Welcome!

New discovery, won't be a surprise to many, "therealDashman21" is a secret anagram for "El man trash heaD".

Why do you think its appropriate for you to mock MNOs in our place of business?

I was simply stating what is true. The anagram can be easily proven as correct.

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!

I see no questions in your anagram.

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?

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.

>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...

Only in your madness.

I accept your lack of response to my points as your admission that I am correct and you are wrong.

No, I just make sure you type more than me.

Do you?

yes

no

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.

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.

Replying to yourself

is a silly thing

to do

Please reply to my arguments or do not reply at all.

I've done so many times.

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.

Pay me first and then you're my boss, right?

That's not what I said. Right?

You forgot what you said?

You did.

Oh, don't give up now I've proved what a liar you are.

You want to put words in my mouth because you have nothing left to say. Thanks for your participation!

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

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?

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?

>only your avoidance to answer questions straight

Why didn't you answer question above your reply just now then?

You didn't pay me, therefore according to you, you are not my boss.

You are not a MNO or a PO so you shouldn't be here at all.

But I am here.

And you shouldn't be.

Who says?

MNOs.

Wrong again.

Wrong.

.

..

.

..

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?

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.

>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.

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.

>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.

I wasn't counting.

Well stop doing it.

I didn't.

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...

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?

>number

Zero is not a natural number which are the numbers used in counting, so its not an option by default.

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.

>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.

>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?

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.

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.

>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.

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.

*as the definition of the "noun + s"

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.

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.

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.

I can see you are very knowledgeable about blockchain. Do tell us how you block transactions from occurring?

You are arguing a red-herring on purpose, which is dishonest debating. I accept that as your mea culpa and admission of defeat.

Dash herrings are blue.

I appreciate that you don't mind admitting you lost this much.

What did I lose?

You are arguing a red-herring on purpose, which is dishonest debating. I accept that as your mea culpa and admission of defeat.

Nakamoto consensus is a herring?

"Nakamoto consensus means no one chooses to accept donation" is

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.

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.

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?

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.

>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

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.

>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.

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?

>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.

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.

:)

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.

>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.

>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?

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.

>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?

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.

>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.

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?

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.

>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.

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.

>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!

Nakamoto doesn't give a shit if someone asks for it or not.

What do you want to fail at next?

>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!

Do you think your masternode payment address is public or private?

Why do you think this question is relevant?

You brought up the subject of donators being a boss... can't believe you forgot already.

That is not an answer to my question

You're right, you didn't answer my question.

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?

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.

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.

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...

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

208, you can't count, but 209 on your next comment.

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?

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.

>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.

:)

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Also Rango isn't paid by master node rewards so your argument doesn't apply at all here. You're really reaching.

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?

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?

"Donation" I do not think it means what you think it means

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

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

It's fine, I can find your masternode payment address and send donations without your consent. Then I will be your boss.

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...

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...

*CHOOSES to accept donations in exchange for running this site.

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.

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.

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.

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

Thanks for your support!

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.

Thanks blockchaintech !

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.

A pull request created 8 days ago and already announced ?

correction : 9 days ago.

See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/regarding-the-proposal-to-reduce-the-proposal-fee-meta.51799/#post-227354

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.

Many proposals are discussed on the Dash.org forum before they are submitted.

> 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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

>'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.

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.

>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?

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.

>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.

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.

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...

>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!

>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

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

You're the kind of smallhat that let's criminals free if you find a spelling error in the prosecutors case aren't ya?

> 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.

There was no coercion, only discussions and we have a massive update to this proposal next week. :)

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.

Nothing personal, I'm sure.

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.

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''

I am just curious about those possible 'implications' while we are in the middle of voting on this decision proposal.

Testing is a normal part of software development, we will take care of it.

What happens if the implications are negative ? Would that prevent the implementation ?

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.

Thank you for providing this evidence.

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'.

LOL, you crazy, bro!

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!

"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.

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.

How do know they are spam when they haven't been submitted yet?

How do you know they won't be?

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.

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.

>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.

>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!

"We" is the DAO. "I" is my vote.

Fortunately you don't get to talk for "we", unless you mean 35 votes to 296.

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!

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.

>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.

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?

>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".

*have not rejected

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.

>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!

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.

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!

>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!

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!

>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.

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/

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.

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?

I think the DAO should always be re-evaluating the status quo in light of changing circumstances.

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.

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.

> 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)

>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.

>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.

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.

I support this proposal, as people I respect support this proposal.

People who are against this proposal, lie.

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!

Interesting thing is that he got 7 upvotes for that comment.

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.

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?

Well, that is good to hear.

So i am a liar ? Great.

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.

Yah, something isn't right. Maybe he was pissed about something. We all have weird days. Don't take it personally.

At first i did not take it personally, but then i read his post on dash.org/forum and it did became personally.

See also : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/regarding-the-proposal-to-reduce-the-proposal-fee-meta.51799/page-2#post-227374

>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?

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.

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.

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.

Shills often use projection to hide their behavior. Comically, they think it gives them protection. The emperor has no clothes.

I'm happy to see masternode operators can see what is really going on.

>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.

I thought only MNOs could post here?

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.

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)''

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

>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.

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!

>No its not, but I'm an MNO YOU IDIOT

I.e. ITS MY JOB to be here and interrogate shill idiots like you!

Your job apparently pays you very well to spend all your time here.

My job is simple, to keep you typing.

>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'.

:)

Trolling is your hobby? Surely someone is paying you?

>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??

Hello Mr DumbAss, nice to meet you.

Anytime you want to stop posting while looking in the mirror, we'll be waiting for you to actually respond to these arguments.

You used Veriff when you verified yourself with Uphold, no escaping it. You asked for permission on every spend. That is not "financial freedom".

>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.

>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.

Hahaha, triggered, nice!

It's like saying you choose to be in handcuffs, which I suppose is possible.

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.

Pretty sure you did it to yourself.

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.

lol, don't worry, soon you would of posted so much that all the level limits would of been filled.

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.

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

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.

Why hasn't the network been given the chance to discuss this more thoroughly?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't think comments are part of the protocol, it's specific to DC.

I don't think you have the right to force a change like this.

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?

>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.

But you said I have no masternode, how could I force the outcome? You think I have that much influence? lol

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

>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."

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?

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).

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.

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.

>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.

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.

>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.

Oh, you're delusional. Okay carry on then.

Nice projection.

I mean, even the fact that you think that's a legitimate response to my argument is delusional. So yeah, projection.

>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.

*But your gang seems...

'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.

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.

>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.

>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."

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

'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 ?

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

Id say $12 is much more realistic.

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.

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.

or easier yet, simply presenting/ranking proposals by number of yes votes on dashcentral and dashnexus

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.

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!!!

>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.

"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.

>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!

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.

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

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.

...and this applies to all DFOs not just DCG. The more liquid the Gov marketplace is the more value it will deliver.

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 ?

..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.

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?

>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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

what are the items missing from the DCG roadmap?

>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.

>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.

> 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?

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.

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

>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?

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!

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.

A reduction of over 0.25% of the supply of Dash is actually a positive outcome for Dash owners.

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.

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.

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.

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.

See : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/regarding-the-proposal-to-reduce-the-proposal-fee-meta.51799/#post-227343

correction : 24 months

Is that you Icey ?

Ah sarcasm, the only way to have a reasonable, logical debate!

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!!!

That's the spirit!

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

And the shilling never stops...

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

>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.

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?

> 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.

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.

>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.

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.

>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!

The votes are visible on the blockchain for all to see. You might find this interesting: mnowatch.org

Not an answer to my post.

Do it now, why wait? I look forward to sending my votes through.

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.

so much for keeping emotions out of the voting process and keeping things objective, without resorting to personal insults to the no voters.

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.

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.

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.

>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

Yes, qwizzie the $660 USD fee to post a proposal is not a hindrance at all!

https://www.google.com/search?q=%24132+*+5

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).

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.

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.

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/

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)

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!! ;)"