[Unnecessary] Eliminating SDD for motions


A Directly Democratic Blockchain

The sole criteria for ratification of a motion into NuLaw is that the cryptographic hash for the motion is recorded in an appropriate manner with 50% frequency in a 10,000 block window. If 5,000 blocks in a continuous 10,000 block span of the Nu blockchain contains the relevant motion, the motion is considered a part of NuLaw.

If two motions contradict and neither specifies how to resolve the conflict, the contract with the lastest 10,000 block span satisfying the 50% criteria will be considered more valid. If both motions are in coincidence or both still being voted above 50%, NuLaw has forked and is unresolved on that particular topic. This does not prevent further Nu operation, allowing Nu to be fundamentally Turing complete.

Good to bring that up again.
Ignoring SDD has been a part of a motion that was withdrawn (mainly dealing with faster motions).
Because the discussion was about the effect of ignoring SDD as well, here for reference:

I think we already voted for this and motion passed:

but release time changed to next protocol update:


Thanks for finding that!
I thought such a motion had passed, but could only find the “faster motions” thread about a motion, which was withdrawn.
I’m getting old…

Great! Ok, we’ll do the transition when the rpc response changes. Thank you!

As I recall the protocol changes to stop using share days destroyed were the top priority as we closed to the 2.0 development effort, meaning when faced with a decision to delay the entire release or proceed without these changes, we opted to proceed without these changes. I had thought that we would have it done before now, but funding was reduced in the interim.

The changes for custodial grants and park rates must be part of a protocol change, so NuBits release 3.0. However, the change for motions doesn’t require a protocol change because a motion passing doesn’t concern the protocol (nothing happens in the code when a motion passes). In fact, it doesn’t even really require a code change. The RPC may return share days destroyed info, but the community can just decide to ignore it. Shareholders have already passed a motion to do just this, with the presumption it would coincide with similar protocol changes to custodial grants and park rates. Given the long amount of time it has taken to code those changes, I am inclined to suggest we agree to immediately stop considering share days destroyed when evaluating whether a motion has passed. If it is apparent there is broad consensus that we should ignore SSD on motions, then let’s do that. If it proves controversial, then let’s wait for the code change.

What does everyone think?

Edit: we could also remove the SSD info from the motion RPC in 2.1.1

1 Like

I think the decision to ignore SDD was already made, consensus was formed.
It hasn’t been included in the code as part of a protocol change, but as (like you explained) motions don’t do anything on protocol level, I say ignore SDD when voting for motions.

I agree with MoD and Jordan. The decision to ignore it was already made.

As that decision had already been made I’m good with it. Please have the NuBlockexplorer amended though, so it shows that a motion has passed just based on the number of votes. That makes it more official and more clear for outsiders. Such a change can be that hard. Do we need to raise a grant to have this done?