| 4 Sep 2018 |
 Haon |
Disentangling the proposed work from the trustworthiness of the people who proposed it, to whatever degree that is possible, seems like a good move to me. At the least it should provide a better signal about what kinds of work the voters want to fund.
this part should be moved from 1 to 3, imho
| 15:51:56 |
| Haon | (sorry everyone for this detailed review) | 15:52:17 |
 richardred | I think I like that re-naming, the order looks about the same though? | 15:58:27 |
| Haon | yes | 15:58:47 |
| Haon | it's just to make the titles a bit more descriptive | 15:59:03 |
| Haon | posing the problem question, explaining the problem, and offering available solutions | 15:59:32 |
| richardred | I think the question of proposal fees is a little different to the strategy section | 15:59:42 |
| richardred | maybe warrants its own quick mention | 15:59:49 |
| richardred | I will add a short section, because it is quite interesting, the proposal fee does a lot to determine who can submit proposals | 16:03:37 |
| richardred | "spam resistance" | 16:04:36 |
| Haon | yes, that's fine too | 16:11:05 |
| Haon | my suggestion is more to have clearly descriptive titles, so the user could glance at the titles and decide to skip the actual text | 16:11:56 |
| Haon | reading through "Funding fit for commons-based peer production" now, hoping to finally find out what it means 😄 | 16:19:10 |
| Haon | I would remove *kind of * from the first sentence | 16:19:50 |
| Haon | people who haven't read the book / article (which I assume is >98% of the readers) don't care for that nuance, but it makes reading more complex | 16:21:01 |
| richardred | Yochai Benkler's wealth of networks is one of the best academic books I have read, I would recommend it to anyone who is involved in open source | 16:59:47 |
| richardred | http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf | 16:59:49 |
| richardred | It is many years since I read it, and I'm just recently realizing its relevance to Decred and Politeia. I will probably skim through it again. | 17:00:58 |
| richardred | added the spam resistance section | 17:17:52 |
| Haon | https://medium.com/@decanus/blockchains-are-not-companies-9f8ed7c13018 | 22:16:59 |
| Haon | he's trying to bash our voting system - now more directly | 22:17:26 |
| Haon | response from richardred to his tweet: https://twitter.com/RichardRed0x/status/1036911674052235264 | 22:22:03 |
| richardred | his article references the one I wrote about plutocracy. I'm not sure he is trying to bash decred specifically, I think the anti-on-chain-voting articles from people associated with Ethereum are geared more towards EOS | 22:45:30 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/zubairzia0] if blockchains are not companies then shareholder voting is not the same thing as on-chain token holder/stake holder voting | 22:49:37 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/zubairzia0] if blockchains are not companies then stakeholder voting is not the same thing as shareholder voting (edited) | 22:51:08 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/zubairzia0] he is arguing over why people support something, where there is a technical reason why something is like it is | 22:51:51 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/zubairzia0] he is arguing over why people support on-chain governance (via token voting) when there is a technical reason for why that is implemented. It does not exisit to mirror shareholder voting. (edited) | 22:55:40 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] Something that I've noticed seems to be a recurring theme with Dean is that he continually approaches it from a desired conclusion and tries to invent reasons that support his preconceived notions, rather than providing conclusive evidence that supports the claims. | 23:10:39 |
| 5 Sep 2018 |
 raedah | 'Blockchains are not companies' reminds me of all the years pundits were putting out articles about how 'Bitcoin is not money' until finally over time nobody cared anymore about trying to fit new things into old models. Mind = Blown | 01:21:22 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] but Bitcoin has already failed because it went down in price. Checkmate :smart: | 01:38:36 |
