$1 needed to document communities desire to have true control of SmartCash


#1

The purpose of this proposal is to document the communities desire to have true control of SmartCash.

With the recent decision to have a sister coin to SmartCash named BitcoinConfidential, it has become clear that most in the community do not agree with starting a sister coin, nor do they agree on the name Bitcoin Confidential, if there must be a sister coin.

This highlights the fact that SmartCash holders do not have true control of SmartCash because we can not vote on decisions like this sister coin.

Voting yes on this proposal would represent your desire for true control of SmartCash, which would be having the ability to vote on the direction of the project.

Voting no on this proposal would represent your satisfaction with not having the ability to vote on the direction of this project.

The $1 will be for my time to draft a letter documenting the communities desire to have a voice in the direction of this project.

  • YES - I want the ability to vote on the direction of SmartCash
  • NO - Keep things the way they are

0 voters


How does the community vote on code changes
#2

I guess this is not a major issue for the community? Do we really not care that the developers are working on numerous other things while leaving the masternode exploit unpatched for months?

Do we really not want to have a voice in the direction of this coin? Remaining silent about these issues is not a strategy.


#3

Did you really want to go though another hard fork so soon?


#4

the thing is- no…but the way this development is going is worrying. Too many unanswered questions, and I agree i really feel like there should have been way more resources devoted to fixing the node exploits as I feel like those are hammering the price. But aside from that, it’s just the lack of clarification on it that bothers me. I would think that fixing such a major bug would take priority over absolutely anything else that should be done. I was expecting it to be patched within the first 2 months of it being out, not for the team to wait half a year to release the bugfix together with a major update. If it was a more serious exploit than first imagined and couldn’t be fixed in a month of focused work then imo it was even more important to communicate this fact to the community, explain why things are taking so long. I’m trying to find a project I can hold long-term, not one that will collapse with the other 90% of alt-coins because the team couldn’t focus on the vision instead of the money. I want to have control over direction, and if that’s impossible then I want to know why they think so. Otherwise, I don’t see why hardforking would be a big deal - they fixed some problems from Dash but there’s still many more that can be fixed. I’m all for hardforking if it can create a better blockchain, by better I mean one that is more decentralized and where tasks can be prioritized according to the community’s wishes. The way it currently is, there is still too much that any one team member can do to affect the project as a whole. I am personally communicating with a friend now who is having a lot of trouble with this community AFTER getting his proposal voted through. The community has said that the proposal should be fulfilled, and this person should receive their funds. There have been regular updates, visible progress, proof through multiple reports, screenshots, calls. And yet their latest milestone has still not been approved and funds remain undistributed because the gatekeepers for those funds can arbitrarily block any project that they are against for any reason. That is unacceptable in my opinion. Yes they are there for a reason, but let’s be honest gatekeepers or not there have been scam projects going through. I will vote for this proposal, and if it gets taken down then that should be even more of a cue for everyone that this project isn’t all decentralized as it makes itself out to be.


#5

If hardforking will truly decentralize this project, then it is well worth it!


#6

Thank you for your response, you worded things better than I could. I agree with much of what you said.

Primarily, it is concerning that the community can vote for a particular proposal, but the proposal ultimately needs to be approved by gatekeepers. This is not decentralization.

As long as the power to release proposal funds is controlled by a CENTRALIZED group, SmartCash is NOT decentralized.

As long as the power to decide on the direction of SmartCash is controlled by a CENTRALIZED group, SmartCash is NOT decentralized.

Please share your opinion and vote on this proposal! Thank You


#7

This is effectively just a “Poll” and not a “Vote” and the outcome would not effect any change. As an opinion poll we have learnt from recent elections that polls are not true indication for what people want as the view presented as “everybody’s” is one presented by the most eloquent group.


#8

So far 75% voters are in favor of suggested proposal. Please make your voice heard and cast a vote in this poll!


Can smartcash be trusted?
#9

I’m not sure what your trying to do with this. Did the recent 1.2.3 updates not have anything to do with it?

I’ve heard of this issue, I myself have a few nodes and wouldn’t want to be screwed over, it I’ve had good transactions on discord with the members usually. Either way I’m not sure on your details or their responses


#10

See below. The purpose of this proposal would be to represent the communities desire, or lack thereof, to have the ability to vote on code changes.