf's proposal failed.

2) Decision proposals are supposed to be a LAST RESORT, not something you keep pushing and pushing until you "get the job done". You guys are trying to FORCE the Dash network to make these unnecessary and unsubstantiated changes and it is really not appropriate behavior at all.

3) Ratio doesn't matter, it didn't pass. You should respect the vote.

4) You not being pmbf doesn't matter, you should respect the vote and stop trying to change Dash.

Its clear to me that you are being malicious while pretending to be "friendly" with your "bros" and all that. You have not justified why you are attacking Dash miners by reducing their rewards. We don't need more rewards for MNOs, proof of work mining is an integral part of Dash and IMO you should stop trying to remove it by slowly decreasing the rewards.

Why are you so hellbent and removing Dash's POW?

Regarding the repetition, i can understand your concerns.
However, i believe that there are several good reasons for both viewpoints.
On Peter´s proposal, less than 1 out of 8 Masternodes did cast their vote, which was an extraordinarily low participation, especially for a decision proposal.
Of course you are going to deny this fact, as you were happy with the outcome of Peter´s proposal.
But many other MNO had preferred another outcome, and a considerable portion of the MNO were obviously absent.

>Regarding the repetition, i can understand your concerns.

Then I think you should delete this proposal. MNOs are not here to constantly be needled to death by decision proposals. Decision proposals were meant to be as a LAST RESORT when the network was at an impasse and couldn't decide what to do ON SERIOUS MATTERS that were already up for discussion.

You have NOT JUSTIFIED this proposal or its merit/need/worthiness. Which means you are skipping steps which is a red flag.

1) It doesn't matter how many masternodes cast their vote, the vote was NO twice in a row. You continuing to post this proposal indicates you have an AGENDA that goes against the desires and wishes of the overall network

2) You have NOT JUSTIFIED this change. You just "assume" that it should be done, that is a huge red flag. Decision proposals were meant as a LAST RESORT, not something that you can just do willy-nilly "just cause".

3) Having low participation for decision proposals is fine because DECISION PROPOSALS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A LAST RESORT, THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FREQUENT. This is the THIRD DECISION proposal about this topic, which indicates that you and the cabal you admit to being a part of REFUSE TO ACCEPT NO FOR AN ANSWER

4) You are part of a group of MNs that apparently does NOT LIKE DASH the way it is. Decision proposals were NOT CREATED FOR THAT. Dash is a proof of work cryptocurrency, and your proposal is a step towards removing POW from Dash altogether which IS NOT WHAT MNOs are participating in this network for

5) You lament the fact that I'm "happy with the outcome of Peter's proposal" which indicates that you are not happy. But my perspective has been shown to be the perspective of the network twice in a row now, and you are clearly trying to force the network to cater to your demands even though we've already said no. That indicates that you are a bad actor

You are lying and deceitful when you claim it failed twice in a row, because the former one from Peter had a completely different allocation.
At least be so honest to affirm the facts without trying to twist the truth to fit your narrative.

If it is truly the will of the majority of the MNO that the Block Reward Allocation remains the way it is right now, including the half of MNO who usually contribute their votes but for whatever reason (?) didn´t vote on the previous proposal from Peter, then this proposal will undoubtedly fail just like his.

You are the one seemingly afraid to find out the true will of the MNO, otherwise you wouldn´t even bother.

I am not lying or being deceitful at all, in fact you are by your accusation. The different allocation is irrelevant, the fact remains that the network has voted NO to changing the reward structure twice now. You are trying to split hairs to make it seem like there is a "big difference" but there is none. Why do you refuse to accept that the network DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE the block reward allocation? You guys coming up with 1000 different ways to rephrase the same idea IS NOT actually any different. Whether its 5% pow, 10% pow THE ANSWER WAS NO BOTH TIMES!

At least be so honest to affirm the facts without trying to twist the truth to fit your narrative.

Again you do NOT have the right to constantly question and relitigate already decided proposals! Why do you feel like you have the right to keep trying to force the network to vote on things that fit your twisted and narrow agenda? YOU HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY to justify this change, you do NOT have the right to attack me for defending the network's twice-voted stance of NO CHANGE! You are being deceitful which is another big reason why this proposal should be voted NO on.

DECISION PROPOSALS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A LAST RESORT, YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO KEEP NEEDLING THE NETWORK WITH DISRUPTIVE, DESTRUCTIVE, MASSIVE CHANGES just so you can "piss on the network and claim your territory like a dog"!

You are projecting, if you really cared about the will of the MNO you wouldn't even bother constantly posting these proposals from your cabal of trolls.

Just be honest for a single time:

Even if Peter´s proposal had failed with only 100 votes cast, you would still claim it was the will of the MNO.
You are the one being frightened of the will of the MNO and their right to vote.
Perhaps that is why you tried to restrict the MNO´s freedom to vote.

That is not true and YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to speak for me.

Answer my question, WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION for changing the block reward?

Decision proposals are ONLY MEANT TO BE USED AS A LAST RESORT, WHY ARE YOU re-proposing this idea even when there is no emergent need for it?

Congratulations for trying to vote the numbers. But lets examine the stupidity of the proposal owner.

He spend 1 dash in order to change the block reward allocation. WITH TWO MORE dash, he could solve this problem FOREVER !!!!

Simply, as long as he wants to change the block reward allocation from "20-miners/20-budget/60-mnos" to 10/20/70 , and as long as the 20-budget remains stable and out of question, this vote could be implemented as a numerical vote in between miners and mnos.

SO WE COULD SIMPLY PUT A THREE DIGIT NUMERICAL PROPOLAS ASKING FOR THE PERCENTAGE OF THE MINERS (look here https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/ on how you could implement it)

After the result is finalized, the remain is the percentage of the mnos. Both results are multiplied by 0.8 (because 20 budget is stable and out of question).

So with two more dash you could PUT A NEVERENDING NUMERICAL PROPOSAL, and solve the problem of the allocation between mnos and miners once and forever. Instead of the above theyposted yet another useless proposal, this proposal will last one month only, more people will be required to vote again and again , and more proposal fees will be spend for nothing. Stupidity, the bigest force of the universe. Deja vue!

Read here for more info. https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/changing-the-block-reward-allocation.56058/page-2#post-242008

Here is an example of a 3 digit numerical vote, by using some already existing proposals (you should create your own, if you want the numerical proposal to make sense)

https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/prepnumvote3/prep3.php?minnum=0&maxnum=100&proposals%5B%5D=ADJUST_BRA_REVOTE_DUE_TO_LOW_PARTICIPATE&proposals%5B%5D=stupid&proposals%5B%5D=wrapped-dash

I would like to interrupt this happy gathering of idiots and say the following:

First of all , congratulations for voting the numbers, you may also use this tool for doing it.
https://mnowatch.org/votethenumbers/

But , although you are trying to vote the numbers, you still remain idiot, because you should alocate part of the block reward to Encointer.

MINING SHOULD OCCUR WHEN PEOPLE MEAT EACHOTHER.

So my proposal is:

"Change the block reward allocation to 5% (Encointer)/10% (miners) / 25% (budget) / 60% (MNs)." (Today it’s 20 miners/20 budget/60 MNs.)

Imagine the burst of Dash, when the people around the globe start meeting eachother in various cities. Dash will become the first coin, it will surpass bitcoin , even USD. Then you will launch the satelite that has been proposed in the ancient Dash times , and you will distribute Dash to the whole globe.

Yes, I know, you will never support such idea because you are completely stupid, but I have to tell you so that you will have no excuse in the judgement days.

VOTE FOR ENCOINTER!

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/encointerUBI-mean26

You should verify that you have a masternode, instead of writing these comments advocating for these silly things. Stop trying to remove POW from Dash!

If you have the time to make all these comments, you have the time to verify that you have a MN.

I swear, you guys never give up trying to trick the Dash community into making itself less and less effective. The less POW mining you have, the less Dash spreads! Why on Earth would you want that??

I have an MNO vote, but I am waiting for the dashcentral admins to implement a zero knowledge protocol, because I dont want to reveal which mno I have.

Again, get the badge and switch servers, otherwise you appear to be a troll and I will call you out for it all the time. Nobody should listen to you because you refuse to prove that you deserve to be here. If you're going to "wait for DC admins to implement a zero knowledge protocol" so as not to reveal which MN you have, then YOU MUST ALSO WAIT to make any comments. Anything else is dishonest.

As long as there is not proof that I switch servers (I may have sold them too), this is stupid.

Those who sold their server, should not be allowed to speak, because they are responsible for the failure of Dash.

So I am asking you.

Do you have a real mno badge, or are you one of those traitors that sold their Dash and have a fake badge?

Prove yourself first that you still own an mno, otherwise you have no right to talk here.

Yes, I know you cannot prove it, thats why your badge is fake.

It is an issue of dashcentral to prove that, also allow me to prove that I also have an mno (by supporting a ZKP protocol)

Look, your point is stupid. The system is designed to prevent non-MNOs from commenting, not "Non-owning MNOs who used to have a MN but don't anymore". The former is much more damaging than the latter, and the fact that you refuse to see this is evidence that you are aggressively trying to fight against the anti-troll measure that having a badge presents.

You did not design the system, others did.

And they designed it wrong, so they have to fix their flawed design.

I can talk here, because I am a former proposal owner.

That how I gain my talking rights, and thats part of the dashcentral design too.

So stop telling nonsenses.

So which is it? Are you a "delegate voter" or a "former proposal owner"?

You are clearly just trying to abuse the edge cases in order to "force MNOs to take disrespect" so that your comments and the negative results they have will be "our fault".

This is a form of trolling and indicates that you are a bad actor.

Proposal owners are only supposed to speak ON THEIR proposal, not on every other proposal. Why are you trying to justify your comments using clear 'flaws in the system'? Its not a design, its a design flaw, and you claim to be against the design flaws in the system, so you taking advantage of them to troll us is what's 'nonsense', here.

Stop being a bad actor.

I am both a delegate voter (I have to prove it by using a ZKP protocol) and a former proposal owner.

I can vouch for Demo being a delegate voter, not that the Rude Trashman will believe a word I say! Demo has been delegated one vote from an MNO that is not able to participate in these discussions.

As such, he should be allowed to discuss the merits of these proposals and he should not be forced to reveal his delegated vote to some centralised entity like this site, the Discord or forums.

Proposal onwers are allowed to speak to all proposal, this is how the system is designed.

Again this is not the spirit of the system. The system is supposed to be that Proposal Owners ONLY speak on their proposal, not on every other proposal. You taking advantage of a flaw in the system to justify bad acting is strong evidence that you are a bad actor.

The proposal owners are allowed to speak to all proposals, because some proposals may be oposite to theirs.

Being a delegate voter is iffy. Even if you have a vote, you probably shouldn't comment, as being a delegate voter is not the same as being a 'delegate commenter'.

Also, being a former PO only gives you the right to comment on YOUR PROPOSAL, not on any other.

being a former PO gives me the right to comment on ALL PROPOSALS.

Thats how the system is designed.

This is the spirit of the system. A wrong spirit, but a spirit.

If you dont like it, pay rango to change it.

Again this is not the spirit of the system. The system is supposed to be that Proposal Owners ONLY speak on their proposal, not on every other proposal. You taking advantage of a flaw in the system to justify bad acting is strong evidence that you are a bad actor.

Look, regardless of whether or not I pay rango to change it, the fact remains that you taking advantage of that is trolling, which makes you a bad actor.

That's exactly WHY they should not be able to comment on other proposals and that is why we requested Rango to make it so proposal owners could only comment on their own proposal. It is a conflict of interest for opposite proposal owners to comment on the opposing proposal. You ignoring this is trolling.

I didn't say I designed it, so that's a red-herring. But I was here when we agreed to not let non-MNOs comment.

The "design being wrong" is immaterial, you are committing the "peak fallacy", i.e. the idea that since we can't do what you consider to the be ideal, that we therefore must just accept anything, instead of doing the best we can, which is to have all commenters PROVE that they have a MN by getting the badge.

If you feel so strongly about the design being flawed then it is YOUR DUTY to STOP COMMENTING until its fixed. Otherwise you're being a hypocrite.

I was here long before you were here.

And nobody agreed, the dascentral admins decided.

No that's wrong. In 2017 there was a lot of troll posters who didn't have MNs and POs who were posting maliciously on other proposal owner's proposals. The masternode owners all agreed that this should stop and told Rango to fix it.

I don't remember ever seeing you during that period. Stop speaking for the MNOs, you barely have any right to be here at all.

I am a 2016 generation.

I am demo.

Okay, well I've been in the network since 2015.

You may have been "2016 generation", but you clearly didn't have a MN then because you don't have one now. I've had a MN since 2016 and I was there when we all decided that proposal owners should only comment on their own proposal.

Refusing to abide by this is trolling and proves you're a bad actor.

No, you're wrongn and thinking about this completely backwards. If you get the badge, there is proof that you had a server which means you have the right to comment here.

You might have sold them, BUT YOU MIGHT NOT. You not considering this possibility while just assuming that they've been sold is what's stupid. And if there is a suspicion of that, you can just prove them again.

Why are you so focused on those who sold their MN? You should be focused on those who SHOULDN'T BE HERE at all, i.e. don't have a MN but are commenting as trolls. Someone who sold a MN at least USED to have one, which means they USED to have stake in the network. Someone who never bought a node never did. Stop thinking backwardly.

I have a real MN badge. I am not a "traitor". You have no evidence that I have sold my MN and thus have no right to force me to prove that I still own a MN. I have a badge which means I have every right to talk here, YOU DO NOT have a badge which means you HAVE NO RIGHT to talk here.

I may have not an MNO badge, but I am a former proposal owner, so I have by design the right to talk to all proposals.

I am both a former proposal owner ( I casted 7-8 proposals) and an active proposal owner.

Here is my latest proposal.

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/encointerUBI-mean26

https://mnowatch.org/proposalowners/?po=itsdemo

Having a proposal is only license to comment on THAT proposal, not on every other one. It is a conflict of interest for proposal owners to comment on other PO's proposals. Why are you being so stubborn about this?

This is what you believe.

The system is not designed that way.

The design is flawed we both admit.

But you taking advantage of a flaw in the design is by defintion you being a bad actor. Its not a belief, its a fact.

Good actors wouldn't behave that way.

Again, having a former proposal or even a CURRENT proposal, is not a license to comment on all proposals, only the proposal you had or currently have. Why are you being so stubborn about this?

Again, having a former proposal is not a license to comment on all proposals, only the proposal you had. Why are you being so stubborn about this?

You are stubborn, because you deny the obvious design of the system.

I'm not denying anything about the system. I'm denying your right to take advantage of flaws in the design to troll MNOs. You are stubbornly trying to promote the idea that that is okay, which means you are trying to troll us on purpose. Which makes you a bad actor.

I am not taking advantage of any flaw.

The right for former proposal owners to talk, is a feature, not a flaw.

You definitely are. Rango didn't fix this even though we told him to. Proposal owners ARE NOT supposed to comment on other PO's proposals, that is a design flaw, and you using that as justification is you taking advantage of that flaw.

It is NOT a feature for proposal owners to talk on any other proposal but their own. Only MNOs are to be granted wide commenting rights.

Nobody told rango to fix anything.

If you want rango to fix something, pay him.

Or add a proposal to the budget, and let the mnos to decide about the issue.

You're wrong/lying. During the period in question the MNOs got together and told Rango to stop allowing POs from one proposal to comment on another proposal because it was a conflict of interest.

You sound like you're speaking for Rango yourself. Is he the MNO who "delegated" his vote to you?

The MNOs already decided, only rango refused to implement the decision. Just like we decided Rango should open source DC, and he refused.

>If you get the badge, there is proof that you had a server which means you have the right to comment here.

If you had a server, but you have not now, you should not be allowed to talk, because you are a traitor.

>If you had a server, but you have not now, you should not be allowed to talk, because you are a traitor.

You have to prove that's the case. Just because that's possible doesn't mean you have the right to throw your hands up and pretend like "nothing can be done". You can still verify your MN and then having that badge will mean you have stake in the network and right to comment.

You refusing this on the basis of a HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBILITY that you haven't proven is the case, is trolling.

I have not a stake in the network. I am a delegate voter.

I have the right to talk here BY DESIGN, as a former proposal onwer.

So stop trolling.

>I have not a stake in the network. I am a delegate voter.

So you shouldn't comment. You commenting here is an abuse of the system. Its only appropriate for you to copy-paste the comments of the MNO who delegated their vote to you, not to use your vote to promote your own agenda.

>I have the right to talk here BY DESIGN, as a former proposal onwer.

This is a DESIGN FLAW, not the design. Using a design FLAW to justify trolling is trolling. So stop trolling.

The design flaw is the lack of a ZKP protocol, and the lack of spoting the traitors who sold their MNO and still hold a badge.

The right for former proposal owners to speak, is a feature, not a flaw.

You don't have a right to limit the description of the design flaws based on your narrow desire to troll us. You have no proof that there are "traitors who sold their MN and still hold a badge", and you are using this as a red-herring to FALSELY declare that you shouldn't need to verify because someone might've sold their MN and still kept the badge.

That is illogical.

The right is for former proposal owners to speak ON THEIR PROPOSAL ONLY. The MNOs came together and told Rango to make it so that POs couldn't cross post on other proposals. A proposal owner commenting on a different proposal is a conflict of interest. Why don't you acknowledge this? Hiding behind "the design" when you KNOW that the design is flawed is evidence that you are deliberately attempting to troll the MNOs.

The proposals compete eachother for the same budget.

So the proposal owners should be able to prove the flaws of other proposals, in order for their proposal to be voted.

Thats why proposal owners should be allowed to talk to all proposals.

It doesn't matter. You're just making canned responses now. Competing for the same budget doesn't give one PO the right to comment on another proposal.

During the period I mentioned, people like George Donnelly were abusing this flaw in the design in order to troll and attack competing proposals. We MNOs determined that this was bad acting and requested Rango to make it stop.

That's the will of the MNs.

PO's should NOT be able to attack or "prove the flaws" of other proposals. This place is for MNOs ONLY to have those discussions. You are trying to subvert the will of the MNOs with your false reasoning.