Welcome!

> I think that
this is a waste because a high hashrate is no more needed. I prefer not
wasting resources, that can be used elsewhere.

This is a FALLACY that the enemies of POW (aka bankers and other infiltration artists) use called the "energy police fallacy". I.e. WHY DO YOU GET TO DECIDE what is wasteful or not, and then use that as a justification for changing EVERYONE ELSE'S protocol?

Other examples, "I pmbf think that you shower for 2 minutes too long every morning. Let's cut your hot water usage so there's no more waste!" or "I pmbf think that you spend too much energy cooking your morning breakfast, let's shut off your electricity after a couple minutes to save xyz!"

This is a fallacy. It is NOT YOUR JOB to "find waste and eliminate it". And you classifying "excess" pow as wasteful is dismissive of the actual benefit that we gain, that you refused to address in your preproposal thread (which means you know you can't and are just trying to hide by pretending you didn't see my questions there).

Proof of work mining forces distribution of the coin to new holders. Miners have to sell, which means someone has to buy which spreads Dash further on a constant basis. Removing POW mining removes this effect and causes the remaining Dash to be centralized in fewer hands. That goes against the decentralization principle behind cryptocurrency. Proof of work is not just to prevent 51% attacks, it is to ensure a FAIR DISTRIBUTION of the coin.

Why are you ignoring this effect and trying to remove it?

The Dash network has NOT elected you to perform this task of "finding waste and eliminating it", so why do you presume that you have the right to do so?

These questions are NOT rhetorical, please answer.

Voting no.

The question remains why are you guys so dead set on removing/eliminating POW from Dash? Saying that "this proposal is not about removing POW" when you're taking it from 20% to 10% then 5%, is contradictory and thus illogical.

Sam says below:

" However I believe that because this decision in large part is not technical, then it should be for the community to decide. Hence a proposal like this from a long time community member does make sense."

I believe that this is wrong. This is definitely a technical decision, and it should NOT be for the community to decide. The community has ALREADY decided. Its in the whitepaper.

Lowering proof of work decreases the amount of Dash that is released and spread to new participants. Sam, xkcd, Joel, all the pro "lower POW" people are deliberately ignoring this fact. Proof of work mining doesn't just exist to protect against 51% attacks.

Its main purpose is to FREELY AND FAIRLY DISTRIBUTE THE COIN to new participants through mining. High pressure for miners to sell = more coins in newbies hands = better distribution. Removing/limiting POW DESTROYS this feedback loop.

If you're going to push for this change, you cannot just ignore this effect. You have to explain why its better for Dash to not have this loop than it is with it. Just because something "might not break Dash" doesn't mean WE SHOULD DO IT.

A proposal from someone who admits to not fully understanding PoW.

In addition, the PO is financially illiterate and foolishly believes that DCG is entitled to pilfer a larger proportion of the block reward. DCG is also financially lame, thus I conclude that the PO is working in cahoots with DCG. I mean, it's not like DCG are rejecting this proposal, why would they if they are a beneficiary. Wasn't it like this last time, MNs being bought off to cover DCG's pay rise?

IF DCG are short on money, once again, then they need to admit this funding model is broken, unsustainable, and move to a for-profit model, and thus free up the ENTIRE treasury to others.

There is nothing wrong with a development company being profitable because - assuming no corruption - they would be providing goods and services to people willing to pay in return for something actually useful. STOP THIS IMPOTENT DEV TAX.

This is all just theater. Clearly you're "acting your role", where "all roads lead to hell". The simplest path forward is the path we've taken to get here. Funding development is fine. All of you who are against it have NO RIGHT to speak, as you were against Platform saying "it would never release, we should just cut our losses". YOU ALL WERE WRONG!

Platform released and its better than expected. That cost money. The required new technology. You all who are against developer funding have NO RIGHT TO SPEAK, as you were trying to defund DCG back then because "platform will never release". YOU HAVE TO ADMIT YOUR ERROR before you get start making demands again.

You guys were completely wrong!!! Platform is here, now, usernames are decentralized. Everything is wonderful. The only problem is the problem you all are artificially creating because you don't want Dash to outshine its competition. So you're cheating. You're taking bribes to negatively affect Dash's governance and model, because its the only model that works.

$110,000 will be paid out this month. That's $110k distributed to people throughout the world (though currently centralized by ugly hoggs like Joel Valenzfail-a) for work performed. No other coin has that. The right choice is to do nothing. Stop trying to dismantle Dash just because your coin sucks in comparison. You all know the consequences for cheating in this competition, you think you can "strangle Dash to death from inside and out" with price manipulation + governance manipulation + masternode infiltration for vote manipulation.

All you're doing is ensuring that you lose in the end, just like Monero lost and even in their own subs is declared dead. The fact that you're so freaking stubborn and refuse to "give up" even though you've lost is why you lost in the first place, and will be why you'll lose in the end.

If this decision is unrelated to any other idea or improvement, then perhaps you should leave such pure tweaking of the BRA to DCG

I appreciate you saying this. However I believe that because this decision in large part is not technical, then it should be for the community to decide. Hence a proposal like this from a long time community member does make sense.

I also personally don't think there will be any attack at 10% of reward going to miners.

>I also personally don't think there will be any attack at 10% of reward going to miners.

This is irrelelvant Sam and you, in your position should know better. Nano, for instance is not in a position to be 51% attacked. Still, it is a weak coin with low adoption. Why? Because there is NO incentive to gain it and hold it.

Proof of work mining provides that incentive by forcing miners to sell to cover costs which pushes coins into the hands of people who didn't have it before. Without mining, the coin centralizes in fewer and fewer hands. It is not about 51% attacks, it is about distributing Dash.

It is disappointing that you either do not know this, or pretend not to in order to promote what appears to be self-destructive action in the Dash network. Please explain yourself.

Sam, i think in order for the MNO to really be able to make an informed decision, it would be helpful to share with us some data and stats. Particularly about:

1) Cost in dollar amount per hour, for renting the necessary X11 hash rate required for an 51% attack, which i believe to be a fairly low cost, in fact so low that it could be alarming to many of the MNO indeed
2) Whether blocks which receive a ChainLock are still vulnerable (in a short window of time before they receive the ChainLock), or whether such chainlocked blocks are completely and instantly immune?
3) The percentage ratio of blocks with ChainLocks vs blocks without ChainLocks because lack of 60% (?) consensus (which get only locked afterwards, with a successive block that gets a ChainLock), for example 97% vs 3%
4) Profitability analysis of an attack, if only blocks without a ChainLock are vulnerable by such an 51% attack

Hello Tekken,
I hope, that Sam will answer your questions, especially all about ChainLocks.
Meanwhile here my thoughts: According to https://bitinfocharts.com/ the
hashrate is currently about 2 PH/s, so in the worst case it would drop to
1 PH/s. When the hashrate halves, then the cost to generate 51% of the
hashrate halves too. So in any case the cost for an attack stays in the same
scale. ChatGPT can help to get an estimation of the cost for 1 PH/s:
https://chatgpt.com/share/6866d526-e05c-8011-b30e-7598edb4584a

You have to answer why POW is something you want to "get rid of" and decrease. Why not just leave the protocol alone? Why are you pushing for such a major change now with little guaranteed effect or result?

Voting NO.

I see no need to reduce miners blockrewards with 5% and move that 5% to the budget, where it will just be allocated among certain entities already participathing in the DAO (i think it will mainly drop in the hands of DCG).

We already increased the budget in september 2023 from 10% to 20% on a specific request of DCG, which was suppose to be a longterm solution to their financial problems. DCG is still having the same financial problems today, as when we still had 10% budget.

Moving 5% from miners to the budget will solve nothing and is by itself too little a change.

I have voted NO to having the budget increased from 10% to 20% and i vote NO to increasing the budget (again !!) from 20% to 25%.

And with regards to reducing miners blockrewards with 5% and moving that to MN : too little too late in my eyes.