Proposal “reduce-the-proposal-fee-to-one-dash“ (Completed)Back

Title:Reduce the proposal fee to one dash
Owner:DashCollective
One-time payment: 5 DASH (823 USD)
Completed payments: 1 totaling in 5 DASH (0 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2021-07-13 / 2021-08-12 (added on 2021-07-09)
Votes: 660 Yes / 89 No / 1 Abstain

Proposal description

                  **Update, scroll down**

Do you agree to lowering the proposal fee to 1 DASH? Currently set as 5 DASH.


This is a governance proposal.  The developers have agreed to abide by the outcome.  If this proposal is successful, the change will be made as part of the v0.18 hardfork which is slated to be released later this year.  This proposal requests 5 DASH which will paid back to the same folks that funded this proposal, xkcd, ghynabor, Amanda B. Johnson, Ash, 'FixTheProposalFee' and Tacos.  If I left anyone out please comment below.

Prior discussion on this proposal linked for reference.  This initiative is well understood by MNOs and already well discussed, I won't labour the point here.  Please vote your support or otherwise for this change, some points to note.

  • We aim to foster more involvement in the DAO with the reduced barrier to entry.
  • This change keeps the cost of entry inline with the yearly emission reductions and massive rise in fiat value DASH has seen since the first DAO.
  • POs have the option of paying more than 1 DASH if they choose (Choose your own proposal fee).  However, 1 DASH would be the minimum.
  • The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased.
  • Fewer DASH will be burned allowing for more DASH to be available from the DAO since POs will ask for 1 DASH to cover their admission costs, rather than 5.
  • ... etc discuss below.




Thanks!
DashCollective.


2021/07/19 Update:

Firstly, thank you to all the voters on this proposal, we are truly humbled by the response and the support shown in the comments.  The update we have is that DCG Dev Pasta has created a pull request that can be merged into the next release if this proposal is successful.  You can review the PR here https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4241  We hope this gives some confidence to people still unsure about this proposal, please discuss below.

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
1 point,6 days ago
New discovery, won't be a surprise to many, "therealDashman21" is a secret anagram for "El man trash heaD".
Reply
-2 points,6 days ago
Why do you think its appropriate for you to mock MNOs in our place of business?
Reply
2 points,6 days ago
I was simply stating what is true. The anagram can be easily proven as correct.
Reply
-2 points,6 days ago
You're dodging and deflecting, not answering questions. Which means that you are not interested in the truth and are only trying to keep this going. Let's do it!
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
I see no questions in your anagram.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
I don't mind continuing if you don't. So I'll start with an important question, why don't you care that your refusal to admit you're wrong here reflects so badly on you and your position/this proposal by extension?
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
Wrong about what? Proposal passed, I won, you lost.

Or do you mean the number of comment votes you got? Sorry, you can't call that a natural number, it's negative.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
>Wrong about what?

Wrong about all the arguments we've had. You've lost every debate we engaged in here.

>Proposal passed, I won, you lost.

But we both know that's not true. I'm not here to prevent this proposal from passing. I'm here to expose you and your tactics. 500 comments later and I've succeeded. Now everyone can see that you do not argue fairly and that you cannot justify this rationale, nor can you even answer simple questions.

All of this exposes you. So you win a battle, but you lost a major one already and that one cost you $1000. I have taken no financial losses, nor have I lost any arguments.

What's more, I forced you to continue participating after you declared you didn't need to anymore and these comments were worthless. I made you into a liar.

If you were a real man, that would be a real loss...
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
Only in your madness.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
I accept your lack of response to my points as your admission that I am correct and you are wrong.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
No, I just make sure you type more than me.
Reply
-1 point,6 days ago
Do you?
Reply
1 point,6 days ago
yes
Reply
-1 point,6 days ago
no
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
Quoting: therealDashman21
>0 points,15 hours ago

>"That's not what I said so you're putting words in my mouth. Why do you think whether or not masternode payment addresses being public or private is relevant to the discussion?"

This is GrandMasterDash's conceit. He deliberately refuses to answer this question so as to drag this discussion out and avoid appearing to have lost by claiming "the last word".

But he has no right to the last word as he has been defeated logically and rhetorically here in every argument. Here as well. Claiming that "forcing someone to receive a donation" is the same thing as publishing an address is not only stupid, its also irrelevant. Rango doesn't run a masternode to pay for this site, he has a monthly funding drive.

So think about that. Not only is GMD attempting to make an irrelevant argument as a form of deflection, which allows him to avoid answering the charge that Rango is derelict of duty by allowing trolls like him to comment. Not only that, but also, we have here 500+ comments, dozens of comment chains, *and he has lost every one of them*.

He is not a MNO, he is no longer a PO, and he's not a part of the 'dashcollective'. So why is he here? You can start to see why now, can't you?

Why is someone who is completely unaffiliated spending so much energy on this? Because this is a deliberate attempt to bait the discussion into conflict over a side-issue started by a deliberate logical error on GMD's part, "no one chooses to receive donation". By saying that no one chooses to receive donation[s], GMD is deliberately trying to "forum slide" the argument.

He makes an argument that is purposely irrational, because irrationality is impossible to logically argue with. Specifically, it is completely false to say that "No one chooses to receive donation". Lots of people choose to do that everyday.

So off the bat, he's trying to force the reader to "interpret" his words because they're obviously nonsense. From that, he goes to claim, that publishing a public MN address means that donations MUST BE ACCEPTED, which isn't true. Accepting something is a CHOICE on the part of the acceptor, always.

You can't remove that choice because they publish an address or ask for donations. Even thinking that way exposes the kind of anti-freedom, coercive personality that GMD has and wishes to support. Somehow, this means that Rango is within his rights to allow anyone to comment, even though Rango deliberately accepts donations.

But most importantly, this is a **side argument**, built on a willfully illegitimate and illogical premise.

Its a really desperate tactic because it exposes its user as malicious and unconcerned with the truth.

The original point of this was that Rango should respect the MNOs and restrict comments to *current* POs and MNOs only.

GMD is paradoxically arguing that Rango doesn't have a responsibility to do that, because its "his website he can do whatever he wants". Except ITS NOT his website, Rango accepts donations from MNOs to run this website every month. Everywhere else in the world this means that those donors (which aren't always the same) are his boss. This means that MNOs are Rangos boss by logical extension.

But GMD can't allow that to happen. That's why he's here. Without this bait attempt, there's no argument about MNO/PO or not. Which means the discussion about lowering the fee stays focused and unmuddled. In other words, GMD and the DashCollective are purposefully attempting to distract the discussion with red-herring arguments.

This is dishonest and exposes this group as having a nefarious agenda. Why would a PO allow an unaffiliated third party who is not a MNO to "take the lead" on defending their proposal? Why is GMD **explicitly _*NOT*_** a member of the "DashCollective"? Because its a deliberate strategy. They WANTED AND PLANNED for the argument to be led this way.

This is the same kind of underhanded tactics that Joel and his minions used in the "thunderdome" and discord.

As you can see its effective. Turn my verbosity against me to hide the true discussion. But its a risky gambit. Because using it clearly exposes the plan. Only bad actors would make and execute a manipulative plan like this.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
And, funding aside, why would you even try to argue that Rango should be able to "do whatever he wants"?

Shills always try to "turn you" from your original purpose into a new, ineffective direction.

Both GMD and Troy argued this.

Wtf? You don't want the number one spot for MNO discusssions to adhere to MNO's specifications for discussion? Is there anything more shill-like than that attitude?

Rango is supposedly a MNO too, so he should want to cater to his colleagues, not "rule above them" by dictating rules that we didn't agree to. I mean that attitude is completely out-of-line with the Dash community. wow, conflict of interest really is a powerful weapon!

I thank you, GMD and TroyDash for providing this instructive lesson.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
Replying to yourself
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
is a silly thing
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
to do
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
Please reply to my arguments or do not reply at all.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
I've done so many times.
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
Please reply to all 13 of these questions, none of which you answered satisfactorily:

1. You are not a MNO, and you admit this isn't your proposal, so why are you here? All these comments, why?

2. If you're also not a member of the 'DashCollective' then what right do you have to post here?

3. Why do you seek to force the network to 'accept comments from third-parties' when the MNOs have clearly shown we don't want that?

4. Why do you ignore the previous No! votes of the MNOs?

5. Why did you attack critical Dash infrastructure like bitrefill.com and uphold.com, two services that allow Dash's instant transactions to outshine our competition?

6. Why are you attacking me, a MNO, who is only attempting to understand the justification for this push?

7. What is the justification for this push? 400+ comments and you don't answer with any evidenced-based arguments.

8. Why do you gaslight the network by pretending these things are not legitimate claims?

9. Why are you okay with being called and proven a liar with no verbal recourse as proven by your inability to respond?

10. Why don't you care that this basically destroys your reputation as having good will towards the network?

11. Why do you not acknowledge spam as an attack vector, when other coins and Dash itself have suffered from spam attacks just this year alone? (With those spam proposals that had a two year exipry time)?

12. It doesn't matter if comments are 'part of the protocol'. I don't need to understand a red-herring. What matters is that this is the DASH NETWORK and THE MNOs have all the say in what goes on here. YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST THAT.

You are saying that we shouldn't be respected. Our wishes to avoid spam and trolls by limiting comments to POs and MNOs shouldn't be respected. Why do you think this is okay?

13. You claim 'the ultimate outcome was decided by votes', but why didn't you respect the previous 3 no votes? You never answered that. What changed that makes this a good idea now?

You're being a hypocrite by accusing me of that while yourself continually ignoring our votes.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
Pay me first and then you're my boss, right?
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
That's not what I said. Right?
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
You forgot what you said?
Reply
-1 point,6 days ago
You did.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
Oh, don't give up now I've proved what a liar you are.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
You want to put words in my mouth because you have nothing left to say. Thanks for your participation!
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
For everyone reading, the hyperlink to the proposal is, looks like there's an issue preventing this from being seen on the frontpage:

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/reduce-the-proposal-fee-to-one-dash
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
Response to GrandMasterDash below:

You're trying to muddle the discussion to prevent answering a question. You claimed originally that "No one chooses to accept donation". Direct quote.

I ask again, why do you think "your masternode payment address is public or private?", or even the idea of forced donations, which you brought up not me, is an appropriate response to this discussion about Rango receiving donations, which are not forced?
Reply
1 point,7 days ago
There is no discussion to muddle, only your avoidance to answer questions straight. Only corrupt and deceitful people would do such thing, right? Isn't that what you said?
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
>only your avoidance to answer questions straight

Why didn't you answer question above your reply just now then?
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
You didn't pay me, therefore according to you, you are not my boss.
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
You are not a MNO or a PO so you shouldn't be here at all.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
But I am here.
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
And you shouldn't be.
Reply
1 point,7 days ago
Who says?
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
MNOs.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
Wrong again.
Reply
-1 point,6 days ago
Wrong.
Reply
1 point,6 days ago
.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
..
Reply
1 point,6 days ago
.
Reply
-2 points,6 days ago
..
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
You claimed below "No one chooses to receive donation." In response to this

Quoting therealdashman21:

"I'm sorry, but you sound like an idiot. Rango is paid by donations from MASTERNODE OWNERS. THEY ARE HIS BOSS. PLEASE SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP."

So I ask you again, for the fourth or so time, why do you think claiming that "no one chooses to receive donation" is a legitimate response to that reply above, when Rango deliberately chooses to accept donations?
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
Maybe English is not your first language, that's why you can't understand or answer.

It's very simple, yet you will respond with subterfuge. All published payment addresses, both Rango and your very own masternode payment address, are PERMISSION-LESS. Now, I know English is not your first language so I will try to explain like you are five... wait, maybe you are five? Hmm, anyway.. a permissionless payment is when a third party is unable to stop or block the receiving of payment.

Both you and Rango wilfully chose to publish a payment address, therefore you explicitly declared to receive payments. By your own words, not mine, anyone that makes payment to you is your boss.

You must reply to this message to declare you are wrong.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
>that's why you can't understand or answer.

Which questions have you asked that I haven't answered?

I wrote a list of 13 questions that you didn't answer. As well as asking you this simple question repeatedly. You appear to be projecting.

>All published payment addresses, both Rango and your very own masternode payment address, are PERMISSION-LESS.

Again, why do you think this is relevant when Rango isn't paid via masternode for this site but via donations?

This is the question continue to dodge and a request an actual answer to it, no more projection please.

>permissionless payment is when a third party is unable to stop or block the receiving of payment.

Why is this relevant to Rango being paid and thus beholden to his donators?

>Both you and Rango wilfully chose to publish a payment address, therefore you explicitly declared to receive payments. By your own words, not mine, anyone that makes payment to you is your boss.

Ah so I have finally forced you to reveal your conceit. Thank you for this admission of defeat!

You aim to claim that my argument that Rango is beholden to his donators doesn't follow. To do so, you construct a "counterexample". But your counterexample relies on a false equivalence i.e. this:

Quoting: GrandmasterDash

>"That's the same as Rango having a boss but choosing to burn his donations, right?"

No. It is NOT the same. You are making a false equivalence and therefore your gamble won't work. I suspect you knew this which is why you repeatedly wouldn't answer the question.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
So everything you refuse to answer or acknowledge is irrelevant, got it.

I don't need to make "false equivalence", you show your stupidity with every reply.

And yes, you did reply to my above statement so you have automatically declared yourself wrong.
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
>So everything you refuse to answer or acknowledge is irrelevant, got it.

This is the fourth time you've put words in my mouth. You are using dishonest debating tactics because you desire the last word to avoid losing, even though you have already lost.

>I don't need to make "false equivalence"

You wouldn't make it if you didn't need it. You make it because you do need.

>And yes, you did reply to my above statement so you have automatically declared yourself wrong.

Non Sequitur.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
I wasn't counting.
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
Well stop doing it.
Reply
1 point,7 days ago
I didn't.
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
You already admitted you did when you said "lost count". Which means the count is greater than 0. Which means you admitted to doing so.

Going back and forth like this just makes you look worse...
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
You want to redefine "lost count"?

"intransitive to forget the number of times that something has happened".

How can you know zero isn't an option if it was forgotten? You forgot or you didn't, which is it?
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
>number

Zero is not a natural number which are the numbers used in counting, so its not an option by default.
Reply
1 point,6 days ago
The only person who said that was you. I never mentioned natural numbers at all. But please, do continue to torture the definition of words in order hide your erroneous position. For shame.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
>The only person who said that was you.

Who said what?

>I never mentioned natural numbers at all.

You don't need to. You asked:

>How can you know zero isn't an option if it was forgotten?

Because Zero can't be an option due to not being a natural number. You can only count things with natural numbers, other numbers are undefined.

>But please, do continue to torture the definition of words in order hide your erroneous position. For shame.

Projection is the realm of the child and the defeated. Glad to see you've run out of options.
Reply
-2 points,6 days ago
>Who said what?

Oh I understand now. You're still wrong though. Your own quote says:

"intransitive to forget the number of times that something has happened".

The word "number" here, refers to a COUNT. YOU CAN ONLY COUNT WITH NATURAL NUMBERS.

Man, I didn't think I'd have to dumb it down like this for you. Do you need to take a break?
Reply
-1 point,6 days ago
Also

>the number of times that something has happened

Again, something cannot happen "zero times" so for something to "have happened" the number of occurences must be greater than zero by default.

Do you see how desperate you are to avoid admitting you're wrong? You're now down to torturing the definitions of words in order hide your erroneous position that Rango doesn't answer to the community. For shame.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
A desperate person would deny something can happen zero times.

A desperate person would declare, "This is the fourth time you've put words in my mouth." and then proceed to argue over the words "lost count".

Do you see how desperate you are to avoid admitting you're wrong? You're now down to torturing the definitions of words in order hide your erroneous position. For shame.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
>A desperate person would deny something can happen zero times.

Nope, just someone who knows math. You can't count with nonnatural numbers, which zero is one of. So you literally can't count something that happens "zero times". Its mathematically not doable.

>A desperate person would declare,

How would that be desperate? You have tried to put words in my mouth that many times, that's not related at all to whether or not we argue over the meaning of "lost count", which you started. Another argument you know you can't win.

>Do you see how desperate you are to avoid admitting you're wrong?

Nope, all I see is you projecting because the pain of losing was so bad last time. Yeesh.

>You're now down to torturing the definitions of words in order hide your erroneous position. For shame.
Reply

Reflection only works if the other party is actually doing that. Otherwise it makes you look like a copycat and a person out of arguments.
Reply
-1 point,6 days ago
Even the expression "zero times" is a complete error, are the definition of the "noun + s" construction is a pluralisation. I.e. plural: more than one. Zero is less than one so this is a contradiction in terms and just proves how far gone GrandmasterDash is.

He's literally willing to attempt the impossible just to avoid admitting he is wrong. This is why you don't become a shill. Its detrimental to your mental health and obviously to your intellectual capabilities.
Reply
-2 points,6 days ago
*as the definition of the "noun + s"
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
Specifically, I never stated this:

"By your own words, not mine, anyone that makes payment to you is your boss."

You illegitimately drew this conclusion after making a non-sequitur argument. You responded to this:

"Rango is paid by donations from MASTERNODE OWNERS. THEY ARE HIS BOSS."

with this:

"No one chooses to receive donation."

Which is a non-sequitur. Your response doesn't follow from my comment. Rango is paid by donations from masternode owners. So saying "No one chooses to receive donation." in response is an illegitimate argument.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
There's no difference, Nakamoto consensus has never adhered to what you wish to happen with published payment addresses. It's like you wishing you could reverse transactions, it's never going to happen. It's your own stupid fault for publishing your payment address.
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
You're deliberately trying to drag this out to avoid admitting you're wrong. Nakamoto consensus has nothing to do with voluntarily accepting donations. And Rango voluntarily does accept donations so your argument doesn't apply.
Reply
1 point,7 days ago
I can see you are very knowledgeable about blockchain. Do tell us how you block transactions from occurring?
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
You are arguing a red-herring on purpose, which is dishonest debating. I accept that as your mea culpa and admission of defeat.
Reply
1 point,7 days ago
Dash herrings are blue.
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
I appreciate that you don't mind admitting you lost this much.
Reply
1 point,7 days ago
What did I lose?
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
You are arguing a red-herring on purpose, which is dishonest debating. I accept that as your mea culpa and admission of defeat.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
Nakamoto consensus is a herring?
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
"Nakamoto consensus means no one chooses to accept donation" is
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
This:

Quoting: GrandmasterDash

>Oh good, so I can become your boss by donating to you? Give me your dash address, it's exciting to think I can tell you what to do.

Is a strawman and fallacious argument. You can only donate to someone who is willing to accept donations. Rango willingly accepts donations, so he's beholden to his donors. This is simple.

GrandmasterDash can't admit this however, because it would mean he's arguing against the best interests of the MNOs. At least this way, he can somehow pretend Rango's within his rights.

But Rango chooses to accept donations. You can't force someone to accept a donation, and you certainly can't force them to do work against their will just because you sent money to an address, that's insane reasoning!

Rango voluntarily accepting donations and being responsible to donors != Being able to force a MNO to do what you tell them because they have a public address.

That's a false equivalence and GrandMasterDash knows it.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
Everyone here except you understands you CAN force payments / donations the moment you disclose a payment address, as you did. Go ahead, prove to everyone you can stop payments / donations occurring.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
YOU CANNOT FORCE SOMEONE TO ACCEPT A DONATION!

AND THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE RANGO VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTS DONATIONS. So how is this argument relevant?
Reply
1 point,7 days ago
Yes you can. It is fact, it is not up for discussion.

"Despite Marathon's efforts, transactions from a dark web market still made it into the block."
https://www.coindesk.com/marathon-miners-censor-bitcoin-transactions-ofac-compliant

"illicit transactions from the dark web marketplace Hydra had still been processed in Marathon’s clean block"
https://academy.aaxspace.com/en/the-marathon-bitcoin-censorship-controversy-explained/

I'm sure you will not be endlessly posting and arguing with them, you will only argue nonsense here. Go ahead, tell us again how it is somehow "irrelevant". You're so predictable.
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
>Yes you can.

No you can't.

>It is fact, it is not up for discussion.

You're wrong.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/donation


: the act or an instance of donating: such as
a : the making of a gift especially to a charity or public institution
b : a free contribution : gift

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gift

2 : something **voluntarily** transferred by one person to another without compensation

A donation is defined by the dictionary as being equivalent to a "gift". A gift must be VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED AND TRANSFERRED. Otherwise IT IS NOT A GIFT. YOU ARE WRONG, YOU CANNOT FORCE SOMEONE TO ACCEPT A GIFT **BY DEFINITION**!

>I'm sure you will not be endlessly posting and arguing with them, you will only argue nonsense here. Go ahead, tell us again how it is somehow "irrelevant". You're so predictable.

Sure! You're argument is irrelevant because YOU'RE WRONG, you CANNOT force someone to accept a gift, if you try it is NO LONGER A GIFT **BY DICTIONARY DEFINITION**!!

You are deliberately arguing insane things both because you cannot admit you're wrong, since the pain is probably too great from last time to allow you to do so again, and also because you want to claim the last word. But you're proving that I was right all along, you LIED!

You said these comments didn't matter now that the vote had passed. That was like 200 or comments ago! So you lied these comments ARE important to you. Most likely for your mental health, that's why you project all the time. YOU'RE THE PREDICTABLE ONE, I said all of this about you before you did it! LOL
Reply
1 point,7 days ago
Proof you can't read English very well. If you had read the links regarding Marathon, you'd of noticed they were unable to stop donations, or "gifts" or any other definition that YOU just provided.

that's not a red herring or a blue herring, it's in direct response to your repeated false claim that, "YOU CANNOT FORCE SOMEONE TO ACCEPT A DONATION!". You see, right there in front of you, the direct and accurate response to your question. All these times you keep saying I never give you answer, or that when I do it is not relevant, accurate, nothing, anything, you refuse to accept ALL ANSWERS except your own imagined answers.
Reply
-1 point,7 days ago
>Proof you can't read English very well.

I don't need to read the article because you're trying to argue a red herring. You're trying to make this about "the blockchain" and "nakamoto consensus" to justify your incorrect statement of "no one chooses to receive donation", which is poor English btw, you hypocrite.

The fact is that gifts and donations MUST BE VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED to be considered gifts/donations. That is in THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD. You CANNOT FORCE SOMEONE TO ACCEPT SOMETHING!

> All these times you keep saying I never give you answer

Because you don't, you move the goalposts like here. We're not talking about nakamoto consensus. You said that "no one chooses to receive donation" which is clearly incorrect. Both by the fact that plenty of people do (an argument you didn't respond to), and by the fact that donations and gifts BY DEFINITION must be voluntarily accepted.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
Oh I see, dash payment addresses are nothing to do with blockchain, got it.

Define donation:
"The act of giving or bestowing; a granting."

...and you can't stop it from happening. I can force my donation on you, then I am your boss, right?
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
>Oh I see, dash payment addresses are nothing to do with blockchain, got it.

The conversation was never about Dash payment addresses, it was about "donations". Which Rango wilingly accepts in the first place, making your argument moot.

> I can force my donation on you

No you can't. I don't have to accept it. Which means you never become my boss.
Reply
-2 points,6 days ago
Your argument is like saying "I can force you to eat a birthday cake" by leaving it on my porch. If I never open it and never take it, I never ate it. Sending money to an address doesn't force the owner of the priv key to accept that money.

You are conflating "reception of coins" with "acceptance of coins". Usually they're one and the same because nobody would send money to someone who didn't want it, the idea itself is preposterous.

But they only happen at the same time, they're not actually the same thing. No matter how long you leave your gift hanging, if its not accepted its not accepted.

You don't like this because you have a forceful personality and desire to make others do what you want even when it doesn't benefit them. But there is something you will like:

This is just how it works, so you HAVE NO CHOICE but to accept it.

:)
Reply
1 point,6 days ago
Your analogy is wrong. if you give me a map to your stomach I will instruct a miner to place the birthday cake inside.

The public address is derived from a private key. Once payment is made you have automatically consumed it.
Reply
-1 point,6 days ago
>There is no "we".

You and I. We were discussing donations, never nakamoto consensus. That's your strawman.

>You're just butt sore for losing so you desperately clutch at straws.

You're projecting because you cannot admit defeat twice in a row.
Reply
-1 point,6 days ago
>if you give me a map to your stomach

Your analogy is wrong. "Wallets" are just a collection of keys. Publishing a public key is not the same as "giving you a map to my stomach". More like giving you a map to my mouth.

But I have the option to always keep it closed, which means you can't force me to eat anything, in this analogy.

> Once payment is made you have automatically consumed it.

False and strawman. We weren't talking about payments being made. You responded that "No one chooses to receive donation". Do you not realize this sentence is both logically and grammatically incorrect?
Reply
1 point,6 days ago
Okay, go back to school and learn how bitcoin / dash works. I can't help you if you don't understand the basics.

Once you've made the payment address known, you NEVER have the option to keep it closed. And you made your payment address public the moment you registered your masternode.

Your stupidity and denial is obvious to all.
Reply
-1 point,6 days ago
>Okay, go back to school and learn how bitcoin / dash works.

We were never talking about that. We were talking about donations for payment. Rango willingly recieves donations for payment, why doesn't this make them his boss in your mind?
Reply
2 points,6 days ago
There is no "we". You're driving solo, not a single person agrees with you. You're just butt sore for losing so you desperately clutch at straws.
Reply
-2 points,6 days ago
>There is no "we".

You and I. We were discussing donations, never nakamoto consensus. That's your strawman.

>You're just butt sore for losing so you desperately clutch at straws.

You're projecting because you cannot admit defeat twice in a row.
Reply
0 points,8 days ago
Replying to grandmasterdash from below:

Quote: "Of course, once you've received donations you can send them or burn them, that's your choice."

Exactly, that means this statement by you is incorrect:

"No one chooses to receive donation."

The correct statement by your own admission is

"No one can be forced to receive donations". Your statement is backwards since receiving something by definition requires the recipient to actually accept the something. So if I burn an unwanted "donation" then I have chosen not to accept it and your previous statement remains false.

Quote:
"You can only do so once you receive and I become your boss first."

That's not what happens you don't receive anything until you actually accept it and if you don't then you don't become my boss. You're trying to make my argument that Rango' s bosses are the dining master nodes seem absurd.

But you've failed because you have to rely on a false equivalence. Even if you were right about this coerced domains thing, and you're dead wrong as I showed above, that wouldn't apply to Rango.

Rango isn't getting forced donations he deliberately asks for them. So that means your entire argument is a strawman.

Quote: "That's the same as Rango having a boss but choosing to burn his donations, right?"

No, no it's not and Rango doesn't do that. He willingly accepts donations so you're argument doesn't even apply here...

Quote: "Or is it one rule for you and a different rule for others"

What are you even taking about? Did you know?
Reply
0 points,8 days ago
The moment you set up your masternode is the moment you published a public key for PERMISSIONLESS payments. Argue all you like about "forced donations", it won't ever change how it functions.
Reply
0 points,8 days ago
>The moment you set up your masternode is the moment you published a public key for PERMISSIONLESS payments.

Rango doesn't run a masternode for this website, he accepts donations, therefore this is a false equivalence.

>Argue all you like about "forced donations",

Uh, you're the one who said that "No one chooses to receive donation" which is logically equivalent to saying that "every donation is a forced donation" which is clearly not true. You should probably study logic so you won't make these kinds of errors in the future.

>it won't ever change how it functions.

Even if Rango's payment came from a public masternode instead of donations, your idea that that means you can force him to work for you by sending him Dash is completely false.
Reply
0 points,8 days ago
Not my logic, it's called Nakamoto consensus and you signed up for it without understanding what permissionless payments are.

You're the one that said donators were the boss. I understand it hurts to be defeated so you choose to type lots of words to try (and fail) to hide your deceit.
Reply
0 points,8 days ago
>Not my logic

It is your logic though. You're assuming that just because you can send to a public masternode address that that = "No one chooses to receive donation"

What about people who don't have masternodes? What about BCH flipstarters? What about XMR CCS? These people didn't choose to recieve donations either? You're trying to gaslight me by saying things that are deliberately untrue as if they were. That's a shill tactic.

>Nakamoto consensus and you signed up for it without understanding what permissionless payments are.

Permissionless payments != you get to force me to do what you want because you sent to my payout address. That's literally a nonsequitur

>You're the one that said donators were the boss. I

We've finally come to your "big point". The problem is you completely bungled it by relying on a false equivalence. Rango ASKS for Donations! Why do you keep ignoring this and pretending this contrived scenario applies?

> I understand it hurts to be defeated

Of course you do, that's all you know at my hand is defeat.

>to type lots of words to try (and fail) to hide your deceit.

Please, quote a single argument of mine that you have defeated with logical proof. I await your reply with baited breath!
Reply
0 points,8 days ago
Nakamoto doesn't give a shit if someone asks for it or not.

What do you want to fail at next?
Reply
0 points,8 days ago
>Nakamoto doesn't give a shit if someone asks for it or not.

That's not what we're arguing. You said that "Nobody chooses donations" meaning that you can force someone to accept a donation just by the open nature of blockchains. This is NOT correct!
Reply
0 points,8 days ago
Do you think your masternode payment address is public or private?
Reply
0 points,8 days ago
Why do you think this question is relevant?
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
You brought up the subject of donators being a boss... can't believe you forgot already.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
That is not an answer to my question
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
You're right, you didn't answer my question.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
That's not what I said so you're putting words in my mouth. Why do you think whether or not masternode payment addresses being public or private is relevant to the discussion?
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
You're the one that brought up "forced donations", not me. If you don't think it's relevant then I'm not sure why you mentioned it.
Reply
0 points,9 days ago
Answering Troys comment from below:

But that's not true. He is paid via donations monthly. If he doesn't do what his bosses want he can be fired and the site will go down, so that's not true at all.

That's like saying "I can choose to do whatever I want at work, my boss doesn't tell me what to do."

Right but if you don't do your work you'll be fired. Rango has a responsibility to the MNOs or he risks losing his funding and place in the network just like everyone else. There are no sacred cows in dash that are unanswerable to the network. You are really disappointing me with the anti Dash narrative you're actively attempting to construct. ​

But anyway, you're wrong. You don't get donations when you don't provide what the donors require. You're deliberately making the argument in reverse. Rango is beholden to whomever pays him. Just like everyone else is. Follow the money. You're the first person I've ever seen argue that it's the opposite way around. Your argument might have some merit if the donations were one time things but this site has monthly costs that Rango needs monthly donations for which means your argument is wrong.

It's not owned by him. It's owned whoever pays for it, Rango is just an administrator. Like the Dash network doesn't belong to Ryan Taylor even though he has way more claim to it than Rango does this site. Ryan is an administrator of the largest DAO just like a CEO of a public company just can't "do what they want with it".

You guys sound like children and this is precisely why I was and still am against your, Joel's and Mark's and others efforts to infantilize our processes here this way.
Reply
1 point,7 days ago
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how ownership and donations work. You are failing to understand that someone's PERSONAL website can be set up to accept donations which are FREE CHARITABLE GIFTS and has no bearing on its ownership. If you want it to be owned by the DAO, then ask Rango to transfer all the assets to the Dash Trust. If it's not owned by the Trust then it's not owned by the DAO.
If he stops getting donations then it is still HIS CHOICE whether to keep the site up if he can afford to, because it's his intellectual property...
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
>You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how ownership and donations work.

Well actually no. The real problem is that Rango calls them "Donators" when that's not correct. The costs for the website are paid for by "donations", but these are not just gifts. These are like patronage costs for artists. If the private collector likes the work, they pay for it. In this way, artists used to make a living.

Rango accepts "donations" or patronage rather

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patronage

2 : the support or influence of a patron the patronage of science by universities

So technically, Rango is wrong when he says "these donators". It should be technically, "these patrons".

>bearing on its ownership

It is a fact that if these patrons do not pay Rango the website will go down. Correct? If that is the case, then the owners of the site are not Rango but these patrons.

>If you want it to be owned by the DAO, then ask Rango to transfer all the assets to the Dash Trust.

You guys keep shilling this Dash Trust. The DAO already owns Rango's work! If the MNOs stop paying then there's no site! No comments, no db, NOTHING! We'll have to use DMT or something else and without discussion. MNOs pay for this that means that THEY OWN IT!

>If he stops getting donations then it is still HIS CHOICE whether to keep the site up if he can afford to, because it's his intellectual property...

Wrong he's just an administrator. The intellectual property BELONGS TO THE COMMENTERS. The website is just an interface that the MNOs pay for.
Reply
0 points,6 days ago
I don't know if Rango would keep the site up or not if the donations went away. Right now there are only 6 people actively donating, whereas in the past there used to be a lot more, so it's not like it would even make much of a difference anymore.
Also, you don't have to be a MNO to donate on here, and not all donators even agree with your position on this.
Rango is the only person who CAN change it. MNOs have zero ability to change anything about this site unless they convince Rango to do it. Sounds like the owner is Rango.
Reply
-1 point,6 days ago
>I don't know if Rango would keep the site up or not if the donations went away.

Yes you do. Rango tells you himself right at the top there:

"Many thanks to the following 6 brave donators, **that keep DashCentral going** for July"

Rango, the site administrator, tells you directly that they keep the site going. Furthermore, in the past when donations weren't coming in, Rango threatened to shut down IIRC, so you're definitely wrong about that.

>so it's not like it would even make much of a difference anymore.

Conjecture and speculation. Rango has fixed monthly costs. He pays them via donations according to his own word of mouth. You have no right to assume something that benefits you in this discussion.

>and not all donators even agree with your position on this.

How do you know? The MNOs definitely did. Rango had to change the commenting policy due to our complaints in the past, so you're wrong about that too.

>Rango is the only person who CAN change it.

That's what it means to be an administrator. Technically, the CEO of a company has ZERO POWER to change a single line of code. Because that's not their specialty and they therefore cannot do it. But they still have the power to fire you. You continue to show that you just don't know how this works.

>Sounds like the owner is Rango.

Sounds like you don't know how to reason.
Reply
-2 points,11 days ago
Coming into the home stretch here and I came across this post that perfectly illustrates some of the things I mentioned before:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/oqs564/a_case_for_the_demise_of_btc_and_rise_of_nano/

A case for the demise of BTC and rise of NANO

I'll let you read it, but when even those in the NANO community are calling your post "Delusional", like in the comment below, you can tell that things are heating up.

>Poke-dermatologist
·
17h
· edited 17h

>LMFAO downvote me all you want but this idea is literally ridiculous and its crazy people are echo chambering this nonsense back to you. **I was going to buy nano but this community is delusional.** Thank you, I will buy more ETH now.

You see this? This is what I was talking about. The communities of other coins are all DELUSIONAL as a defense from having to admit they LOST THE CRYPTOCOMPETITION by merits!

On speed, decentralization, spam resistance, actual privacy, adoption and user growth, user experience, ALL COINS HAVE FAILED BEFORE DASH! Nano is a toy. Decred is the closest too us, but still they are miles out of view.

XMR was dead in 2019 and zombied along til now. BCH has been dead a while as well with much of their critical infra. shut down, and a dramatic decrease in usage and community size. Unlike DASH, a lot of these coins ONLY have communities on reddit. Meanwhile the VAST MAJORITY of our users (100k+ active in Ven.) have never even heard of reddit.

This is what I'm fighting against with my 209 comments on this proposal. I want to provide the information necessary for the MNOs to remain non-delusional, rational and grounded in reality.

So it makes sense that the enemies of Dash would ATTACK US by attacking those very qualities. This is why Grandmasterdash refuses to identify if he's a MNO.

He's trying to FORCE THE NETWORK TO ACCEPT comments from 'ambiguous' individuals, even though its in the network's best interests that the ONLY the current PO and MNOs comment on proposals.

This is what shills and bad actors do (i.e. try to 'turn you' delusional by coercing you to accept contradictions and hypocrisy) and its why I attacked GMD. Also the fact that he is VEHEMENTLY against unique offerings like Uphold and bitrefill, especially in the heavily pro-complicance Dash community, is another signal that he's not part of our community and thus anything he supports (esp. this much!) should be considered suspect.

It may be that the MNOs have seen all this and still wish that this pass. They may feel that Dash needs more drama and wish to give our enemies this room to test our network. I don't agree that this is the best course of action, as not only will spam likely increase, but the more important vector of having constant decision proposals seeking to wreck things will come more and more.

I mean, look at how fast these guys have forced their change through. Now its going to be with the next release. No waiting. No discussion of reprocussions, we're just going to 'fucking do it and see what happens!'

I guess we will.
Reply
1 point,11 days ago
208, you can't count, but 209 on your next comment.
Reply
-1 point,10 days ago
Interesting how you only respond to point out these little errors, but never respond to the legitimate claims against you.

Like why are you even here?
Reply
1 point,10 days ago
No legitimate claims. The vote ended and your 209 comments amounted to nothing.

Your imagined "attack vector" never existed. You seem to not understand, comments here are not part of the protocol, just as discord, fb and reddit are not part of the protocol. Anyone can create a website or app, pull the governance objects off the blockchain and create tools or message boards around them. Dash Nexus and Dash Masternode Tool are two examples.

For all the words you throw, the ultimate outcome was decided by votes. Welcome to the new improved dash protocol.
Reply
-1 point,10 days ago
>No legitimate claims.

Completely false. I have made several legitimate claims that you have failed to address:

1. You are not a MNO, and you admit this isn't your proposal, so why are you here? All these comments, why?

2. If you're also not a member of the 'DashCollective' then what right do you have to post here?

3. Why do you seek to force the network to 'accept comments from third-parties' when the MNOs have clearly shown we don't want that?

4. Why do you ignore the previous No! votes of the MNOs?

5. Why did you attack critical Dash infrastructure like bitrefill.com and uphold.com, two services that allow Dash's instant transactions to outshine our competition?

6. Why are you attacking me, a MNO, who is only attempting to understand the justification for this push?

7. What is the justification for this push? 400+ comments and you don't answer with any evidenced-based arguments.

8. Why do you gaslight the network by pretending these things are not legitimate claims?

9. Why are you okay with being called and proven a liar with no verbal recourse as proven by your inability to respond?

10. Why don't you care that this basically destroys your reputation as having good will towards the network?

11. Why do you not acknowledge spam as an attack vector, when other coins and Dash itself have suffered from spam attacks just this year alone? (With those spam proposals that had a two year exipry time)?

12. It doesn't matter if comments are 'part of the protocol'. I don't need to understand a red-herring. What matters is that this is the DASH NETWORK and THE MNOs have all the say in what goes on here. YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST THAT.

You are saying that we shouldn't be respected. Our wishes to avoid spam and trolls by limiting comments to POs and MNOs shouldn't be respected. Why do you think this is okay?

13. You claim 'the ultimate outcome was decided by votes', but why didn't you respect the previous 3 no votes? You never answered that. What changed that makes this a good idea now?

You're being a hypocrite by accusing me of that while yourself continually ignoring our votes.

>Welcome to the new improved dash protocol.

I told this to solarguy and basilpop and I'll tell it to you too. Enjoy your victory today, because losing a war never felt so good.

:)
Reply
0 points,10 days ago
If I was part of DashCollective you'd accuse me of bad association. It seems whatever I say you will either argue the other side, add exceptions to justify your position, or clutch at straws to try and discredit others.

Clearly you have the power to vote and I'm guessing you voted No. You say I am not an MNO so why worry about me, a supposedly powerless person? It bothers you so much not to know my status? Am I really the right person to attack for how this page is moderated?

The vote is over now, none of these questions are relevant anymore. But if you still feel aggrieved, put a one dash proposal to the network. Now that it's five times cheaper (soon), you can afford to post five proposals. OR, you can submit one proposal and grab some attention by paying 5 dash. Totally up to you. Just understand, for all the bitching you did about spam and "attack vectors", you will soon be free to do so. I look forward to voting on it... maybe, depending if I am an MNO.
Reply
0 points,10 days ago
>If I was part of DashCollective

'Were'. "If I 'were' part of"... The English first person subjunctive form uses 'were', not 'was'.

>you'd accuse me of bad association

No I wouldn't. Don't put words in my mouth. That's aggressive behavior that is not befitting someone of your position.

>It seems whatever I say you will either argue the other side

You can't construct a strawman based on 'what you think I might argue' and then refuse to participate because of your strawman, please just answer my claims. They are numbered and placed in question format for your ease of perusal and response.

> You say I am not an MNO so why worry about me

Because only masternode owners and current POs are supposed to comment here. Why do you not respect this? Please stop avoiding my questions and answer them.

How can you pretend like you have the right to be here while also dodging the questions that inevitably will come? You are clearly not operating under normal mental attitudes. Normally, people, esp. without a MN, would show respect in this venue.

You continue to attack and gaslight me by asking "why don't you ignore me". Yes, like you kept saying "why don't you ignore spam?" That's a loaded, gaslighting question and you expose yourself by using it.

>It bothers you so much not to know my status?

Of course it does! Why do you think the rules shouldn't apply to you? Rango doesn't make the rules, **MNOs do**. And you're advocating that you should be allowed to break these rules, why?

>The vote is over now, none of these questions are relevant anymore.

Au contraire, they are more relevant now than ever! Because you not only refuse to answer them, you clearly CANNOT! I gave you the maximum amount of time before the vote to answer all of them and then I placed them in easy-to-respond format just for you! And you **STILL REFUSE TO ANSWER THEM**.

That actually is very important because it proves that I'm right and you're wrong. The fact that you wish to sweep them under the rug with the 'the vote is over' argument, is also evidence that you are CORNERED.

This is actually very important, because months from now, when your plans have been in fullswing, there's more spam, more useless decision proposals, the network will KNOW WHY. I figured that these attacks require of to BE TRICKED. But that can't happen now? Bribery is not trickery, which means the blame for this will indeed fall on you.

So like I said, this is more of a phyrric victory for you than a true one. You should've tried to muddle through my questions and you could've easily avoided this.

But now, the fact that you have refused to reply to objections to your side for 450+ comments now means that you are likely hiding something. What that is will be revealed soon and we'll be prepared for it, so I thank you for your cooperation so far.

>But if you still feel aggrieved, put a one dash proposal to the network.

Again, what a shill thing to say! You don't care about the objections of the other side. You don't care about the fact that you can't answer my questions. How does that not prove that you're a bad actor?

If you really cared about DASH, you would ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. But you've proven again that you either can't or won't because you know the answers don't agree with your agenda. That's why you gaslight by saying things like "just ignore me" or "just ignore spam".

Because your goal is to get us to accept hypocrisy and "rule breakers" so you can use that as an excuse to attack us and say "Well its your fault for not enforcing your own rules lol". Well, even though you have won the vote, you have lost the opportunity to trick us, so the blame will fall on you.

>Totally up to you.

Do you see? This user addresses MNOs like he's "our boss". Like he has a right to be here and comment. This is why you shut shills down, because THEY WILL GASLIGHT YOU UNTIL YOU'RE DEAD. They don't care. GMD doesn't care about Dash. He only cares about himself. This is obvious now, so thanks for that as well.

>Just understand, for all the bitching you did about spam and "attack vectors", you will soon be free to do so.

What a stupid thing to say. Oh, I should be happy now. Even though there's now an attack vector for more spam, at least I can put up a proposal that likely won't pass because your corrupting influence won't let it! I must say, you really are an asshole. I was right to curse you before, and I do it again x 10. Enjoy!

>maybe, depending if I am an MNO.

Again, you're deliberately keeping your 'status' a secret as a form of gaslighting, which is not something that a good actor with the best interests of the network would do.

This disgraces you and exposes this vote as either coerced, bribed or the MNOs looking to test this idea. But still, make no mistake, you lost here yesterday. You just don't know it yet.
Reply
1 point,10 days ago
Actually, Rango does make the rules here. It's his website. If you don't like the rules for who is allowed to comment, take it up with Rango.
Reply
0 points,9 days ago
I'm sorry, but you sound like an idiot. Rango is paid by donations from MASTERNODE OWNERS. THEY ARE HIS BOSS. PLEASE SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.
Reply
1 point,9 days ago
No one chooses to receive donation. When a public key is published ANYONE can send to it with or without consent. And as a matter of fact, you published your public address the moment you fired up your masternode. That's exactly how you get paid rewards. So once again I have factually proven you wrong.
Reply
-1 point,9 days ago
Really? No one chooses to receive donations? What an absurd thing to say. So Rango is being forced to take donations? Shills argue this way to trigger others as this user already agreed they were doing in A comment below.

Anyway you're still wrong. Choosing to publish an address is still choosing to receive domains and anyway Rango deliberately chose to receive them so your argument is a red herring to begin with. Whether or not you can force me to take donations (you can't) is neither here nor there, Rango's pay comes from willingly accepted and requested donations from master node owners which means they're his boss. Period.

You haven't prove me wrong once, ever, let alone again and I dare you tho quote where you ha have.

You're trying to steal my thunder because arguing irrationally is the only tactic you have left. You and troy are tag teaming me with irrational arguments to bait me into looking crazy, angry and irrational. But you're only proving that you're bad actors because I only attack proven bad actors. Even when you tried to bait me into attacking TanteStefana you failed. Because you're a liar and a manipulative person.

Just like you said these comments don't matter now that the vote has passed. Except if that were true you wouldn't be here anymore. So why are you still here? Because you didn't win. And you know you didn't win.

Passing the vote wasn't your objective. Just like stopping it wasn't mine. Only one of us accomplished their ACTUAL goals here, and it wasn't you.
Reply
0 points,9 days ago
The facts prove you wrong, it is the very basics of how bitcoin / dash / Nakamoto consensus works. There are 4352 masternodes, each with a published public key. You intentionally published your public key to get paid. NO ONE gets to choose WHO pays them because ANYONE can. You can talk all you like but it can't change the actual facts.

As you explicitly said, "Rango is paid by donations from MASTERNODE OWNERS. THEY ARE HIS BOSS". This explicitly means you are my boss the moment I also send you donations to YOUR ALREADY PUBLISHED ADDRESS. It's very easy and cheap to send 4352 donations.

Now, if you actually don't want to ever receive donations without consent, you have to use MimbleWimble because by default there are no published addresses to send to, all transactions, send and receive, are by consent. But you chose not to use MimbleWimble, instead you chose to publish an address to be paid by anyone without consent.
Reply
-1 point,9 days ago
Also Rango isn't paid by master node rewards so your argument doesn't apply at all here. You're really reaching.
Reply
-1 point,9 days ago
The facts prove you wrong not me. You said no one chooses to receive donations. This is completely false and absurd. If you don't publish an address then you can't get anything. So that statement is categorically false.

Quote: "NO ONE gets to choose WHO pays them because ANYONE can."

People who don't have a master node choose. And anyway that doesn't matter. You don't have to accept a donation you don't want. You can always send it back. That's how cryptocurrencies work. If you don't want to accept it you can just send it to a burner coinjoin address. That's a choice you have and that cookie means you don't have to accept donations. Imagine arguing for coercive donations in a permissionless network!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Thanks for the laugh!

Quote: "This explicitly means you are my boss"

Don't you mean that "I am your boss"? Or can you not even follow your own argument anymore? Lol I'm laughing a lot today thank you.

Again I don't have to accept anything. I can just burn it if I don't want any donations.

YOU CANNOT FORCE ME TO ACCEPT YOUR MONEY. I don't have to accept anything from you and you really are making Terrible argument. I mean, who I earth would think this way?

And of course you're shilling competitive services of other coins. Are you Adam Back?
Reply
1 point,9 days ago
Of course, once you've received donations you can send them or burn them, that's your choice. You can only do so once you receive and I become your boss first. That's the same as Rango having a boss but choosing to burn his donations, right? Or is it one rule for you and a different rule for others?
Reply
0 points,9 days ago
"Donation" I do not think it means what you think it means
Reply
-1 point,9 days ago
And even then, just because you send money to a donation address without consent doesn't make you my boss. I don't have to accept anything, I can send it right back.

But thank you for proving that I was right about you being a stupid, forceful asshole. Classic shill behavior, because only those kind of people think that's an appropriate way to behave.

So not only do you prove how you think (like a forceful asshole), but you also make an illegitimate argument.

Rango chooses to accept donations, you trying to coerce me into accepting them still doesn't make you my boss and thus is a false equivalence
Reply
0 points,9 days ago
It works the same in BCH and XMR and other coins. When you donate to a cause, you become the boss.

If the person doesn't follow your spec, you stop donating and they get 'fired'. Its not as good as the DAO but there is a CLEAR CHAIN OF COMMAND. You should not try to gaslight me by ignoring this!
Reply
1 point,9 days ago
You can stop donating to Rango then if you don't like Rango's rules. But you're not going to stop other MNOs from donating who are ok with it.
Reply
-1 point,9 days ago
So your argument is basically that Rango should be allowed to do whatever he wants even if the MNOs who pay for this site don't want that?

Your argument is absurd. Why are you defending trolling? Do you not agree that the MNOs only want other MNOs and the current proposal owner to comment? We have stated as much before.

If you do agree then you must recognize that your argument is absurd. I'm not the only MNO who wanted this, and none of the donators have come out in favor of going against the rest of the network who don't want non affiliated third parties to comment.

So your argument is nonsensical! This is why sellouts are no good. They will sincerely argue against the truth and reason (what mno has ever argued FOR outside commenters before now?? I find think it's ever happened) FOR MONEY!
Reply
1 point,9 days ago
No not "should". He IS allowed to do whatever he wants with this site. It's owned by him, not the Dash Trust. We have no say in the matter other than to offer him feedback, which he may or may not decide to do anything with. Rango does not owe anyone anything, donation means FREE GIFT.
Reply
0 points,9 days ago
Oh good, so I can become your boss by donating to you? Give me your dash address, it's exciting to think I can tell you what to do.
Reply
0 points,9 days ago
I don't accept donations, what a stupid argument, I'm paid by my MASTERNODE.

Again, gaslighting me and ignoring my legitimate claims is just proof that you're a bad actor. So please, continue!
Reply
2 points,9 days ago
It's fine, I can find your masternode payment address and send donations without your consent. Then I will be your boss.
Reply
-2 points,9 days ago
You really want the last word don't you? What a terrible argument. Rango CHOOSES to accept donations in exchange for running this site.

You trying to coerce me to accept donations so that I would have to listen to you is criminal behavior, and it's really telling that that's what you think my argument boiled down to.

The problem is shills are terrible people and they don't know any other way to be...
Reply
-2 points,9 days ago
You really want the last word don't you? What a terrible argument. Rango CHOOSES to accept donations. You trying to coerce me to accept donations so that I would have to listen to you is criminal behavior, and it's really telling that that's what you think my argument boiled down to. The problem is shills are terrible people and they don't know any other way to be...
Reply
-1 point,9 days ago
*CHOOSES to accept donations in exchange for running this site.
Reply
0 points,10 days ago
Ordinarily I'd say no one owes you anything. But society needs to take care of special and vulnerable people, So I think in your case, given your mental condition, I think you should keep taking the meds.
Reply
0 points,10 days ago
You owe everyone here an explanation as to why you're here. The fact that you refuse to answer my questions is proof that you are a bad actor and I thank you for providing it.

Also, you claimed your goal was to 'detain me here' but you failed once again. You're on the run from me while I barely have to check here. Well even before when you were at full steam, I was barely here. So you've failed twice now.
Reply
-2 points,10 days ago
Even the fact that you shill downvote legitimate comments without response proves that I'm right. That's not how the voting process is supposed to operate. That's not how the commenting process is supposed to operate.

You're not supposed to gaslight MNOs by downvoting them without providing a reason. These are the techniques of shills and infiltrators, not community members. The fact that you're so brazen with this attack is evidence that I was correct and that you have been compromised.

Another simple logical argument that you cannot deal with or respond to.
Reply
3 points,15 days ago
I'm very happy to see this passing. We needed more proposals.

I think 1 Dash is a decent compromise between those worrying about spam and the ones that want more proposals.

I will add my own 16 yes votes :D
Reply
4 points,15 days ago
Thanks for your support!
Reply
5 points,17 days ago
This is a good movement for the DAO.

I think this proposal, can be very useful to attract talent in any area devs, Marketing, Inc. etc.
Also, its approval facilitates new teams in El Salvador, Paraguay and Haiti.

Congratulations MN Team.
Reply
2 points,15 days ago
Thanks blockchaintech !
Reply
6 points,17 days ago
2021/07/19 Update:

Firstly, thank you to all the voters on this proposal, we are truly humbled by the response and the support shown in the comments. The update we have is that DCG Dev Pasta has created a pull request that can be merged into the next release if this proposal is successful. You can review the PR here https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4241 We hope this gives some confidence to people still unsure about this proposal, please discuss below.
Reply
-3 points,17 days ago
A pull request created 8 days ago and already announced ?
Reply
0 points,17 days ago
correction : 9 days ago.
Reply
-3 points,17 days ago
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/regarding-the-proposal-to-reduce-the-proposal-fee-meta.51799/#post-227354
Reply
-3 points,17 days ago
Not much of an update if you already announced it a week ago and also a bit questionable to have a dev already code the implementation of this decision proposal, at the very start of this decision proposal.
Reply
0 points,15 days ago
Many proposals are discussed on the Dash.org forum before they are submitted.
Reply
1 point,17 days ago
> to have a dev already code the implementation of this
LOL, you think we have any influence over the devs? This PR was a big surprise to us when we saw it, it was not requested, in fact the collective were anticipating doing the PR themselves if the proposal passed.
Reply
-1 point,17 days ago
I am curious about one thing though : if this PR was such a big surprise 9 days ago when you came across, then why wait 9 days before making this big 'Update' announcement in Dash Central, when you already mentioned this pull request on dash.org/forum ?

Has something changed with this github pull in those 9 days ? A git pull that by the way still shows [WIP] and does not show changes in those last 9 days.
Reply
-1 point,14 days ago
The reason we chose to delay the update was to allow you and Gerhard and TheRudeDashMan21 to exhaust yourselves on this page so to not swamp the update. I wanted it as close to the top as possible.
Reply
-1 point,14 days ago
>TheRudeDashMan21
The only people I have been rude to in this comment section by explicit declaration are shills and bad actors. So the fact that you're offended is actually very telling...

Furthermore, if you didn't want "swamping" then you should've told GrandMasterDash to shut up. The proposal may pass but it if it does it will only be by fiat. I haven't lost an argument.

What's more, its my DUTY as a MNO to be here and question proposals. Why is GMD here? He's not even a part of your "collective" supposedly. He's not a PO. And he's apaprently not a MNO.

SO WHY IS HE HERE? You are an MNO so you should only want POs and other MNOs to comment just like me. The fact that you're okay with this breech of protocol also indicates that your collective has bad motivations.
Reply
-1 point,13 days ago
Also the fact that you cynically complain about 'swamping' while completely avoiding answering simple questions is very concerning as well. Why is the relationship between you and GMD so clouded?

What benefit does he gain by supporting and advocating for your position? I'm a MNO who loves Dash, and is paid to be here, that is my only motivation. Why is he here?

Why won't either you or him answer this question? Comments are for MNOs and POs (proposal owners OF *THAT* PROPOSAL, not just 'I had a prop in 2017' or something) ONLY.

Why on earth should he be allowed to comment here and 'swamp' the discussion by avoiding my questions, gaslighting me, admittedly trolling and triggering a MNO doing his job...

As well as, attacking and fudding critical Dash infrastructure like Uphold and Bitrefill just like the monero community does, and other completely out-of-character actions for someone claiming to want to better Dash?

All verifiable below. Its GASLIGHTING to complain about my responses to this individual, while completely ignoring the fact that they shouldn't even be here at all.

All of this is why I'm weary of your 'collective' and this proposal.
Reply
-1 point,14 days ago
A vast confederacy of dunces has formed to oppose DCG and the dopey DAO is obliging them. I've taken down all my masternodes except one, because I don't see this as a positive development.

We have no leadership anymore. The project is being run by committee. It belongs in academia and not the intensely competitive crypto marketplace.
Reply
9 points,23 days ago
I really like governance proposals such as this. They really show what the Dash DAO is all about. This is how a decentralized currency gets things done. We can shout and scream in the comments, spam the board and insult each other to no end. But, at the end of the day, all that matters are the numbers at the top of the page. Everyone involved must respect the result.

I'm never more proud to be a Dasher than I am during these debates. Cheers, all.
Reply
1 point,23 days ago
The next 12 days will be interesting as during these days the majority of the votes usually come in.

Will those votes go towards a heavy (-80%) reduction of the proposal fee that is not directly the cause for the low budget proposal activity of late and closes the way to explore other options or will those votes perhaps stay clear of this decision proposal or will those votes go to exploring other options next year by Ryan Taylor, possibly in combination with options to increase voting participation (which is really at a very low level these days).

Interesting times ahead.

Cheers.
Reply
3 points,22 days ago
This does not close the way to explore other options. After following up with some folks on discord, the only reason "can only every be lowered, never increased" is in the proposal description is because of a comment that Udjin made indicating that it would be *easier* to lower the fee than to raise it. As in, lowering the fee is a trivial change, whereas raising it would require some additional code. The inclusion of this in the proposal may have given you and some others the incorrect impression that this is a mandate, or that the change is irreversible, which is not the case.
Reply
0 points,22 days ago
'This does not close the way to explore other options.'

Does this proposal not lock us in a very low proposal fee (1 Dash) in a time that the Dash FIAT price ($123) is also not doing so great and could be subject to further decline ?

Furthermore if the proposal fee does need to be raised it apparently needs non-trivial coding from devs (who should be fully focussed on the Dash Platform release on Mainnet, not on doing additional coding) and it then also needs time to get implemented on Mainnet, through a future update.

It locks us in that specific scenerio and closes the way to explore other options, like an adaptive proposal fee as was mentioned in the comments or exploring a higher proposal fee then the proposed 1 Dash (with less risk of spam proposals / low quality proposals). Or just keeping the 5 Dash proposal fee. It also closes ways of exploration that i can't even think about right now, because we have not even discussed them all.

I know that this decision proposal makes it possible to pay higher then 1 Dash, but in practise i highly doubt that will be ever used.
Reply
1 point,22 days ago
I dont think your positions here are unreasonable, I just disagree. I do not anticipate a need to rapidly change this back, nor do I anticipate that this will in any way inhibit DCG to any meaningful degree. I'm all for continuing to have dialogue about other ways we can improve the treasury system and how the fees are handled, but all of the other ideas that have been tossed out there, such as adaptive proposal fees, would involve far more in the way of DCG resources than this proposal does. Even after considering your points, I still see this as a small, easy, low-risk step in the right direction.
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
>'m all for continuing to have dialogue about other ways we can improve the treasury system and how the fees are handled

Why don't you start by removing the assumption that there is a problem. The user Qwizzie earlier provided evidence that there were many proposals in the last 4 years when the fee was 5 Dash. You have not responded to this, nor to my call for justification of this matter.
Reply
1 point,22 days ago
I am aware that there used to be many proposals. In the most busy months there were up to 40 proposals submitted in a cycle. Today we are only getting a third as many proposals as we did during the previous times when the price of Dash was between $100-300. This year we are *averaging* 6 submitted proposals per month. That is part of why I didn't used to support reducing the fee, but now I do. It's not only that fewer people are attracted to the treasury - the MNOs have learned and evolved as well, now being far more selective than they were in the past, which discourages prospective proposal owners from taking the risk. I do not think we are going to be returning to 40+ proposals per month anytime soon even if the price of Dash were to skyrocket back to ATHs.
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
>I am aware that there used to be many proposals.

Most of which didn't survive until today. What's more during that period Dash had a different valuation than now and the Dash fee as well. Which means that you can't project the 'decline in proposals' onto the fee.

What's more, you're deliberately ignoring the fact that the total amount of Dash given to DAOs is much larger now since they've been running longer. Those '40 proposals' were mostly fluff, spam and failed ideas. But the DAOs we have now are longstanding and have given us much growth, like in Venezuela. You're deliberately ignoring this also, which means its likely you've been compromised.

Also if you respect the MNOs and our wishes, and if you have a masternode, you should add the tag to your name so we don't have to trust that you're not a bad actor. Deliberately 'keeping us in the dark' on whether or not you actually have a MN is bad acting and an attack.

> Today we are only getting a third as many proposals as we did during the previous times when the price of Dash was between $100-300.

Doesn't matter. Remember Ben Swann?? We paid him $1,000,000+ and didn't get anything back. His audience hated us and called us a shitcoin. The point is that you're simplistically looking at 'hur derp total number of proposals hur derp' instead of the QUALITY of proposals. AND THE SIZE of the DAOs they have accumulated.

DashMallAndParking has 3000 transactions PER MONTH in various parking lots, delivery services and mall stores in Dash thanks to constant, continuous investment over the last 4 years. You guys are CYNICALLY USING THIS TO ATTACK THEM and say they're 'small and old boys club' when they have been the teams working THE HARDEST for our adoption.

That means your behavior is likely an attack. How do you defend yourself from this charge?
Reply
5 points,22 days ago
Happy to oblige on the mno tag.

My defense is that we have a difference of opinion. It shouldn't be a shocker that not all MNOs think the same way as you do in a decentralized network. The quality of proposals absolutely is a consideration. But I'm not really interested in continuing a discussion with you if you're going to act in bad faith, always assuming everyone who disagrees with you is somehow attacking Dash.
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
>Happy to oblige on the mno tag.

I appreciate it, thank you!

>difference of opinion.

But this is not a question of opinion. The FACTS clearly indicate that Venezuela is the largest region for Dash usage by official google android wallet statistics. Do you deny this? If so, on what grounds?

>think the same way as you do in a decentralized network.

Of course. But I'm not asking you 'how you think'. I'm asking you how do you defend yourself from the charge that you're willfully ignoring information that objectively should prevent you from supporting this position. That is not about your 'opinion' or 'how you think'. These matters can be proven OBJECTIVELY with EVIDENCE.

>The quality of proposals absolutely is a consideration.

Ok so how can you say this line:

>Today we are only getting a third as many proposals as we did

Without taking into account the MASSIVE GROWTH we've seen from the proposals we do have since 2017/18? You're literally pretending like Dash doesn't have 100,000 active users in Venezuela. More than any other coin in Venezuela and more than ANY OTHER COIN IN THE FUCKING WORLD.

So why are you ignoring this info deliberately? Again I don't give a shit about your 'opinion' or 'how you think'. Don't respond to me like that again.

I'm asking you for EVIDENCE to DEFEND YOURSELF from the accusation that you're a MALICIOUS LIAR AND SCAMMER who is bad for the network. How do you respond?

>always assuming everyone who disagrees with you is somehow attacking Dash.

Strawman. I clearly never assumed that. In a previous post just a few minutes ago I said this:

>qwizzie (Who I don't fault for this, just their opinion)

Clearly acknowledging and not faulting him for his difference of opinion/disagreeing with me.

So you're FULL OF SHIT when you accuse me of that.
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
According to official bitpay statistics (bitpay is the easiest and most seemless way to accept cryptocurrencies like BTC, BCH, ETH, LTC and others and thus serves as a fair comparison to Dash's adoption):

https://bitpay.com/stats/

There were 68,774 payment transactions processed for March 2021. That is DOWN nearly %15 (14.53%)!

BTC is 54303 of those transactions, BCH is a tiny 5949 transactions, ETH is a slightly tinnier 5110 transactions and the rest are not really worth mentioning.

Which means there can only be 54303 BTC-using active bitpay users per month (at least for March). This is in contrast to Dash's having 140,000 active android users (not counting desktop or IOS, so there's likely much more) per month. Not all of those users will make a payment, but we know from Cointelegraph:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/dash-sees-100-rise-in-commercial-payments-through-latin-american-partnerships

>During Q1 2020 the number of active Dash wallets installed on mobile devices reached 101,747, representing a 214% increase year-over-year and a 21% increase on the previous quarter.

>In the same period, the median number of daily commercial payments using Dash grew to **17,127**, a growth of 104% year-over-year.

That Dash is seeing 17,127 DAILY commercial payments in Latin America alone, which translates into roughly 513,810 monthly commercial payments or nearly 10 times the total number of BTC bitpay payments!!!

So Dash is clearly much larger than even OG BTC for payments, which begs the question (the wrong definition of the phrase, not the correct one) why are you from the 'DashCollective' ignoring this data?

This is how you prove an argument.
Reply
2 points,22 days ago
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Venezuela.
Your figure is incorrect though, the 17,127 transactions referenced in the article is referring to the DCG 2020 Q1 quarterly report on global transaction metrics, not just latin america.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fBBViwbksc&t=836s
I don't have the time to fact check the rest...
Reply
-3 points,22 days ago
>I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Venezuela.

How can you not be? The majority of those transactions come from Venezuela. Venezuela has 100,000+ active android wallets. Where else do you have EVIDENCE that these transactions are coming from?

>Your figure is incorrect though,

Its not my figure and its not incorrect.

>quarterly report on global transaction metrics, not just latin america.

Right but as the article makes clear, the bulk of these transactions come from Latin America and Venezuela specifically. You're being disingenuous by pretending otherwise, which further proves that you've been compromised.

Specifically, from the article:

>As Cointelegraph reported, in January a collaboration with **Burger King in _*Venezuela*_** enabled payments using Dash and other cryptocurrencies. Additionally, **_*thousands of merchants*_ in the country** (!!) are now accepting **Dash** thanks to local advocacy programs and a recent integration with **MegaSoft point-of-sale terminals**.

Ok so the article clearly makes the point that these transactions are coming from Venezuelan partnerships mainly. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

>I don't have the time to fact check the rest...

You didn't 'fact check' this either, you cherry-picked what you hoped would give you any kind of victory. But you're wrong and your 'fact checking' doesn't even disagree with my comment.

You can nitpick whether ALL 17k+ transactions are coming from Venezeula or 'just' MOST but either way YOU'RE WRONG!
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
>which begs the question (the wrong definition of the phrase, not the correct one)

Anyone looking for a short humor break to understand what I mean, please check this handy and timely T-rex-themed online comic:

https://stancarey.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/dinosaur-comics-logical-fallacy-begging-the-question.png
Reply
0 points,22 days ago
There is a big difference though between 'can only every be lowered, never increased' and 'it would be *easier* to lower the fee than to raise it'.

And one of them is in the actual proposal text as a very specific condition and the other somewhere down in the comments.

If you personally noticed this in another decision proposal, would that be okay with you ?
Reply
1 point,22 days ago
Yes it's a big difference, which is exactly why I thought it was important to point it out. I would not have supported this proposal if it was actually irreversible or if it somehow blocked further changes. Fortunately that bit has since been clarified.
Reply
-1 point,22 days ago
Let me rephrase this : would you support a proposal that contains something incorrect in the proposal text, which only gets corrected in comments or in discord discussions or would you rather have it fixed in the proposal text itself ? The proposal text is after all what masternode operators read, the commnents most likely a lot less. Specially when there are a lot of comments.
Reply
1 point,22 days ago
Yes I would, and I am :)
In this case the misunderstanding would only benefit the opposite side to my position. People are not being misled into voting yes due to incorrect information, but they might be misled into voting no. I would be happy if they clarified it in the proposal text but it would not change my position.
Reply
-1 point,22 days ago
Personally i am against having such a large inconsistency in any decision proposal text, as the proposal text is what is getting analyzed and voted on.
Reply
-1 point,15 days ago
You're the kind of smallhat that let's criminals free if you find a spelling error in the prosecutors case aren't ya?
Reply
-1 point,22 days ago
> The inclusion of this in the proposal may have given you and some others the incorrect impression that this is a mandate

No that's not it. That's a further reason NOT TO DO THIS but that's not what makes this seem like a mandate. I mean to say, making a change that is difficult to reverse and also unknown in effect is not wise behavior. But what makes this feel like a mandate is:

1. The network has consistently said NO to this idea. You, the "(fake)DashCollective", comprised of Amanda B John, shill xkcd, emotional terrorist shill DashQueenApp and a few others are not respecting these votes by continuing to ask for this change. This makes it feel like a 'mandate'. Why don't you accept our decision?

2. You refuse to answer #1. You refuse to explain why this is so important to you, and you refuse to justify the proposal with evidence and solid rationales. This makes it feel like a mandate.

3. You guys have already gone ahead and decided things like:

"The developers have agreed to abide by the outcome. If this proposal is successful, the change will be made as part of the v0.18 hardfork which is slated to be released later this year. "

Why does a small cabal calling itself 'DashCollective' have the right to impose their will on the rest of the network this way? Not only do you refuse to accept our decision votes, but you're taking every avenue of discussion out of the mix. Its 'your way or the highway'. That makes this feel like a mandate.

These three things and your refusal to explain yourselves are what make it feel like a mandate.
Reply
2 points,22 days ago
There was no coercion, only discussions and we have a massive update to this proposal next week. :)
Reply
1 point,22 days ago
Are you talking about the implementation of your proposal already drafted in code by a dev three days ago ?

Link : https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4241

I do find it curious that a Github pull issue of mine only gets read 7 months after i created it on Github (during testing of release candidate v0.17.0.2 on testnet, due to a lack of a test thread for v0.17.0 on dash/org/forum) --> https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/3909

While a Github pull request for implementation of this decision proposal is being drafted almost at the beginning of your decision proposal, with voting still active.
Reply
2 points,22 days ago
Nothing personal, I'm sure.
Reply
0 points,22 days ago
I agree about it most likely nothing being personal and due to devs simply being busy with their work, but it is just frustrating that the options to give feedback on testing v0.17.0.0 got so limited, that i had to resort to using Github Issues for such a simple low level, not very important, issue / question. A part of me regrets even raising that issue in the first place.

Anyways, it pretty much killed my drive to participate in testing.
Reply
1 point,22 days ago
With regards to https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4241 : can someone please explain to me if this needs a successfull test in order to code technically change our proposal fee from 5 dash to 1 dash without forking our network or if it is just part of the overall implementation, just a final step :

''Consider implications of a node with HF active broadcasting a governance proposal object with 1 Dash fee to a network that is segmented. IE half of network has the block that activates HF, half doesn't. Since this validation appears to only happen when the collateral transaction is included in a block, and we use that block as our reference point, the result should be deterministic''
Reply
0 points,22 days ago
I am just curious about those possible 'implications' while we are in the middle of voting on this decision proposal.
Reply
0 points,22 days ago
Testing is a normal part of software development, we will take care of it.
Reply
0 points,22 days ago
What happens if the implications are negative ? Would that prevent the implementation ?
Reply
0 points,17 days ago
In software development the usual approach is to fix bugs, not remove features. I would expect the same outcome for this. It is a bit nihilistic of you to think we can't change some parts of the protocol and frankly you should give the devs more credit.
Reply
-3 points,22 days ago
Thank you for providing this evidence.
Reply
-3 points,22 days ago
It appears ladies and gentlemen that we are currently under a full-scale, blockstream-esque attack. They can't wait any longer it seems. The time to fight is now before our coin is coopted and turned into 'bankster shitcoin 2.0'.
Reply
2 points,22 days ago
LOL, you crazy, bro!
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
Not you're bro and you're the only crazy group here. You literally think you have the right to gaslight us into doing what you want us to do because you have selfish motivations. Yeah, like I said you all are the crazy ones!
Reply
2 points,21 days ago
"Not your bro" not "Not you're bro".

"You're" = "You are"

A blockstream-esque attack would be no action, keep everything the same, nothing is broken, which looks a lot like what you are supporting.
Reply
-2 points,21 days ago
Thanks for the typo correction!

>A blockstream-esque attack would be no action

Wrong. BTC was changed completely from the original vision. RBF. Segwit. 1 MB cap. None of these things were in the original roadmap or community plan.

A BUNCH OF SHILLS AND LIARS came into BTC and coopted the vision by silencing dissent and railroading through these changes.

Just like you're doing now. You're trying to break things by making spam easier. You have provided no justification for this, which means its a blockstreamesque attack.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
How do know they are spam when they haven't been submitted yet?
Reply
-1 point,21 days ago
How do you know they won't be?
Reply
-3 points,22 days ago
Yeah sure. That's why you're so certain about something that should still be up in the air. Your entire group has been deceptive.
Reply
4 points,22 days ago
Nonsense, I said in the proposal I have been working with the devs and that is the case, I can't wait to announce this PR next week, should give a confidence boost to those sitting on the fence.
Reply
-3 points,22 days ago
>I can't wait to announce this PR next week

This is how shills talk. They IGNORE YOUR OBJECTIONS and they keep repeating things that they're 'excited about' without giving the other side due consideration. This is an attack.
Reply
-3 points,22 days ago
>I have been working with the devs and that is the case

We don't care about your group working with the devs, the DAO wants you to WORK WITH US and you refuse to do that. How is that not an attack??

WE DON'T WANT THIS!
Reply
1 point,21 days ago
"We" is the DAO. "I" is my vote.

Fortunately you don't get to talk for "we", unless you mean 35 votes to 296.
Reply
-3 points,21 days ago
Yes I do.

THE DAO HAS VOTED THIS IDEA DOWN 3 TIMES!

So you ignoring that consenus IS YOU TRYING TO 'SPEAK FOR THE NETWORK'.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the truth is proof that you're a shill.

Your early support appears astroturfed. Which makes sense since you've spent months bribing/coercing other MNOs to your cause. Which is again proof that you refuse to accept the MNOs decision.

Just the fact that you refuse to put the MNO tag (or stop posting) is you directly flouting the will of the MNOs and trying to get away with it.

Shills ALWAYS tell you what they're doing so that its your fault when you don't call them out!
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
This idea has never been proposed. You are deliberately lying and trying to conflate two similar proposals. Similar and same is not the same. Please be more careful with your language.
Reply
-1 point,21 days ago
>This idea has never been proposed.

This very same 1 Dash fee proposal has already been proposed and voted no on.

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/REDUCE_PROPOSAL_FEES_TO_1_DASH

You're deliberately lying and projecting onto me because you're out of arguments. Indeed, you never had any to begin with.

>Please be more careful with your language.

No, I reject this. The idea to lower the proposal fee to 1 Dash has already been proposed before in 2017. Please do better research and apologize for calling me a liar.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
Again, this is similar but not the same. In the link you provide, where does it say the Proposal Owner may pay more than one dash?
Reply
1 point,21 days ago
>Again, this is similar but not the same.

It is the same. Just because there may be tiny differences doesn't mean that the MNOs have rejected the 1 Dash prposal fee idea. Also, we rejected .1 Dash. We rejected your 'dynamic proposal fee'. So you're REALLY being disingenuous by pretending "they're different".
Reply
-2 points,21 days ago
*have not rejected
Reply
-1 point,22 days ago
Things like this are why I call DashQueenApp an emotional terrorist:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/o42vyv/the_dash_investment_foundation_dif_and_dash_core/

>Despite the DAO treasury being an amazing innovation here we are. This is the DAO on life support. There are many to blame. None will take responsibility.

>Shame on every Masternode Operator who votes for this. Shame. Shame. Shame.

I mean, using speculation to emotionally cajole others into self-serving behavior is the defintion of emotional terrorism. There is no proof for this user's assertions. Really, who the hell are they anyway?

As I understand it, they come from the same ego-mafia heavy EU region. An offshoot of DACH maybe? A retaliation for being defunded? I don't know, but they came out of nowhere a year ago or so, and now they're telling everyone in the network what to do.

Like how dare you shame the MNOs because they don't agree with you or do what you want? Where do you get off doing that? Normal people don't do that. Normal people start off with respect and only disrepect others upon being disrepected.

DQA started off disrepecting MNOs and now they want to change our network to suit their whims, instead of what's best for everyone.

That's what I mean: Emotional terrorism.

So now we have to 'watch out for DashQueenApp' or they might 'spite you later'. Just like that other poster said they were voting for this proposal just to spite me!

WTF?? How is that in any way acceptable behavior? Its not. Shills behave in ways that others won't because normal people don't know how to deal with that behavior. How do you deal with someone who's attacking you while pretending to be your friend? IRL its easy just ignore, but shills don't stop and they don't shut up.

They keep popping up and bugging you until you give in. Like this fee proposal. This is the definition of emotional terrorism.
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
>DQA started off disrepecting MNOs and now they want to change our network to suit their whims, instead of what's best for everyone.

As a matter of fact, I should ammend this. Its clear now what DQA has been doing.

They DID start of with 'respect'. When they were trying to get their exploitative 'sex sells lol' 'DashQueen contest" off the ground. That was also an attack.

That came shortly after the 'DashCamLife' proposal by known shill agnewpickens failed.

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/DashCamLife

For those who don't remember, this was a proposal that was supposed to promote 'web cam performers'. Sex work basically. A very tasteless and completely off-topic and off-brand area for Dash to get into.

So DQA seems to be a 'retaliation' for this proposal not passing. They leveraged the networks...skittishness towards paid sex work as a weapon. THEY KNEW THE COMMUNITY WOULDN'T ACCEPT DASH QUEEN APP.

That was just an EXCUSE so DQA could GO ON THE OFFENSIVE like they have been for months now! In other words, they TRUMPED UP A FALSE justification to 'attack us' using our rejection of 'DashQueen' as a causus belli.

Like I said earlier, EMOTIONAL TERRORISM!
Reply
-3 points,22 days ago
And who supported the 'DashCamLife' proposal?

lysergic
solarguy
Realmrhack (!!)
quantumexplorer
qwizzie (Who I don't fault for this, just their opinion)

With the exception of qwizzie, a large number of the same names that supported this proposal also supported 'Dashcamlife', so its possible that this DQA and this whole cynical push to 'change and break things fast' is a RETALIATION for not supporting this garbage.

Obviously this means that these people have to go.
Reply
2 points,22 days ago
Agnew is still developing his site out of his own pocket money, let's wish him well, it can only help DASH. DASH is Digital Cash and like real money it is for everyone and doesn't discriminate, and neither should you!
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
>Agnew is still developing his site out of his own pocket money

Right because shills are stupid assholes who 'never give up' because they're paid to be idiots and disruptive liars. So yeah 'agnew is still developing it out of his own money'. Thank GOD that didn't pass.

>let's wish him well,

NO! I hope he and YOU crash and BURN!

>it can only help DASH

The line of a shill. 'This thing that nobody in the community wants will *help* Dash.' Let's be honest. You're a group of liars and fakers. You don't respect the will of the DAO and you are blatant and flippant about it. That's how shills behave because that's how you take advantage of normal peoples' emotions.

>and neither should you!

With all due respect, FUCK OFF!
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
And of course, because "the 'family' that shills together stays together", you know exactly all about Agnew's plans and try to pretend they're something that should be supported, even though the NETWORK SAID NO! This. Is. Emotional terrorism!
Reply
-4 points,22 days ago
>This does not close the way to explore other options.

If that were true, and if this truly were not a 'mandate' as you appear to wish to trick us into thinking, then you wouldn't have cut the debate short by choosing the final outcome first and colluding together with your 'DashCollective' cabal.

You would've presented a list of these options after going through a preproposal phase and getting feedback. Instead, you guys have been 'recharging' from your last defeat a couple of months ago to push this bullshit through.

Emotional terrorism.
Reply
2 points,22 days ago
You mean something like this pre-proposal with 5 months worth of open discussion for feedback?

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-reduce-the-proposal-fee-to-1-dash.51329/
Reply
-1 point,22 days ago
Right, which came up after these two NO VOTES on the same idea

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Reduce_proposal_fees_to_dot1_DASH

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/REDUCE_PROPOSAL_FEES_TO_1_DASH

Notice I didn't just say 'going through a preproposal phase' I said 'You would've PRESENTED A LIST OF THESE OPTIONS' you know, instead of choosing for us like this proposal does.

Focusing on the latter part of my statement while ignoring the first part is dishonest debating and disingenuous arguing and you shame yourself by engaging in it.
Reply
-3 points,22 days ago
Also, another failed attempt at changing the proposal fee:

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/set-your-price-proposals

So that is THREE TIMES the MNOs have voted NO on this general concept. Yet you are STILL trying to force this through.

How can you justify this as anything but an attack on the network?
Reply
1 point,22 days ago
I think the DAO should always be re-evaluating the status quo in light of changing circumstances.
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
That is not sufficient. You have to provide a reason that JUSTIFIES any change like this. And the best you guys have given is "Let's try it and see what happens!" Kind of like, "Let's read the bill after we pass it!"

That's not 're-evaluating the status quo in light of changing circumstances', thats you railroading your agenda through a decentralized network and it should and will be considered an attack, just fyi.
Reply
-3 points,21 days ago
Also i would like to emphasize the side-effects that lowering the proposal fee to just 1 dash will have on Dash Central itself, the place where almost all of the budget proposal discussions take place :

* 1 dash proposal owners will be given life-long comment power in our budget section, regardless if their proposal pass or fail.
* 1 dash proposal owners will be given life-long up/down voting power of comments in our budget section, regardless if their proposal pass or fail.
* Lifelong comment power in the Dash budget section could basically be bought and then exploited by Anti-Dash actors for just 1 dash.

That could make things messy in here, specially if you have a lot of 1 dash proposal owners who could see funding of their proposal fail and yet keep possession of their comment power and their up / down voting power of comments in our budget section.
Reply
-2 points,15 days ago
> dash proposal owners will be given life-long comment power in our budget section

How much do you want to censor people?

I'm an MNO and I cannot even post on the Dash subreddit, I bet that kind of shit is what you want here too.

YOU are the true enemy of Dash and of liberty.

(Use poal.co instead of plebbit btw)
Reply
-1 point,13 days ago
>How much do you want to censor people?

Ok now I know you're definitely a shill. Only our competition wants to have 'an ear' with the MNOs by allowing just any PO to have lifetime commenting status. They're trying to exploit every potential opening to attack us.

And shill, asshat losers like you are helping them. Just like I predicted. Infiltrated masternodes.

>I'm an MNO and I cannot even post on the Dash subreddit

Nice projection-reversal, a true shill tactic. Also, looks to be 'stealing my thunder' as I'm THE loudest MNO who is banned on r/dashpay for years now.

Shills are shameless, talentless hacks so they have to steal credit and clout from superior people to get any recognition. Like they buy years old reddit accounts because they have nothing interesting to say themselves that people would want to upvote.

That's why they steal the thunder of others.

>I bet that kind of shit is what you want here too.

What a horrible, emotionally-terroristic argument. ONLY MNOs AND **THE CURRENT PROPOSAL OWNER** should be allowed to comment here. Why do you want other proposal owners to be able to comment?? That's a conflict of interest (as they compete for votes and funding with other POs).

>YOU are the true enemy of Dash and of liberty.

You are a projecting, lying piece of shit. A shill in the truest sense of the word. The fact that you all have come out of the woodworks to support this proposal is proof I'm on the right track in calling you out.
Reply
-1 point,23 days ago
>I'm never more proud to be a Dasher than I am during these debates. Cheers, all.

But you guys are deliberately not doing that though. We've already voted no on this SAME idea before and you refuse to accept it.

How can you say all those fluff words above, when you're actively working against that very concept (i.e. respecting the result)?

Once again this is not a rhetorical question.
Reply
-1 point,23 days ago
Also, just the fact that there is so much early 'support' even before all the debating really took place or could be deciphered by both sides, heavily indicates an astroturfing campaign.

Especially considering that this idea has been rejected twice before in various forms already. So what's changed? Collusion, bribery, and coercion, that's what.
Reply
8 points,23 days ago
I support this proposal, as people I respect support this proposal.

People who are against this proposal, lie.
Reply
0 points,19 days ago
WTF? What kind of ??? Why would you say people lie? I'm for this proposal but that's a weird thing to say Darren, were you hacked? Did you have too much to drink? This is so unlike you!
Reply
-1 point,19 days ago
Interesting thing is that he got 7 upvotes for that comment.
Reply
-1 point,15 days ago
Just commenting to say my down vote for you and upvote for him was genuine.

My commie gaydar is going off like crazy when I read your comments.
Reply
-1 point,13 days ago
So now we've devolved to 'commie gaydar' as the standard of truth? Is this what you want for your network, fellow MNOs? This completely put-on neanderthal, 'hur dur my political party fascism all up in your decentralized, non-political network' reasoning?
Reply
0 points,23 days ago
Well, that is good to hear.

So i am a liar ? Great.
Reply
0 points,23 days ago
At this point i am just glad i did not respond to your pm :

''I was sincere when I was saying that I seek out your feedback. Several times I think I'm going to vote yes on something and I see you write "Yes from me" and I feel better about my vote.

The only reason I seek your feedback is because i respect you and I respect your brain.''

From seeking feedback because you respect me and respect my brain to directly calling me and everyone else voting on this proposal a liar for voting no on this proposal. Certainly an interesting turn of events.
Reply
0 points,19 days ago
Yah, something isn't right. Maybe he was pissed about something. We all have weird days. Don't take it personally.
Reply
0 points,19 days ago
At first i did not take it personally, but then i read his post on dash.org/forum and it did became personally.
Reply
0 points,23 days ago
See also : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/regarding-the-proposal-to-reduce-the-proposal-fee-meta.51799/page-2#post-227374
Reply
-6 points,23 days ago
>I support this proposal, as people I respect support this proposal.

That is a terrible reason to support a proposal and it is not how MNOs should behave. If you behave this way, what's to stop your 'respected people' from becoming compromised and supporting destructive behavior?

Deliberately refusing to consider this is worse than lying because you're not even giving the rest of the network a chance to argue against your decision. You're basing it on 'trust'. You trust these people so you vote for it.

How can you vote that way knowing how detrimental trust is to permissionless networks?

>People who are against this proposal, lie.

There are 300 comments here, 141 from me. Where have I lied?
Reply
-7 points,23 days ago
I mean, this is the definition of manufactured consent. You are advocating, against the best interests of the network, to vote 'yes' for things the network has already voted NO to, and you don't have any other reason besides the fact that you 'trust' these other people.

This is what I mean about shilling being dangerous, annoying and dishonest behavior. Look at how far they're willing to go just to prove one guy wrong. They are literally willing to turn the principles of the network on their heads just to satisfy their egos.

This is NOT how MNOs are supposed to behave.
Reply
1 point,22 days ago
The way I see it, is that a proposal costing $120 vs $600 will hardly increase spam, will increase smaller proposals and bring in the possibility of more DAOs to the network. Currently we seem to only be supporting the DCG, DIF, Incubator and a couple of small groups like Venezuela. This brings with it stagnation of ideas. If we ever lose so much value because Dash continues to stagnate causing DDOS attacks on our proposal system, well, we're dead anyway. Lets make more competition! Lets not block our possible gems. Like I said before, I'm voting yes on this.
Reply
-1 point,15 days ago
Spot on.
The ones that attack this are the ones that really want Dash to fail. Don't be surprised if some banksters bought some nodes to mess with us.

They (AXA/Bilderberg Group) spent 70 million USD to buy BlockStream and successfully subverted and sabotaged Bitcoin Core.
Reply
-1 point,13 days ago
Shills often use projection to hide their behavior. Comically, they think it gives them protection. The emperor has no clothes.
Reply
-1 point,15 days ago
I'm happy to see masternode operators can see what is really going on.
Reply
0 points,22 days ago
>TanteStefana

Also, would you mind adding the MNO flair to your username? It really speeds things up to just know you're dealing with another MNO without assumption.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
I thought only MNOs could post here?
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
Proposal owners, MNO's and people whitelisted by rango can post here. I suspect you fall in the last category. To enable the MNO flair see 'My Account - Edit Masternodes and enable ownership on at least one of your masternodes. That should make enable your MNO flair.
Reply
-1 point,22 days ago
I just see a whole lot of assumptions about Dash future price & spam behavior, about a lower proposal fee somehow triggering new ideas / new blood (eventhough Dash marketing has been lacking for years and people outside this Dash community are increasingly unfamiliar with Dash) and a rather pessimistic view that if more spam / low quality proposals were to occur due to Dash loosing value, Dash will be dead anyways.

Fact is that the Dash price is already dipping below $120 and if Bitcoin is really entering a bear market that will most likely negatively impact altcoins (including Dash) even more. Which means that going from 5 Dash to 1 Dash may very well undermine the proposal system anti-spam protection. Not to the point that it would cause the death of Dash, but to the point that voting partipication among masternode operators could drop even further.

Everything i read about your comment makes me think of my previous comment :

''I can't help but feel a lot of the comments supporting this proposal are based on an underbelly feeling, which to me seems influenced by personal assumptions and a somewhat pessimistic view (most likely due to the long altcoins bear market)''
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
>will hardly increase spam

The price of Dash may decline in a bear market in the future. We could even see $10. That wouldn't be a problem, in fact that would be great for investment.

But terrible for proposals since we're no longer a $10 coin.

>will increase smaller proposals

Yeah right but we don't want to do that, though. That's the point. I speak definitively not because "I'm always right" (au contraire the network has repeatedly ignored my advice on several topics including DashNigeria ((now defunct despite doing excellent work)), DashVenezuela, hiring George Scammelly, etc.), but because the network has voted no for this idea on THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS over the years. I think its time to give it a rest. And if you don't have any good rationale to support it, you should too.

>bring in the possibility of more DAOs to the network.

We don't have an issue with DAOs in the network. We are the ONLY coin with multiple DAOs. DAOs do not always seek continuous funding. If there's a bull market they stock up and may not need to come back to the network for months. We don't see whitebit or readyraider anymore, but that's no reason to foolishly assume they've left the network, e.g.

>the DCG, DIF, Incubator and a couple of small groups like Venezuela

Completely inaccurate, Venezuela is the largest Dash DAO and gets paid the most out of all DAOs. You are failing to take into account the difference in value Dash has in the US vs Venezuela. Venezuelans are recieving the U.S. equivalent of MILLIONS of DOLLARS A MONTH to spread adoption. And they have gifted us the most active users of any coin, so you are being dishonest and disingenuous when you ignore their DAOs and pretend like they are 'small'.

DashText, DashHelp and DashMallandParkingn are ALL in venezuela and they recieve a lot of fiat-value in Dash per month, so you're completely incorrect. You may wish to revise your posts and support as it is based on falsehood and errors.

> This brings with it stagnation of ideas.

Absolutely false. How can you postulate that the Dash proposal fee being 5 Dash instead of 1 is 'bringing a stagnation of ideas'?

That is ludicrous, I must ask, have you been paid, coerced or otherwise manipulated into taking this stance? Your rationales completely fall apart with even modest thought...leading me to believe you have been influenced to take this position.

>If we ever lose so much value because Dash continues to stagnate causing DDOS attacks on our proposal system, well, we're dead anyway

This is a non-sequitur and assumes that the market is rational and fairly evaluating Dash's price. This is in error. For one, most coins including Dash have very few fiat pairings and are thus priced relative to BTC, s.t. when BTC declines the price of Dash does too.

This precludes your rationale above from being correct because you assume that this can't happen, although it happens every day to every coin other than BTC. Again, willful ignorance of the truth is usually the tactic of those who have been bought off, which is why I asked above.

> Lets make more competition!

You haven't proven that that's what's going to happen or that the 5 Dash proposal fee is what's causing this.

You guys deliberately ignore MNOs who attack other proposals in regions they don't like like geert and lysergic, and you then blame their aggressive and abusive behavior on the 5 Dash proposal fee. You are deliberately gaslighting the network.

Fyi, if I'm correct this is grounds for dismissal from the network with prejudice.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
For someone advocating for "financial freedom" multiple times, you seem to have a strange addiction to USD. Not including the fact, you opening use and support Visa gatekeepers.

The amount of time you've put aside to be here makes me question your real motives. Maybe you are paid by the CIA.
Reply
-1 point,21 days ago
>For someone advocating for "financial freedom" multiple times, you seem to have a strange addiction to USD

What are you referring to here?

>Not including the fact, you opening use and support Visa gatekeepers.

How do you use your Dash every day?

>The amount of time you've put aside to be here makes me question your real motives.

If that's not the pot calling the kettle a cooking instrument! This isn't even your proposal! So what are you even doing here? You shouldn't even be allowed to comment since you don't apparently have a MN.

>Maybe you are paid by the CIA.

Projection. Now I know that you are. Thank you. I won't forget this.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
Aah, poor boy, being forgetful at such a convenient time, tut tut. You could just search this page for "financial freedom" to remind yourself what you said and how you poured scorn on others for denying it. Then, of course, you go and brag about your love for Uphold and Veriff, how you buy food at local retailers with the gatekeeper called Visa.

Asking me how I spend dash every day is misdirection. You ask this to avoid my direct accusations. For if you type enough, you will of successfully muddied the waters and pissed off enough people that they would just walk away from the whole thing.

It's not your proposal either so maybe you should fuck off as well. But mods have granted both you and me the privilege, nothing more.

You do seem to be preoccupied with my masternode status, why is that? Just ignore me if you think I don't have any.
Reply
-1 point,21 days ago
>Aah, poor boy, being forgetful at such a convenient time, tut tut.

Your comment was deliberately vague and I made a lot of arguments but you didn't respond to any of them. I guess that explains why you're so desperate to 'get a win'. This just makes you look pathetic.

>to remind yourself what you said and how you poured scorn on others for denying it.

Look if you're going to quote me quote me. I'm not going to argue against your speculation. Even trying to do something like that is completely disingenuous.

>your love for Uphold and Veriff,

I don't know anything about 'Veriff' but I do love uphold, no denying it. Its really awesome having a debit card with Dash! I had a shift card and a bitpay card and neither of them accepted Dash so I had to wait in order to spend after topping up.

With my uphold card I can just send Dash and its available within about 20 seconds for my spending (recognized instantly). What's wrong with that?

>Asking me how I spend dash every day is misdirection.

Its not. If you don't like uphold then how do you convert your Dash to goods and services where things like bitrefill and direct acceptance aren't available? Its completely relevant and I request you answer the question.

>You ask this to avoid my direct accusations.

You're lying and accusing me of this to avoid answering a pertinent question. The answer of which reveals that you're being a hypocrite, most likely.

>For if you type enough

This is a non-sequitur and doesn't follow from your previous sentence.

>It's not your proposal either so maybe you should fuck off as well.

No its not, but I'm an MNO YOU IDIOT! You don't appear to be and its not your proposal so why are you here SHILLING FOR IT?

You're supposedly not even part of the 'FAKE DashCollective' but you've spent the MOST energy defending the proposal, why? Because YOU'RE A SCUMBAG SHILL! That's why.

>But mods have granted both you and me the privilege, nothing more.

No. I can comment here because I'm a MNO. Mods don't give me anything. You comment here because you've been 'whitelisted' likely after 'leaning on' rango.

>You do seem to be preoccupied with my masternode status, why is that?

ONLY MNOS AND POS ARE SUPPOSED TO COMMENT HERE!

>Just ignore me if you think I don't have any.

You always argue like a shill. "If you don't like it just ignore it." Not, "if you don't like it, I'll change my ways". So you are definitely proving that you have ill-will towards the network and I thank you for this proof.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
Re:
>Look if you're going to quote me quote me

You have to explain this accusation:
>you seem to have a strange addiction to USD

How do I have an 'addiction' to the USD?

Merriam-Webster:

Addiction

- a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activity having harmful physical, psychological, or social effects and typically causing well-defined symptoms (such as anxiety, irritability, tremors, or nausea) upon withdrawal or abstinence : the state of being addicted.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. You have to PROVE that I have an 'addiction' (according to the meaning of the word) to USD. You can't just make a vague accusation and then claim "I'm dodging you". That's disingenuous. Either specify and prove your claim OR SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU STUPID LIAR!
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
>No its not, but I'm an MNO YOU IDIOT

I.e. ITS MY JOB to be here and interrogate shill idiots like you!
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
Your job apparently pays you very well to spend all your time here.

My job is simple, to keep you typing.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
>My job is simple, to keep you typing.

Unfortunately for you, I only do this as a hobby, so you will always fail in your objective. This is what I meant when I said that the monero community is the poster boy for 'wasted effort'.

:)
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
Trolling is your hobby? Surely someone is paying you?
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
>Trolling is your hobby?

I'm not trolling anyone. You are deliberately refusing to answer direct questions in a place of MN business even though you presumably don't have a MN. That's trolling.

Just the fact that you deliberately leave your status ambiguous so that you can 'attack others' when they bring it up ('Hey you don't know my status !') is trollish behavior.

You're right, I'm a MNO DUMBASS, so I'm paid by the Dash network to run my server and to be here.

WHO IS PAYING YOU??
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
Hello Mr DumbAss, nice to meet you.
Reply
-1 point,21 days ago
Anytime you want to stop posting while looking in the mirror, we'll be waiting for you to actually respond to these arguments.
Reply
-2 points,21 days ago
You used Veriff when you verified yourself with Uphold, no escaping it. You asked for permission on every spend. That is not "financial freedom".
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
>Its not. If you don't like uphold then how do you convert your Dash to goods and services where things like bitrefill and direct acceptance aren't available? Its completely relevant and I request you answer the question.

Still waiting for you to answer. I've answered all of your direct, non-manipulative questions. Yet you refuse to answer even the simplest questions. This is dishonest debating and it proves further that you're malicious and a bad actor.

That YOU DON'T CARE that you're proving yourself to be a bad actor, is itself proof that I was right about you and the nefarious nature of your agenda.
Reply
-1 point,21 days ago
>You used Veriff when you verified yourself with Uphold,

So what?

>You asked for permission on every spend. That is not "financial freedom".

You're wrong and using MANIPULATIVE ARGUMENTS.

I **FUCKING CHOSE** to use Uphold. Just like you can choose to use coinbase, binance, whatever. Financial freedom is about CHOICE! You're a manipulative lying asshole and you should get the FUCK OUT OF OUR NETWORK.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
Hahaha, triggered, nice!

It's like saying you choose to be in handcuffs, which I suppose is possible.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
You're a liar and you're disingenuous.

But thank you for exposing the fact that you've been trying to 'trigger' me.

ONLY SHILLS AND TROLLS WANT TO DO THAT!!

You just admitted to being a shill and a troll.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
Pretty sure you did it to yourself.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
Disingenuous. The phrase 'Triggered!' doesn't mean 'Self-triggered!'

It means YOU SUCCEEDED IN TRIGGERING ME and are celebrating it.

Which means your goal was to trigger a MNO in our place of business. Only trolls do that.

You just admitted to being a troll and YOU DON'T CARE!

Again, only trolls do that. Why does Rango allow this? This is clearly grounds for dismissal from here.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
lol, don't worry, soon you would of posted so much that all the level limits would of been filled.
Reply
-1 point,21 days ago
You continually refuse to respond to arguments.

I accept this as your admission that my accusations against you are correct.

Stop being corrupt and stop being a shill.
Reply
3 points,23 days ago
I think this proposal makes a lot of sense. I wish I have a masternode to vote “yes” for it. I lost my 5 dash (totaling $2,100 at then) in submitting a proposal that didn’t get voted in. I lost this amount for proposing to improve the network. This is part of the “DAO madness”. It’s crazy seeing the life of a DAO supporter becomes worse just because he is interested in improving the same DAO. I believe the altruistic masternodes will definitely be voting “YES” for this proposal. Thanks
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
At least as proposal owner you still have comment power in here (for life it seems). If that proposal fee is lowered to 1 dash then pretty much anyone can comment in here once they created a proposal.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
Why hasn't the network been given the chance to discuss this more thoroughly?
Reply
-1 point,15 days ago
I saw it discussed a bunch on the Dash.org forum. I tried to submit my own proposal in fact, but something went wrong with it.
Reply
-1 point,13 days ago
Yeah, I don't know how many people participate there. But the fact is these are implications that you're not letting the rest of the network deal with.

Ryan's reward-reallocation had lots of prep-work, community feedback and months of open planning and discussion on multiple forums. This is something that you guys just decided on your own and are trying very hard to keep us from looking at in detail.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
And most likely react the same way to loosing their 1 dash proposal fee in case of a proposal not passing, as you are doing with your 5 dash proposal fee. A lost is a lost after all.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
Comment power for life could be bought for just 1 Dash. Comment power to try to influence voting behavior and for example exploit the upvotes / downvotes of comments.
Reply
1 point,21 days ago
I don't think comments are part of the protocol, it's specific to DC.
Reply
-3 points,21 days ago
I don't think you have the right to force a change like this.
Reply
1 point,21 days ago
Am not capable of forcing change, you told me as much when you said I had two failed proposals. Which is it, I am forcing or incapable?
Reply
-1 point,21 days ago
>Am not capable of forcing change

So why won't you stop colluding behind the scenes trying? You failed twice already and yet you're trying again. That indicates you have both a forceful personality and a bad agenda for the network that you want to trick us into accepting, so that you cannot be blamed for the damage you cause.

>Which is it, I am forcing or incapable?

Both. You're *trying* to be forceful, but so far, you've failed. Its not black or white. Using false-dichotomies is a dishonest debating tactic and further confirms that you're a nefarious bad-actor.
Reply
1 point,21 days ago
But you said I have no masternode, how could I force the outcome? You think I have that much influence? lol
Reply
-1 point,21 days ago
>how could I force the outcome?

By engaging in the very tactics I've accused you of of course.

>You think I have that much influence? lol

You clearly have undue (coerced?) influence. You're admittedly not the PO, and you don't have a MN.

So what are you doing here? This question is not rhetorical.
Reply
0 points,21 days ago
So you actually admit that all the tactics you accuse me of don't actually correlate with 1 dash, 5 dash or 1000 dash. In your world 1 dash proposals will undermine governance but posting comments here at zero cost is coercive, deceitful and in your view effective.
Reply
-1 point,21 days ago
>So you actually admit that all the tactics you accuse me of don't actually correlate with 1 dash, 5 dash or 1000 dash

No, I never admitted anything like that.

>In your world 1 dash proposals will undermine governance but posting comments here at zero cost is coercive, deceitful and in your view effective.

Strawman, I didn't just accuse you of 'posting comments here'. And, posting comments is SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. Having loads of spam proposals is not. Non-sequitur.
Reply
1 point,21 days ago
You deny saying I was colluding, coercive and deceitful? You deny saying I was trying to exert influence? I don't understand, how could I possibly achieve these things when you say I have zero masternodes and no right to comment here. You said, "YOU SHOULD BE COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM OUR NETWORK TROLL!"

Why Why Why Mr Veriff, you say I do all these things yet I have no influence and no masternodes? How can I be harmful at zero cost yet 1 dash proposals is an attack vector? Please do explain your insanity to me.
Reply
-1 point,21 days ago
>You deny saying I was colluding, coercive and deceitful?

I never denied that. You are making self serving accusations based on your own assumptions.

You are definitely colluding, coercive and decietful and I have proven as much in these comments.

>I don't understand, how could I possibly achieve these things when you say I have zero masternodes and no right to comment here.

You are making false accusations by cynically assuming that this is the only place you can participate. I never said where you collude or how. Only that it is obvious that you do.

Just because I can't show where or how doesn't mean its not happening. This is fallacious reasoning and exposes you further than before as a bad actor.

>Why Why Why Mr Veriff,

The fact that you attack critical Dash infrastructure like Uphold, just like the monero community does, also exposes you as a shill.

>you say I do all these things yet I have no influence and no masternodes?

I never said you had no influence STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH ASSHOLE!

I explicitly said you have UNDUE influence, so you claiming I said that is FALSE! Putting words in other's mouths indicates that you're a forceful, agressive and manipulative person. You shouldn't behave that way here and you should be removed from commenting here!

>How can I be harmful at zero cost yet 1 dash proposals is an attack vector?

1. Because you're not a PO and you're apparently not a MNO, so why are you here? Why should you be allowed to comment here with neither of these things Mr. shill?

>Please do explain your insanity to me.

"It is impossible to explain to a man, what his salary dictates he ignore."
Reply
-5 points,23 days ago
What do you say to the possibility of spam making it harder to evaluate the proposals, like the 12 or so 24 months long proposals that just expired?
Reply
-1 point,15 days ago
Spam won't be a problem with a fee of 1 Dash @ 100+ USD / Dash.
It used to be 5 when Dash was just 7 USD (35 USD total).
Reply
-1 point,13 days ago
Yeah it will.

The network was much smaller back then and had fewer, less powerful enemies.

Further, SPAM IS A PROBLEM ALREADY at 5 Dash. We had 2 years of proposals that most MNOs considered spam. 'DashCrypto' was a disgruntled community member who tried to increase their influence over the network using Amanda B. Johnson's popularity and well-crafted Dash infomercials.

They were rejected and they RAGE-QUIT and those proposals represent the final evolution of that process. Two years we had to deal with that eyesore. And you are gaslighting the rest of the network by completely ignoring our objections to it. Which indicates I was right about you and you're compromised.
Reply
5 points,24 days ago
My first preference would be a flexible proposal fee which reacts to % of budget consumed on averaged across previous months - but I realise this is complicated and distracting from current dev work

My second preference would be to lower the fee to 2 or 3 dash before making the jump down to 1 dash

My third preference is to go straight to one dash to spite the deranged among us - but therealDashman21, you've forced my hand. Try not to have an aneurysm mid reply.
Reply
-2 points,23 days ago
>My third preference is to go straight to one dash to spite the deranged among us - but therealDashman21, you've forced my hand.

Voting for spite is the exact opposite of what MNOs are tasked to do. This is a form of emotional terrorism, i.e. if you don't 'behave' in a way that itheringblidiot (very nice name) wants, he's going to vote against the best interests of the network. That's terrorism and it mirrors exactly what I predicted all these years.
Reply
3 points,23 days ago
Lmao terrorism?

Dude that's part of arguing. If you alienate people with what your saying your going to calcify them in the opposite direction.

Plus he's saying its his third preference ie: he prefers it to the way things are now.
Reply
-4 points,23 days ago
>Dude that's part of arguing.

Not a legitimate argument, no its not. That you don't know this should disqualify you from participating, by your gang seems to want to coddle the ineffective and lazy so that Dash becomes less effective as a result.

>If you alienate people with what your saying your going to calcify them in the opposite direction.

That's not how this works. There are two positions to take on this proposal. As a MNO you are REQUIRED to take the position that is in the best interest of the network.

TAKING A POSITION OUT OF SPITE IS INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AND GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL FROM THE NETWORK!

>Plus he's saying its his third preference ie: he prefers it to the way things are now.

Its annoying that you people come out of the woodworks to 'defend' each other. I get that you're all colluding together but couldn't you at least defend yourselves instead? CORRUPTION IS CORROSIVE.
Reply
1 point,23 days ago
Oh, you're delusional. Okay carry on then.
Reply
-1 point,23 days ago
Nice projection.
Reply
-3 points,23 days ago
I mean, even the fact that you think that's a legitimate response to my argument is delusional. So yeah, projection.
Reply
-1 point,23 days ago
>TAKING A POSITION OUT OF SPITE IS INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AND GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL FROM THE NETWORK!

This would be like the captain of a boat deliberately running his ship aground because he got into an argument with the cook. Its delusional, irrational and childish behavior and we should be wary of ANY who seek to foster such a culture in Dash.
Reply
-3 points,23 days ago
*But your gang seems...
Reply
-1 point,24 days ago
'My first preference would be a flexible proposal fee which reacts to % of budget consumed on averaged across previous months - but I realise this is complicated and distracting from current dev work'

Which is why it would have been better to just do this whole discussion after Dash Platform has been released to mainnet and all possible options in combination with increasing voting participation can be properly researched. Instead we have this rush job.
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
Note, DashQueenApp is the user 'FixTheProposalFee' from the so-called 'DashCollective'...Also note how their username assumes that the fee is broken with no evidence...made up of 6 people (7 if you include grandmasterDash). Do you see the deception? How can you honestly call yourselves a/the 'DashCollective' when you only represent 6 members of the community?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collective
>Definition of collective

(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole

So calling yourselves the 'DashCollective' when you only have 6 community members out of 140,000 total active members in the last 30 days is completely dishonest and manipulative.

It seems they're trying to make it seem like there is more consensus on this issue than there is, which is disingenuous and malicious behavior.

Claiming to speak for others, while ironically accusing the other side of this, is deceptive and manipulative behavior and should have no place in the Dash network.

The problem is that corruption is endemic in other coin communities because they don't have a mechanism to pay people from the blockchain, so they are easier to manipulate, bribe, whatever.

But in Dash, that problem has been largely solved quite swimmingly. Even after years of trying, this is literally the best they can do. Bitcoin core is already coopted since 2014 and turned into bankster coin.

Same for monero (started out as cynical-lol-manipulation-coin), and even BCH has been corrupted and forced to take on scammers and liars like George Donnelly.

So with all that as a backdrop, and I do apologize for both the length of this comment and the total number of comments necessary to respond to these shills, I want to say this.

Look at how abrasive, aggressive and irrational user DashQueenApp, i.e. 'FixTheProposalFee' from the proposal submitter group,

https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/o42vyv/the_dash_investment_foundation_dif_and_dash_core/

DashQueenApp
Op ·
22d

>What do you base your opinion on?

>A simple thought experiment. Internet stranger says something mean vs. internet stranger makes you lose 5 dash. Which is worse?

>From my own personal experience (for a funded proposal) the risk of losing 5 dash amplifies all the mean bullshit. **If it was a smaller proposal fee, proposal owners would have a much less visceral reaction from abuse**

What kind of bullshit rationale is this?

'Man these people sure are hostile and mean to me. But at least my proposal only costs 1 Dash instead of 5! I'm so relieved!! (??)'

Normal people don't think this way. Only SHILLS do. Because its irrational and being irrational is a requirement of being a shill. Because again, normal people can't deal with others who are deliberately being irrational.

It confuses and scares them so they just avoid. Just like they attacked and attacked brand new proposals with their stupid fucking discord cabal and now they want to blame the result of that behavior on the 5 Dash fee. Irrational.

This user DashQueenApp literally just made the argument that people would rather take unjustified verbal abuse at 1 Dash than at 5 Dash...That's FUCKING PREPOSTEROUS!

Nobody wants to pay to be 'abused' except degenerates. Being abused is a bad thing and the normal mind and body will run away from such behavior.

DashQueenApp and others on this proposal have deliberately attempted to foster a CULTURE OF ABUSE! Where they get to YELL AT YOU and keep on badgering you UNTIL YOU DO WHAT THEY WANT!

This is not how the DAO is designed to operate and it exposes these people as malicious bad actors, shills and infiltrators. It really is as simple as that.
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
>Where they get to YELL AT YOU and keep on badgering you UNTIL YOU DO WHAT THEY WANT!

And for those who think this ironic and hypocritical, remember I am only abrasive with people whom I can PROVE are malicious bad actors. I explicitly and DELIBERATELY take as respectful and jovial a tone as possible with everyone else, because that's how you show people respect.

I only explicitly and purposefully show disrepect to people who I can PROVE are bad actors attacking the network. Of course, yelling and badgering these people, even to the point of absolute mental breakdown (here's looking at you flenst you stupid piece of shit) is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED by the principle of self-defense.

Civility for civility's sake is an attack and a child's way of thinking. Civility must be EARNED by the passing over the exceptionally low bar of not being a slimy, manipulative piece of shit.
Reply
-2 points,22 days ago
>Nobody wants to pay to be 'abused' except degenerates. Being abused is a bad thing and the normal mind and body will run away from such behavior.

The solution to this problem of course is to GET RID OF THE ABSUIVE ASSHOLES attacking POs (that DQA acknowledges exist, but damningly doesn't criticize or even consider), not lower the fee!

Even now, on the DCG biz dev prop. you can see MNOs ATTACKING OUR BURGEONING GROWTH IN VENEZUELA!

Why would anyone who owns a masternode and is supposed to be pro-Dash do something like that? Because they're SHILLS from other coins ATTACKING US using emotional manipulation and terrorism.

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/DashCoreGroupBizDevJuneJuly

>BlueMoon
1 point,21 days ago
Thank you Ernesto for the reply.

>I'm afraid that tweet doesn't verify or show any organic growth, adoption, or usage of Dash in Venezuela.

'BlueMoon' (DeepBlue alt?) here LIES and pretends to not see the evidence of Dash's growth in Venezuela. Even though there are countless articles from cointelegraph and other sources, data from DashWatch and all over twitter confirming our growth and usage in Venezuela!

"It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a man to see, what his salary requires he ignore."
Reply
0 points,23 days ago
If one thinks reducing the fee is a bad idea they have not won and lost in the treasury system and reflected on it with market conditions.

No, this reflective person shall boldly proclaim that a diverse set of proposals covering as many specific angles as possible is a brilliant situation to be in.

We do this by making ideas to communicate and execute cheap. I would not pay a $500 eth gas fee to participate in a roll of the dice contract-this I know.

Minimal fees, maximum community welcomeness.
Reply
0 points,23 days ago
The problem with shills and other lowlifes is that they only care about THEIR *NEXT* meal. That's it. They have no scruples, principles or positive intentions towards anyone but themselves.

Having the opportunity to expose and rid ourselves of these people is obviously a very welcome blessing.
Reply
6 points,25 days ago
We have seen how high proposal fees have worked out. Our budget and community has become too stagnant. Making it more approachable will hopefully bring in new blood, ideas, and growth.

Voting yes!
Reply
-1 point,23 days ago
Absolutely agree! One should not tremble approaching the masternodes with the chance of losing the monthly mortgage payment on an extremely mercurial set of judges.
Reply
0 points,23 days ago
The DASH DAO is NOT a charity!

We do not want people who can't afford their mortgage payments making proposals. We don't want people who are financially compromised making proposals.

The DAO exists to benefit THE DASH NETWORK, not every one with a financial problem. If you're not financially stable (as proven by easily being able to afford 5 Dash or at least being able to crowdfund such efforts) then you can't really offer much help to Dash. Especially as it grows bigger and bigger.

We don't need 100 Joel valenzuelas sitting in thier living rooms blathering on about nothing that matter. Hell, we didn't even need the ONE of those that we did have!

We want moderately-sized initiatives. We want proposals to grow in size and scope with the Dash network. OPEN ACCESS TO THE POOR WAS NEVER A DESIGN GOAL FOR THE DAO! They can get DASH from a successful proposal that will exchange adoption for DASH. That's fine because its a mutually beneficial agreement.

But the 'bchamz' of the world WANT TO HAVE A ONE-SIDED agreement with the DAO. They want to collect money WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING substantial, just like Joel did for years!

This is malicious behavior and it is an ATTACK.
Reply
-1 point,24 days ago
'Our budget and community has become too stagnant'

So everything that happened to Dash can be pointed to one singular cause ? Too high proposal fees ?

Not to the altcoins bear market ? Not the the total lack of marketing ever since Dash Force got defunded, causing Dash News and Discover Dash to get disbanded ? Not to people flocking to Bitcoin during the Bitcoin halving ?
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
The proposal fee does not need to be the singular cause of these things in order for it to still be a good idea to lower it.
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
i don't think that dropping the proposal fee from 5 Dash to 1 Dash is the answer and i also don't think that dropping the fee is the only way forward. Beside you (and Andy) almost everyone in here blames the low budget proposal activity solely on the proposal fee, which is simply not correct.

The proposal fee was not a problem during the rise and fall of the 2017 bullrun, and it is not a problem now (it is even cheaper now).

Data to back this up :

Time period 4 juni 2017 - 15 aug 2018
Dash price : from $143 pumped to $1500 and then dumped to $153

Budget proposals created between 4 June 2017 - 17 aug 2018
Link : https://imgur.com/a/Y3XuN5b

I really want to explore other options / other ways and not stare blindly at the proposal fee.
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
Interest in the treasury has waned to the point now where the DIF is coming in every month to mop up the remaining amount. In general, when you tax an activity, you get less of it. The fee reduction will not solve this, but right now is a time when reducing the barrier to entry is more important than reducing spam.

Look at Decred - their proposal fee is 0.1 DCR which is just $12, a whole order of magnitude lower than what is being proposed here. They are not having a problem with spam, and they are actually a similarly sized project now compared to Dash.
Reply
0 points,23 days ago
>Look at Decred

1. Decred has a different architecture with 'moderators' that prevent spam, its not the same as Dash at all.

2. Decred is not similarly sized as Dash. Decred has very few users, far less transactions and on-chain volume.

Relying on superficial metrics to the exclusion of other data points is disingenuous and reeks of an attack.
Reply
1 point,23 days ago
Something tells me the market will helps us with reducing the barrier to entry all on its own in the next few months. I rather see us focus on increasing voting participation among masternode operators and use general marketing to attract new users.

The previous poll in 2017 about reducing the proposal fee from 5 Dash to 1 Dash had 1522 votes, lets see how many votes this proposal will end up having.
Reply
-1 point,23 days ago
Id say $12 is much more realistic.
Reply
0 points,23 days ago
Right so its easier to scam the DAO out of money to grease the palms of 'your friend tommy the stripclub owner' right?

You disgust me.
Reply
0 points,25 days ago
Some of the concern I see in the comments over higher levels of spam and junk proposals getting voted on could be mitigated if we had passed a version of the block reward reallocation.
Reply
0 points,25 days ago
or easier yet, simply presenting/ranking proposals by number of yes votes on dashcentral and dashnexus
Reply
-3 points,25 days ago
Right. You guys continuously want us to 'filter spam' for some reason.

I think the reason is because the Monero community is loaded with spam. The original FFS was loaded with dozens of spam posts as well as their gitlab:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/ohp98b/github_repo_status/

>'understand that decision was undertaken to reduce spam, but I wonder if the policy does more harm than good. For one thing, the spam continues, as anyone can see by browsing pull requests.'

So it seems that the monero community is once again trying to project their problems onto our network. The problem? The 5 Dash fee is too high.
Reply
-3 points,25 days ago
More shilling for bullshit.

You guys are really going all out with these unjustified changes.

So, instead of giving 'our side' what we want, which is the reason for this change, you instead give us MORE OF WHAT YOU WANT.

This is cynicism and is the behavior of scissor-statement participants. Trying to force everyone on 'a side' over a 'trivial dispute' in order to disrupt the network.

Usually scissor statements don't work on neutral people. But I think that only works when all participants are rational and actually invested in the outcome (i.e. really care about Dash).

People who have sold out have already 'decided' they will split because their self-interest has now become aligned with this idea.

Cryptocurrencies need to defeat shills, concern trolling, psychological manipulation and conflict of interest in order to survive long-term. How exciting, if we beat these people, we'll be unstoppable!!!
Reply
-3 points,25 days ago
>Our budget and community has become too stagnant.

How can you say this? We routinely see 90% treasury utilization rates every month.

There is no requirement for 'new entrants' per month and even if so, there is no proof that the fee at 5 Dash would hinder that.

So we have a concern trolled change, because these 'concerns' have not been sourced. Not only that, but there is no social contract specifiying what metric should be used to judge the ideal proposal fee.

We don't need 'new' ideas, we need to focus on the ones we have, imo.
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
"We don't need 'new' ideas, we need to focus on the ones we have, imo."

And hows that been working out for us? You're accusing people here of being trolls... with that statement you're bringing yourself under the same question.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
>And hows that been working out for us?

Very well actually! Have you not listened to the quarterly calls? Dash has 140,000 active android users in the last 30 days! Unfortunately, DashWatch has been coerced into hiding this data so that I can't make this argument, but it has to be put out there somewhere and I got it! ;)

So you're wrong. It is working out for us well. To recap, in Venezuela in 2019 we had around 6000 active android wallets. By sept 2020 it was 71,000! More than 10x growth! That was thanks to DASH MALL AND PARKING, DASHTEXT, DASH HELP and DASH VENEZUELA.

**ALL OF WHOM** were paid by longstanding proposals to the DAO.

SO IT HAS BEEN WORKING OUT SWIMMINGLY AND YOU DO YOURSELF NO FAVORS BY PRETENDING OTHERWISE.

ONLY SHILLS AND DASH'S HATEFUL COMPETITION DO THAT!

>with that statement you're bringing yourself under the same question.

Preposterous! You guys HAVE TO PROVE the assertion that "we need a constant stream of new proposals or bad".

You have NOT proven that! So you claiming that as you did IRONICALLY is PROJECTION because arguing something that you can't and didn't prove is DISHONEST DEBATING, i.e. TROLL TACTICS!
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
sounds like you're just buying into cherry picked metrics that put a gloss on things....go check active addresses, tx count, mtf, mtv, and these are going in the wrong direction. The current stratgies are clearly not working. They're born from the gov system itself, having it ringfenced with a high fee to get involved is just limiting the people and making it harder to fixed these failing strategies.
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
I am still failing to see how our 5 Dash proposal fee has directly affected our active addresses, tx count, median transaction value and mtf (whatever that is) over the years.

Here is an overview of above mentioned metrics : https://imgur.com/a/yrvIMAf
Source : bitinfocharts.com

Are you saying if Dash put 1 Dash as proposal fee from the start instead of 5 Dash proposal fee, these metrics would have been different ? Can you actually prove this or is this just assuming ?

I am also failing to see how our government system has limited people over the years when 4 years of data just shows a very healthy number of proposals have been created over the years (535 proposals)

Here is an overview of the number of budget proposals over the years :

https://imgur.com/a/WkF27uY
https://imgur.com/I5Zqm2g

Source : https://www.dashninja.pl/governance.html
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
No i'm saying that the Gov is a marketplace where people sell ideas to improve Dash for funding from the blockchain.

What has happened is that for anything 'official' it's become monopolized so any prices can be set and you get what you're given with no alternatives.

The 5 Dash fees isn't the cause obvs but it is one way to try to redress this now... it helps competition because the barrier to entry is lower.
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
...and this applies to all DFOs not just DCG. The more liquid the Gov marketplace is the more value it will deliver.
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
So if the 5 Dash proposal fee is not the cause and possibly only marginally fixes things and as result possibly introduce spam and low-quality proposals, then why do it in the first place ? Why not research other ways first ?
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
..not to take away from the DFOs you mention. There's a lot of smart and talented people in Dash. we just need to keep attracting more, which is why im supporting this.
Reply
-1 point,24 days ago
Right but you have to PROVE

1. That there is a problem, we have 12 active proposals, how many do you want to see before you're satisfied? Not a rhetorical question

2. That the 5 Dash fee is what causes #1 (after you've proven that it's even happening).

>just need to keep attracting more

Where is your evidence of people who want to participate but cannot due to the fee being 5 Dash?
Reply
-1 point,24 days ago
>sounds like you're just buying into cherry picked metrics that put a gloss on things

Do you deny that Dash has seen massive growth in Venezuela?

>go check active addresses, tx count, mtf, mtv, and these are going in the wrong direction

According to Ryan Taylor on the most recent quarterly call YOU ARE WRONG! They are not only going in the right direction, but they have been doing so for 5 quarters now!

At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi1xo54jNNA&t=14m, you can clearly see that Ryan Taylor states that economic transactions on the network have grown, along with a growth in active addresses **despite** a pull back in private send use.

That means YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE THE ONE CHERRY-PICKING AND PROJECTING THAT ONTO ME. I await your reply to this evidence...

> The current stratgies are clearly not working

There is no proof of this assertion, which is why I call it a shill's assertion. Because without proof we just have to take your bought and paid for word for it.

>They're born from the gov system itself, having it ringfenced with a high fee to get involved is just limiting the people and making it harder to fixed these failing strategies.

Where is your proof for this? Not speculation PROOF?
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
You're quoting me a PR video as evidence when i'm giving you blockchain data. Newsflash but DCG can't ever say anything bad because it would be perceived as negative PR. It exists to perpetuate itself. This is an example of why centralization is bad. This project needs to start to care about decentralization again, caring about and growing *****users***** not Masternode owners, or the slide will continue. We have everything we need to do that in the form of making Dash easy to use and access within totally new usecases but its a sideshow... people like yourself who just believe anything you're told and ignoring the obvious problems and actively fighting against the solutions, you're part of the problem.
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
I am confused, the Quarterly Calls are presented with data directly from the blockchain, whole slides are presented there with data directly from the blockchain. The Quartely Calls are there to serve as feedback to the Dash community and keep communication open with the community, it is not a PR tool. The Dash community demanded communication and feedback from DCG, which DCG is delivering through these Quarterly Calls.

''Newsflash but DCG can't ever say anything bad because it would be perceived as negative PR. It exists to perpetuate itself''

That is nonsense. It does show you have become very biased against DCG and its methods of keeping communication open towards the Dash community.
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
I'm unhappy with the communication yes because it's not providing an accurate picture. The core value proposition of Evolution is has and is being sidelined **for years** both strategically and in terms of resources. In Incubator at this point we've had to basically stop what we were doing and start doing what DCG isn't doing and we've had top talent leave recently who've lost patience. And the features that will actually restore Dash's prominence aren't even scheduled in the DCG roadmap because the leadership has a different strategy. This is **not** being communicated by DCG, because if the community was aware of this misalignment of strategy it would have the opportunity to correct it... But like everyone else this just goes unsaid because nobody (including myself) ever wants to point these things out.

In terms of metrics, yes on a quarterly basis there is a slow increase in some adoption metrics, but not what I would have expected this far into the project and with the innovation we have... and if you zoom into the last few months most of these have reversed drastically which calls into question there use as a key metric in the first place.
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
Sounds more like a misalignment between where DCG currently is with regards to its roadmap and your own expectations and plans for the incubator. And a misaligned between what you think are prominent features and what DCG think are necessary features that need to be included with the Dash Platform release and other features that come at a later phase.

That by itself does not mean that DCG communication is providing an inaccurate picture. DCG after all, only communicates about itself and its operations / financials to the Dash community.
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
what are the items missing from the DCG roadmap?
Reply
-1 point,24 days ago
>You guys are accepting bribes or otherwise being 'leaned on' to SAY BULLSHIT like calling the quarterly calls a 'PR video'.

I mean, how disingenuous can you be?

First its, 'Dash sucks at marketing'. Now its, 'Every quarterly call is a PR video where nothing bad can be said". Well that sounds like really good marketing! So which is it?

Doublespeak. Speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. These are the tactics of shills, liars and manipulated people. Because if you believe doublespeak ITS BASICALLY YOUR FAULT.

Obviously, using this tactic means that you're not acting in good faith towards the other network participants.
Reply
-1 point,24 days ago
>You're quoting me a PR video

You don't have the right to claim that an official Dash core quarterly call is a 'PR video'. Are you not a member fo the Dash community? If so, then WHY are you so hostile towards our DAOs, and other participants? Claiming that the quarterly call is a 'PR video' is extremely disingenuous.

>giving you blockchain data.

Where did you give me any blockchain data?

Take a look at the video at the timestamp. There is ACTUAL blockchain data CONFIRMING quarterly growth of active addresses and transactions for 5 QUARTERS.

Either bring evidence that proves that wrong OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!

>Newsflash but DCG can't ever say anything bad

Newsflash but DCG has had to report 'bad news' basically every quarter until recently. You can tell you haven't been watching the quarterly calls. Fired positions, declines in price, reasons for that decline, possible mitigations, ALL OF THESE THINGS have been OPENLY and FRANKLY discussed on these calls, as well as having an open Q&A session from the community.

If you don't have any fidelity to the truth then nobody has to take your arguments seriously. You're deliberately lying in an attempt to gain 'advantage' over your readers by making them 'trust you'. We're not here for your cult of personality. We're here for honest digital cash and by that Dash has been growing Quarter on quarter. PROVE OTHERWISE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!

> It exists to perpetuate itself.

The same can be said of most every successful institution and public service, so this is also a bad and dishonest argument from you.

I have to say I'm quite disappointed in you Mr. Freer.

I can tell that you're doing this as a way to make me 'appear wrong'. Because you and the ones behind this know that I have supported your efforts before, along with DashRetail's AshFrancis, you think you can use me as a wrecking ball to do the community-wide destruction that you were unable to accomplish since Donnelly got his ugly stupid ass kicked out of the network.

UNFORTUNATELY for you, I do not 'admire you' or 'look up to you'. I only evaluate your work based on its merits. So you attempting to use the emotional pain of causing me to 'turn' on a 'former supported member of the community' actually is backfiring.

Because you're proving with every lie that I was correct; we have not only infiltrated masternodes, but infiltrated DAO members. You guys are accepting bribes or otherwise being 'leaned on' to SAY BULLSHIT like calling the quarterly calls a 'PR video'.

>caring about and growing *****users*****

Again, BY QUARTERLY TRANSACTION, ACTIVE ADDRESS AND OTHER METRICS DASH IS CONSTANTLY GROWING EVERY QUARTER. Doggedly sticking your head in the sand and ignoring this only proves that you have a nefarious agenda that won't allow you to acknowledge the truth.

The blatantness and brazenness of this attack is refreshing as you guys have been slinking around in the background now for years. It is about time you showed yourselves.

>Not Masternode owners,

MNO is DOWN recently. Everything you say is the opposite of the truth.

>or the slide will continue

What slide? You have been proven wrong, we are still growing every quarter.

> We have everything we need to do that in the form of making Dash easy to use and access within totally new usecases but its a sideshow

Yawn... you're not even saying anything now...

>people like yourself who just believe anything you're told

Youv'e clearly never argued with me before. Or you know this is false and intend to 'bait me'. I don't care about your personal opinion however, so this won't work either. See what I meant when I say your community is the posterboy for 'wasted effort'?

>ignoring the obvious problems

I don't ignore real problems, only concern trolling.

The fact that you guys are trying to FORCE US to accept concern trolling just so you can 'get a win against me' shows what lousy lowlives are behind this, that's all.

>you're part of the problem.

Projection. So much projection.
Reply
-4 points,24 days ago
> The current stratgies are clearly not working

If Dash is continually growing Quarter after Quarter during bear market or bull while our competition continues to languish, then how can you say this?
Reply
4 points,25 days ago
Personally I'd see some kind of mechanism where if the X amount of votes are favorable for change up/down the existing fee goes next cycle lowered/uppered by 1 Dash. This could be managed month by month, if the minimum amount is not reached the fee remains on the same level from the previous cycle.
Anyway I'm in favor on this one.
Some people never reached to the Dash DAO because of the high entry of even creating the proposal and fear of loosing 5 Dash if the proposal does not pass.
Reply
-1 point,24 days ago
When even a proposal called 'pizza for everyone' made it into our budget system, i have difficulty believing the proposal fee ever formed a real barrier to entry. Also take a look at all the other proposals that were created in those 4 years :

Link : https://imgur.com/a/WkF27uY
Reply
-6 points,25 days ago
>some kind of mechanism

More changes without cause or justification. Complexity for complexity sake. Unecessary 'tinkering' with the ostensible goal of seeming important, and the real one of hiding your collusive behaviors.

>Some people never reached to the Dash DAO

Who?
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
If you lower the fee to 1 Dash, my buddies and I are going to submit 50000 proposals. The SPAM will be too much and will bring Dash to its knees. To its KNEES! Dash will be permanently damaged from that. The master fuckin plan finally achieved, mission complete. Thank you monero for the funding!
Reply
0 points,23 days ago
If that were true you would of submitted 10000 proposals at 5 dash each, that too would of ground things to a halt.

Be my guest, literally bun your money for all to see.
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
A reduction of over 0.25% of the supply of Dash is actually a positive outcome for Dash owners.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
and a negative outcome for voting participation. I am less willing to keep participathing in Dash governance system if its getting overrun with spam and low quality budget proposals that linger in the budget system for the next 48 months. Emasil spam can be easily deleted, budget proposal spam not.
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
You are making wild assumptions based on nothing, we've never had spam, not when the price was $35 at the bear market bottom, nor during the bull run of 2021, so why would you expect more spam at $133 a pop compared to the covid dip back in march when it cost just $35x5=$175 to post a proposal? Do you really think someone is going to spend $100 to spam this DAO? Sounds like a waste of funds to me.
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
If you want to call budget proposals that were massively downvoted and had a large number of no votes, but were still in our face for 24 months because of their time period not spam proposals .. fine.

At least normal spam can be deleted, with our current voting participation that is almost impossible. Which we saw with the dashcrypto proposals.
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
Sort it by net votes - easy.

How many spam proposals do you anticipate happening? If it's 5x the amount we had previously (which is almost nothing), that is definitely manageable without even needing to make any changes to our interfaces.

It's true that it makes no sense that a 24 month proposal has the same fee as a 1 month proposal, but that's a separate issue.
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/regarding-the-proposal-to-reduce-the-proposal-fee-meta.51799/#post-227343
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
correction : 24 months
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
Is that you Icey ?
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
Ah sarcasm, the only way to have a reasonable, logical debate!
Reply
8 points,25 days ago
I'm fucking voting for this primarily because SOME people are afraid to make ANY changes to Dash core anymore. A bunch of timid frightened people that are so conservative they don't realize what made Dash great in the first place.

1 Dash/proposal most likely means more work for the MNOs reviewing more proposals, paying for more oversight. I suspect the first badly written non-verifiable non-custodian proposals wouldn't pass anyway. We don't do that anymore. Hell, lets see what happens!!!
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
That's the spirit!
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
Glad to see all the shills agree together to manufacture consensus. This is awesome! Dash is literally fighting at the forefront of modern psychological manipulation techniques against master manipulators, liars conflicted interest individuals, I can't wait to see who wins!
Reply
1 point,25 days ago
You know what? I'm starting to come around to this idea. I think I had it all wrong. If and when this proposal passes I will start creating decision proposals:

Prop 1: Deprecate InstantSend immediately.
Prop 2: Remove CoinJoin functionality from network and QT wallet immediately.
Prop 3: Official Censure of Ash Francis for non-performance in two DAO funded projects.

I think I can come up with a couple more. Give me time.
Reply
1 point,25 days ago
Oh thank god, you get it now. Good for you. You know we never agree but I really don't mind you testing the boundaries because I have faith the overall direction will always win even though we lose some battles along the way.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
For a long time I have kept quiet about things here that make no sense because I thought, "Ryan is a genius. He'll be able to lead the project to success." But guess what? Ryan is not in charge of anything. He could not even get the DAO to implement the simplest, benign change that would allow the miners and MNOs to share in unspent treasury funds.

It's not Ryan's fault. There are community members here who covet treasury funds (even though they're completely incompetent or worse -- have no intention of providing value back to the DAO). Out of envy and greed and malice, they will oppose Ryan EVEN WHEN HE HAS A GREAT IDEA.

And that's not all. It's apparent now that the dopey developers we have imagine that THEY are actually in charge of the project.

Am I wrong?
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
Not wrong. For sure I don't agree with everything Ryan/DCG says but I'm happy to give credit where it's due. I know he cares deeply about dash and I'm confident we have good people here to work through this.
Reply
-1 point,25 days ago
There is no one here who can make the tough decisions necessary to correct the project. Evan's original vision was flawed and needs to be adjusted to reflect the realities of the crypto marketplace as it exists TODAY.

CoinJoin is holding us back. All it does is give institutions a reason to reject us. We can fund a Dash version of the Wasabi wallet and give people the ability to mix coins if they wish, but CoinJoin cannot remain part of the core protocol. We need to issue a press release ASAP that says we're throwing it away.

InstantSend cannot possibly scale and needs to go as well. Pasta told Joel that one day they hope to implement some kind of fee marketplace so that the network is not paralyzed when we have eighteen transactions per second. It would never occur to pasta that the right answer is to remove this ill-conceived gimmick that Evan invented.
Reply
-3 points,25 days ago
And the shilling never stops...
Reply
-1 point,24 days ago
A one line response from therealDashman21. I win!

But seriously, I am not saying these things to be mean or to because I like to shit on the developers. IS can't scale and so it is therefore a toy. There are much more interesting things we can do with LLMQ than InstantSend.
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
>A one line response from therealDashman21. I win!

I have already explained and proven that you're a liar that attacks proposals that you have interests against, like you're completely unjustified attacks on DashRetail.

You would think you could take this opportunity to ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG now that the POS and NFC cards are distributed and active in Venezuela.

Nope, just like the slimy shill piece of shit I proved you to be, you slink away and pretend that never happened. Because you're not a real man and you have no honor.
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
That fact that you couldn't and still refuse to admit you were wrong about that is proof enough for me that your complaints against IS are more anti-DCG fud from a lousy piece of shit liar.
Reply
-1 point,24 days ago
Still shilling for DashRetail?

Let's all go visit https://www.dashretail.org and https://app.dashretail.org and see what we paid for.

- No top level website.
- No terms of service.
- No user agreement.
- Who's hosting it? Can't say.

DashRetail was never released.
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
You said DashRetail was a scam. Its not shilling to defend honest work from LIARS AND PIECES OF SHIT LIKE YOU.

You said the POS wouldn't arrive. It did. You can't admit you're wrong because shilling doesn't work if they can't get you under them!

So that's why they're always fucking lying, because when you believe a liar ITS YOUR FAULT!
Reply
-3 points,24 days ago
And btw, I'm not affiliated with DashRetail at all. I have never had any contact with AshFrancis or his team that I can recall outside of public comments here on DashCentral.

So there's no way I can be a shill because I'm not affiliated with or rewarded the people I'm defending. Shilling requires a SECRET connection that you hide from those you are trying to shill to.

Shills hate that there is a word that describe what they're doing, so they deliberately try to muddy the waters by claiming "any and all advocacy is 'shilling'".

Nope, that's not fair and its manipulative. There is NOTHING wrong with self-interest. There is NOTHING WRONG with advocating for things you believe in.

THE CRIME AND ERROR AND EVIL of shilling comes from HIDING YOUR ASSOCIATION SO THAT PEOPLE CAN'T TAKE YOUR SELF INTEREST INTO ACCOUNT.

Like what you all on this proposal are doing.

Imagine being THIS UPSET by the Dash proposal fee being 5 Dash.

Who would feel that way? People who want to abuse the DAO and fill it with spam to make shitcoins like NANO (months long spam attack) and Monero (also months long spam attack earlier this year, along with forum and gitlab spam) look better. That's who.
Reply
-3 points,25 days ago
>faith

Right. This is the second time 'trust' has been promoted here, in a trustless, decentralized network.

This is what shilling and conflict of interest mean. They mean you no longer stand for what you originally stood for.

This is why blockstream was able to turn BTC from p2p cash to (non-working, centralized) lightning hub to lightning hub.

Shills HATE whatever they're shilling against, and they do their best to FORCE THE OPPOSITE of the original social contract as a form of destruction.
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
Presently at 5 dash, you are assessing proposals and putting some faith behind the people in your Yes votes. You will do the same when it's 1 dash, correct?
Reply
-3 points,25 days ago
> putting some faith behind the people in your Yes votes.

No. I do not put 'faith' behind people in my Yes votes. I use evidence to vote only.

>You will do the same when it's 1 dash, correct?

Again, the fact that you're so certain this 'will pass' indicates that I was correct and you guys have been on the discord colluding together and bribing people like TanteStefana (after giving them a 'rockstar push' to make it seem like they have more influence than they do, classic shill behavior btw).

This is why conflict of interest is so bad, it turns 'all for one and one for all' into 'every man for themselves!' And people start lying and saying things that aren't true.

You don't have the right to force us to accept a 1 Dash fee without proper justification.

The fact that you are trying this is further proof that I was right, you're a shill. You may not have been paid YET but you are certainly using all manner of psychological manipulation to win. Like saying "When it is 1 Dash", you're basically trying to make it seem like a done deal.

Because you've abandoned the processes of the DAO in favor of corruption.
Reply
1 point,25 days ago
First of all, I don't use discord, I don't like the format. I don't really like DCs format either but I put up with it to get my entertainment from you.

Secondly, no one is forcing you to accept 1 dash proposals, just don't vote on them. You can vote on the 5 dash proposals, if you want of course, no one is forcing you.
Reply
-3 points,25 days ago
>up with it to get my entertainment from you.

Sure. Discord forums reddit, you can't dismiss my claim by focusing on a technicality like whichever venue the collusion takes place on. The point is that its happening, not where its happening. Like I said, red-herring arguments. You are just dishonest.

>Secondly, no one is forcing you to accept 1 dash proposals, just don't vote on them.

Even this sentence from you is a "fait acompli" where you don't even acknoweldge the possibility that it won't pass.

The only way you could be so certain you would succeed is if you have been colluding together with enough MNOs (bribing, threatening whatever) to guarantee votes.

Which means you don't actually care about the Dash network, you care more about 'getting your agenda passed' than fact-finding whether or not this is beneficial for the network.

>no one is forcing you to accept 1 dash proposals,

You're trying to force us by not accepting the MNOs 'No' answer twice now, and bribing/coercing others into supporting your agenda. You're my enemy. Nice to meet you.
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
If the venue wasn't important, why did you even bother mentioning it? But no, I didn't collude with others, I'm an independent agent.

And no, I don't assume the outcome will be in my favor. If anything, my presence might work against it. That's one of the downsides to being independent.

Nice to meet you also.
Reply
-3 points,25 days ago
>If the venue wasn't important, why did you even bother mentioning it?

Because Discord is the most popular place for the MNOs who have been behind these moves to converse.

>I'm an independent agent.

I wish I could believe you. But your answers to several other questions indicate that you are lying here.

I don't know the technicality you hide behind to claim this without lying, but as I've shown below you are not being honest or forthcoming in several of your arguments, which removes the requirement that I take your word at face value.

This is why you shouldn't lie because NOBODY has to take you seriously after that. That's why flenst deleted his reddit account, because I PROVED HE WAS A LIAR and he couldn't use it to shill anymore.

>And no, I don't assume the outcome will be in my favor.

You're lying here. Your statements indicate that you 'know the outcome'. But the vote isn't over yet, so the only way you could know is if you are in communication with the group who is manipulating this outcome to happen. Its simple deductive reasoning.

>That's one of the downsides to being independent.

Oh please, spare me!

>Nice to meet you also.

WOW! I'm glad you acknowledge this, I did not expect that, THANK YOU!
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
The votes are visible on the blockchain for all to see. You might find this interesting: mnowatch.org
Reply
-3 points,24 days ago
Not an answer to my post.
Reply
0 points,25 days ago
Do it now, why wait? I look forward to sending my votes through.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
I have a question: Have you been paid, influenced or otherwise coerced into taking this position without evidence?

'Hell, let's see what happens' is a a terribly emotional and unreasonable position for a MNO to take imo.
Reply
-3 points,25 days ago
so much for keeping emotions out of the voting process and keeping things objective, without resorting to personal insults to the no voters.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
You're just going to be downvoted. These guys have worked in the background greasing palms for months.

They were extremely upset that their attempts to manipulate our processes have continuously failed until now.

I mean we've been dealing with these 'change the DAO' proposals for nearly a year now. This is the nature of the shill.

They are relentless. They are unyielding. They are also the poster boy of WASTED effort. EVEN IF THEY SUCCEED, the fiat they were paid is going to be worthless and everyone will be worse off (including them) without true financial freedom.

Sad.
Reply
-1 point,24 days ago
I can't help but feel a lot of the comments supporting this proposal are based on an underbelly feeling, which to me seems influenced by personal assumptions and a somewhat pessimistic view (most likely due to the long altcoins bear market), then being motivated with actual data about the proposal fee and its impact on the number of budget proposals.

Actual data on the number of budget proposals : https://imgur.com/a/WkF27uY
Source : https://www.dashninja.pl/governance.html

This data shows a healthy number of budget proposals over the last 3.5 years and a reduction of proposals in the last 5 or 6 months.

How can the proposal fee be considered too high throughout this time period, when the number of proposals were fine for a very large majority of that time ? Does that in itself not point to other factors, then simply the proposal fee somehow being too high ?

Other factors like not being able to reach people outside this Dash community ? Not due to the proposal fee, but due to being unfamiliar with Dash in the first place ? What will lowering the proposal fee accomplish in such a situation ?

Instead of blaming the proposal for everything, we should try to strenghten our marketing so we can actually reach people that are unfamiliar with Dash.
Reply
0 points,23 days ago
Define "healthy". I think you're looking at the maximum treasury available and concluding that just because it maxes out every month it is "healthy". In reality, what is actually happening is that DCG claim 60% and the DIF slurps up another 10%+. Dash Incubator, another 10%. That's 3 proposals taking 80%+.

On balance and in the context of the wider market, perhaps the dash treasury is an unattractive proposition i.e. prospective contractors are weighing risk / reward and deciding it's not worth it.

I suggest a healthy treasury is when we have to make hard decisions between two or more equally good proposals. When was the last time you had to do that? In this situation, I think successful proposals that don't get funded should get their money back, but that's a different problem. We don't have that problem anymore because there is a lack of competition for our attention.
Reply
0 points,22 days ago
>In reality, what is actually happening is that DCG claim 60% and the DIF slurps up another 10%+. Dash Incubator, another 10%. That's 3 proposals taking 80%+.

There is nothing wrong with this! You are using a deceptive argument. By focusing on the total percentage of the budget you are using sleight of hand to dismiss the other proposals which are in much cheaper regions of the world dollar-wise!

This means that your numbers are completely misleading! You can get far more bang for buck in Venezuela than in the US or Europe (areas where DCG and most western Dash community members live). That's why we have 4 Venezuelan proposals which grant us the vast majority of our new network growth. Your argument completely ignores this!

Furthermore, there is nothing that points to lowering the 5 Dash fee as a 'solution' to your non-existent problems.

Other networks have ZERO decentralized blockchain-funded improvement proposals. ZERO decentralized teams around the globe vying for funding. So you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill both by pretending we have some crisis, and also by pretending that the 5 Dash fee is the genesis of this supposed 'crisis'.

Both things are disingenuous and mark you as a bad actor.

>I suggest a healthy treasury is when we have to make hard decisions between two or more equally good proposals.

I suggest you provide actual evidence instead of your opinions. You don't have the right to force your opinion down our throats! You don't have a right to continually badger the DAO because you're butthurt your idea didn't pass the last time.

Dash is continually growing EVERY MONTH! Thanks to the proposals we
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
Yes, qwizzie the $660 USD fee to post a proposal is not a hindrance at all!

https://www.google.com/search?q=%24132+*+5
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
Indeed it is not, it never was.
You only have to take a look at the budget proposal history to understand that.

You are basing the $660 USD fee on 1 Dash = $132
Fine, lets take a time period when 1 Dash was a little bit above that $ value, then climbed a whole lot further and then dropped down to that price level again.

Lets take a look at the time period 4 juni 2017 - 15 aug 2018
Dash price : from $143 pumped to $1500 and then dumped to $153

Budget proposals created between 4 June 2017 - 17 aug 2018
Link : https://imgur.com/a/Y3XuN5b

Look and behold, a whole bunch of budget proposals were created with the 5 Dash fee.
From all kinds of teams, people .. big and small. Requesting funding for big and small
amounts.

I can only conclude that the 5 Dash proposal fee was not a problem during Dash 2017 Bullrun and is not a problem now (its even cheaper now).
Reply
0 points,24 days ago
correction : Instead of blaming the 5 Dash proposal fee for everything, we should try to strenghten our marketing so we can actually reach people that are unfamiliar with Dash.
Reply
0 points,22 days ago
I agree with you that the proposal fee is just one part of many things that can be done to improve governance. As you say, marketing is lacking. Now, DCG appear to be building a marketing team but, wouldn't you prefer a truly independent marketing team(s)? Perhaps not using Google Analytics or targeting areas outside of DCGs purview?

There is a lack of competition for our attention and there's no mechanism to discover the true worth for that attention. How do we know our attention is worth 1 dash, 5 dash, higher, lower, how are we supposed to know? Is filling our boots the only measure? If so, I'd say that's incredibly short-sighted.

I'm sure you already know, I would of preferred a different solution and perhaps not such a big change, but if dash is to move forward, it needs to stop putting all it's eggs into just a few baskets. This proposal gets that ball rolling. One dash won't impair your ability to judge proposals, though it might require us to put a bit more time in. In return we get greater dispersement of funds and more outside engagement / enthusiasm.
Reply
2 points,22 days ago
On several occassions i have advocated for a marketing team that works independently from DCG, a marketing team that receives its own funding directrly from the blockchain, a sub-DAO. Created from within the Dash community, able to maintain a good relationship with DCG and the Dash community and with the ability to promote its own activities (to keep itself funded), provide feedback to the Dash community and with the ability to energize the Dash community.

After Dash News got disbanded and Dash Newsroom emerged it became very clear to me that Dash Newsroom had very little focus on marketing, it was mainly doing PR for DCG.
I even asked Mark in his budget proposal how much of Dash Newsroom (newsroom.dash.org) was focused on marketing and how much on PR, i never received a reply.

The landingsplace of that site takes you straight to the Dash Press Room, where mostly official Dash press releases are stored (without date !). The few marketing-related articles were stored in the very last tab, easy to overlook.

I think a few changes were made to Dash Newsroom later on and promises came forward that the focus from DCG & Mark would shift to marketing, but i still felt a marketing team that works independently from DCG was needed.

Joel latest initiative sounds promising, as it ticks a lot of boxes for me : https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/ojkciz/coming_soon_dash_incubator_fork_dedicated_to/
Reply
1 point,22 days ago
Although in fairness Joel's initiative is smaller then i had in mind for a Dash community-driven marketing sub-DAO and has a bit of centralization at the start (will be more decentralized later on according his comments)
Reply
-1 point,22 days ago
You should prove that you have a masternode before you spout off about 'we' this and 'we' that.

How do we know you're not just a TROLL pretending to have a MN so you can manipulate our discussions?

IMO if you really had the best interests of the network in mind, you would go out of your way to prove it. Instead, you're basically trying to force us to 'trust you', just so you can say, 'See? You shouldn't of trusted me. I never had a MNO flair so its your fault if you believed me!! ;)"
Reply
4 points,25 days ago
I'm voting yes on this proposal.
Reply
6 points,26 days ago
I am supporting this proposal. In the long term there might be a better and more complicated solution to handling this. Replacing one arbitrary hard-coded number with another arbitrary hard-coded number might not seem like the greatest, but it's a start, it's easy to do, and with the climate lately with our treasury system barely attracting any *new* activity, lowering the fee modestly like this makes sense.
Reply
-4 points,26 days ago
I would not call a -80% reduction in proposal fee (from 5 Dash to 1 Dash) a 'lowering the fee modestly'
Reply
3 points,26 days ago
1 dash sounds like a great compromise for the people who originally wanted it at 0.1

If the treasury starts getting overblown with new activity we can always change it again. But I don't think that the fee change is likely to have a massive impact on how many proposals are put in. It might increase it slightly but we're not going to be seeing 5x the proposals. Look all the proposals that came through in 2018 when the cost was even higher -- the number of proposals has more do to with other factors than the fee. But we should always be asking whether the barrier to entry is causing too much or too little friction, and for the intermediate term I think it's too much friction, which is why I'm supporting this.
Reply
-1 point,25 days ago
I can't really work with that. People orginally wanting 0.1 Dash as proposal fee goes against the reasons behind the proposal fee that was put in place by Evan Duffield.
I can't really take people serious that advocate a 0.1 Dash proposal fee, let alone deal them some kind of compromise with a 1 Dash proposal fee.

This fee reduction from 5 Dash to 1 Dash is by no means a modest change, this is an extremely large change, which so far only seems based on assumptions and optimistic thinking on changing it if necessary (we can always change it in the future)

That is not good enough for me, sorry.
Reply
1 point,25 days ago
The reasons the fee was originally set at 5 dash by Evan are not as relevant as the effects that the proposal fee is having on the network now.

Back when this topic came up previously I used to be against reducing the fee, because it was during a time when the treasury was already highly active- but the environment has changed since then, and I think we need to adjust the fee to adapt to our current circumstances.
Reply
-1 point,25 days ago
Dash transactions are down, Dash hashrate is down, Dash proposals are down, Dash marketing is down and we are either very close to or already in a bear market.

That could explain the low interest in Dash funding from new people in a time that Dash price is very low ($126) and the 5 Dash proposal fee ($630) is also very low.

It would be problematic to have lowered the proposal fee to 1 Dash, only to find out that other market-related reasons are behind it.
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
I agree that the primary factor(s) affecting the lower treasury activity is not due to the proposal fee; however I see the proposal fee as exacerbating the problem. Reducing the fee will reduce some of the friction.
Reply
-1 point,25 days ago
And lets not forget this specific condition from the proposal text itself :

''The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased.''
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
That might be in the proposal but it's not enforceable. It can always be overridden by another proposal
Reply
-1 point,25 days ago
Not without invalidating multi-month proposals and having to rely on devs to make non-trivial code changes. It is more complicated, then just overwriting it with another proposal and it causes uncertainty how much can be changed later on.

From DashCollective down the thread :

''When I discussed the change with udjin he explained that if the proposal fee is increased, eg from 5 to 10, then all the multi-month proposals would be immediately invalidated. I am now hearing what maybe a check could be put into the code to work around this issue, but that would mean increasing the fee would not be a trivial change, whereas decreasing it is.''
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
I call BS on that take, it might be technically correct with the current code base, but this should be an absolutely trivial change. If DCG devs cannot figure out how to increase the proposal fee without bringing down the whole treasury system then we need new devs.
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
That's true. I totally get that there might be technical issues to overcome but yeah, if they can't do this then we've hired the wrong people.
Reply
-1 point,25 days ago
Or not change our current proposal fee in such a hurry, without fully understanding the possible side-effects.
Reply
-3 points,25 days ago
No response...

Because this push is not based on logic or facts.

But on AGENDA.
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
Not every comment needs to be responded to. If some people want to think that not enough time has gone into understanding this, that's their opinion. I disagree though, this subject has been around for years and this proposal is not coming out of the blue
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>Not every comment needs to be responded to.

Yes they do. When you're advocating a major change like this you bet your ass they do.

>this proposal is not coming out of the blue

It IS coming out of the blue. We've told you SEVERAL TIMES we don't want to lower the fee.

You refusing to take no for an answer is an attack.
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
Ok.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
Thank you for conceding the point.
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
A one Dash fee would be better. A five Dash fee seems excessive even at the current DASH market cap, as it only gets you an audience largely made up of kooks.

At one Dash, we can afford to use the treasury system for community decision making as well as voting purposes such as the DIF vote. This would lead to more engagement and participation.

On the other hand, if the Dash price drops significantly from here, we may need tools on DC, DashNexus and DMT to filter the inevitable crypto spam and fake proposals. Fees can always be bumped up again if things get out of control.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
''The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased.''
Reply
1 point,24 days ago
Well let’s hope that the teams we are funding will finally move the Dash price upwards to compensate for the fee drop direction.

If I don’t see a 5x in the number of proposals appear in the treasury system after this fee drop I’ll be disappointed.

I don’t see how we can make a permanent vote to never increase the proposal fee, as the MN ownership of the network is fluid. Surely another vote costing 1 dash can override this clause. I believe the essence of this clause is to allow DCG to further lower the fee if the Dash price increases, without having to go back and make the case for a decreasing vs increasing proposal fee.

At $100 per Dash, with an estimated 600 MNOs, the cost is $0.16 cents per eyeball, which is still a reasonable fee for a PO to pay to get attention from the Kooks that make up a large majority of the MN network.
Reply
3 points,26 days ago
Posting on behalf of Discord user `latteisnotcoffee#2769`

----

So here's a story - I wanted to build a Dash based CTF competition - we would set up servers with some method of hacking them and those that get in and capture all the flags first get a prize paid in Dash. There would be general challenges using common software (web servers, FTP, SSH etc), some general crypto challenges and some Dash based ones too. (Here's a link: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-based-ctf-capture-the-flag-competition.51343/ )

It would have been a 24-hour competition with advertisements and PR and would have had smart people come in and compete and expose people to Dash who may not have realized we exist to start with.

It would be between 1-2k USD or so for the actual competition, prizes, rented servers, etc which I personally think would pay back more than it's weight in getting up and coming computer scientists and ethical hacker's eyes on Dash.

My issue? The fuck-off proposal fee made it impossible for me to be confident enough that the MNO's would see the benefit of such a thing - confirmed on the Discord that putting a proposal in while the price was so high would essentially just be burning 5 DASH which I wasn't willing to do, and never went ahead.

Those of you who are saying no to this, why? It would allow me and others to actually put proposals in and get eyes on them and a bit of initiative for those who do want to do something a bit different to further Dash's cause.
Reply
-1 point,26 days ago
Take a look at the proposals that proposal owners had no problem creating these last 4 years. Some of them got funded and some of them did not get funded, but they all managed to pay that 5 Dash proposal fee (which is at current Dash price about $625).

Link : https://imgur.com/a/WkF27uY

Why did all these proposal owners manage to pay the 5 Dash fee and Dash user latteisnotcoffee#2769 not ?

There will always be people that can financially afford to pay the 5 Dash proposal fee and those that can not. Setting the proposal fee lower to 1 Dash will just just move this downwards, it will then be people who can't afford to pay 1 Dash as proposal fee.
Reply
1 point,25 days ago
Actually, no, a whole bunch of people never returned, Dash D-A-CH etc. There's a whole list but don't make me prove what you know is true.

One thing to consider is that MNOs are getting paid and they're basically not a very charitable bunch. They don't mind spending but they don't see why they should pay out of pocket when the treasury already taxes them 10%. Of course, there are exceptions to this, me included.

It's the same story for why very few people work free for dash. They look at others getting paid and they're thinking, "why should I do it for free when someone else is getting paid for their efforts?" So yes, they could approach DCG or other DFOs and ask for paid work but they also have budget to consider.

And then there's this idea that the treasury has not seen in a long time, when MNOs have to make hard decisions.. not "Do I fund this, Yes/NO?" but rather, "There are some really good proposals here but we can't fund them all, which ones do I vote for?". We don't see those kind of scenarios anymore because month after month we only see the same faces, there is no fresh blood and no real competition for MNO attention. Back in the day, it was competitive and I would get private messages trying to shill their proposals.

Personally, I think you're right, going from 5 dash to 1 dash maybe a bit too risky but it's a balanced risk. We all come here every month and we'd flesh this out and correct it, that's what we do. I would of preferred 2.5 - 3.9 dash but I still support this proposal because it's the best deal on the table to get the ball moving. Plus the bonus that Proposal Owners are free to pay more, which opens the doors for Pay to Play.
Reply
-1 point,25 days ago
'Actually, no, a whole bunch of people never returned, Dash D-A-CH etc. There's a whole list but don't make me prove what you know is true.'

I have difficulty connecting that reply to my post or my question, but peace out.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>Actually, no, a whole bunch of people never returned, Dash D-A-CH etc.

Uhh that has nothing to do with the fee. MNOs defunded DACH because they weren't doing anything and they left the network. That's a good outcome. You twisting that makes you a shill. If only you and Joel and the others just left like this we'd be better off.

>they're basically not a very charitable bunch

I think the problem is as a non-MNO you have some jealousy or something, like DashQueenApp. We're here to promote decentralized digital cash and you idiots are trying to distract us from that goal by making changes that have NO NEED TO BE MADE.
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
I voted thanks.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
Have you accepted anything in exchange for advocating this position?
Reply
3 points,25 days ago
No and never. I don't do bribes and I don't pay ransoms, ever.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
THen I ask that you answer my other questions.

For ease:

1. Why are you supporting this initiative? Its clearly important to you, you burnt $1000 last time and still will not take no for an answer. You even said you wouldn't take no for an answer last time. So the question is why? Why are you so adamant about this?

2. Where is the EVIDENCE that supports your position that lowering the fee is the right move?
Reply
3 points,24 days ago
Actually, I think going from 5 dash to 1 dash is a little too big of a jump, I would of preferred 2.5 - 3.9 dash. But this is the best option on the table and I have faith that it won't just fall apart. I do not believe the devs or DCG will let it happen.

Also, this proposal does open the door to Pay to Play, which I clearly support. If people want to come along and burn 5, 10, 15 dash to get our attention, then fine, we all win. But to be clear, I'm not supporting bribes, the proposal fee must be burned and not go to any specific person.

I've done more than 2 proposals, none of them have passed! :-D But I'm not here to score points, I'm happy to support whoever gets the job done.

I've been here a long time and I watched dash grow, sometimes painfully. People like Amanda came here when dash was young, affordable and dynamic. And while I appreciate dash is not the toy it once was, it's been a pleasure to watch them grow. Now it's time to bring in and foster a new generation and maybe show us a thing or two.

The evidence is staring you in the face. Ask the OGs here what brought them here and keeps them here. There's more of where that came from, we just got to hook them in before they go to other networks.

Dash isn't that great with privacy, is lousy at marketing and utterly fails in academic coverage, but for all it's faults it's got the best balance of community, tech and economics.
Reply
-3 points,24 days ago
>Actually, I think going from 5 dash to 1 dash is a little too big of a jump

There's no point in ANY kind of 'jump' if you can't justify why 5 Dash is insufficient.

>But this is the best option on the table

You are DELIBERATELY IGNORING DOING NOTHING.

Again this is how shills reason. They IGNORE that which is inconvenient to their agenda.

>Also, this proposal does open the door to Pay to Play, which I clearly support

This is not sufficient reason to make this change. In order to make changes to the network, there must be sufficient justification, evidence of safety/non-harm (i.e. it can't make things worse like increasing spam), and FINALLY AND LEAST IMPORTANTLY evidence of benefit.

You're only trying to provide 'evidence of benefit' which is not what I asked you. My questions are in context of these three requirements,

1.justification (some problem that needs to be solved)

2. evidence of safety/non-harm

3. evidence of benefit

You are only providing 3 and completely ignoring 1 and 2.

>If people want to come along and burn

This is nonsense. No one is going to do this,. No one will voluntarily pay more than required to post a proposal and risk a greater loss. You are not making any logical sense at all. I believe that this is a deliberate choice on your part which is why I call you a shill and a liar.

>But to be clear, I'm not supporting bribes

No one is talking about this, shills always try to move the goalposts and distract you with red-herring and strawman arguments.

> Now it's time to bring in and foster a new generation and maybe show us a thing or two.


You're just deciding this on your own, and the reasoning behind it is not logically sound. You haven't proven that there is a 'lack of new blood'. Dash CONTINUALLY HAS MORE USERS Quarter after Quarter, so how can you say there's 'no new blood'? YOU'RE LYING!

And before you say 'I mean in the treasury', the growth in Dash's new users COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE PROPOSALS WE'RE FUNDING! So you can't say that either!

>The evidence is staring you in the face.

No its not, if it were I wouldn't ask for it. Please do not gaslight me.

>Ask the OGs

You are talking to 'an OG'.

>Dash isn't that great with privacy

Bullshit. Dash has the strongest, most decentralized and easiest/cheapest coinjoin implementation of any other network.

What's more, Monero has been proven by recent research to be 50% traceable after a single year of a very cheap attack:

>Analysis of transaction flooding attacks against Monero

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9461084

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/ohnfs6/analysis_of_transaction_flooding_attacks_against/

“Our results show that after flooding the network for 12 months, the attacker can identify the true spend of 46.24% of newly created transaction inputs”

And the cost of this attack:

From what I read, they flood 75% of block space in each block, so with current fee per byte cost it would be 1.025136 XMR/day.

This vulnerability has been present from monero's start:

Which means the alleged best in class, king of privacy Monero is traceable and has worse privacy than Dash. Of course, you support the monero shill line that 'hur dur Dash is bad at privacy'. So you're at least coming out in the open with your allegiences. I thank you for that too.

> lousy at marketing

Marketing is not really necessary. Bitcoin didn't get where it is by 'marketing'. Again shilly, silly unreasonable logic used to justify bullshit.

>but for all it's faults it's got the best balance of community, tech and economics.

Yeah, which is why you're trying to destroy it, right?
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
You ask me questions, I give you my opinion, why I am voting one way or the other, and then you say my opinion is invalid because "not sufficient reason to make this change" and "You're just deciding this on your own". I mean wtf, you don't get to think for me.

You asked me about bribes and when I make it clear you say, "No one is talking about this". Umm, I'm pretty sure you asked me this several times.

You change the subject. This proposal is about the cost of future proposals to prospects. But then you randomly choose to measure success as "Dash CONTINUALLY HAS MORE USERS Quarter after Quarter," Not only is that a distraction, it's actually not proving where we'd be with a more attractive proposal fee. In your view we'd be worse off, so where's the proof?

Now, suddenly, you want to present your proof by injecting nano and monero into the conversation. Funny you don't want to talk about the larger ecosystem any other time, only when it suits you. You talk about bad actors and intentions and there you are picking the times you recognize the world outside beyond dash.

Go ahead buster, keep unwinding.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
Missed this one.

>I give you my opinion,

I dont' think I've ever asked you for your opinion. I've asked for your RATIONALE. I've asked you for your LOGICAL REASONING. But neither of these are particularly 'opinion-based' topics, so I think you're once again misrepresenting things.

>not sufficient reason to make this change

Ok the Dash network does not belong to you. Do we agree?

If you do, then you must also agree that your 'opinion' is not and SHOULD NOT be sufficient to enact any changes to the network, let alone major ones like this.

At least when Ryan Taylor was putting his proposals to the network, he did studies on the effect the changes might have and had EVIDENCE AND DATA that they probably wouldn't be harmful.

He didn't just 'give his opinion'. So your argument here is actually a red-herring. Nobody really wants your 'opinion'. We want A *VALID* JUSTIFICATION. Your whims ARE NOT THAT.

For example, just because you like 'pay to play' is NO REASON to make the network change to that model. You are trying to use your OPINION as a justification for a major change AND THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE.

You don't even have a MNO tag even though you've had months to prove you have one. Which means YOU ARE DESPERATE to TRICK US into supporting you even though you're not acting in good faith.

>You asked me about bribes and when I make it clear you say, "No one is talking about this". Umm, I'm pretty sure you asked me this several times.


What are you talking about? Are you even reading your own posts? I asked you if you had recieved payment to take this position. You weren't talking about that when you made this comment:

>But to be clear, I'm not supporting bribes

You were talking about 'pay to play' and the proposal fee 'not going to any one person'. Something I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT. So you're really, REALLY being disingenuous by trying to conflate these two separate discussions.

>You change the subject.

No, YOU'RE changing the subject and projecting that onto me. You just won't stop using shill tactics will you? I was NEVER TALKING ABOUT PAY TO PLAY. That's ALL YOU. I don't care about it. I asked YOU if you recieved payment to support this position which IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the tokenomics of the 5 Dash fee. Your arguments become more and more disingenuous the more you make them.

>This proposal is about the cost of future proposals to prospects.

This proposal is about lowering the 5 Dash fee to 1 Dash. The reason being proffered is that 'there is NO NEW BLOOD in DASH'. But this CANNOT be the case because Dash has been adding new users to the tune of tens of thousands (140,000 active android users as of the last Q'ly call, up from 100,000 in sept 2020). What's more, these users are coming because of the treasury proposals in various countries.

So that means your idea that 'there's no new blood in dash' is false! Its not 'random at all' and you prove that you're out of arguments when you twist the conversation like this.

>distraction

How is that a distraction?? You guys are deliberately saying that 'Dash is dying' and 'we need new blood'. But we already have that and our network is growing every quarter! Which means your justification is FALSE DUMMY!

>it's actually not proving where we'd be with a more attractive proposal fee.

That's not the point! You're moving the goalposts. The question was, is Dash getting new blood or not (if not then this proposal is 'justified' according to you). But it IS so this proposal CANNOT be justified by that rationale. Its not even rocket science dude.

>Now, suddenly, you want to present your proof by injecting nano and monero into the conversation

Man your use of language is completely subversive, manipulative and disrepectful (because you imply things you have no right to). By saying 'now' you act as if you have 'caught me doing something'. But you haven't! There is NOTHING WRONG with pointing to our supposed competition and proving that you're a liar and an idiot!

You said that 'Dash's privacy sucks' earlier, but the supposed 'king of privacy' monero DOESN'T EVEN FUCKING WORK! You're just ignoring this is YOU GASLIGHTING THIS COMMUNITY!

>Funny you don't want to talk about the larger ecosystem any other time

Neither Nano nor monero are larger ecosystems than Dash. Again, marketcap is an arbitrary figure and you betray your biases when you refuse to give up arguments based on it, even after being PROVEN WRONG SEVERAL TIMES.

What's more, neither Nano nor monero have anywhere near the adoption, acceptance or active users that Dash does, so you're really being a STUPID ASSHOLE by shirking your duty to respond to my arguments by pretending like you 'caught me in something'.

Now you want to pretend like you've won even though YOU'VE LOST EVERY ARGUMENT WE'VE EVER HAD. And that's DOZENS of times! You're already dead which is why you don't mind BEING A PIECE OF SHIT.

> there you are picking the times you recognize the world outside beyond dash.

What the FUCK kind of criticism is this?

"Oh so you just make up examples whenver you want huh? You think you have the right to just, COMPARE US TO THE COMPETITION huh??"

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU STUPID WHINY BITCH!
Reply
1 point,25 days ago
You're right, the proposal fee wasn't the reason they STOPPED, I didn't say that. I said they didn't return. And there are many others that never returned. Past proposals are easily found, go see for yourself.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>You're right, the proposal fee wasn't the reason they STOPPED, I didn't say that. I

So what the fuck are you bringing it up for? Its not relevant. They're not gone because of the fee so you saying,

>Actually, no, a whole bunch of people never returned, Dash D-A-CH etc.

Is not a legitimate or honest reply to what qwizzie wrote. His point was that there have been all manner of proposals over 4 years with no complaints about the fee.

You attempted to distract from this by stating something that you even admit in your own words is NOT RELEVANT.

That is the behavior of shill. I will ask again, have you been paid or recieved compensation of any kind in exchange for supporting this position?
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
You can truncate my response all you like, it doesn't change the original that can be easily seen above. I said they didn't return. Now who's being manipulative?

You can keep asking me the same questions over and over and the response is always the same. I have not been paid or receive compensation of any kind in exchange for supporting this proposal. I understand you wish it was so, to point your little finger and declare corruption, but no, I haven't. I'm not that kind of person, I don't need anyone's money, I've got way more than enough thanks.
Reply
-1 point,25 days ago
>I said they didn't return.

Yeah but you're saying they didn't return BECAUSE OF THE FEE. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THEY DIDN'T RETURN BECAUSE THEY WERE DEFUNDED FOR NOT DOING WORK.

>Now who's being manipulative?

YOU! You're deliberately twisting the argument to avoid directly answering honestly! That's manipulative behavior!

>You can keep asking me the same questions over and over and the response is always the same.

I am not asking you the same questions, once you finally replied I asked two different questions, they can be seen both above and below.

>I understand you wish it was so,

I never said I wished that. Careful, your biases are exposed when you engage in projection.

>declare corruption,

You seem to misunderstand. I don't WANT to do this. I HAVE TO. You are trying to RUIN DASH and I cannot and will not allow it. Its that simple.

Do you deny the evidence of corruption that I have brought forth, like Joel Valenzuela, Flenst's infiltration attempts and fud creation, george donnelly and ed stover attacking venezuelan proposals to take them over from colombia and shut them down (two things that **actually happened**), do you deny that these events took place??
Reply
3 points,24 days ago
I can't say with confidence that Joel is corrupt because he did in fact do *some* work. Having said that, I'm glad Dash News ended and I think both dash and Joel have benefited from that. People can no longer point their fingers at Joel and call him a paid shill (beyond his masternodes), and his content and audience is more diverse. I think people have more respect for that independence, so it's better all round really. Tbh, I think if you asked him he might admit as much.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
And I didn't just ask about Joel, I asked about flenst, george donnelly, ed stover all who claimed to be 'for the dash network's best interests' but were all proven to be lying scumbags and shill pieces of shit.

Ignoring that part of the question and hoping to skip it by focusing on Joel is also a dishonest way to debate and exposes you further as being a shill.
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
I can argue the case for Joel better. Although I know about George and the others, I can't say one way or the other with absolute confidence. I know there was some dishonesty but to what extent I don't know.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
>I can argue the case for Joel better.

You can't argue that case at all. There is NO EXCUSE for his behavior and he and mark were defunded for it with cause!

You are taking up and supporting SCAMMERS, LIARS, AND SUBVERSIVE DIVISIVE ACTORS (Joel was the mastermined behind the discord split), that means you're a scammer too!


>I can't say one way or the other with absolute confidence

Again, you defend KNOWN SCAMMERS AND SCUMBAGS because YOU ARE THE SAME AS THEM AND WILL NOT CONDEMN YOUR OWN! YOU HAVE EXPOSED YOURSELF!
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
I've already told you I don't do discord.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
So? I never said anything about you doing discord. The discord split became an argument in all dash venues, forums, subreddits and DashCentral.

What a disingenuous reply...
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
>I can't say with confidence that Joel is corrupt because he did in fact do *some* work.

Whether or not someone is corrupt has nothing to do with whether they 'did work' or not. Its clear that Joel was corrupt and was defunded because of it.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this likely means you share goals, motives, influences or the like with him. People against corruption don't try to give a pass to the corrupt because they know how destructive and insidious corruption is.

The more you reply the more you expose yourself. I know all these comments seem like a lot, but this has been my fundamental goal and we're coming on the home stretch. I sincerely thank you for your cooperation with my endeavors in this regard.

>(beyond his masternodes),

Nothing like invalidating both your own argument and your defense of his non-corrupt nature in one sentence. Doublespeak is a key tactic of shills because if you fall for it, you only have yourself to blame. I mean, they just told you right?

> content and audience is more diverse

I haven't checked but his audience doesn't seem to have increased at all, nor has Taos. This is what happens when you sell out for money and become corrupt. Even though he has masternodes and got them from grifting from the DAO it was never fucking enough. Just like you won't stop trying to change the fee. I can see why you defend him now.

> I think people have more respect

Nobody that knows him respects Joel. He's a shill and a mafia guy. That's it. Those guys are always losers.

> Tbh, I think if you asked him he might admit as much.

Yeah you give off a creepy, manipulative vibe with every post. Its probably the willful ignorance you're subtly promoting. Another commonality with shills.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
Right. These guys are deliberately and maliciously lying. Because they're trying to con us.

If you trick someone or con them, basically the blame falls on them for 'being stupid' and these cynical assholes can pretend to be 'teaching them a lesson, hehe'.

But this won't be the end. If this proposal were to pass, we will soon begin to see more and more shilling, concern trolling and proposals like this.

This is a 'micromanagement attack'. Dash used to leave the protocol up to the network experts, not to emotional terrorists who manufacture consent.

By changing this, they allow for all manner of stupid bullshit proposals JUST SO THEIR IDIOT COMMUNITIES CAN KEEP POINTING TO DASH LIKE ITS SOME FAILURE ONLINE.

Sorry to say but **THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN 'NERDS' DON'T GET BEAT UP IN LIFE!**
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
The liars, the emotional terrorists, the fraudsters, they all have 5 dash. If MNOs can deal with it at 5 dash then they can deal with it at 1 dash.

The sheer amount of effort you've put into derailing this proposal tells me you have enough time and commitment to process more proposals. Your workload may increase but it won't change your ability (or inability) to evaluate them.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>Your workload may increase

Again you sound like a shill!

What right do you have to conclude that we MNOs should take on a higher workload?

Only shills make conclusions FIRST and justify it later. You don't have any right to dismiss our legitimate concerns by saying 'deal with it'.

Again, you've chosen the most forceful and disruptive tactic to further your agenda (you even admit this isn't your proposal so that means this is your agenda).
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
Hi, can you answer this:

Have you accepted anything in exchange for advocating this position?>
Reply
3 points,25 days ago
Never.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
What about the promise of future compensation?
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
lol, no!!! Leave it out, omg!

What am I going to do with this imaginary compensation that I can't already buy? Bloody hell, what is it with people, we're not all desperately driven by money!
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
>Leave it out, omg!

What does this mean?

>What am I going to do with this imaginary compensation that I can't already buy?

Silly question. Rich people always wish to become richer. Trying to mislead others by relying on poor people's lack of understanding of the motivations of the wealth is dishonest and manipulative.

>we're not all desperately driven by money!

So why are you deliberately refusing to justify a change that could result in bad outcomes then?
Reply
3 points,24 days ago
You're making no sense.

Truth is:
Good people can be rich or poor.
Bad people can be rich or poor.

You assume way too much, not just of me but also of rich people and poor people. Tbh, your prejudice makes you ugly. Maybe you should try accepting people on a one by one basis.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
>You assume way too much,

Show me anything that I have assumed.

>Tbh, your prejudice makes you ugly.

Being called ugly by a lying lowlife piece of shit like you is not an insult. Just like being sane in and insane world is not a criticism.

>Maybe you should try accepting people on a one by one basis.

Maybe you should try earning an honest living, instead of destroying people's hopes for financial freedom using manipulative bullshit.
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
...says Mr Uphold / Veriff.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
What kind of argument is this?

Please explain your rationale clearly for all reading.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
>You're making no sense.

You're projecting, I'm the one who asked you to explain your nonsensical response.

>Good people can be rich or poor.
Bad people can be rich or poor.

Strawman, I never argued against either statement. I said that 'Rich people always wish to become richer' and in general this is true. And its not even really up for debate. That's how I knew you were a shill.

Shills LOVE to force conclusions that are unnatural, because that's how you make your victim take the maximum blame. If you can't think or use your head, that's your problem, they reason. So they spend almost ALL THEIR TIME trying to force you to accept stupidity and bullshit using emotional manipulation.

See most of GMD's posts in this thread, even though 'this isn't his proposal'. Right. So you ADMIT that you're shilling then? Because you claimed before to be 'independent'. Yet YOU'RE THE LOUDEST voice in defense of this proposal, which isn't yours.

Which means its most likely that you are being compensated or are otherwise hiding an affiliation with the PO to defend them and serve as a buffer.

So you just proved, WITH YOUR OWN WORDS, that you're most likely a shill. How do you respond?
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
I could do a word count if you like, just to see who typed the most...
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
No need. Just answer the questions.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
This is stupid.

If the MNOs told him on discord that they wouldn't support it 'because of the price' then the issue ISN'T THE PROPOSAL FEE, its the **MNOS WHO MAKE UP STUPID REASONS TO NOT FUND THINGS**!

Geert, realmrhack, georgedonnelly and also you, lysergic have all used BULLSHIT REASONS to defund proposals and attack POs that you don't like. Now you're trying to leverage that corruption as an EXCUSE to lower the proposal fee, like a slimy piece of shit would.

The problem there is that you wouldn't support a good initiative, neither you or the PO apparently realized this. Its not about the fee, its the fact that the proposal wouldn't pass at all.

WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE just throwing proposals out there to see if they stick. That's why the fee is there and that's what preproposal is.

The issue is that YOU and your band of SHILLS AND ASSHOLES are CYNICALLY refusing to fund proposals AND BLAMING IT ON THE PROPOSAL FEE instead of your reductivist and stupid reasoning!

DELUSIONAL THINKING HAS NO PLACE IN THE DAO!
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
Your reading ability seems impaired. The guy told you point blank why he didn't move forward with the proposal. Your response is that the proposal wouldn't of passed, which means you right now are judging before the proposal even hits the network. It's not for YOU to pre-judge, it's for the network to decide, and it does.

You may well be right, that a collection of MNOs are unable to make the best decisions because they all come from different backgrounds and they have different objectives. Both you and I are a part of this same problem because you are an MNO. The difference is, you have pre-judged that only 5 dash proposals are worthy and that 1 dash proposals are an attack vector. The developers seem to disagree with you because if such a thing was plausible they would of said so.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>Your reading ability seems impaired.

I have no problem reading. I'm saying his rationale is bullsht.

> Your response is that the proposal wouldn't of passed, which means you right now are judging before the proposal even hits the network.

Now it appears it is YOU who has trouble reading. Maybe you shouldn't be so eager to 'retaliate' since getting your ass kicked. It makes you look desperate. Lysergic's comment clearly said this:

>>- **confirmed on the Discord** that putting a proposal in **while the price was so high would essentially just be burning 5 DASH which I wasn't willing to do**, and never went ahead.

In other words, the person you're touting as your 'proof' we need to lower the fee, HIMSELF ADMITTED that **he was told in the Discord it likely wouldn't pass**.

THAT IS NOT THE FEE PREVENTING HIM, THAT'S MNOS TELLING HIM HE WON'T PASS, SO WHY THE HELL ARE YOU BLAMING THE FEE FOR THAT!? This post sounds retarded.

You all are trying to MANUFACTURE consensus just so you can trick us and laugh at us later because you don't want to admit your coins are failures. This is antisocial, manipulative and shill-like behavior.

> unable to make the best decisions because they all come from different backgrounds and they have different objectives.

I didn't say that so now you must REALLY be the one with reading trouble. I said:

>Geert, realmrhack, georgedonnelly and also you, lysergic have all used BULLSHIT REASONS to defund proposals and attack POs that you don't like.

So its not about INABILITY, THESE INDIVIDUALS are selfishly trying to manufacture consensus so that they can make changes that are detrimental to the network. If I were incorrect about this, you wouldn't spend time trying to manufacture consensus with lies, i.e.

'Its the proposal fee man!! Also **they told me I wouldn't pass** so I didn't bother.'

Here's a question I'd like an answer too: if the MNOs in the discord say they won't pass, btw which we know is populated by shills like lysergic, joel valenzuela and the like who have a LONG HISTORY OF *FUDDING DASH PROPOSALS FOR NO REASON* Btw.

If this cabal of MNOs are telling a proposal that they won't pass, WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU TRYING TO REDUCE THE PROPOSAL FEE? WHY ARE YOU NOT TRYING TO REMOVE THIS CABAL?? This question is NOT rhetorical.

>Both you and I are a part of this same problem because you are an MNO

I'm not a part of any problem. I only want Dash to succeed, that's it. That's my motivation, and giving Dash the room to grow without the corrupting influence of conflicts of interest is MY ONLY GOAL.

Can you say that? Do you have any ulterior goals, motivations, sources of funds, backroom deals that cause you to support this initiative? Again this question is NOT rhetorical and I would like an answer, thanks.

>The difference is, you have pre-judged that only 5 dash proposals are worthy and that 1 dash proposals are an attack vector.

Wrong. The difference is YOU ARE IGNORING two years of 5 Dash fee failing to protect us. What's worse YOU ARE stating YOU DON'T CARE and are 'willing to risk it'. Why? You have provided NO real reason for this change. Again, are you being paid to influence MNOs this way? Not rhetorical.

>The developers seem to disagree with you because if such a thing was plausible they would of said so.

Appeals to authority really tell me all I need to know and that you KNOW you don't have a leg to stand on. 'The developers' are not our parents. In fact, MNOs have most of the 'parental authority' in the network.

Again you also appear to be attempting to get around this by REFUSING TO ACCEPT NO FOR AN ANSWER. Yes yes, this technically 'isn't your proposal'. So why are you defending it? Because you have the same agenda as those who created it, as proven by your own attempt to change/remove/reduce the fee months ago.
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
I can answer you straight. I have no ulterior goals, motives, backroom deals, shady contacts and so on. I am not being bribed or held to blackmail. I hope that's clear enough for you.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. You say this developer was intentionally misguided by a few rogue MNOs on discord? Isn't that one reason to have a lower fee, that he can then re-assess the risk / reward and go directly to the network instead? What you're saying is, after deceiving the prospect, the 5 dash fee put the final nail in the coffin.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>What you're saying is, after deceiving the prospect, the 5 dash fee put the final nail in the coffin.

No. You're deliberately twisting my words and putting words in my mouth.

Don't do it again.

I explicitly said the 5 Dash fee is unrelated to why that developer didn't follow through despite his childish statement. The 5 Dash fee was COMPLETELY irrelevant.

What caused him not to try, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, was MNOs TELLING HIM IT WOULDN'T PASS.

That has nothing to do with the fee and you know it. You're playing dumb now...
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>You say this developer was intentionally misguided by a few rogue MNOs on discord

Yes. If they're telling him 'it won't pass with the price this high' then they are misleading people.

THE PRICE OF DASH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROPOSALS PASSING.

This same cabal made similarly specious arguments about other proposals. You were there for those arguments, so you pretending like what I'm saying is 'news' lends me to believe you're lying below.

You may have some technicality that allows you to say 'you're not being paid'. But there's certainly some trick behind that.

You're literally acting like you don't know what I'm talking about. In other words, you are IGNORING a potential attack vector. But why would you do that? Conflict of interest is the only thing that makes sense.
Reply
3 points,24 days ago
I was where? Do you ave a .kml file for that? ;)
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
You have been a member of the Dash community and active during the period when many of those battles (attacking Dash Nigeria, Dash Haiti, Dash Venezuela, Dash Retail and the like) took place. Do you deny this?
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
Not at all, it's just that you didn't spell it out like that.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
Incorrect. What I just said is fundamentally no different in meaning than my original statement:

>This same cabal made similarly specious arguments about other proposals. You were there for those arguments

Again unless you deny being an active member of the Dash community during the period these conflicts took place.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>I hope that's clear enough for you.

It is clear. So now I have to ask, why are you supporting this initiative? If you have no ulterior motives as you say, what is your purpose?

This is the second time you've tried to change the fee (not your proposal I know. That's irrelevant).

And my second followup:

Where is your DIRECT evidence that the 5 Dash proposal fee needs to be changed?
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
@therealDashman21
You just persuaded me to vote YES on this proposal, thanks for helping a former undecided voter like me...
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
And while I have you, can you please respond to this question, from before:

>there are a lot of good people out there, some of which have great ideas and/or lots of dedication and boldness,
but who lack the possibility to risk as much as 5 Dash, it really is way too expensive!

Can you name and cite even 2?
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
You cannot influence me by pretending to be or even really being this stupid.

I can only be influenced by logic and rational arguments ONLY.

All of you are trying to MANUFACTURE consensus by skipping the 'justification' of this proposal. You won't even respond to why you want to get around the MNOs previous no votes.

This is the result of corruption and I'm glad to have been proven right. Thank you for showing that I was correct and that our competition would infiltrate and bribe masternodes.

Now we just need to figure out a mechanism to get rid of your guys for good. Thanks also for identifying yourselves!

If you really want to split the network (what happens when you try to create bad blood by forcing changes that one part of the network doesn't agree on, i.e. scissor-statements), this is the way to do it. I look forward to seeing the fruits of your efforts.

Thanks for reading and I'm sorry you're corrupt!
Reply
-4 points,24 days ago
More blatant and forceful shilling in other communities:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/oi6n7w/why_is_bitcoincom_exchange_promoting_lightning/

unstoppable-cash
Op ·
https://twitter.com/BitcoinComExch/status/1414203100978679812

>Post links to a puff piece on Lightning (LN) that of course doesn't discuss the multitude of problems... issues that LN has... let alone the custodial issues...

Exactly like what's going on here today.
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
Honestly, would you mind stop spamming this proposal? There should be a fee to comment on a proposal after the first 5 free ones and the fee increases exponentially thereafter.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
I reject the accusation. I'm not spamming anything. Every comment I make is in reply to others. I have only written 4 - 5 independent comments. You're doing that thing that those losers in the Discord do, where they TRUMP UP CHARGES to get you banned by repeating lies like 'please stop spamming'.
Reply
-3 points,24 days ago
The damage that Conflict of Interest has inflicted upon monero is huge and has been going on for years. This attack here over the last couple of days is actually a REALLY BULLISH sign for DASH!

As many people have been compromised, our network still has not suffered large negative effects from their influence peddling, astroturfing and propaganda lies!

In monero massive damage was recently done after a conflict of interest situation was publicly exposed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/o2lqch/as_monero_reels_from_another_embezzlement_scandal/

>List of scandals related to Monero slush "community" fund:

>Diego Salazar ( /u/rehrar ) hiring long-time contributors to his outsourcing enterprise, CypherStack, and then hiring them back out to the Monero community at a profit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/o0sura/an_open_letter_to_the_core_team/

> Parties unknown (zero day sockpuppet) getting funded $150,000 from the community fund to get Elon to pump Monero: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/lh2lcg/this_tesla_stunt_is_straight_up_embarrassing/

> Naveen Jain and Riccardo “/u/fluffypony” Spagni charging community fund $500,000 for this website (yeah, its whole 2 pages) https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/8kj86p/how_is_project_coralreef_going/

> Riccardo Spagni doing outright pumps and dumps on Monero http://removeddit.com/r/Monero/comments/6d6okb/fluffypony_needs_to_give_up_his_commt_access_and/


Also notice that not only is it ALL SILENT over in r/monero (nobody shilling or advocating massive changes, despite that being exactly what's needed!), but also there's NOBODY shilling Dash or monero's other superior competition. How did monero get this protection from shills and this kind of attack? How is it possible that we in Dash have to deal with all these liars and shills and monero doesn't??

Because monero is A COMMUNITY OF SHILLS. That's why. If Monero didn't exist, cryptocurrency would be 10 years ahead of where it is right now.

Wow...
Reply
-4 points,24 days ago
Apparently there is a term for what I'm describing is going on here:

>Astroturfing

>Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection.

>The term astroturfing is derived from AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to resemble natural grass, as a play on the word "grassroots". The implication behind the use of the term is that instead of a "true" or "natural" grassroots effort behind the activity in question, there is a "fake" or "artificial" appearance of support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
I have a simple question for all the advocates of this proposal:

Why do we need this change? Who is being negatively affected by the fee being 5 Dash?
Reply
5 points,26 days ago
i wholeheartedly agree with the proposal owner, that we must lower the "barrier to entry",
or we are greatly damaging the potential of our DAO
by having a fixed 5 Dash proposal fee, we are sacrificing and wasting a lot of talent and effort out there,
which could otherwise be deployed to the benefit of Dash (if voted through)
there are a lot of good people out there, some of which have great ideas and/or lots of dedication and boldness,
but who lack the possibility to risk as much as 5 Dash, it really is way too expensive!

unfortunately i also know about the reality of spam proposals, which would surely increase by a lot.
i am still undecided about how i will vote on this, but i believe we should change the proposal fee to something like this:

1 Dash proposal fee (Minimum Fee) = Request from 0 Dash upto 20 Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
2 Dash proposal fee = Request from 20.01 Dash upto 40 Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
3 Dash proposal fee = Request from 40.01 Dash upto 60 Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
4 Dash proposal fee = Request from 60.01 Dash upto 80 Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
5 Dash proposal fee = Request from 80.01 Dash upto 100+ Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)

Or a similar approach would be to set the proposal fee to a fixed 2.5% or 5% fee of the total requested amount,
irrespecitve of the requested amount.

Something like the above-mentioned Alternatives would be much more reasonable than both of the Extremes of either the expensive 5 Dash or only 1 Dash. The reasonable solution is to have the proposal fee scale according the requested amount. And there are several reasons for it, which would go into too much length explaining here.
But in short, a fixed fee does always instigate proposal owners to maximize their requested amount and to set their demand on the higher end, because the fee will be the same anyway.

This would limit spam attempts by a lot, because it would not allow a 1 Dash cost for giving a shot at requesting 300 Dash for example, with whatever fancy idea a badfaith actor could come up with.
Reply
0 points,26 days ago
>there are a lot of good people out there, some of which have great ideas and/or lots of dedication and boldness,
but who lack the possibility to risk as much as 5 Dash, it really is way too expensive!

Can you name and cite even 2?
Reply
0 points,26 days ago
Interesting that there is no response to this...
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
Not you, don't worry.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
Right. I can easily risk 5 Dash so definitely not me.

But where are these people who are supposed to be having this trouble?

A lot of hubbub is caused by their alleged plight, so ...

Where are they?
Reply
3 points,25 days ago
They're on another network.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
Which means they kicked up a stink before they left, right?

So WHERE IS IT? Where is the evidence that they even exist?? Something that would need to be present to even justify talking about this.
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
There are other networks. This is a marketplace of networks all vying for the best devs, marketers, business leaders etc. They get to choose dash or not and at some point equilibrium is made. You argue that equilibrium is made and proved because the treasury is always 80%+ full. That argument might have merit if dash was the only network, but it's not. It's like saying I have a highly successful business because every day I sell all my bread. It doesn't factor in the bakery down the road or the supermarkets cutting into my turf.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>There are other networks

I never said there wasn't.

Clearly if they left Dash without being upset by being 'rejected' by the network, then they weren't all that emotionally invested in the project. So there should be evidence of their existence. Where is it?

> This is a marketplace of networks

Blah blah blah nobody is talking about this, where is the evidence of the people you allege left the network because of the fee?

> is always 80%+

I said 90% not 80%, stop changing my words asshole! If you're going to quote me then quote me accurately!

And before you respond with '90% IS 80%+' it doesn't matter, you're changing my argument by lowering the threshhold. That's like saying '90% IS 10%+'. Its disingenuous because 90% and 10% appear differently and may cause a reader to draw a different conclusion.

This is because different numbers affect the human mind differently despite them being functionally equivalent. 99c vs $1.00 effect is used effectively in marketing so I'm not making mountains out of molehills here.

>That argument might have merit if dash was the only network,

Non-sequitur, regardless of your false claims about 'equilibrium' (I do not allow you to rephrase my claims), whether or not dash is the only network is completely irrelevant to whether or not Dash's treasury is beign fully utilized. Other networks may or may not exist, but we're only worried about what WE'RE DOING.

>because every day I sell all my bread.

That is EXACTLY what that means what are you talking about?

Competition is only relevant when you compete against yourself. That's how you get better. You're trying to TRICK the Dash network into stop focusing on itself and FOCUS ON OUR LESS EFFECTIVE COMPETITION.

Every comment you make solidifies my conviction that you are a shill. You might not be paid, but you're definitely arguing as dishonestly as possible without appearing to be so.
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
Trust me, at this point NO ONE is reading this far down the page to notice a 10% difference! lol
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
Also, I accept your lack of reply to my other points as you admitting you can not argue against them and forfeiting the discussion.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
>Trust me,

Second time you've asked for 'trust' in a trustless network. The answer is NO!

And it doesn't matter if anyone notices it or not, the fact is you have proven to be using a manipulative and deceptive argument!

That makes you a liar and proves I was correct about you in general. Both last time and this time.
Reply
-1 point,25 days ago
Hello? Bueller?? Bueller!??
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
'The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased.''

I hope everyone fully understands this condition in the proposal text and its implications.
Reply
3 points,27 days ago
When the proposal fee was first conceived, the price of Dash was around $10. The 5 Dash fee, or $50, was envisioned as a way to prevent spam. It was not envisioned as a $650 way to prevent legitimate proposals to not come forward due to not being able to afford it.

I would like to see the proposal fee eventually become dynamic, but that's a topic for another day. I would like to see more participation in the DAO, expansion not contraction which is what we are now seeing with the same proposal owners month-in and month-out.

This proposal will not bring the proposal fee to the $50 range as it was when it was originally introduced, but it's much closer and I believe it will spark new ideas for us to vote on. Voting yes.
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
Voting yes too for close to the same reasons.
Reply
-2 points,27 days ago
'It was not envisioned as a $650 way to prevent legitimate proposals to not come forward due to not being able to afford it.'

Citation? You just said in the previous sentence:

'The 5 Dash fee, or $50, was envisioned as a way to prevent spam.'

So, if the 5 Dash fee was meant to prevent spam, how can you say 'It was not envisioned as a $650....'??

If the purpose is to prevent spam and the cost to prevent spam is $650 then you're wrong and YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF.

You sound as if you haven't thought about this at all Tao. When the proposal fee was concieved DASH was a tiny fraction of its current size and price. How can you justify basically throwing us back to 2015-2016 fee levels when we're so much larger now?

Back then spam and infiltration were not such big targets because Dash was small. But we're big now (1 Billion+) and you're trying to pretend we're not (by forcing us back in time via the proposal fee).

You seriously, legitimately don't see anything wrong with a proposal fee of $50, after watching NANO brought to a crawl for MONTHS with a spam attack of their own? This is what I meant below, even if you're not paid shill Tao, YOUR ARGUMENTS SOUND EQUALLY STUPID LIKE ONE.

I hate to say that, but I have to call it like I see it. You are not qualified to make comments on this discussion in my view because you are not being honest with the rest of the network about your motivations and reasoning behind this push (if you could even call it that).
Reply
3 points,26 days ago
You argue dishonestly and conflate several ideas and come to erroneous conclusions. Firstly, the DAO has been operating for 5.5 years, during that time, the amount of DASH available for the DAO has decreased year on year inline with the yearly subsidy reduction. This means the budget available is about 2/3 from where we began. However, the cost of entry 5 DASH has never been lowered. If we extrapolate a few years, we see that 5 DASH will be required to bid for fewer and fewer DASH and ultimately it will not be worth to even submit a proposal. This proposal fixes that - for now.

Your example of the NANO attack is heinous, it would be applicable if this governance vote was to lower the transaction fee from 1 Duff/byte to zero Duffs per byte, however, in this context it has no relevance. If someone has a 1000 DASH and after this change wants to burn it by creating a 1000 dummy proposals, NOTHING would happen, you just might need to scroll a bit to find proposals you wish to vote on. Remember the default is NOTHING gets paid and yes, the network can handle it just fine. Further, if someone wants to demonstrably burn 1000 DASH FOREVER and make us ALL richer, I am kinda all for that, reducing the supply (especially that which is held by morons) is kind of a good thing wouldn't you say?
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
>You argue dishonestly and conflate several ideas and come to erroneous conclusions.

I look forward to you proving this assertion and admitting the error of my ways. Let's see!

>However, the cost of entry 5 DASH has never been lowered.

How is this at all a problem? As the network has scaled the cost of proposals has scaled along with it, which causes spammers to have to pay more to post spam. This is what we want, we don't want the 'cost of proposals to be lowered'.

Referring to the payout as a 'subsidy' is actually disingenous and conflates two different ideas. A subsidy is a:

sub•si•dy sŭb′sĭ-dē►

n.
Monetary assistance granted by a **government** to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the **public interest.**

Ok. Dash's DAO has a *governance* model, but it is NOT A GOVERNMENT. This is a critical difference. 'Government' are two related but completely different things! So you conflating them by calling the payout a 'subsidy' shows that you're play fast and loose with the terminology, which ironically makes you a hypocrite given your opening charge.

> If we extrapolate a few years

Why would you do that? This is concern trolling. Literally nobody is worried about this at all. Because its not a real problem.

>however, in this context it has no relevance.

Completely wrong. The point of the Nano example is very relevant. Nano was brought to a crawl for MONTHS thanks to a very cheap and easy to exploit vulnerability that left them open to a spam attack. This example is relevant for two reasons:

1. You're deliberately trying to lower our spam barrier to entry, which will open us up to attack like Nano was. You completely discount this possibility and refuse to even give it serious consideration. So with that, I return to you a second time your comment about 'arguing dishonestly and conflating several ideas coming to erroneous conclusions.

2. The Nano spam attack 'fix' didn't actually fix the problem and it doesn't negate the fact that many in the Nano community were calling out to their developers to fix the issue and they were IGNORED. Until the issue became real.

Then Nano's reputation was completely destroyed. Here's the relevant bit, THE NANO COMMUNITY IS TRYING TO PRETEND LIKE THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN, or that its not the game-ending mistake that it was. **Just like you guys are trying to convince us that 'Oh there won't be any more spam! You can just filter it if you don't want to see it!!' That is disingenuous, dishonest arguing and its conclusion is erroneous ('we should lower the proposal fee to get more proposals' even though you haven't proven the association).

So I completely reject this as evidence that I'm arguing at all dishonestly or coming to erroneous conclusions. There may be more, however; let's find out.

>NOTHING would happen

Nothing would happen? So you mean 1000 'dummy proposals' to you = NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN??

You really are a bold person. You have no problem LYING STRAIGHT TO EVERYONE'S FACES AND PRETENDING LIKE YOU'RE DOING THEM A FAVOR!

How can you really suggest its 'not that bad' to force MNOs to scroll past 1000 dummy proposals every time we want to vote? ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE!?

>Remember the default is NOTHING

Remember: WE THE MNOS DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH SPAM. AT ALL. You have to ask yourself and prove to us WHY YOU'RE TRYING TO FORCE US TO BE OK WITH SPAM.

>is kind of a good thing wouldn't you say?

NO! You are an idiot and you're arguing like a dumbass! I was hoping to admit I was wrong and being disingenuous so that i could correct the error of my ways. Alas, that was all bluster and you are just as bad at this as the others. The best you could do is project your dishonesty onto me. You lack the skill and the evidence to prove it, so you failed. Nice try though.
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
1. The devs have not voiced concerns for this alleged attack vector.

2. Dash emission reduces by 7.14% yearly. Therefore, all fixed costs become harder to obtain. By saying the proposal fee "scales" with the network is therefore a lie and I can only conclude it is you that is trying to obstruct progress.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
> The devs have not voiced concerns for this alleged attack vector.

Its not their job to do that. The devs WORK FOR THE MNOS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The MNOs have CLEARLY SAID WE DON'T WANT SPAM.

Unless there is a technical reason this can't be accomplished, then the 'devs' HAVE NO SAY unless they have a MN. That's how it works in Dash.

>Dash emission reduces by 7.14% yearly.

Irrelevant. RETARDEDLY irrelevant.

>with the network is therefore

How can you say this with a straight face? So you're telling me, that 5 Dash is not more expensive as the price rises?

You are deliberately making nonsensical arguments BECAUSE YOU'RE A SHILL AND YOU KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON.

Liar. I'm definitely going to have fun working against you and your cabal!
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
Really, you actually believe the devs are going to allow an attack vector because MNOs decided it so? You do realize how ridiculous that is?

You can argue all you like against the math, it won't change. I thought you liked math yet there you are denying it. 5 dash today is easier to obtain than next year, I can't help you if you can't accept this.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>You can argue all you like against the math, it won't change.

Where did I 'argue against math'? I said it was irrelevant. You want to distract by making tangential arguments, I will not allow.

The point is that the 5 Dash fee works, has been working and this is not sufficient justification to change it. PERIOD!
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>You do realize how ridiculous that is?

Deflecting and hiding behind incredulity is the hallmark of a shill. ALL ATTACK VECTORS must be considered equally and without bias. That you wish to bias us AGAINST certain attack vectors is all the proof I need that you are indeed attacking us.

Again I'm forced to thank you for your assistance. It really helps to know who you're dealing with and unfortunately for you the tactics that shills have to use to gain victory also expose them.
Reply
3 points,27 days ago
I'm just going to stand behind my original comment. I haven't the time or the inclination to get into a typing contest with you. You are in a league of your own.
Reply
-5 points,27 days ago
If that's your position Tao then you had best not open your mouth in the first place. You disgrace yourself with your blatant shilling as well as your unwillingness to defend it.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
And downvotes in favor of a hex shill at that...

I mean isn't it clear as day that I'm correct and this is an attack on the Dash network?
Reply
-6 points,27 days ago
Remember, only SHILLS 'stand by their original comment' when its shown to be WRONG!
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
Downvoting without reasoning or logic. Yep, that's definitely the hallmark of a open and honest permissionless network. /s
Reply
-5 points,27 days ago
>How can you justify basically throwing us back to 2015-2016 fee levels when we're so much larger now?

This is known as an 'arrested development attack' BTW. This is where you CONvince an enemy into believing they are at a lower stage of development than they actually are so they do not take their 'grown' responsibilities seriously and wreck themselves.
Reply
2 points,27 days ago
"The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased."

Don't agree with that. I'm going to vote yes anyway, because you can always change that with a vote later on. If we get some huge increase in spam (which I think is unlikely, but possible) we need to be able to react. Its short sighted to try and tie our hands in the future, but ultimately unenforceable anyway.
Reply
2 points,27 days ago
When I discussed the change with udjin he explained that if the proposal fee is increased, eg from 5 to 10, then all the multi-month proposals would be immediately invalidated. I am now hearing what maybe a check could be put into the code to work around this issue, but that would mean increasing the fee would not be a trivial change, whereas decreasing it is.
Reply
1 point,27 days ago
Oh that is interesting, I didn't realize. However, we have dealt with there being discontinuity in the treasury before and at some point in the future we might need to again. Regardless its a yes from me simply because its impossible to bind the decision making of the masternodes at some undetermined time in the future.
Reply
1 point,27 days ago
This would also make decision proposals cheaper for the masternodes, allowing MNOs to put importnat matters before the Trust Protectors in an official manner. Voting yes.
Reply
0 points,26 days ago
Making decision proposals cheaper for the masternodes is something that worries me. We already saw decision proposals about insignificant and highly personalized topics with the 5 Dash proposal fee (about a certain moderator, about certain DCG team members, about voting on something so completely unclear, that pretty much everyone voted no). This also comes with a steady decline in voting participation over time, on these kind of decision proposals.

Making decision proposals cheaper will just make it easier to dump these on our network, perhaps negatively affecting our already declining voting participation even more.
Reply
-1 point,26 days ago
I concur.

This appears to be the latest attack vector.

However, the cost has always been too high. So I expect if this were to pass, we probably wouldn't see a flood of spam (at least in the beginning).

So these guys can say, 'See? We told you so'. But we would DEFINITELY SEE MORE of this DashQueenApp style agitprop and emotional manipulation.

Their plan seems to be to exhaust the MNOs attention and cause us to stop voting. That's why they want us to filter through '1000 fake proposals'. They have to tell us what they do before they do it, because if they tell us and we let them do it, the blame falls on us.

I know this sounds conspiratorial. But when you have former semi-prominent people like Tao reduced to shilling hex and teaming up with scammers, you can tell that this is the general direction things are going. Sell outs, conflicts of interest, all to subvert and destroy Dash so that other coins don't have to admit that Dash is superior.
Reply
3 points,25 days ago
YOU are the attack vector.

According to you, 5 dash is pocket money, you already have the money to attack dash if you so choose. How is it that you have the ability to launch proposals attacks but nobody else? Where is your proof that people with 1 dash are more able to successfully land an attack? It doesn't exist and there is no evidence. The same "dumb" MNOs to fall for 1 dash proposals are the same "dumb" MNOs to fall for 5 dash proposals.
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>YOU are the attack vector.

How can you say this? I'm not advocating for any change. I'm not advocating against a change that would be beneficial.

Fixing things that aren't broken is a clear attack vector to use against 'superior competition', just like concern trolling and other manipulations.

Using 'perfection' against us because our 'good' is so much better than others. That's a clear attack vector. That you won't even respond to. So no, you're definitely the attack vector here.

>you already have the money to attack dash if you so choose.

What on Earth are you talking about? So now everyone who owns 5 Dash (instead of 1 Dash???) is planning to attack? This is what I meant by delusional thinking. These guys are trying to foster a culture where they can make irrational arguments and get them to pass.

That way, when they argue to destroy our advantages like instantsend, CoinJoin, and governance, there will be no logical barrier to entry for them. This appears to have been their at least year long goal (with all these proposals).

>Where is your proof that people with 1 dash are more able to successfully land an attack?

What? You're either a retard, or a briliant shill. You're completely twisting things. Firstly, of course someone who only has to pay 1 Dash will be more able to attack than someone who pays 5 Dash. Saying anything else implies you don't understand simple arithmetic.

Secondly, the argument is that LOWERING THE FEE makes people more successfully able to attack. That doesn't need proof since the requirements to attack are spelled out right there (5 Dash vs 1 Dash). 5 > 1 so BY MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION it ***must be*** easier to attack with a lower fee than with 5 Dash. You're really trying to confuse and muddle things because you know you don't have an argument!
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
Sorry to say, the muddle is in your head, nowhere else.

The same MNOs will vote every month and they will reach the same conclusions regardless of whether it's 1 dash or 5 dash. The math doesn't make the decision, MNOs do. How does a low fee impair an MNOs decision? - does it fly through the air and hit them left field? Does it give them concussion or something?
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
>Sorry to say, the muddle is in your head, nowhere else.

No, its definitely you. You've repeatedly twisted my words, misrepresented the truth and deliberately responding nonsensically as a distraction from your lack of evidence. The muddle is definitely all in your head.

>The same MNOs will vote every month and they will reach the same conclusions regardless of whether it's 1 dash or 5 dash.

Not if there's enough spam to make it not worth it. People don't want to filter spam. You are deliberately not acknowledging this. Why?

> How does a low fee impair an MNOs decision?

Increasing spam is a valid attack vector. We have enemies who would love to spam proposals and make it hard to read and make Dash look less professional. We just had TWO YEARS of spam proposals expire. Perhaps that was you guys 'broadcasting your intent'?

So that when the spam finally goes away, you can flood us with more spam and use the negative energy generated from disappointment and relief-breaking (giving false hopes only to dash them just when you relax) are psychological manipulation tactics to FORCE a target to make concessions that are bad for them (so you can claim 'they did it themselves).

>Does it give them concussion or something?

Deliberately pretending like spam isn't a valid attack vector is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to when I said you "muddle things".

Thank you for proving that I was correct and that it is YOUR head that is muddled.
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
"People don't want to filter spam" means YOU don't want to filter spam.

People don't want to pay for bread but they must eat. If the bread is too expensive they buy rice instead.

Your argument is, we sell 90% of our bread therefore it can't be too expensive. Except the bread you sold only goes to your friends and neighbors. Everyone else is buying rice.

It's worse than that. Some people are selling your bread to buy rice.

The current total crypto market cap is $1.41T : https://coincodex.com/market-overview/

Bitcoin dominance is 44.97%

The dash market cap is $1.31B : https://coincodex.com/crypto/dash/

Please don't look at dash rank, it says ranked #66 but I don't want you to focus on that :-p

So tell me, do you think it's time to start introducing your bread to other people, or you're happy with what you've got?
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
>"People don't want to filter spam

To be clear, by this I mean that people don't want to MANUALLY FILTER spam. I.e. they don't want to have to sift through each and every spam email to see if its from someone they actually care about.

This is of course obvious, common knowledge and readily apparent. So this is how I know definitively that 'grandmasterdash' (similarly creepily named as 'DashCollective') is a shill. Trying to trick people by questioning things that everyone knows are true is a tried and true shill tactic.

Similarly obtuse and insane would be saying something like, 'Is the sky really blue?', or 'is 2+2 really 4?' or 'do people really need to eat a meal and drink water every day?' unironically.

Only shills argue that way because they know that tricking you is the key to their success. Sleight of hand, psychological and emotional manipulation, and coercion are their mainstay tactics. Arguing delusionally is therefore right up their alley.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
>"People don't want to filter spam" means YOU don't want to filter spam.

1. Its a general principle that people don't want to filter spam. Spam folders in email and 'throwing away junk mail without even checking it' are both very real things so how can you pretend like "You're the only one who wants to filter spam"? That's completely disingenuous and you know it.

2. The MNOs have consistently, repeatedly stated that we DO NOT WANT TO EVEN SEE SPAM! Neither in Dash Central nor DashNexus! So you have NO RIGHT to ignore their voice and vote just because you've likely sold out and become a shill! If you were ever invested in the project at all. Again I ask, where is your masternode?

>People don't want to pay for bread but they must eat.

This is false! I think most people have no trouble paying for food. I love spending Dash at local food retailers using my uphold debit card. Or using bitrefill's giftcard service. I use both frequently and the instant transactions really shine on both services!

So your entire summation of 'my argument' relies on a false premise. Which means its false by default. That makes you a peddler of falsehood.

>Please don't look at dash rank, it says ranked #66 but I don't want you to focus on that :-p

Can you explain what the significance of Dash's rank from that site is and why its so important to you?

>So tell me, do you think it's time to start introducing your bread to other people, or you're happy with what you've got?

Your argument is facetious. You want us to focus on some rank site. Why? Dash's growth isn't determined there. Why do you care about it so much?

That's not a rhetorical question.
Reply
2 points,24 days ago
What does instant transactions on Uphold even mean when you gave up your personal info and metadata to both Uphold and Veriff? They then sold and shared your data with other exchanges and agencies around the world to "protect" you, and then Uphold decided for you, if you was allowed to buy food at local retailers.

And then you have the fucking audacity to tell me "Its a general principle that people don't want to filter spam". So fucking full of shit. One minute it's all about morality and "financial freedom", next minute you're sucking the regulators cock.

No wait, let me quote you exactly, "I'm not the one trying to prevent people from having control over their financial freedom."... says Mr Uphold / Veriff.

You need to switch up those meds, they're really not doing you any good.
Reply
-2 points,24 days ago
>What does instant transactions on Uphold even mean when you gave up your personal info and metadata to both Uphold and Veriff?

That's a complete non-sequitur. Having instant tranasctions is not related to alleged data selling. Nice fud though. Its amazing you go on r/bitrefill, r/atomicwallet, r/signal, r/uphold and there is WALLS OF FUD against these services.

Why? Because they ALL SUPPORT DASH INSTANTSEND.

So its just an 'irony' that you're against both bitrefill and uphold right? Thanks for giving us the shill's perspective.

>They then sold and shared your data with other exchanges and agencies around the world to "protect" you, and then Uphold decided for you, if you was allowed to buy food at local retailers.

When did this happen? Source?

>And then you have the fucking audacity to tell me "Its a general principle that people don't want to filter spam"

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you deny that people dislike spam??

Do you see why arguing with shills is so annoying? They don't care at ALL about the facts. Now, GrandmasterDash is going to argue FOR FUCKING SPAM!

**THAT** is audacity! Wow.

>So fucking full of shit.

Yeah quit projecting.

>morality and "financial freedom"
When did I ever mention morality? When did I ever disagree about financial freedom?

Your comments about uphold so far are FUD. You haven't proven anything about them with sources so how can you get on a high horse and pretend like you've somehow defeated me?

This is why shills must go away! We will not allow you to mentally rape us back into financial slavery, FUCK OFF ASSHOLE!

>ext minute you're sucking the regulators cock.

Projection is the realm of the defeated. You should leave your preferred sexual activities out of this, we're not here to judge you.

>says Mr Uphold / Veriff.

Its completely disingenuous for you to argue that because I support peoples' right to CHOOSE to use uphold, that I'm somehow against financial freedom. That's completely illogical and specious reasoning.

I'm glad that the veneer has fallen off though. I guess having instant transactions with a dash debit card was the straw that broke the camels back. You monero guys have always been so fucking obsessed with Dash. To the point of irrational hatred, so it makes sense that a service that WILL NEVER ACCEPT MONERO triggers you.

Thanks again for exposing your true motives.

>You need to switch up those meds, they're really not doing you any good.

Hey, dumbass, DON'T THROW NUCLEAR BOMBS IN PAPER AIRPLANES!
Reply
1 point,27 days ago
support
Reply
-2 points,27 days ago
reason?
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
think lowering the barrier to entry for proposal creators would likely result in more engagement and competition in the gov system which is needed right now, and is more important to create than being concerned over the assumption of creation of lot of "spam", which if actually became a problem it could be reversed and the price increased within some future HF anyway. Engagement in gov system has steadily declined, in terms of choice and people coming forward to create things, whilst centralization and concentration has gradually increased. Lowering the barrier of entry is an obvious way to kickstart things.
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
..if spam did actually become a problem then it could easily be mitigated with a better UI than DC is providing too. Allow logins to block certain POs from their personalized view, hide proposals, props from certain addresses. add a ratings system, options to hide things with low ratings. could easily be managed / UX improved to cater for it.
Reply
-3 points,26 days ago
>..if spam did actually become a problem then it could easily be mitigated with a better UI than DC is providing too.

Wrong. Spam was already a problem even at 5 DASH. We had like a dozen or so spam proposals that lasted for 24 months. You're ignoring this. That's gaslighting.

Why don't you just tell us the REAL REASON this is so important to you? No more "rationales". Explain to us simply why you REALLY are supporting this intiative.

Saying "we can fix spam with a better UI" when we already have a fix for spam is delusional thinking. Like in Nano they act like the "fix" they made for the spam somehow negates the fact that the spam happened.

In a real race, if you trip and fall in the middle, you basically have lost the race. I don't think there's ever been a trip-come-from-behind victory in foot racing, correct me if I'm wrong.

So why does the Nano community PRETEND like the months-long spam attack didn't wreck their chances? Because they're delusional. You're trying to advocate DELUSIONAL THINKING.

"We don't really have a problem with spam now. But let's lower the fee, make that problem appear, then do some ad-hoc UI things to paper over it."

I mean come on, you don't even sound like a developer anymore. This is why shills and mafia bullshit is so annoying. It takes the fun out of EVERYTHING. It removes the magic because these control freaks can't accept that they don't control everything. And now you're playing ball with them.

Sad.
Reply
3 points,26 days ago
Ok but didn't you notice how like the gov ecosystem is kinda dying. there's hardly any people coming forward anymore. And the funding there is like 80% of it now going through couple of people (at most) each month. You don't think that's a problem or a degradation of the system and it's achieving what it was designed to do? You think the risk of "spam" means we don't do anything to try to improve that? I think you're freaking out over nothing and missing the point personally you should chill out, there is no evidence of too many proposals, quite the opposite as i'm pointing out..
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
>Ok but didn't you notice how like the gov ecosystem is kinda dying.

No, not really. If you're referring to the decline in proposals from over the world, the answer is not the 5 Dash fee.

The answer is the nepotism and corruption in the DAO that doesn't want to see DASH spread to those areas.

I mean, you're acting like we didn't have to spend two years fighting off trolls trying to justify defunding Dash teams in Venezuela. Venezuela is the BIGGEST MARKET FOR DASH according to official googleplay android active wallet data.

So for you to ignore this and just assume 'welp, it must be the 5 Dash fee' is very naive of you at best.

Get rid of the trolls like geert and realmrhack (you're welcome) and reinstate DashBoost. Don't just go assuming you can muck with the DAO because 'non-reason reasons'.

>You don't think that's a problem or a degradation of the system and it's achieving what it was designed to do?

NO! We have TWELVE ACTIVE PROPOSALS RIGHT NOW! THAT'S TWELVE MORE PROPOSALS FUNDED FROM THE BLOCKCHAIN THAN ANY OTHER CHAIN. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?

>You think the risk of "spam" means we don't do anything to try to improve that?

You're acting like we didn't just get rid of a dozen spam proposals. Have you hit your head or something?? Why do you keep ignoring this and pretending like we didn't have to sit with that eyesore for two years???

>I think you're freaking out over nothing and missing the point personally you should chill out

I'll chill out when you start making sense and stop sounding like a blithering idiot. 'We should lower the fee because maybe more proposals'? 'We should forget about spam because who cares'??

These are not the things a smart developer working to better the network would say. Its almost as if you are deliberately taking an unreasonable position in order to force me to call you out and thus do damage to the community either way.

>there is no evidence of too many proposals, quite the opposite as i'm pointing out..

No but there is evidence that there was spam proposals, even with the fee at 5 Dash. So you're deliberately ignoring that, which is bad. There is NO EVIDENCE of too FEW proposals either. You have provided nothing in the way of evidence and I have shown we DO NOT have too few proposals.

12 proposals is 12 more than any other coin in a decentralized, autonomous fashion (other coins like BCH and monero are all volunteer efforts and are the ones who should be panicking like this, not Dash).

Again, it seems you're trying to gaslight us by making us feel like we have an issue when its the other coins that have the issue.
Reply
3 points,26 days ago
To say "twelve proposals" is somewhat disingenuous. I can't think of one proposal in recent times from someone outside of what looks like an old boys club.

Even if you was to argue that we had the best of the best teams on dash - which is hard to argue when you're ranked #65 - it would not hide the fact that fresh talent and perspective is essential for growth. How you going to do that when you are wilfully shuttering out the free market and defending what is essentially a cartel?

Now roll the insults because you have no real arguments. You gotta fill that space and time of yours somehow, make sure the universe feels your angry presence.
Reply
-1 point,26 days ago
Its not disingenuous at all. The claims being made are that 'the proposal system is dying' and there aren't 'new proposals'.

Twelve proposals per month disproves that notion. The ecosystem is fine and not 'dying'. So that's concern trolling. That's the first thing.

The second thing is this idea of an 'old boys club' is completely disingenuous. We have long-term, solid DAOs working for adoption. That's ALL WE NEED. There's nothing in the white paper about 'new DAOs every so often'. These are completely made-up and unjustified standards by you.

> which is hard to argue when you're ranked #65

What a terrible argument. The last time you made this argument I tore you a new one. Apparently you're a glutton for punishment.

Firstly, when I look at coinmarketcap Dash is #39, not 65. Secondly, rank by marketcap is a TERRIBLE metric.

Marketcap is a completely arbitrary number taking floating supply (which can be created and inflated by devs on a whim) and multiples it by current unit price. This is easily gamed as I showed last time and as you were unable to reply to.

So before you make the same false argument, you must reply to the response I gave you those months ago. Otherwise you are basically conceding a loss (by pretending you haven't been responded to, which is dishonest debating).

Finally, our rank has NOTHING TO DO with how many proposals there are or the size of the Dash economy. By active android wallets in the last 30 days, DASH IS THE MOST ADOPTED COIN. So you ignoring this, deliberately, AGAIN is more evidence I was right and you have a nefarious agenda you aren't sharing with the rest of the network.

> it would not hide the fact that fresh talent and perspective is essential for growth.

Bullshit. Reinventing the wheel over and over again is a certain recipe for arrested development. All of this proposals to 'change things fast' seem to want to LIMIT OUR GROWTH and force us to fit a much smaller mold. This is disingenuous.

>How you going to do that when you are wilfully shuttering out the free market

Strawman. No one is doing that. You are CLAIMING THAT without evidence, which is bad faith arguing. You are just ignoring the response to your claims because you're a terrible person.

You think you can 'get ahead of things' by saying 'Now roll the insults' but you're too late. You've already earned every insult that I've given you 2x over and you trying to get ahead of that just shows how desperate you are to get a word in edge wise. Just like last time.

I don't need the universe to feel my wrath, JUST YOU SHILLS AND STUPID LIARS!
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
I've always agreed that market cap is a very poor metric for success, but you do not acknowledge the context in which it sits. I haven't said it on this page but I have said it many times elsewhere, dash ranked #65 speaks volumes of how little dash has integrated with NEARLY ALL the projects above it. Only recently have we had Ethereum integrations when this should of been done a long time ago. How can anyone accept dash as a serious universal means of payment when it hasn't been universally integrated?

In any case, you keep saying I haven't answered X, Y or Z but I'm still waiting for you to name one new person or organization that has come to dash in recent times. It doesn't exist. You just keep saying the same shit that the wheel isn't broken, there's nothing to fix. What you ignore is the larger ecosystem in which dash sits. The people and money in the market are choosing to go elsewhere and, once again, dash has not made itself a necessary part of these systems. You want a system that isolates itself from the rest of the world with "twelve proposals" from the same people.
Reply
-4 points,25 days ago
>You said dash "was worth many times more in the past".

No I didn't stop putting words in my mouth. I said the 5 Dash **FEE** was worth more in the past, I didn't say that 'dash was worth more'.

One thing implies the other but you cannot conclude that I said the other just because I said the one! That's disingenuous and it makes you a liar!

>I didn't realize you chose one set of numbers to be arbitrary and others are not.

You're moving the goal posts. The point was I never defended the value of the 5 Dash fee except to say that you don't have enough evidence to change it. You trying to 'turn my argument about arbitrary numbers against me' is not only the tactic of a shill, but it also won't work because I never really defended the current value of 5 Dash, here.

All of my posts have been to get you to JUSTIFY CHANGING IT. To get you to provide evidence that it is hurting the community. You are responding by changing the subject, twisting my words and GASLIGHTING ME!

You are proving without a doubt that you're a shill.

>Now you're trying to defend Uphold

Who is attacking uphold that I need to defend them? Why is everything you say slightly different from the truth? Because if I don't challenge your lies you accept that as tacit proof that you have 'tricked me' and can thus continue with your agenda. This is not the case, I notice all of your attempts to subtly shift the goalposts and argue disingenuously.

If you were a good actor, you wouldn't behave this way AT ALL!

>eriff to install apps on your smartphone to collect unspecified data.

Isn't that nice that you have a tailor-made argument against Dash infrastructure at the ready. Yeah, you're totally not a hateful shill from another coin pretending to like Dash...

>But yeah, be my guest and shill.

Projection is the realm of the defeated, shill.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
>I've always agreed that market cap is a very poor metric for success,

No you didn't last time you stupid liar. See, the problem with shills is they have no concern about the truth. They just say whatever they need to to destroy you. We obviously have no need to help them along.

>dash ranked #65 speaks volumes of how little dash has integrated with NEARLY ALL the projects above it.

1. Where is Dash ranked #65? On coinmarketcap it says Dash is marked #39. Are you deliberately lying about Dash's rank so people 'take your word for it' and are tricked by you? This entire shill push SEEMS TO REQUIRE our participation.

They MUST trick us in order for this work it appears. They spend a lot of time and effort to do so and slink away when caught. Which means our mental efforts are the deciding factor here.

2. DASH HAS NO NEED TO INTEGRATE INTO SHITCOINS. None of the coins 'above Dash' have instant transactions. None of them have functional privacy AND instant transactions. None of them have governance or official but decentralized autonomous orgs that the DAO can do business with.

In short this is another example of your psychological manipulation. You place the 'burden of integration' on US even though we're the superior network and we're the only one that's actually growing QonQ.

YOU ARE THE ONE who is not 'acknowledging the context in which we sit'. Again using projection. This person is running the gamut of dishonest debating tactics and it really shows that I was correct earlier and this push to 'change everything' is subversive and manipulative.

You blame us for things that aren't our fault, then you praise shitcoins that failed where we succeeded. This is what I call an 'opposite attack'. Because saying things that are 180% opposite from the truth is the STRONGEST ATTACK one can make by lying. Which is how I know you're a bad actor, all your lies are as strong as possible, which would be unlikely if you were merely misinformed.

> Only recently have we had Ethereum

You're an idiot.

1. Eth is a shitshow

2. Dash wasn't ready for any such integration and still won't be until platform deploys

More superficial retarded reasoning that takes advantage of the fact that most people are not developers and wouldn't understand why Dash and Eth couldn't really do anything together before and won't be able to until after Platform. Tricking people into thinking stupidly is also a form of attack.

>In any case, you keep saying I haven't answered X, Y or Z

Because you haven't? I've asked several questions that you've just ignored. That means that you lose!

>but I'm still waiting for you to name one new person or organization that has come to dash in recent times.

I don't have any obligation to answer a RED HERRING. You have to FIRST ESTABLISH WHY THIS IS REQUIRED. The Dash social contract requires many things. Good behavior from miners and MNOs, good behavior from the treasury participants, use of the X11 hashing algorithm. WHERE IS IT SPECIFIED THAT THERE HAS TO BE 'new people or organizations coming to dash in recent times'??

You are CONCERN TROLLING!

> You just keep saying the same shit that the wheel isn't broken, there's nothing to fix.

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black! You have to JUSTIFY WHY you think this metric is useful. You're literally trying to attack the Dash network by making a mountain out of a mole hill!!

The Dash network is not hindered or harmed by 'no no proposals this month'. You're being facetious and preposterous, which is why you refuse to JUSTIFY where this standard comes from. This is classic shill behavior and arguing style.

You make an assumption and run with it, ignoring calls to justify it and projecting your dishonest behavior onto others. You guys are ruining the experience of cryptocurrencies AND YOU ARE NOW HEAVILY CURSED FOR TRYING TO DESTROY DASH.

Happy?

>What you ignore is the larger ecosystem in which dash sits.

That's what YOU'RE IGNORING! We're the top of the food chain with decentralized governance, instant transactions, a VAST and growing daily userbase with thousands of commercial payments a day....NO OTHER COIN HAS THIS! And yet you're PRETENDING (concern trolling) that we're in some 'big crisis' because we have 3 less proposals than usual??? That's dishonest!

>The people and money in the market are choosing to go elsewhere

You're trying to concern troll the network into self destructive behavior because someone paid you off and now you're spending your time trying to 'recoup that investment'. You're an UGLY PIECE OF SHIT AND YOU SHOULD BE COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM OUR NETWORK TROLL!

>You want a system that isolates itself from the rest of the world with "twelve proposals" from the same people.

What a STUPID FUCKING THING TO SAY. You are deliberately not responding to my arguments. You are ignoring my questions and you are bullheadedly repeating your 'talking points'.

This isn't a discussion because you already decided on the only outcome you would support before it began. You're not seeking the truth, you're trying to force your agenda down our throats. You will not get away with this AT ALL, mark my words!
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
According to you, my questions are "red herrings" and my answers are stupid. But apparently I've managed to hold you captive and make you type reams of nonsense, which is probably a good thing because it means you're not busy elsewhere spreading your shit.

I'm just waiting to see your reaction when DCG agree to address governance issues in a bigger way. I look forward to you attacking DCG directly, declaring how perfect dash already is. But I know your state of mind, you will reconcile the hypocrisy somehow.
Reply
-3 points,26 days ago
>According to you, my questions are "red herrings"

Correct. Here is the definition of the term:

Red herring

A red herring is something that *misleads or distracts* from a *relevant or important question*. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion.

This argument:

you to name one new person or organization that has come to dash in recent times.

Relies on an assumption that distracts from the main point. I.e. you're ASSUMING that we need to have even one new person or organization come to dash in 'recent times' or something bad will happen.

This is a distraction because you have not yet justified that this conclusion is correct. If you make the argument that 1. A = B, 2. B = C and therefore 3. A = C, without FIRST PROVING 1 or 2, then you're making a red herring argument.

You're only focused on "hey man, A = C" when we the network WANT YOU TO PROVE the first two premises. If A != B then that whole argument falls apart. You're distracting us from the fact that YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN A = B.

You have proven NEITHER that this 'decline' is even real (15-19 propsals /month down to 12, why wasn't the decline from 19-15 equally as 'alarming'? Because you're concern trolling), NOR that it has been caused by the five Dash fee (which was worth many times more in the past).

>But apparently I've managed to hold you captive and make you type reams of nonsense

I accept this as your mea culpa and admission that you cannot respond to my arguments and have been defeated here today. You should be more humble about it though, because admitting you were wrong doesn't work if you can't bring yourself to actually do it. Either argue or shut the hell up! You can't argue so you should shut up. But you're a shill so you keep fucking talking.

>I'm just waiting to see your reaction when DCG agree to address governance issues in a bigger way.

Right and we're all STILL WAITING for you to specify both these issues and the harm that is occuring due to them.

You guys repeatedly want us to 'just take your word for it' and make these crazy changes based on absolutely nothing.

Everything in your last paragraph is just more bullshit. If you shut your mouth all of it would at least stay in your body instead of polluting this place. More evidence that you are a piece of shit.
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
I won't respond to all your nonsense because it's pointless, you attack and reject all that is said.

You even reject your own evidence:

"NOR that it has been caused by the five Dash fee (which was worth many times more in the past)."

An admission, must I say, that dash has indeed fallen from grace. By your own assessment, dash is ranked #39. I mean, when I talk about price, rank and relevance you claim "distraction" yet there you go feeding "lies and distraction" about the very same thing. You say it's for me to prove correlation (and it's not even my proposal), yet you don't want to prove correlation with 5 dash proposal fees and this supposed success you spout about. How convenient.

This is exactly how it goes down in the quarterly calls, EVERY SINGLE TIME. Ryan tells everyone how usage is increasing etc and NEVER addresses the elephant in the room of dash's fall from grace. Right there, in your face, with your own fucking words.

A little reminder, dash / Wirex "partnership": https://dashnews.org/wirex-announces-partnership-dash-new-contactless-cards/

Or how about some Living Room of Satoshi for you: https://www.livingroomofsatoshi.com/

And so the list goes on, neither of them accepting dash anymore. But at least they accept your favorite shitcoin Ethereum, right? I mean, with this much loved treasury of yours, where the fuck are they?

I've typed 238 words, let's see how long your wall of text is.
Reply
-4 points,26 days ago
>I won't respond to all your nonsense because it's pointless

Thank you for conceding the points that you refuse to respond to. Just like last time, you left with a heaping helping of bruises, this time is no different for sure.

>you attack and reject all that is said.

Only with reason, logic and evidence. If your reason, logic or evidence is better than mine than I will happily and aggressively concede the point. Because that's how you grow. You sold out like a real idiot though, so you can never grow.

>You even reject your own evidence:

What? I'm not rejecting my own evidence.

>dash is ranked #39.

Right. Why haven't you sourced your 'Dash is #65' claim yet? Trying to trick others with lies definitely exposes you as a shill and bad actor...

> I mean, when I talk about price, rank and relevance you claim "distraction"

It is a distraction! THIS IS NOT AN ARBITRARY NUMBER COMPETITION!!

ANYONE CAN PRINT A HUGE FUCKING SUPPLY YOU RETARD, THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING!

We are in an ADOPTION RACE. That means USERS, TRANSACTIONS, GROWTH, BUSINESSES.

You are IGNORING ALL THIS AND TRYING TO DISTRACT FROM IT by arguing about price, and rank. Even though I've ALREADY DEFEATED YOUR RANK ARGUMENT.

Repeating a defeated argument MEANS YOU LOSE FOOL!

>yet there you go feeding "lies and distraction"

Non-sensical charge. You're so desparate that you can't even string together logical rebuttals. No wonder you refuse to respond to anything.

>yet you don't want to prove correlation with 5 dash proposal fees and this supposed success you spout about. How convenient.

THE BURDEN IS ON THE CLAIMANT DUMBASS! THAT'S YOU!

You're the one claiming that the 5 Dash fee is somehow insufficient, so YOU'RE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVE IT!

>of dash's fall from grace.

'What fall from grace'?

First, you LIED before and said dash was #65. We're not. We're #39. Don't you think you should apologize for this? No, of course you don't. BECAUSE YOU'RE A SHILL AND A LIAR!

> Right there, in your face, with your own fucking words.

And you're also an illogical IDIOT who can't string together a simple argument.

>A little reminder,

You list two tiny failures as proof of ... what exactly? HOW THE FUCK do these two proposals mean we should lower the 5 Dash fee??

>And so the list goes on, neither of them accepting dash anymore.

WHO CARES?

Dash is accepted at BITREFILL (monero our supposed competition is not), uphold (debit card and other great services) as well as MANY OTHER services. YOU ARE TROLLING by ignoring this and pretending like these two insignificant proposals somehow support your argument.

>But at least they accept your favorite shitcoin Ethereum, right? I mean, with this much loved treasury of yours, where the fuck are they?

You're not making any sense. You are deliberately saying muddled things to avoid admitting that YOU DON'T HAVE AN ARGUMENT!

>I've typed 238 words, let's see how long your wall of text is.

What kind of challenge is this? The kind that a COWARD and a lowly ignorant CHILD would make. You're so scared you can't even make a REAL challenge like a man, because YOU'RE JUST A LITTLE BOY WHO NEVER GREW UP.

So you think you can lie to everyone and steal from them because you're a selfish asshole.
Reply
3 points,26 days ago
I know this is a bit fucking hard for you to comprehend but in your words:

"NOR that it has been caused by the five Dash fee (which was worth many times more in the past)."

..and then said:

"THIS IS NOT AN ARBITRARY NUMBER COMPETITION!!"

Your words, one minute dash was worth many time more in the past, next minute it's an arbitrary number. Does it hurt to be so fucking stupid?

You're going to hold up bitrefill as your trophy? You do know they are bitcoin maximalists? They probably dump all their dash for bitcoin. But be my guest, talk to them on their podcast, prove me wrong.
Reply
-3 points,25 days ago
OMG you're really bad at this.

Are you deliberately twisting my words around or do you not understand what this is about?

When I said this isn't an arbitrary number competition, the context was MARKETCAP, RANK AND PRICE. Those arbitrary numbers are not what we should be focused on.

Also, 5 Dash or 1 Dash IS NOT what we should focus on, but discussing is fine. The 5 Dash fee is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to our price, rank marketcap, AND THOSE THINGS are unrelated to our actual goal of mass adoption. Thanks for proving you're most likely a drug addled person with little true cognitive ability.

>Your words, one minute dash was worth many time more in the past, next minute it's an arbitrary number.

Hey, IDIOT. I was saying that the COST OF THE DASH FEE was higher and we still had plenty of proposals during that time. I never said it wasn't an arbitrary number you gaslighting retard.

>Does it hurt to be so fucking stupid?

I don't know, you tell me.

>You're going to hold up bitrefill as your trophy?

Bitrefill is AWESOME I use it almost everyday. Only a real shill and piece of shit would attack our unique offerings relative to our competition. Really goes to prove that you're not an ugly sellout piece of shit for sure.

> You do know they are bitcoin maximalists? T

WHO GIVES A FUCK, YOU IDIOT!

The point is your stupid little fucking example of completely tiny, useless services not accepting Dash IS WRONG! Bitrefill and uphold are WAY bigger than 'livingroomofsatoshi' and 'wirex', you stupid clown!

>But be my guest, talk to them on their podcast, prove me wrong.

You continually make arguments that are completely unrelated to the topic at hand. That means you're most likely a shill paid to disrupt us. I look forward to destroying your influence and removing you from our community.

Thanks for the opportunity to try!
Reply
1 point,25 days ago
You said dash "was worth many times more in the past". I didn't realize you chose one set of numbers to be arbitrary and others are not.

Now you're trying to defend Uphold that require a third party company called Veriff to install apps on your smartphone to collect unspecified data. Not open sourced and no alternative verification process. But yeah, be my guest and shill.
Reply
3 points,26 days ago
Who knew that MNOs could be so hostile towards each other. Proof, I guess, that it's truly decentralized. But is that what you want, for everyone to think and behave like you? Or just to throw insults at others because you're always so fucking correct and righteous? You come on here and show everyone what a dick you can be. Well maybe you should go and get some fresh air and interact with real people.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
>Who knew that MNOs could be so hostile towards each other.

I know right? You guys think that because you're being 'civil' that your infiltration and destruction attempts should be coddled and prized. But you're trying to get us to destroy ourselves by lowering the spam barrier.

You're akin to the nano community that trolls UTXO coins by saying 'you should get rid of fees'. These people feel that not only are they allowed to support delusional thinking, but also that they're allowed TO FORCE YOU TO THINK THAT WAY TOO!

You deliberately refuse to justify this proposal. You just keep saying, 'Let's try it and see what happens!' People with the best interests of the network don't do things like that.

>for everyone to think and behave like you?

No, of course not. I'm subject to feedback positive AND NEGATIVE just like everyone else. If you can find a flaw in my reasoning I will be at the front of the race to congratulate you and amend my ways. Its just that it hasn't happened yet.

I've really tried to give you guys a chance. I've even made some unfounded claims (that later turned out to be correct) just so you guys would be able to get a word in edgewise. Believe it or not, but destroying your enemies so completely gets boring after a while. Yet none of you can reach the level to even criticize my legitimate mistakes.

That's regrettable, but its not my fault and it doesn't mean at all that I 'want everyone to think like me'. I ask again, where's your masternode?

>You come on here and show everyone what a dick you can be.

I'm only a dick to you because you're a subversive liar and piece of shit. I don't want to call you this. It pains me to be this guy. BUT SOMEBODY HAS TO PUT A STOP TO YOU STUPID, GASLIGHTING ASSHOLES.

This is real money and you pieces of shit think you can FORCE US to subtlely make it worse and worse so YOU SHITHEADS can force YOUR SHITCOINS ON US.

NO THANKS!!
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
You just can't help yourself. I can only speak for myself when I say I'm not here to infiltrate or be destructive, not least that it's only zeros and ones that you're staring at and reacting to. It's not like someone hit you over the head with a 1U server rack.

The difference between nano "zero fees" and dash proposal fees is that these fees get burned and thus reduce total supply. If you half the fee and get twice as many proposals, the supply is still reduced by the same amount. But as it goes, this proposal is saying more than this, it is also saying a proposal owner may choose to pay _any_ amount above one. So I say, if someone wants to burn, say, 10 dash then be my guest.

Will one dash affect the quality of proposals? Maybe in some ways but equally it may have other positive effects, such as introducing fresh new blood from countries or sectors that were previously untouched. I'm not declaring to be absolutely right or wrong beyond life experiences, researching and analysing how systems function.

Taxes, for example, have unforeseen consequences, benefiting some groups of people at the expense of others. It could be argued that the 5 dash proposal fee is akin to an expensive tax with these unforeseen consequences. To better understand this concept you may want to read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
Reply
-4 points,25 days ago
>FYI I have given lots of money away for free without expectation of anything in return.

Evil shitlord assholes often do 'token' 'charity' and other things to 'balance' and deflect from their evil behavior, so you're actually proving my point with this ('I even contributed to poor kids on christmas that one time!!!)

>For all your hate I cast my vote anyway. What you going to do about it?

You'll see! :)
Reply
2 points,25 days ago
LOLOL, nice! Not very clever but yeah, fun!
Reply
-2 points,25 days ago
LOLOL, I know! It sucks you lack cleverness, but that explains why you would take a shill's path in the first place.

Shills don't have any real talent or creativity (see Joel and Tao's videocasts for years now) so they have no option but to sellout to get ahead. Pathetic.
Reply
-3 points,26 days ago
>You just can't help yourself.

Apparently I can't help you either. Pity.

>when I say I'm not here to infiltrate or be destructive

You say that, but then you advocate for a proposal to almost completely remove our spam protection. And you get defensive and dismissive when we ask why. Only infiltrators behave that way.

>It's not like someone hit you over the head with a 1U server rack.

Maybe if someone did that to you, you would actually smarten up, wouldn'tve lost $1000 dollars on a similarly stupid idea as this before and wouldn't have to continually get your ass-kicked online by me. Your fantasies don't help you, only hurt you. 0s and 1s separate us from the animals all the time so this is another stupid argument from you.

>The difference between nano "zero fees" and dash proposal fees is that these fees get burned and thus reduce total supply.

Irrelevant and this comment shows you either can barely follow a real conversation or you're deliberately being obtuse. The point wasn't to compare Nano's fee to the Dash proposal fees. Go back and read it again.

The point was that the Nano community is BEING DISHONEST by refusing to acknowledge the solution to spam which is (low) fees. JUST LIKE YOU'RE DELIBERATELY IGNORING THAT OUR SPAM PROBLEM IS SOLVED BY THE FEE.

So just like the Nano community saying to other coins 'You should get rid of fees. Nano solved it.' is disingenuous because Nano is heavily vulnerable to spam, so too is it dishonest for you to pretend like lowering the fee won't incentivize more spam. We've already had about a dozen two-year long spam proposals that you completely keep ignoring. This is also dishonest.

>If you half the fee and get twice as many proposals, the supply is still reduced by the same amount.

Stupid. Nobody cares about your dumb tokenomics carrot. The tokenomics of Dash are basically perfect right now. No other coin can do what we routinely and regularly do. So you concern trolling over lowering the prop. fee without addressing this is dishonest and proves that you have bad motivations.

>it is also saying a proposal owner may choose to pay _any_ amount above one.

This is _irrelevant_ you're trying to gaslight me. WE DON'T GIVE A FUCK if they have that option! You're trying to placate us by saying nonsensical things.

"Hurr ddddum durr you can pay what you want. Durrr"

We know that! We're upset that you're trying to change the nature of the Dash network based on assumptions and concern trolling. You're deliberately trying to IGNORE AND SKIP PAST OUR OBJECTIONS by offering a 'concession' that nobody wants or asked for, THAT'S THE BEHAVIOR OF AN ASSHOLE!

We don't want to have to fucking filter spam, you cretin. Saying that 'oh you can just filter spam' or 'oh people can just pay more' IS A DUMBASS ARGUMENT! You're deliberately moving the goalposts by NOT ADDRESSING our greivance and pretending you are! That's malicious behavior and it PROVES that you're on the wrong side of this. Only bad actors engage like that.

>So I say, if someone wants to burn, say, 10 dash then be my guest.

STUPID. Nobody will WANT to do that. The whole point of the proposal fee is that you HAVE TO PAY IT, not that you WANT TO. You're again trying to confuse your opponent by responding to strawmen and deliberately moving the goal posts. Dishonest behavior that should get you KICKED OUT OF THE NETWORK for being a bad actor!

>Will one dash affect the quality of proposals? Maybe in some ways but equally it may have other positive effects

'May', 'Maybe'. Look why don't you prove what you're saying 'might happen' instead of trying to trick us into 'trusting you'? You have no proof that this proposal will improve Dash so how can you so aggressively try to force us to accept it?? Don't you realize that makes you a bad actor? Do you really not fear being attacked by the rest of the network for selling out??? So many questions.....

>I'm not declaring to be absolutely right or wrong beyond life experiences, researching and analysing how systems function.

WELL THEN FIGURE OUT IF YOU'RE RIGHT OR WRONG FIRST BEFORE TRYING TO FORCE THIS BULL CRAP DOWN OUR THROATS!!! Its insanity that you admit that you don't know what will happen, but are still trying to force this issue anyway. Absolutely insane!

>It could be argued that the 5 dash proposal fee is akin to an expensive tax with these unforeseen consequences.

Only if you're subversive shill asshole who wants to guilt the Dash network into self-destructive behavior because you've got some STUPID FUCKING BULLSHIT AGENDA handed down from on high.

YOU DIPSHITS don't seem to realize that WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR YOUR STUPID BACKROOM DEALS! If you sell out then that's your business, but we are under NO OBLIGATION to allow you to destroy our network for your own self interests!

>To better understand this concept you may want to read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.

I don't need to understand anything. You need to explain why this change MUST happen. Why you are so adamant for it in the face of all evidence against it. Why you are IGNORING all the possible bad and basically trying to FORCE THIS THROUGH.
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
Never stops amazing me how humans are capable of understanding the intricacies of language yet end up so fucked up, righteous and narcissistical.

There's something wrong with you, drugs in your system or something. You need help and I actually hope you get it.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
>language yet end up so fucked up, righteous and narcissistical.

Look in the mirror pal, you're literally working on the side of dr. evil to destroy cryptocurrencies. Even if you committed suicide, you could never repay the world for the damage you're doing you selfish asshole.

>There's something wrong with you,

Projection. I'm not the one trying to prevent people from having control over their financial freedom.

You have mental problems because you attack others without cause (innocent people who need Dash) and then turn around and get on a high horse like you're not a lousy, ugly, STUPID piece of shit.

There is no hope for you, and I hope you disappear forever.
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
FYI I have given lots of money away for free without expectation of anything in return.

For all your hate I cast my vote anyway. What you going to do about it?
Reply
-4 points,26 days ago
There is a struggle for control of the project going on and this proposal is part of it. If this passes, expect a flurry of governance proposals to harass and undermine DCG's leadership and expect more wasteful spending requests from the usual suspects.

Meanwhile, the project appears to be on autopilot and IMHO we are running out of time. WE have big problems that are not being addressed. Here they are in no particular order:

- Enemies of DCG have infiltrated the Dash Irrevocable Trust.
- The developers have gone rogue and report to no one.
- We are committed to IS which can't scale.
- We are committed to CoinJoin which no one wants to use.
- Evo has design flaws and scaling issues that remain unresolved.

I am personally selling off my masternodes. I will keep one as a souvenir.
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
Gerhard, you are talking from a place of deep seated paranoia, you really should take a breath and stop being so dramatic, lowering the proposal fee is hardly the end of the world and it isn't some coup on the coin. I also believe you are spreading FUD about IS not being able to scale (it can, everything we've tested to date says it can) and CoinJoin, where you can scarcely find a block that doesn't have several mixing transactions.

Not financial advice, but selling nodes because you are heart broken and feeling disenfranchised is really pathetic and not a sound way to trade. Suggest you take the rest of the year away from DASH to clear your mind and return when you are in a better place.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
>isn't some coup on the coin.

That's EXACTLY what it is! Shills ALWAYS say the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the truth, because that's the strongest attack you can make by LYING!

That is EXACTLY what this is. You guys come out of nowhere, bang on some pots on reddit and dashcentral, pretend like you have some consensus, so you can get the network used to your style of agitprop and 'making changes' for concern troll reasons.

The monero community seems to be running through the list of things I provided to prevent psychological manipulation of the dash community. They think that if they can get us to think and reason poorly, then they can foster our destruction without being blamed for it.

So they're going to push concern trolling, agitprop, scissor statements, all of the things I warned about and protected us from, they're going to cycle through it again. They often rely on other people 'forgetting' their bad behavior and just 'giving them a free pass'. This is why I argue like I do, as much as I do.

These assholes are insidious and will not stop. But in order for their tricks to work WE HAVE TO AGREE TO IT. We have to be the ones who do it, otherwise they will be punished for criminal activity. They know this, WHICH IS WHY THEY WON'T STOP TRYING TO INFLUENCE AND TRICK US USING PROMINENT PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.

This is the fight for financial freedom.

> Suggest you take the rest of the year away from DASH to clear your mind and return when you are in a better place.

I suggest that you shut up and go away. I'm not defending geert at all as he definitely also MUST and WILL go away. But shills often 'argue together' to make it 'seem more real'. The fact is WE DON'T NEED YOU ASSHOLES! Dash is winning which is why you're so desperate to destroy us and trick us into self destructive behavior.

I can imagine all the bullshit george-donnellyesque excuses and bullshit cynical reasonings you're going to provide once the spam is annoying enough. You're probably going to gaslight us then and mock us for some minor fault or the other TO HIDE YOUR ANTISOCIAL ASSHOLE BEHAVIOR!
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
Antisocial? lololol, fucking hell, you win an award for that one.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
Just because you have a 'smile on your face' and you're 'being nice and civil' DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE NOT ATTACKING US, FOOL.

If you smile and wave while stabbing someone, *ITS STILL A CRIME YOU IDIOT!*

Trying to make it easier for spam to flood the DAO with NO JUSTIFICATION (all of these posts and I still don't see it...) is malicious and therefore antisocial behavior.

The only award-winning performance here is your ACTING JOB pretending like you're not a scammer and shill. Good work, if I were an idiot I would almost be convinced.
Reply
1 point,25 days ago
Just a little bit over dramatic? When did I stab someone, or raise my hand to anyone actually?

Spammers and scammers pay 5 dash and no doubt would pay 10 dash if it was worth their while. I mean, I can imagine you paying 5 dash just to troll us. OTOH, you do come across as a bit of a lazy cunt, more happy to type reams of hate than actually doing something productive.
Reply
-1 point,25 days ago
>Just a little bit over dramatic? When did I stab someone, or raise my hand to anyone actually?

Taking a bribe to destroy Dash the only cryptocurrency that can hope to fulfill Satoshi's original vision is actually A LOT WORSE than stabbing someone or 'raising your hand'.

Shills want to trick you by PRETENDING to be civil. Just like if you PRETENDED the reason not to hire someone was because of something 'legal' and not due to their sexual orientation.

That would be a crime. That would be a crime WORSE than just attacking someone, because you're hiding behind legalese to carry out your assault.

So you're definitely wrong about that, you don't need to personally 'physically attack someone' to be an evil sellout piece of shit like you are.

>Spammers and scammers pay 5 dash and no doubt would pay 10 dash if it was worth their while.

Except they can't because doing so once would expose them and let us know the problem is real and the expense makes it very likely that their original planned outcome wouldn't come to pass because they risk paying for it.

You guys are basically advocating that we remove this barrier to our enemies for free.

>I mean, I can imagine you paying 5 dash just to troll us.

You can imagine that because you're a liar and a shill.

Nobody has done more to defend the DAO and cultivate an atmosphere of honesty, sincerity and genuineness in the Dash network than have I. If you have any candidates, present them.

YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT TRY TO SUBVERT OUR NATURAL PROTECTIONS TO MAKE IT EAISER FOR OUR ENEMIES TO ATTACK US. ENEMIES YOU WON'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE.

That means it is YOU who is most likely to spend 5 Dash to troll us. Indeed, this is the SECOND TIME YOU'VE DONE THIS. So you're actually projecting, which is more evidence that not only are you a shill, but you know you are and are trying to deflect from that fact.

Thank you for this evidence.
Reply
-3 points,26 days ago
"The developers have agreed to abide by the outcome."

Shadowy anons colluding with the dev team. What a wonderful precedent we have here!
Reply
3 points,26 days ago
No doubt to fund that dash fork you keep promising, hahahaha
Reply
-4 points,26 days ago
I did not promise anything. I simply proposed that we create a fork of Dash that has no POW, no InstantSend, no CoinJoin, no DAO, and no treasury...

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-lite-fork-codename-phoenix-whitepaper.51705/
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
>I am personally selling off my masternodes. I will keep one as a souvenir.

I look forward to this day and personally recommend you forgo the souvenir. Just sell them and begone.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
>think lowering the barrier to entry for proposal creators would likely result in more engagement and competition in the gov system which is needed right now

1. Do you have any evidence that this 'barrier to entry' i.e. our spam resistance is too high?

2. Do you have any evidence that our engagement and competition are too low?

Because when you look at Dash and compare it to every other coin, we are LIGHT YEARS ahead of them on these two metrics. So I have to ask, where does this conclusion stem from?

>and is more important

How do you know that? Where is your MNO tag btw? If you're not an MNO then how can you tell us which concerns of ours should be more or less important?

If you DO have a MN, then why are you deaf to the criticisms we've levied against this idea so many times now? Spam is real, its already happened even at 5 DASH, and yet you are paradoxically telling us to ignore that and pretend it didn't happen.

That would mean that we would bear the blame should something go wrong. You should know you cannot force someone to do something that is against their best interests, this applies to humans and to true DAOs alike, so please, less high horse posturing and more evidence.

I didn't ask for your biases, I asked for your reason for supporting changing this fee, i.e. I asked you for EVIDENCE.

>which if actually became a problem it could be reversed and the price increased within some future HF anyway

Where in software is it ever a good idea to 'introduce technical debt because we can always get rid of it later'? I've been a developer for decades and, I gotta say, that attitude would've gotten you fired at 90% of the shops I've worked at. That is just a terrible rationale and it doesn't make your side look good imo.

> Engagement in gov system has steadily declined

How do you know this? How do you know its due to the proposal fee? Isn't it possible that there are other things that could cause this percieved decline?

Why are you so certain not only that its the proposal fee, but that lowering it to 1 Dash will solve the problem? Finally, why do you believe that its acceptable to 'just try it and see' when that is never a good rationale to do something from a mature software perspective?

None of these questions are rhetorical and I would appreciate a response to them if you would.

>in terms of choice and people coming forward to create things

I don't know what you're talking about. Just because there are less proposals showing on Dashnexus doesn't mean the community has decreased. Lots of proposals only come back when they run out of money. Did you forget the bull market earlier this year?

I noticed a couple proposals were rolling funds over due to a much higher than anticipated Dash price earlier. But you're concluding, against all reason, that this is actually a bad thing?

>whilst centralization and concentration has gradually increased.

Preposterous. How has centralization increased?? You're just throwing buzz words out here, there is no EVIDENCE in your post.

> Lowering the barrier of entry is an obvious way to kickstart things.

Only if you accept the superficial and nonsensical reasoning you've displayed here. There is literally no problem and you are making a mountain out of a mole hill to justify a change that the MNOs have told you NO on before.
Reply
3 points,26 days ago
The evidence of the decline in the number of proposals and proposers is in the governance data itself. If you're arguing over that point, it's really hard to take you seriously.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
I notice also that you dodged ALL of my other questions, so I will take that as your admission that you cannot answer them and thus concede the points presented.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
That's not evidence. There could be any number of reasons for the decline in the number of proposals. And that decline itself isn't really real. Last year we were averaging between 15-19 proposals a month.

Currently we're sitting at 12. How is that evidence? NO OTHER COIN has ONE proposal paid out in a Decentralized and autonomous way, let alone 12, so WHAT ARE YOU JUDGING THAT BY???

>proposers is in the governance data itself.

How can you conclude from this that the PROPOSAL FEE is the cause??

>If you're arguing over that point, it's really hard to take you seriously.

If you refuse to justify your most basic assumptions ITS IMPOSSIBLE to take you seriously!
Reply
1 point,25 days ago
I'm looking forward to your proposal to raise it back to 5 dash lol
Reply
-1 point,25 days ago
Already counting your victory are you?

The only way you could be so certain it would pass is if you were engaged in exactly the kind of backroom shady deals I've been speaking about.

Thank you for providing evidence that I was correct.

*Damn, I can't believe I'm having to thank you so much! This was unexpected, well-played. You are doing well in your attempt to recover from your previous loss, I'll give you that.
Reply
1 point,27 days ago
For those interested in the previous network polling proposal about this very same topic :
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/REDUCE_PROPOSAL_FEES_TO_1_DASH
Reply
0 points,27 days ago
Keen observers may notice that i voted yes on that polling proposal back in 2017. Since then i changed my mind about this topic, for reasons already stated in my other comments.
Reply
-1 point,27 days ago
So I guess the real question is, what's changed?

The burden is on the PO's to justify not only the change, but justify ignoring this previous vote.

Thanks for the link
Reply
-1 point,26 days ago
From the previous network polling proposal in 2017 about reducing the proposal fee from 5 Dash to 1 Dash, i am quoting the main concern :

''Dear Dash Nation !

Sudden spike of Dash-to-U.S.Dollar prices, put many new proposals out of reach for small projects.
With regard to the recent maximum USD price of Dash at $120, We think the proposal fee should be reduced to 1.0 Dash.
Without this change, We feel that opportunities will be missed.
This is because a high proposal cost will discourage submitting of anything but "guaranteed" proposals.
The 5 Dash fee was introduced primarily to prevent spam. But it became a wall, where new proposals cannot even be proposed.''

Source : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/REDUCE_PROPOSAL_FEES_TO_1_DASH

Now lets take a look what actually happened, did that 5 Dash proposal fee in any way actually limit the creation of new proposals over the years ?

I looked at the governance part of dashninja.pl to collect some data about that and here is the outcome : https://imgur.com/a/WkF27uY

I see no limiting factor at play here, no wall that prevented proposals from getting created.

So in my view the problem is not with our proposal fee, but with people in general getting less interested in Dash. There could be a number of reasons for that : long and brutal bear market, other emerging funding options for people, bad marketing over the years driving people away from Dash etc etc, but those are just assumptions of mine. Just like assuming that lowering the proposal fee to 1 Dash will magically solve everything, is also an assumption.

I don't want to change our proposal fee based on assumptions.
Reply
-4 points,26 days ago
This is the kind of 'corruption culture' that these aggressive and subversive assholes want to construct here in Dash! I know I'm yelling a lot, because THE DASH COMMUNITY NEEDS TO HEAR THIS!

Basically this prominent youtube guy David Bond is pulling a George Donnelly on the BCH community.

He got a 'flipstarter' (BCH equivalent of a proposal, but its all volunteer donations so nothing special) funded for a lot of money. And now he's making excuses why he can't deliver.

Notice, in BCH there is NO MONTH TO MONTH transparency, nor any way of evaluating flipstarter campaign owners and providing feedback (like firing them like we do in Dash):

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/oh9tps/david_bond_flipstarter_update/

>im_her_father
·
3h

>You were forced or choose to leave?

>I watch other american youtubers from thailand that stayed longer in the country than they usually would due to the same reason... visa was a non-issue of course.

>Why would you even be flying around to all these countries if you thought CV was a big enough deal to leave thailand in the first place? wouldn't you thus be contributing to the spread?

>I've heard this song and dance many times. Soon you'll stop responding after its clear nobody is paying attention. Few more months and you'll be in the clear with your bounty.
Reply
-4 points,26 days ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/oh08bl/hexadashers_dash_marketing_thoughts_and/

Tao of satoshi hosts noted scammer and loser 'Blake Chamness'.

This is exactly what i mean about shilling and backroom, sellout deals.

Blake is an eyesore on the community and has tried to grift from us like Joel did. Luckily he did not pass.

But just the attempt is enough to tell you all you need to know about him.

The final weapon against us TRULY IS CONFLICT OF INTEREST, just like I pointed out all those years ago!
Reply
-5 points,26 days ago
To respond to xkcd's attempt to manipulate the narrative towards their shill line:

>xkcdmpx
Op ·
4h

>It is hilarious to think that given the default action is no proposal gets paid, **so all they have to do is ignore it.**

What a stupid thing to say. Shills always rely on illogical 'reasoning' to trick you. So we shouldn't be opposed to proposals we don't like, we should just ... ignore them? WTF is he talking about?? The point of the DAO isn't to 'sit back and let shills destroy you through subversive voting', its to MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! So with that out of the way,

>So, why are they opposed to it?

1. Because its not properly justified. Changing the way Dash functions this late in the game with no reason is 'fixing something that's not broken'. EVERYONE KNOWS how bad that is, there's even a common saying encapsulating this sentiment.

But for some reason, xkcd and the others in here don't seem to even know this phrase exists. Because they're shills trying to attack us by doing exactly that, 'fixing' things that are working properly. Things 'working properly' only needs fixing FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF OUR DISHONEST COMPETITION! They never learned the other expression either, **CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER!**

>because they think other MNOs might vote in favour of new proposals,

Strawman + manipulative lie. Nobody is against new proposals. We're against the FALSE EQUIVALENCE that keeping the fee at 5 Dash = no new proposals. You haven't proven this and the 5 years of the DAO, where we had plenty of proposals when the 5 Dash fee was worth a lot more, prove you wrong. This is a false equivalence and we have no obligation to coddle and support your idiocy.

>so actually the no voters are Karens as they try to speak for others,

I've never tried to speak for others.

IT IS A FACT that this idea has been brought up, in the same way and in other forms multiple times. ALL OF THOSE TIMES THE MNOS HAVE VOTED NO!

I'm just summaring that history, I have never spoken for other MNOs. WE ALL VOTED AGAINST THIS ALREADY! Several times!

So in fact, YOU'RE THE ONE who is trying to speak for MNOs because you're trying to ignore the fact that we've ALREADY SAID NO!

And you're projecting that onto me, which is further evidence that you're a malicious bad actor and a shill. I am so glad I called you out already, being proven right does feel good.

>a good example of this was TheRealDashMan's rant on DC where he 'speaks' for the entire network, what a fucking wanker!

Hey xkcd, GO FUCK YOURSELF ASSHOLE! You're the one trying to speak for the entire network because you're a sellout piece of shit idiot!
Reply
0 points,27 days ago
Yes. I sent 1 Dash to support this proposal being posted as I believe choice and competition is healthy for the network. The incubator model is great but giving more people the opportunity to come before the DAO makes a lot of sense. 5 Dash was an arbitrary amount set many years ago, 1 Dash is equally arbitrary but makes a lot more sense with Dash price where it is and it is a relatively simple change.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
This is what I mean by "delusional thinking".

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9461084

Analysis of transaction flooding attacks against Monero

“Our results show that after flooding the network for 12 months, the attacker can identify the true spend of 46.24% of newly created transaction inputs”

This is apparently an update of an old paper. But Monero is easily traceable and has been since its release.

But this doesn't cause massive price loss, selling or even loss of confidence, even though maintaining untraceability is the entire raison d'être of Monero. Delusional thinking.

So in monero, nobody raises the alarm when it needs to be raised, while the opposite is happening in DASH: prominent people are crying wolf and yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater where there is none.

In this thread and older ones, DashQueenApp, grandmasterDash and now Andyfreer and Ashfrancis have made the FALSE claim that the DAO is 'seeing less engagement'. In reality they appear to be PROJECTING THE MONERO COMMUNITY'S STATUS.

https://ccs.getmonero.org/ideas/

Notice something? Yes, there are only 5 'ideas' (equivalent to the preproposal phase in Dash), but look when they were created. All of them were created within the last two weeks!

Before that, that page WAS BARREN AND EMPTY! There were NO NEW IDEAS FOR MONTHS! You can see it!

Meanwhile on DashNexus there's TWELVE ACTIVE PROPOSALS. From all over the world. Just like THERE IS EVERY MONTH.

The monero community is well-known for their malicious use of projection. Flenst tried to project the monero community's 51% attack onto the DASH network and I called him out for it. It seems like those who are saying 'we have less engagement' are trying to TRICK US into accepting the plight of monero!

NOBODY WANTS TO USE MONERO FOR ANYTHING! Signal recently released their mobileCoin offering to beta trial and the MONERO COMMUNITY COMPLETELY EVISCERATED THEM FOR IT!

They called mobileCoin a scam, Signal scammers, everything a scam! All because privacy-centric Signal DIDN'T CHOOSE MONERO. Nobody is adopting monero, nobody USES monero. So the monero community wants to CYNICALLY project this onto DASH. For some reason, they think we're like their whipping boy or something. So whatever flaws or faults they have, they just say WE HAVE IT INSTEAD and pretend like nothing's wrong!

This is MANIPULATIVE AND MALICIOUS BEHAVIOR and it explains by itself out in the open exactly why CORRUPTION AND NEPOTISM ARE SO BAD.

When its hidden, its hard to really see the disgusting consequences up close, but in the open like this its clear as day. We have people, advocating against all good sense and reason, for things that are BAD FOR THE NETWORK. And they're gaslighting the rest of us by refusing to even justify their push.

They rely on trickery and delusional thinking so that they can blame your own actions for our failures later and get off scot free. It is malicious behavior for certain and it pegs them as the enemies of cryptocurrency for engaging in it!
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/ogs2k1/analysis_of_transaction_flooding_attacks_against/

Now deleted thread in r/monero. They can't even talk about their real flaws at all, so they delete the thread and censor the debate while pretending to still be a 'good coin'. They don't have people USING CONCERN TROLLING to agitate for radical change in their network, even though THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY NEED!
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
> From what I read, they flood 75% of block space in each block, so with current fee per byte cost it would be 1.025136 XMR/day.

Monero is EXTREMELY easy and cheap to spam and deanonymize transactions! If you 'flood' the xmr network with transactions from the same entity, then that entity will be able to determine a certain percentage of true spends (~46% according to the paper). This has ALWAYS been the case, which means its likely that monero has been compromised since the beginning.

Yet nobody is advocating anything like what we're seeing in this thread. The monero community is full of CYNICAL ASSHOLES. People who think, 'well, if we have spam problems, then EVERYONE HAS SPAM PROBLEMS!' and they will actually spend ALL THEIR TIME trying to FORCE THIS conclusion to be the narrative, even though its not fucking true.

The monero community is the dictionary definition of WASTED EFFORT. They think they can corral us back into a Fed-style infinite inflation scam since monero has infinite inflation and an unaditable supply. Again, more cynical reasoning justified by concern trolling and other psychological manipulation techniques. We have to beat these techniques because they're what the enemies of cryptocurrency use to destroy communities.

Scissor statements, corruption, conflict of interest and greed (like Joel Valenzuela hogging Dashboost funds while getting paid 320+ Dash per month from the regular treasury), in other words they rely on PERSONAL VICES AND MENTAL WEAKNESS to TRICK YOU into SELF-DESTRUCTION.
Reply
-1 point,27 days ago
There are some people here who are addicted to treasury funding even though they lack the ability or proclivity to provide value back to the DAO. It's like crack cocaine to them. We have to keep the five Dash proposal fee in order to protect these unfortunate individuals from themselves.

BTW, can you give me an example of a worthy initiative that is hampered by the five Dash fee?
Reply
2 points,27 days ago
We've gone for several months without a new soul approaching the DAO, where are your crack/cocaine junkies now? Personally, I want more choice, not less, we can always say NO, but as things stand, there is very little interest in the DAO at the moment.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
Joel Valenzuela is **still** trying to reverse the MNOs decision to defund DashForceNews. Apparently scamming the DAO to the tune of 300+ Dash per month for years wasn't enough.

What's more this is a red-herring/concern trolling. There is no benefit to a constant stream of new proposals. The point of the treasury is to the support the growing Dash community.

As long as we're not defunding good proposals (which lots of idiots tried to do too with similarly flawed reasoning), then the DAO is functioning properly.

There is much interest in the DAO and you are using superficial reasoning to foolishly conclude that there is none. Tell that to the 100k+ active android wallets in Venezuela in the last 30 days. They are supported by the myriad Dash Venezuelan proposals. This proposal is specious reasoning and reeks of bad behavior.
Reply
-2 points,27 days ago
I will be voting NO. My reasons for my NO vote can be found here : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-reduce-the-proposal-fee-to-1-dash.51329/page-3#post-226623
Reply
-3 points,27 days ago
With regards to those five spamming budget proposals that i used as example in my screenshot in the above link :

Those were all added to the budget list in June 2019 by dashcrypto with a two year (!!) time period, which expired only very recently (1st of July 2021). Which means eventhough these spamming proposals got a massive number of no votes, they were active and visible on Dash Central (and in our budget list) for two whole years.

That was with our current 5 Dash proposal fee, imagine the exploit possibility with just 1 Dash as proposal fee and with our current low fiat price.
Reply
3 points,27 days ago
They were at the bottom of the list and easily ignored. I don't follow the logic in denying access to the DAO for a larger audience, adding more healthy competition and choice, because of one bad actor who wasted their funds on easily dismissed proposals.
Reply
-1 point,27 days ago
Firstly, all spam is 'easily ignored', that's what makes it spam. Your spam folder in your email is 'easily ignored', but if I had a way to make sure you didn't need to deal with spam anymore, you would just say 'nahh, I can just ignore it'?

Color me incredulous.

Secondly, you have to PROVE that we're 'denying access to the DAO'. Where are these people who want to post proposals but are unable to because they can't afford the fee?

This question is NOT RHETORICAL.

The fact is this push to decrease the proposal fee is unjustified, and you all are VERY CERTAIN of something ('spam won't be a problem') in the face of all the evidence that it already has been.

Can you also address this criticism? Thanks
Reply
2 points,27 days ago
For spam emails we're talking hundreds, this is 5 items in a list.

Rather than assuming this proposal is coming from bad actors who deserve expulsion as you've put it, assume we're on the same side and give the benefit of the doubt. It seems you think the detriment of potential spam as being worse for Dash than the benefit of greater access and competition (and in your view, access is not an issue).

Anecdotal but I've talked to several potential project owners who want to put proposals in but are uncomfortable with the cost and risk. Instead, I have fielded them to the incubator where they can either raise 5 dash from valuable work or get their project supported there. This unfortunately isn't suitable for every contributor or project.

For your other issues, I'll briefly address; I was against the 1-5 variable fee because it wasnt clear was complex to integrate and would cause confusion. This is a new proposal with a very clear outcome. If the result is no on this too then that is settled.

I think I've highlighted why I think this isn't change for changes sake and the lack of new proposals in many months also highlights and issue and one factor in that, again from my anecdotal experience is cost.

I'm pretty sure you've been a staunch supporter of my work in the past (I've even reached out to you in the past to thank you) and I'm more than happy to chat this through on a call or otherwise.
Reply
-1 point,27 days ago
>For spam emails we're talking hundreds, this is 5 items in a list.

Not when each item is a proposal that has to be independently evaluated. Come on, try harder. Even a child could've thought that one through.

>assume we're on the same side and give the benefit of the doubt.

No. That requires TRUST. I have to TRUST that you and grandmasterDash and xkcd and Dashqueenapp are NOT bad actors. You might not be, BUT YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY NOT BE ASKING US TO TRUST YOU ON THAT.

You should be BREAKING YOUR BACK TO PROVE IT TO US. You shifting the burden onto us when its yours to prove is malicious behavior.

You see, I don't assume anything. I just proved that using only your own words. Powerful stuff, I know.

>It seems you think the detriment of potential spam as being worse for Dash than the benefit of greater access and competition (and in your view, access is not an issue).

This is correct.

>Anecdotal
Remember, 'the singular of Data is not anecdote'.

Evidence or get lost, respectfully.

>This unfortunately isn't suitable for every contributor or project.

Anyone who is 'having trouble' with the 5 Dash proposal fee needs to come to the community and have their greivances heard like all big boys do.

The Dash Network doesn't have any 'children' that can 'tug on mommy's tunic' to get their milk. Either you stand on your own two feet or you sit down, its that simple.

To date, there has been NOBODY that has complained about wanting to make a proposal, but the 5 Dash fee prevented them. If you have evidence of the opposite, please produce it. Dash has been running SMOOTHLY for YEARS and you think you can just come in here like, 'Hey guys we need more proposals?'

Ok, sure, but first answer, why? How many more? How did you determine there weren't enough? What detriment is having so few causing? YOU ARE IGNORING ALL THESE QUESTIONS. This is the behavior of bad actors.

Again, I came to that conclusion without trusting you and without needing to 'give you the benefit of the doubt'.

Good actors go out of their way to prove it. They don't make you 'assume good faith' while they're trying to get you to do something for them. Only bad actors do that. Careful.

> This is a new proposal with a very clear outcome.

This does not address that item. The point was ALL OF THE FEE change proposals have met a RESOUNDING NO. YOU ARE IGNORING THIS NO TO ASK US AGAIN. THAT IS MALICIOUS BEHAVIOR

'Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?'

Did it bother you to read that same question over again or have to skip it? Yeah, that is annoying, so why don't you get the fact that WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE PROPOSAL FEE?

>I think I've highlighted why I think this isn't change for changes sake

I think you have not. I'm the one who needs to be convinced here, not you, so try again.

>I'm pretty sure you've been a staunch supporter of my work in the past

I'm sure I have been. That is completely irrelevant. I will stop supporting you the second I believe you've been compromised, sold out, become a bad actor, etc. WHY THE FUCK don't you seem to understand that we have ENEMIES trying to destroy us FOR YEARS NOW?

How do you get off 'asking for trust' in a decentralized, trustless network? I think you have several severe misunderstandings that you need to sit down and think about carefully before you reply to me again.
Reply
-3 points,27 days ago
Reduce the proposal fee to 1 Dash and that one actor can grow into many many more bad actors. I foresee a clear risk of spam proposal exploitation, Dash Central comment power exploitation (trolling on other budget proposal threads will get super easy then) and more low quality budget proposals that gets launched without any prior feedback from the Dash community. Would there even been a pre-discussion thread about this topic, if it costed only 1 Dash to create this polling proposal ?

A risk that we can avoid by researching other options first instead of going to the extreme step of lowering the proposal fee from 5 Dash all the way to 1 Dash.

Why not first investigate other options, like restarting DashBoost in a safe trustless way to reach a larger audience who have lower funding requests ?
Reply
3 points,27 days ago
1 Dash is still a significant anti-spam fee, and spam can be filtered and there even exists the ability to delete proposals. Pre-discussion threads are all well and good, but hardly any get interacted with to any degree, by allowing people to post proposals the 1 Dash entry barrier is immediately a qualifier that filters out the lowest quality proposals. Dash Boost was unfortunately gamed, by lowering the fee on the main dao we ensure a good level of abtivity which can't be gamed whilst still making Dash funding vastly more accessible which will help bring more creativity and more competition. We haven't had a proper new proposal in many months.

Thankfully the incubator is doing amazing work but I'd also like to see greater access to the DAO as a whole based on my experience. I'm happy to chat on reddit / discord wherever or we can continue here or agree to a differing of opinions but please do consider the benefits greater access could offer.
Reply
-2 points,27 days ago
5 Dash wasn't significant enough to prevent 2 years of abuse/spam.

We don't WANT TO FUCKING FILTER SPAM, we don't want SPAM AT ALL. Why don't you get that??

>Dash Boost was unfortunately gamed,

Dashboost worked fine until Joel forced third world proposals out. This is all documented history.

>We haven't had a proper new proposal in many months.

You have to JUSTIFY why we NEED NEW PROPOSALS ALL THE TIME. Where in the white paper was that line?

There is no line like "And the DAO shall commit itself to 5 new proposals a month." in the white paper so WHERE THE HELL are you getting this idea that there has to be a steady steam of new proposals?
Reply
3 points,27 days ago
The DASH.crypto proposals were not spam, though one could say they were of poor value. Also, MNOs can vote to delete proposals, voting yes, no, abstain is not the only functionality afforded to us.
Reply
-1 point,27 days ago
Plenty of MNO's considered them spam proposals, particularly due to the absurd 24 months funding request with each proposal. Perhaps read the comments to refresh your memory :

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Allocate-50-DASH-to-Dash-Crypto
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Allocate-100-DASH-for-Dash-Crypto
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Allocate-100-DASH-to-Dash-Crypto
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Allocate-100-DASH-for-Dash-Crypto-3
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Allocate-100-DASH-for-Dash-Crypto-4
Reply
0 points,27 days ago
I definitely considered these proposals to be an eyesore and couldn't wait until the two years had passed so I didn't have to 'deliberately ignore them'. What a stupid line of reasoning.

'Yeah, let's not worry about spam or anything. We can just ignore that.'

WTF?
Reply
-5 points,27 days ago
I'll be voting 'No' on this proposal. Again.

The reasons for this 'No' vote are detailed below:

1. The first reason is because the second sentence of your opening paragraph contains a sleight of hand/trickery

2. The second reason is, 5 dash or 1 dash it doesn't really matter. But change for change's sake is very bad (if it ain't broke don't 'fix' it) and the fee works PREFECTLY FINE

3. The price is very low at this time, further removing any justification for a change like this

4. Continuing with #3, THERE HAS BEEN NO SERIOUS JUSTIFICATION of this effort.


As for #1 and the sleight of hand:

>"The developers have agreed to abide by the outcome."

What about the proposal creators? How many times do the masternodes have to say 'NO!' before you guys get the picture, huh?

Whether its an 'adaptive proposal fee' or 'a reduced to one dash' proposal, WE DON'T WANT IT! SO STOP TRYING!

The MNOs have consistently stated with our votes that WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE PROPOSAL FEE.

STOP TRYING TO MANIPULATE US INTO DOING SO AND ACCEPT OUR DECISION ALREADY!!

This note is very important which is why its number 1. The people behind this push are trying to manipulate the narrative and push through radical changes based on a whim and their caprice. Instead of logic, reason, and fact-based analysis, which are the only things that separate us from shitcoins.

In monero, BCH, Nano, LTC and other communities, the 'stakeholders' (speculators) with the most say ARE ALL DELUSIONAL. They think that if they ignore to death the rest of the competition, that they don't actually have to run this race. So they rely on the same backroom bullshit narrative manipulation like this constant push to 'tweak' the system.

The people who don't like DASH repeatedly attempt to 'play nice, and curry favor' so they can introduce changes to cause chaos and havoc in DASH, so we don't look so good next to the competition! Just like Flenst who pretended to do 'research' when he was in fact trying to CREATE FUD OUT IN THE OPEN. Now they don't even try to create the fud, they just JUMP STRAIGHT TO THE DESTRUCTIVE CHANGES! No justification.

So its important for us MNOs to be able to sift through the NONSENSE and focus on things that will ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE in this adoption race.

As for #4 (#2 and 3 are self-explanatory):

Why should we change the fee? What reason is there? It seems like these people, DashQueenApp, Xkcd, GrandmasterDash and others behind this push are just trying to increase their influence and clout by screeching loudly and obnoxiously about something that nobody is worried about (i.e. concern trolling).

They are 'concerned' that the proposal fee is TOO HIGH, even though they have NO CONCERNS about what happens when its too low.

This is indicative of a negative, hidden agenda that they are not being forthcoming about. If you really cared about the network, you would weigh equally the pros AND the cons of a proposal.

But these characters blithely ignore the will of the MNOs and try to 'CONvince us' that we're wrong and need to see the light. Even though there is NOTHING BAD that they can point to that comes from the proposal fee being 5 DASH. This reeks of infiltration and agenda-pushing.

By causing chaos and dissent, they can build enough momentum to make more and more drastic changes, until DASH is so bad it can't compete with our competition anymore, and their 'deliberate ignorance' of our superior features and functionality looks like 'predictive brilliance', instead of the childish wishes of sore losers and ineffective participants.

I've mentioned this before but we do our competition NO FAVORS by coddling their egos and pretending that their coins are in any way competition for DASH. Without privacy, coins potentially leak private information which is not good. Without instant transactions, coins are still waiting for confirmations that leave many usecases out of reach for them.

Yet in r/cc, you can see people trying to defend Digibyte, for example. Saying that its 'the fastest UTXO coin'. And Nanites 'rise to the occasion' to also claim territory that doesn't belong to them. Neither coin offers instant transactions (let alone governance, self funding and privacy to name a few), both coins are either too slow (DGB 15 sec confirmation time) or not really decentralized and easily spammable (Nano). But these coins don't care. They KNOW DASH exists and is faster, but they just say:

'we'll just ignore it. We don't have to acknowledge our competition if we don't want to....'

Which is true. However, what is also true is, 'We (Dash) don't need ANY of your recognition to win this race either!' Reddit is a small picture of true adoption. Most of the people lying on reddit are shills and speculators, not people who use cryptos. Those who do, don't need to post about it. But the other communities take advantage of this to claim titles that they have not earned.

Do you see? This is why I was so against the joel valenzuela's (especially him, I can't believe he's still trying to get paid for bullshiting on video...), Max's (drako's) after the most recent and final kuvacash push (interesting how the 'other side' keeps throwing that name out there), xkcds (with his agressive agenda-pushing) and DashqueenApps (agenda pushing via emotional terrorism).

These people are selfish liars. They don't care about the rest of the network. All of their behavior, their 'content' is conditioned upon you ACCEPTING THEIR UNJUSTIFIED BEATINGS AND LIES! You have to accept their BULLSHIT LINES as 'fact' even though they deliberately refuse to prove their assertions. Like someone just jumped to the conclusion that the reason Dash's transactions dipped recently was because 'someone was cooking the books to make Dash look more popular.'

This is what shills do. They're not right in the head. They don't care about the truth they just care about TRICKING YOU, SO THEY'LL SAY ANYTHING. EVERY OTHER COIN DOES THAT. BTC has 300k transactions per day.

Studies indicate only 6% of those are actual payments. BCH has TWICE been caught rigging their transactions to look higher (writing useless info to the blockchain the first time and the 'noise.cash' faucet the second). monero has been faking their transactions EVERY FUCKING DAY FOR NEARLY 2 YEARS.

But nobody ever accuses them of anything. They just 'get a pass'. But someone Dash's transactions fall and its 'definitely someone cooking the books'. This is what I mean, aggressive agenda pushing! PEOPLE WHO LIKE DASH DON'T THINK THAT WAY! EVEN OBJECTIVE, HUMBLE PEOPLE THAT ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT A LOSS DON'T THINK THAT WAY! That shows they're trying to MAKE US think that way, which is the behavior of SHILLS!

This is a recipe for DISASTER. We have to look no farther than our competition to confirm. The more delusional you become the more difficult it becomes for you to compete. If you think you're fast enough to be in the olympics when you can't even run down the block, then you're delusional. And **that's okay.**

What's NOT OKAY is you wasting everyone else's time when we just want to see the best competitors compete. The monero, nano, ltc, and other coin communities REFUSE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY so the race can continue. They make BACK-CHANNEL, secret deals with other selfish, only self-interested people, and THE REST OF US JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

Except WE DON'T. That's what cryptocurrencies are about. The freedom to choose. The people who are behind this push DON'T LIKE that DASH gives you choice. REAL instant transactions. Not fake ('oh don't worry about this spammable fine print'). Real privacy without gimmicks or pie-in-the-sky claims.

This is why 'shills' are so annoying and must be shutdown completely without prejudice. They are like a bad infection, the longer you ignore them the worse they become. Imagine how much better off we'd be if we skipped putting that '320 DASH per month' into DFN's hands over the years and spent it on adoption in Venezuela, Thailand, and the Carribean instead.

These guys buy up masternodes, take up key social positions and try to MANIPULATE YOU INTO SELF-DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR, so they can laugh at you later and say "well you should've done your own research, hahaha!" NO, YOU SHOULD STOP BEING A CRIMINAL.

They've recently begun a push to 'bring back dfn'. This is the exact kind of fucking bullshit I'm talking about. DashForceNews was a SCAM. Joel and Mark REFUSED TO DO ANY ACTUAL WORK and just ran a 'news website' burning 300+ Dash per month to their own personal wallets. While also running masternodes. And also preventing third-world countries from getting funds from DashBoost. Corruption STINKS and that's why DFN was FIRED!

So now, they're going to start lying on r/dashpay and the forums and pretend like shutting down DFN was 'a mistake' shutting down 'critical infrastructure' even though the MNOs were clear in their reasoning for shutting it down. This is what I mean, ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!

Dash has been growing steadily and strongly without a bunch of children playing news reporter. That is COMPLETELY WASTED EFFORT, like Ben Swann was. The problem with shills is they have all these agendas they try and trick you into, but they have NO REAL CREATIVITY or talent!

So you not only have to acquiese to their destrutive BULLSHIT, but you have to be bored and turned into a braindead zombie just to enjoy it (otherwise you'd call them out for the blatant culture of corruption they're trying to foster).

In r/btc George Donnelly is constantly lying about DASH, saying that he was the one who got all that venezuelan adoption, and that we stopped in Ven. in 2018. He's saying these LIES because HE KNOWS THAT BCH CAN'T COMPETE WITH DASH IN VENEZUELA.
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
So let's talk about spam because when I saw this long winded rant of yours, I was thinking, "if this arrived in my inbox I'd of deleted and blocked it /24 instantly. In other words, while the spam argument may factually exist, the real world optimizes around it. You see, no matter how valid your case - you replied at a cost of zero - it was your explosive response that got your marked as "spam".

This proposal says a Proposal Owner may voluntarily pay more than one dash. In the short term this probably means nothing but it opens the possibility that DC, DN or DMT may later choose to add the sorting of proposals by "fee paid". If someone chooses to burn, say, 10 dash to be at the top of that list, are you going to complain? it seems to me, you actually support pay-to-play i.e. the 5 dash proposal fee grows with the network. So how is this any different? - if anything, it bolsters your position when Proposal Owners start paying more than 5 dash. This pay-to-play model is extremely common. We all know it's no small price to sit at the table with Buffett, Elon or Gates.

Just like my previously failed proposals - Adaptive Proposal Fees and Set Your Price Proposals - I believe this proposal is made in good faith to improve the overall quality of governance. It is not perfect but I believe the good will is there to remedy any unforeseen problems that may occur.
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
>"if this arrived in my inbox I'd of deleted and blocked it /24 instantly

But this would never be in your inbox. This is a relevant post in the relevant portion of the Dash community so it doesn't fall under the definition of spam (unfocused, off-topic commercial postings) just because you have the attention span of a small flea.

Perhaps losing $1000 and getting a verbal ass-kicking last time wasn't enough for you? Luckily, I'm very generous and am happy to dish out another helping for you.

>the real world optimizes around it.

But you're admitting to deleting relevant information that MNOs would need to properly evaluate this proposal, so that is NOT the real world 'optimizing' around it, that's YOU BEING AN IDIOT.

You are admitting to deliberately ignoring relevant information because 'its too long, I can't read'. That's not what spam is! Your entire response is made nonsensical by this error!

> it was your explosive response that got your marked as "spam".

I don't mind being marked as 'spam' by an idiot. Explosive responses have their place, and I do actively try to temper the aggressive nature of my posts.

Believe me, I edited it DOWN to this level and removed several personal attacks that were unjustified before I posted it. So I'm not immune to this criticism. But it rings hollow since you don't know what the definition of "Spam" is.

>This proposal says a Proposal Owner may voluntarily pay more than one dash

So? WhTF would do that? And if you're a spammer YOU DEFINITELY WOULDN'T. Why are you responding WITH RETARDED ARGUMENTS?

Is it because you're trying to TRICK US into thinking LIKE IDIOTS so the blame for the destructive behavior falls on our heads?

>add the sorting of proposals by "fee paid".

You guys keep going back to this "sorting" idea, like you have common bullet points you run down.

WE.

DON'T.

WANT.

TO SORT.

SPAM!!!!

Get that through your thick skull already!!

>it seems to me, you actually support pay-to-play i.e. the 5 dash proposal fee grows with the network.

I already explained to you during your last fruitless endeavor to change the proposal fee that scaling the fee with the network's growth protects the network from spam. You are now basically trying to TWIST THE ARM of the community into accepting self-destructive behavior. You really are not a nice person.

>So how is this any different?

The lower the fee is the easier it is to spam and exhaust the MNOs. We already had 2 years of SPAM PROPOSALS just sitting there and you're ignoring this!!

>I believe this proposal is made in good faith to improve the overall quality of governance

You believe that because your agenda pays you to be a retard. We don't have the same problem.
Reply
2 points,26 days ago
I see what you're saying. I'm an idiot, a retard, trying to trick you, not a nice person and I have a thick skull. And you toned it down. Got it.

Do you take meds for that?
Reply
-2 points,26 days ago
Finally, someone who just "gets it"! I knew you had it in you, thanks for reading and admitting your flaws.

Good luck working on them!
Reply
-3 points,27 days ago
Someone asked the other day, 'How do people get BCH in Venezuela?' And he had cheap answer 'yes that is a problem we're actively working on.' Hundreds of thousands of dollars after his Sept (?) filpstarter, that's the best answer he's got. SCAMMER!

DASH ALREADY SOLVED THAT PROBLEM SINCE WE STARTED IN 2018. DASH WORKS IN VEN. BECAUSE DASH HAS A SOURCE OF LIQUIDITY IN THE TREASURY. NO MATTER HOW MANY INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSES OR PEOPLE YOU 'ADOPT', IF THEY CAN'T GET BCH THEY CAN'T SPEND IT YOU MORONS!

But they didn't realize this. They thought "we'll just keep lying about it until we've won". But you can't win adoption that way and they're FOOLS for not knowing this.

SO they're just going to KEEP FUCKING LYING about it until the market 'acknowledges' them as 'better'. But why would you want to 'win' like that? Because you hate cryptocurrencies and the people who are freed by them, and you want to FORCE SHITCOINS DOWN THEIR THROAT so they 'throw up and come back to fiat'.

This is cynical manipulation.

'Oh you like controlling your own money huh? Well, here let me WATERBOARD YOU with SHITCOINS until you DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT ANYMORE!'

To bring this home. My vote is NO because you have not proven that this change is necessary, and you cannot defend yourselves from the claim that you probably sold out and are selfishly pushing a destructive agenda against the best interests of the network.

Honestly, I think that the next big change in DASH won't be the proposal fee, it will be a way to punish Conflict of Interest MNOs with explusion from the network.

Thanks for reading.
Reply
4 points,27 days ago
You speak for yourself and vote with your portion of the network on the proposal, I think there is support for this change from others. You don't consider the DAO broken, yet we haven't had a single new DFO come through in months, not even in the bull market earlier this year. Makes me wonder what opportunities we are missing out on because POs don't want to cough 5 DASH and then have to deal the likes of you.
Reply
0 points,15 days ago
I agree. Qwizzle and Dashman don't represent all MNOs. Don't listen too much to them.
Reply
-1 point,13 days ago
I have never claimed to speak for or represent all MNOs. I only speak definitively on this because WE'VE ALREADY VOTED NO ON THIS IDEA OR SOME VARIATION AT LEAST 3 TIMES!

The burden of proof is on the claimant. If what I'm saying is not representative of the will of the MNOs, you have to prove that by explaining why we all voted this down three times.
Reply
0 points,7 days ago
So now you're admitting there were variations?
Reply
1 point,3 days ago
I misunderstood GMD here; I thought he meant 'variations in the level of support', not 'variants of this proposal'.

To the charge, I never denied there were minor differences between proposals so this is a strawman. I only stated that the differences were not significant and that the idea had been voted and rejected in the past.
Reply
-1 point,6 days ago
I didn't admit that. I admitted it was possible. Not the same thing.
Reply
-2 points,27 days ago
>You speak for yourself and vote with your portion of the network on the proposal

This goes without saying of course. But I also spe