Welcome!

grateful to everyone who supported this Proposal

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/five-years-of-keeping-dash-aligned-with-bitcoin-—-notes-from-a-backporter.69588/

Thank you to all 400+ MNOs who took the time to review, engage with, and support this proposal. The work has been delivered, reviewed, and successfully merged into the codebase. There are still 15 days remaining in the voting cycle, and your continued support is greatly appreciated.

Dear MNOs — I am not asking you to fund a promise of future work. I am asking you to fund work that is already delivered, already merged into the Dash codebase, and already reviewed and approved by the maintainers you trust.
The only promise I'm making is the one I've kept for five years: that the work continues.
Please vote now — and share this proposal with other masternode owners before the deadline.

You're on the right page — and the vote closes today.
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/BTCBACKPORTSVIJAY_04

Last cycle, 375 masternodes voted Yes on this(Individual backporting) work. If you were one of them — or you're deciding now — this is where your vote counts.

For anyone deciding in these final hours: the full delivery report, the FAQ (AI, DCG overlap, proposal history), and the monthly metrics are all in this thread. This cycle: 13 PRs, 11 merged, 2 approved and merging, every one through maintainer review.

Please vote now — and share this proposal with other masternode owners before the deadline. Every vote today decides whether this work continues at full pace.

And one commitment for the community: if this proposal passes, I'll hold regular live backporting sessions for MNOs — watch the actual work as it happens, see how upstream changes get evaluated against Dash's divergence, ask anything. You've seen five years of merge logs;

now you can watch it live.
The work continues regardless — but today decides whether it's continuous.
— Cryptotura

55 DASH is the cheapest engineering capacity in the treasury, and there's unused budget headroom — funding this displaces no one. I don't claim my work matters more than anyone else's. But upstream alignment compounds: every unfunded gap means Dash drifts further from Bitcoin's security fixes, and catching up gets more expensive each cycle. If the treasury still says no in a strained cycle, I'll wait for next cycle. The work matters regardless of the timing.

Proposal BTCBACKPORTSVIJAY_03's payout wallet was compromised after a key leak — so I created this fresh proposal, BTCBACKPORTSVIJAY_04, rather than leave treasury funds pointed at a compromised history. My apologies for any confusion this caused.
To be clear about what happened: these were operational mistakes — not a reflection of my engineering. The code record stands on its own: 100+ merged PRs over five years, zero consensus-breaking changes, every one reviewed and approved by Dash Core maintainers. After the incident, I shared my full understanding of what went wrong with the team so others could avoid the same failure. Wallet hygiene and C++ judgment are different skills — my worst day was losing my own funds, never risking Dash's codebase.

AI is part of my workflow — it handles triage and drafting, which is why I deliver more per cycle at 55 DASH. But AI cannot judge where Dash isn't Bitcoin. This cycle, an AI suggested adapting SegWit changes from upstream bitcoin#30024 — Dash doesn't implement SegWit. Human review caught it; the maintainer approved the corrected PR. AI drafts; the funded work is the judgment about Dash's specific divergence, the review coordination, and accountability for every line that lands in Core.

Backporting is maintenance, not duplication. DCG developers are the most expensive capacity in the treasury . Every hour they spend backporting test fixes is an hour of Platform not shipped. This proposal takes that load at 55 DASH. My 100+ merged PRs also mean maintainers spend less review time per PR — I pre-adapt for Dash's divergence and land CI-clean. This is not Core's job being done twice; it's Core's backlog being cleared so Core can focus on the roadmap.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Report : https://github.com/vijaydasmp/cycle-reports/blob/main/Cryptotura%20—%20Cycle%20Delivery%20Report.pdf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Keybase OpenPGP v2.1.17
Comment: https://keybase.io/crypto

wsBcBAABCgAGBQJqqDb1AAoJEOWCi5R1+ahbuAwIAMUmk/UniNWnYgkktJH34dLo
i4QYWb+fvuLF2P0U4MgtBN3bnFhNvANccrvfJCYSTeoy2VfDYP1qRsXBZoUY+62P
5aV9Hd9pj0VrAV3BwAB6Uds8rclivHBCYbhI5TfaYyQQ6vPjtPSBVdhM/h6VyLhG
aDPGKPaB7bLmCvkn2kqFvJqPL5xORksk0zplzuCMbDOyKGwVetZtGWNfnWSt2p5A
MFadaCKNZ7WMOM9dHZy5962KcGg2XDoWrshoVHVU5Uskog0YY/FYJrckbwqk623b
Actrbm7v1/iWrGyjaBu1PWVVmv4EeRDALnmt00Kth5sLzT/zQp4wew11ruYfyrI=
=Iv1m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Cycle Delivery — Final Numbers

13 Dash Core PRs this cycle: 11 merged, 2 approved & merging now.
50 commits +3,356 / −1,402 lines 241 files 100% CI zero consensus changes.
Every PR reviewed and approved by Dash Core maintainers.

Merged this week (pastaclaw approved):
#7124
#7406
#7292

Approved, merging now:
#7308 (bundles 11 upstream PRs)
#7257

Merged earlier this cycle:
#7378
#7390
#7376
#7354
#7356
#7357
#7358
#7300

5 years contributing 100+ PRs merged since 2021 all verifiable on GitHub.

What you are asking money for is the task of Core (UdjinM6, Pasta and Konstantin).
Why should we pay an unknown stranger to do their work, for which they are already paid month after month? Nonsense.

Completely irresponsible to outsource highly security-relevant tasks to an untrusted third-party.

Dear Companero,

Thank you for spending time to go through my proposal and for sharing your concerns. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to engage with it, especially because I completely agree that security-sensitive work deserves a high level of scrutiny.

I would just like to provide some context regarding my background and the intention of the proposal.

My first Pull request was in September 2021, with https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4377, which was reviewed and merged by Core maintainers. Since then, I have been contributing to Dash Core for around five years — initially through Dash Incubator and, for roughly the last two years, independently through proposals. During this time,

There is a substantial public history of my work being reviewed and merged into Dash Core, including a large number of Bitcoin Core backports:
https://github.com/pulls/search?q=is%3Apr+author%3Avijaydasmp+archived%3Afalse+sort%3Aupdated-desc+is%3Aclosed+is%3Amerged


I fully agree that security-sensitive work should remain subject to proper review, testing and approval by the Core maintainers. My proposal does not intend to change that process in any way, nor does it ask the project to place additional trust or authority in me.

The intention is much simpler: to provide additional engineering capacity for a defined scope of work, while keeping the existing review and merge responsibilities with the Core team.

I also understand the question of whether this work should instead be handled entirely by the existing Core team. That is a valid consideration when evaluating the proposal. My intention is not to replace the existing team, but to contribute additional capacity where it can be useful.

Ultimately, I believe the proposal should be judged on the scope of work, the expected value, my contribution history, and the safeguards provided by the existing Core review process.

I appreciate you raising the security concern. It is an important one, and I hope this clarifies that the proposal is intended to add engineering capacity without compromising the existing security model or review process.

Thank you again for taking the time to discuss it.