Depending on timing, block density, and transaction structure, it is possible to try to link the transactions

Esp. since the BTC transactions stand out

did monero ever considering implementing a dao gvornence system

maybe in the begining for smaller projects like lets say sekreta/kovri

Define "a dao gvornence system". Apparently "DAO" has been used as a hype term for ridiculously trivial stuff that is nowhere near a DAO (ie, voting for who gets part of the emission).

I mean valorization of development with a contract token

like a token linked to git

the payout is still determined manually there I3^RELATIVISM isnt it?

why a new coin instead of monero

you could use monero codebase plus the gvornance code necessary to to implement such system

so yeah it would be a monero gvornance focused fork

<endogenic "the payout is still determined m"> it could be or it could be related to the holding of such coin

like a voting system

so... monero

yes based on monero blockchain yes

the human factor is important and you have to ask what on earth is contributed by the code rules you're thinking of

and what cases break them

true

it's basically like asking what if we automated the ccs right?

that's a very hard problem

but the important part is not that but the fact that the project is self-sustaining

monero has that

so far

not truly selfsustaining

you know the CCS, right? for now it works even if it has some attack vectors

just sponsored

well, ok

<endogenic "you know the CCS, right? for now"> never heard of it no

what do you think about writing down the rules you've got in mind?

as an informal paper

then bring back here for review?

ok do take a look at the Monero CCS

important to understand

that is not my propusal and that is not for me to decide alone

yeah but you need *some* contribution

otherwise it's kinda like asking a non question

Im moe focused on linking the git repositorie with evaluation, to have a reward system for development

more like an answer without a question

yes good

that's the hard part

i'm curious what you would do

maybe there's an innovation you have in your head

your are assuming Im not already working on it

but put it to paper to show your peers

I think it would be more help to you to take a more down to earth position it will be hard to learn from others with such inflated attitute of your self

ok

please PM me what i can learn from you

you just proven my point, I will wait for feedback from other room members

surely op will deliver

You need to describe something first in order to get feedback on it (unless it's so totally braindead details aren't needed).

it must be the latter

:x

I think that's what endogenic was getting at. Describe how you'd see somthing like this working.

yeah, people are genuinely curious

and it's not like they never thought of the idea before

so I3^RELATIVISM if you have something novel that people didnt consider or if you dont know if people considered it or not.. try to ask what you want to know about

Doesn't to go down the details of even an informal paper, but at least broad strokes.

anything.

And then people can ask for details on whatever part is not enough to talk about.

This doesn't really seem research-related, TBH

its interesting the arrogance that such individuals that claim that want to learn have shown. cheers now. goldenboy complex

I think this conversation is better suited for another channel or medium

he is gone anyway

I think it's the typical "I have it in my mind, and I expect others to read my mind" problem. Oh well.

Didn't seem very polite anyway.