Proposal “GOVERNANCE-EQUAL-OPERATIONS-PROPOSAL“ (Closed)Back
| Title: | Governance - Equal Operations Proposal |
| Owner: | 3d1409ae |
| One-time payment: | 1 DASH (36 USD) |
| Completed payments: | no payments occurred yet (1 month remaining) |
| Payment start/end: | 2022-12-11 / 2023-01-10 (added on 2022-12-06) |
| Final voting deadline: | in na |
| Votes: | 23 Yes / 243 No / 84 Abstain |
Proposal description
This proposal is about how to introduce Dash Platform in a responsible way.
* EVERY new Platform Dash blockchain operation must be specified clearly in scope and design and approved INDIVIDUALLY by masternode vote as they are protocol changes - we are NOT congress and this is not the "Omnibus bill" or the "Patriot act".
* Platform operations must pay the SAME fee per byte as transaction operations - potentially more if they are computationally heavy and/or can never be pruned.
* Platform will NOT be artificially subsidized by a reserved part of the treasury. It must pay for itself with regular transaction fees.
* All platform operations will be on the normal Dash blockchain, as otherwise it is not Dash and should not be supported by the Dash treasury. NO sidechains or multitier overcomplicated system will be created.
* DCG will simply accept that some apps are not suited for blockchain storage such as for example likely binary file storage. The cost of storage will automatically weed out what those apps are. This cost is a valid market price signal of what a blockchain costs.
Vote 'YES' if you want Dash Platform to adhere to these standards.
Vote 'NO' if you think these requirements are irrelevant.
* EVERY new Platform Dash blockchain operation must be specified clearly in scope and design and approved INDIVIDUALLY by masternode vote as they are protocol changes - we are NOT congress and this is not the "Omnibus bill" or the "Patriot act".
* Platform operations must pay the SAME fee per byte as transaction operations - potentially more if they are computationally heavy and/or can never be pruned.
* Platform will NOT be artificially subsidized by a reserved part of the treasury. It must pay for itself with regular transaction fees.
* All platform operations will be on the normal Dash blockchain, as otherwise it is not Dash and should not be supported by the Dash treasury. NO sidechains or multitier overcomplicated system will be created.
* DCG will simply accept that some apps are not suited for blockchain storage such as for example likely binary file storage. The cost of storage will automatically weed out what those apps are. This cost is a valid market price signal of what a blockchain costs.
Vote 'YES' if you want Dash Platform to adhere to these standards.
Vote 'NO' if you think these requirements are irrelevant.
Show full description ...
Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?
Submit comment
|
No comments so far?
Be the first to start the discussion! |
My vote goes to abstain.
voting no
AFAIK, the Proposal Owner did not launch a pre-proposal discussion, so it comes across as a little amateur, requires more substance.
i vote no
But what about this:
"* DCG will simply accept that some apps are not suited for blockchain storage such as for example likely binary file storage. The cost of storage will automatically weed out what those apps are. This cost is a valid market price signal of what a blockchain costs."
What do you mean?
May I be allowed to store encrypted content into the platform or not?
>* All platform operations will be on the normal Dash blockchain, as otherwise it is not Dash and should not be supported by the Dash treasury. NO sidechains or multitier overcomplicated system will be created.
>* DCG will simply accept that some apps are not suited for blockchain storage such as for example likely binary file storage. The cost of storage will automatically weed out what those apps are. This cost is a valid market price signal of what a blockchain costs.
Both of these items are non-starters. The MNOs have clearly tasked DCG with designing, coding and deploying Platform. Being able to run a second chain is a necessary condition for this. We will not "simply accept" that some apps don't belong on a blockchain. The first chain is for payments, which has certain restrictions. The second chain is for data storage which has its own, unique constraints.
Your assumption that blockchains can only do payments is wrong and you should've brought this up years ago when we decided to move forward with platform. Raising an objection like this this late in the game is bad form and inappropriate.