Welcome!

If morons can't draw conclusions, then they vote for this stupid proposal.
You don't understand the market's reaction to the previous change in the reward?
Obviously, there are stupid masthead rats in the community who are harming the community.

I gave it my vote just like some other MNO and being called a moron is not kind at all.
What the hell are you talking about, please?
Which imaginary "market's reaction" would that be, you are drawing your genius conclusions from?

Since the spring of 2021, with the exception of last December, our project is suffering from ZERO demand in the marketplace.
Has nothing to do with the block reward allocation, the market doesn't even notice and is completely oblivious to it.

Giving it your vote makes you a moron, and being called that is about as kind as you can expect a reaction.

Why are you trying to destroy Dash and pervert it from its original vision? ONLY AN IDIOT would do that!

The "market's reaction" is not imaginary, we tried this once already and the PRICE ONLY GOT WORSE! You are a MORON for doggedly refusing to see that and "praying and hoping it'll get better by further capitulation". We are in a fight against bankers and fiat currency, so OBVIOUSLY becoming more like what they want us to be (they don't like POW because they can't control it) is MORONIC AND STUPID behavior.

Your "Zero demand in the market place" is OBJECTIVELY NOT TRUE Dash's price routinely PUMPS and has since 2021; however, it is always MYSTERIOUSLY BEATEN BACK DOWN! This is NOT GOING TO GET BETTER if you "curl up in a ball and die" or "promise to lick your tormentors boots". You are promoting the STUPIDEST RESPONSE because you are likely a SELL-OUT paid to promote STUPID NARRATIVES so our cynical competition can laugh at us for self-destructive behavior (the only way they can "beat us").

Again, that makes you AN IDIOT at best and a TRAITOR AT WORST! There are over 2000 active users of Dash usernames. I don't think you can find another coin out there besides BTC with 2000 active users AT ALL! That is PROOF that Dash is still highly sought after.

You DELIBERATELY REFUSE to consider the possibility that Dash's price is being MANIPULATED DOWNWARDS, even though I have PROVEN this to be the case (you just willfully ignore this proof which proves that YOU HAVE AN AGENDA)!

Hi CouncilOfChimpanzees,
It would have been nice, if you had contacted me before submitting this proposal...
The feedback for the first proposal was: "Don’t touch the budget."
That’s why I made the second proposal, where I got some more feedback on Discord:
The decrease of the mining rewards should be smoother.
There are several possibilities to do that. I’ll probably do a poll on Discord to get some feedback.
Peter

So far not even a single comment from all the other No voters !
But truth be told, the Yes voters remain just as silent.
Very insightful .. NOT

What the heck have we turned into?
This used to be very different in the past, when we had lots of discussion, heated arguing and a healthy debate going on.
Today, everyone seems to be afraid to speak his mind, not to piss off anyone else.

I hadn't commented because I believe any reasonable discussion will get drowned out.

I don't think this is fair. Reasonable discussion starts with a simple question: Why does this group, CoC, pmbf, lysergic, grandmasterdash, thedesertlynx, why do they ALL WANT TO REMOVE POW from Dash? Dash is a POW coin. POW is how POW coins distribute new coins to new holders. This is called ADOPTION and its what everyone here claims they want. So why is the group working at cross purposes with not only themselves, but the Dash network as a whole?

Any reasonable discussion would have to start there, and these individuals REFUSE to answer this question. That's what should concern you the most.

You have not properly explained WHY this decision needs to be brought to the network. You are skipping steps and thus not properly justifying why a decision proposal is even necessary. You won't even answer the question of "who is on this councilofchimpanzees?"

Your behavior is very suspicious and doesn't invite open and honest discussion, because you are not being open or honest yourself.

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!

>Warning to therealDashman21: if you or the shady puppetmasters pulling your strings somehow
manage to remove or otherwise disappear this proposal any earlier than October

This is projection and quite a sinister ploy. You all are the ones who had Rango delete my proposal before the voting deadline. Also, you are the one who refuses to acknowledge the vote, clearly proving that you have an agenda in continually promoting and posting this.

You refuse to answer my simple questions:

>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?

Which also shows that you have a hidden agenda. So, not only are you hiding who you and your cabal are, but you are now gaslighting me and the network by projecting your tactics onto me. This is probably 'retaliation' for me calling Rango out for deleting my proposal unfairly before the voting deadline was up as well as for pointing out that he is likely using sockpuppets in Tekken and itsdemo to promote nefarious agendas.

Its clear that we are under attack by trolls and those with conflicts of interest and it is my honor to fight you to the very last.

The justification is not to waste endless amounts of precious resources for expensive electricity (and taxes on it) by paying it to utilities with no end in sight, even though the Masternodes are able to do most (and soon all) of what the Miners did so far, with a tiny fraction of the costs.

Why should the Masternodes renounce to income they deserve,
and instead pay it into utilities so their shareholders can get higher dividends on their stock holdings?
This is just plain stupid. I hope you get a huge, fat paycheque from the utilities whose profits you seem to defend.

For everything else i advise you to re-read to proposal text again.

>The justification is not to waste endless amounts of precious resources for expensive electricity (and taxes on it)

Again you do NOT have the right to unilaterally declare this USAGE of electricity as a 'waste'. That is YOUR SUPERFICIAL opinion. Proof of work REQUIRES this usage of electricity in order to validate the blocks and distribute the reward in a decentralized manner. That is the whole point of Satoshi's invention, Dash follows that invention and your assumptions are based on a false premise, i.e. that its okay to just change Dash from its fundamental premises because YOU consider it a waste.

>by paying it to utilities with no end in sight

There is an end in sight, 2400. Its in the whitepaper. You are trying to unilaterally change Dash to fit YOUR VISION, which is NOT APPROPRIATE for a member of the Dash community to do.

>even though the Masternodes are able to do most (and soon all) of what the Miners did so far,

Masternodes CANNOT do 'most' or 'soon all' of what miners do. Dash has a THREE-TIERED NETWORK in order to provide security, decentralization and randomized, properly incentivized distribution of the block reward. Masternode's purpose is to be a 'holding class' that incentivizes long-term holding. Miners purpose is to be a 'selling class' that incentivizes short-term selling to make profit AND DISTRIBUTE THE COIN TO NEW HANDS.

This is called adoption. Your attack on proof of work is AN ATTACK ON DASH'S ADOPTION. Trying to paint this in a favorable light makes you and your "councilofchimpanzees' bad actors.

The costs ARE THE POINT. The costs serve as a barrier to entry which provides security to the network in a different way than masternodes do. Masternodes were NEVER MEANT to eliminate mining.

>Why should the Masternodes renounce to income they deserve,

You do not have the right to claim 'miners income belongs to masternodes'. It is a three-tiered network, you are attacking one of the tiers by gaslighting us and pretending that it 'is useless and wasteful' which is just your subjective opinion. Why don't you go to another coin instead of trying to hijack Dash to fit your desires?

>and instead pay it into utilities so their shareholders can get higher dividends on their stock holdings?

There are no stocks in the Dash network. The masternodes are paid enough. There is no benefit to the network in removing proof of work mining.

>This is just plain stupid. I hope you get a huge, fat paycheque from the utilities whose profits you seem to defend.


Yes, you're right, your proposal is 'just plain stupid' and I hope you stop trying to force the network to accept your narratives because you are upset that Dash is superior to whomever is paying you to post this.

>For everything else i advise you to re-read to proposal text again.

For everything else I suggest you read the posts that you ran away from earlier.

Why don´t you explain, why you are so eager to keep such workload in the hands of third-party owned utilities, when the Masternodes are able to overtake this with almost no additional costs?

The Miners get nothing out of this, they barely break even and have to continuously sell their coins off.

Why would the Masternodes want to renounce a huge chunk of their potential income to third-party owned utilities?

This is very easy to understand, not complicated at all:
If (or when) the Masternodes do all the work, they deserve all the income.

If you want to be generous doing charity for strangers, please do it privately without trying to force the rest of us to do the same.

Time for you to admit you´ve been totally defeated

>Why don´t you explain, why you are so eager to keep such workload in the hands of third-party owned utilities

It has nothing to do with 'utilities' and everything to do with MINERS. Miners are a part of the community TOO. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to attack them and arbitrarily lower their rewards just because you are 'against utilities'. Dash IS NOT YOUR POLITICAL PLATFORM. It is a proof of work currency and the burden of proof is ON YOU to justify why 'taking money from utilities' is something that we should concern ourselves with. That is YOUR PERSONAL POLITICAL STANCE, you do NOT have the right to constantly browbeat the network into accepting your personal political philosophy.

>when the Masternodes are able to overtake this with almost no additional costs?

Again, they are NOT able to do what miners do because Masternodes are incentivized to HOLD AND HOARD not to sell, unlike miners which MUST SELL IMMEDIATELY to distribute the coin. You do NOT have the right to ignore this criticism of your proposal. Masternodes are NOT DESIGNED to take over for miners but to work in tandem with them.

And again,

>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?

It is DISHONEST for you to 'cherry-pick' which arguments you think you have a shot at winning while ignoring the rest of my post. Doing so is bad acting and proves that you have a hidden agenda.

Further, WHO ARE THE MEMBERS of your "councilofchimpanzees"?

>The Miners get nothing out of this, they barely break even and have to continuously sell their coins off.

Again, THAT'S THE POINT. You are just restating my point while putting a negative spin on it. By forcing them to sell, this SPREADS THE COIN AND INCREASES DASH'S ADOPTION. You have NO RIGHT to ignore this fundamental utility that the miners provide and try to frame it negatively.

>If (or when) the Masternodes do all the work, they deserve all the income.

This is very easy to understand, not complicated at all:
Masternodes ARE NOT DESIGNED to 'do all the work', nor is the network designed to 'give them all the rewards'. This will CENTRALIZE THE TOKEN AND PREVENT DASH FROM SPREADING to new holders which will LIMIT DASH'S ADOPTION.

>If you want to be generous doing charity for strangers

You have no right to dishonestly mischaracterize Dash's network features this way. Why don't you go to another coin instead of trying to change Dash from what it is?

> please do it privately without trying to force the rest of us to do the same.

I reject this request. Dash is ALREADY A POW COIN and has been since the beginning. The burden is ON YOU to find a coin that suits your narrow political stance, NOT US to accommodate you.

>Time for you to admit you´ve been totally defeated

Time for you to take your own advice

I just want to point out something VERY critical about our "troll cabal". They have already decided that "proof of work mining is extraneous and should be eliminated/is not necessary in Dash". This is a huge cause for concern. They will not tell you **why** they've concluded this way (because they're paid to by our competition). Read lysergic's post. He's basically trying to argue that Masternodes should "take over for miners" and remove them from the network. Oh he'll say, "we can do with 5%" but the goal is ZERO.

WHY ON EARTH do we have people in Dash, a proof of work coin, trying to remove proof of work from our network? The ONLY logical explanation is that these "people" (paid demonic liars is much more accurate a term for them) have been bribed into dismantling Dash out of spite from our competition. Notice that Lysergic is OPENLY PARROTING Monero talking points!!

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

He is saying this like ITS A BAD THING. Because he is TRYING TO CONFUSE YOU! The STRONGEST LIE you can tell is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH! Understand something: **THIS IS WHY DASH'S PRICE IS SO LOW!!!**

By lowering POW, we have LOWERED the incentive to spread Dash and MADE IT HARDER to buy it and gain access to it! These guys KNOW THIS, this is a DELIBERATE, YEAR'S-LONG attack against Dash designed to give Monero clout. Just like Joel is pushing "monero privacy tech" onto Dash (fireice_uk is a former lead developer for monero and the one tasked with developing CT in Dash, in a HUGE conflict of interest). This is a form of trolling where you REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE your enemy's failures (as we've seen recently with Qubic) and promote them as if they're victories to your opponent.

TRICKERY is how these guys fight, its why they ALWAYS run away when I ask them simple questions. Notice, I asked the PO these two SIMPLE QUESTIONS and he REFUSED TO RESPOND!

>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?

Because their goal relies on SKIPPING FIRST PRINCIPLES and SKIPPING STEPS so that when it all goes to hell, THEY CAN CYNICALLY BLAME US AND LAUGH AT US FOR IT! These are demonic tactics! These are not the tactics of people who have the best interests of the network at heart, but rather of TROLLS AND INFILTRATORS! That's why lysergic said, "I deplore you in every conceivable way!" to me. Because I RUIN HIS PAYCHECK! He likely doesn't get paid if his schemes are exposed out in the open.

I mentioned this before and I'll say it again: WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THESE PEOPLE or they will DESTROY DASH OUT OF SPITE! They tried to get DCG defunded so they couldn't complete platform (and notice they NEVER apologized for being wrong about that or admitted their error, which is ANOTHER red flag), they successfully dismantled our explosive growth in LatAm, ALL BECAUSE MONERO, BCH, BTC and other coins WERE BUTT HURT that we won the adoption war in Venezuela and other LatAm countries!!

But Dash has instant transactions, there was NO WAY any other coin could've helped them. So they would RATHER PEOPLE STARVE TO DEATH THAN ADMIT THAT DASH SUCCEEDED!!! This is the level of ABJECT EVIL we are dealing with. Its not just about "hehehe I'm being paid to be an infiltrator/troll", these guys are LITERALLY TRYING TO MAKE SURE that Dash doesn't work and CAN'T SAVE ANYONE from financial ruination!

We. Have. To. Stop. These lying scumbags!

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.

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.

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.

Being delegated a vote is NOT the same thing as being allowed to comment here. Delegating a vote just gives you the right to vote in place of another MNO. At most, they should be allowed to copy-paste their delegate's comments here.

You are clearly taking up for a TROLL because YOU ARE ALSO A TROLL. You project your RUDE behavior onto me, simply because I CALLED YOU OUT for your trolling over the years.

WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU TRYING TO DESTROY DASH by "taking advantage of loopholes"??? Don't you understand that good actors would NEVER BEHAVE that way?

Yeah, you did post that at least twice, so maybe you should work on that!

Utter nonsense yet again!

Also, you all and your 'secret backdoor meetings' are COMPLETELY inappropriate here! If he is willing to identify himself and his delegator to YOU then he should be willing to do so TO THE REST OF THE NETWORK! Trying to hide behind 'not able to participate in these discussions' is COMPLETELY dishonest! If they can't participate then their delegate SHOULDN'T PARTICIPATE EITHER!

Where are delegate voters given the right to just comment anything just because they've been delegated a vote??? You guys are CLEARLY trying to use loopholes to wage your TROLLING CAMPAIGNS on Dash so that YOU CAN BLAME US for the damage you do. This is NOT HOW THIS IS SUPPOSED TO GO! You are supposed to represent yourself or your delegate, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GET A VOTE AND THEN JUST START POSTING YOUR OWN PERSONAL NONSENSE!

Just like in Congress, YOU VOTE based on WHAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS WANT, not your OWN PERSONAL VIEWPOINTS AND TROLL CAMPAIGNS! Doing so is enough to force a RECALL, and the fact that you know who delegated the vote to him BUT REFUSE TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION with the rest of the network is an EXTREMELY red flag!!

LIE-sergic is constantly trying to "hide behind bad health" and other stupid troll attempts in order to GASLIGHT US into self-destructive behavior. He and his masternode should be banned from the network for bad acting! He is DELIBERATELY taking advantage of the fact that this loophole exists, as well as that there is currently no punishment for MNOs that behave poorly like this IN ORDER TO ATTACK THE NETWORK!

We have to put a stop to his YEAR'S-LONG EMOTIONAL TORTURE CAMPAIGN.

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.

OMG OMFG
This time demo caught you not just redhanded but with your pants down.
YOU NO LONGER HAVE A MASTERNODE, YOU HAVE ALREADY SOLD IT LONG AGO !
Admit the truth.

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.

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?

Dash is no longer a real PoW coin, because the Miners no longer provide the entropy necessary for the safety and security of our network.
The very moment the Miners ceased to provide this feature, we became a true PoSe Masternode coin, but of course you will deny this fact because you are clueless.
If anything, the PoW that is left so far is only a relic of the gloomy past, when our Masternode technology was not mature enough to secure our network on its own. But things have changed.
Right now, PoW contributes literally nothing, except for the creation of blocks.
Something the Masternodes are able to do soon enough.

Dash is still a real proof of work coin, it has mining and miners still provide entropy, you are lying here.

Miners always provide entropy because whoever solves the block is random. Whether or not this is used is not the fault of miners and people like you should STOP trying to "give miners less to do so you can attack them for it later".

You are against proof of work because YOU ARE A CABAL formed and paid for by DASH'S ENEMIES who is trying to make Dash less effective vis-a-vis our competition so they can have talking points and artificially win arguments without admitting that Dash is superior. This is cynical gaslighting and makes you and your "council" a BUNCH OF TRAITORS!

Proof of work contributes to the DISTRIBUTION OF THE COIN and the DECENTRALIZATION OF THE NETWORK! It is the FUNDAMENTAL INVENTION that makes BTC resilient against attacks from legacy finance and YOU ARE A LIAR FOR ATTACKING IT and pretending that its "not useful anymore".