• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

A Call for tungfa to Heed the Masternodes' Vote

amanda_b_johnson

Well-known member
Hello, everyone. Thanks for reading.

I write today to express to you that I've happened upon a new challenge in this grand voting system of ours:

What if the masternode network votes that one of its employees ought to perform a certain action, but that employee then refuses to do so?

As you may recall, task #2 of my recently-passed proposal to make Dash's Youtube channel simply awesome reads:

"Make YouTube.com/DashOrg the main, high-performing Dash channel by deleting the former channel (which is YouTube.com/DarkcoinTV). This will prevent splitting of views and subscriber counts, as well as preventing general confusion."

Alas, though he acknowledges that the proposal has passed, tungfa tells me he has no intention of deleting YouTube.com/DarkcoinTV. I have no access to do so myself, either.

This causes me to ask -- is the voting system just a symbolic ritual? Does it take after today's nation-states -- the "representative democracies" -- where people cast their votes for change, but change never actually happens?

In short -- do masternode votes count, or not?

I must say -- my choice to labor for the network is dependent upon the outcome of this challenge. Because if masternode votes don't actually count -- if employees like tungfa actually just do what they want, in spite of stakeholder preferences -- perhaps Dash is not what I believed it to be.

Perhaps you say -- my goodness, it's just a YouTube channel. Not a big deal! And I agree with you -- it's just a YouTube channel.

It is the precedent that concerns me. Dash bills itself as superior to Bitcoin in that Bitcoin's stakeholders are unable to express their preferences in a meaningful, binding way. A majority say they want a bigger block size, but they never get it.

If a majority of Dash's stakeholders have voted "yes" on my proposal -- which they have -- and they don't actually get what they voted for -- which they currently are not -- I will only be able to conclude that Dash's decision-making system is no better than Bitcoin's. That it is fancier and more formal and more sophisticated -- and involves blockchain funding, which is nice. But that at the end of the day, masternode voting is just a ritual that doesn't actually guarantee a real-life outcome -- another Bitcoin in the making.

If tungfa does not delete YouTube.com/DarkcoinTV, it will only hurt Dash's YouTube presence with its continued existence, as people will continue to end up on an inactive channel with a weird URL and no new videos. All the while the current channel YouTube.com/DashOrg has embarrassingly low view counts in the 5s and 10s, which can only be remedied by scouring the web and replacing old links with new (which I have already done for both Dash.org and DashPay.Atlassian.net to ensure all links are properly replaced -- I'm willing to assist anyone else with their own site, too). If this is how things remain, I will withdraw my proposal and ask that you downvote it.

If, however, Dash's masternodes believe that their votes should actually count -- that the voting system is binding -- then I will know that Dash really is what I think it is, and I will remain on and give you a better YouTube channel than you ever hoped for. The loss of the view counts on the old channel will pale in comparison to the heights reached with the new channel.

The power to persuade tungfa is now in your hands. I have done all that I can.

Sincerely,
Amanda B. Johnson
 
Hello, everyone. Thanks for reading.

I write today to express to you that I've happened upon a new challenge in this grand voting system of ours:

What if the masternode network votes that one of its employees ought to perform a certain action, but that employee then refuses to do so?

As you may recall, task #2 of my recently-passed proposal to make Dash's Youtube channel simply awesome reads:

"Make YouTube.com/DashOrg the main, high-performing Dash channel by deleting the former channel (which is YouTube.com/DarkcoinTV). This will prevent splitting of views and subscriber counts, as well as preventing general confusion."

Alas, though he acknowledges that the proposal has passed, tungfa tells me he has no intention of deleting YouTube.com/DarkcoinTV. I have no access to do so myself, either.

This causes me to ask -- is the voting system just a symbolic ritual? Does it take after today's nation-states -- the "representative democracies" -- where people cast their votes for change, but change never actually happens?

In short -- do masternode votes count, or not?

I must say -- my choice to labor for the network is dependent upon the outcome of this challenge. Because if masternode votes don't actually count -- if employees like tungfa actually just do what they want, in spite of stakeholder preferences -- perhaps Dash is not what I believed it to be.

Perhaps you say -- my goodness, it's just a YouTube channel. Not a big deal! And I agree with you -- it's just a YouTube channel.

It is the precedent that concerns me. Dash bills itself as superior to Bitcoin in that Bitcoin's stakeholders are unable to express their preferences in a meaningful, binding way. A majority say they want a bigger block size, but they never get it.

If a majority of Dash's stakeholders have voted "yes" on my proposal -- which they have -- and they don't actually get what they voted for -- which they currently are not -- I will only be able to conclude that Dash's decision-making system is no better than Bitcoin's. That it is fancier and more formal and more sophisticated -- and involves blockchain funding, which is nice. But that at the end of the day, masternode voting is just a ritual that doesn't actually guarantee a real-life outcome -- another Bitcoin in the making.

If tungfa does not delete YouTube.com/DarkcoinTV, it will only hurt Dash's YouTube presence with its continued existence, as people will continue to end up on an inactive channel with a weird URL and no new videos. All the while the current channel YouTube.com/DashOrg has embarrassingly low view counts in the 5s and 10s, which can only be remedied by scouring the web and replacing old links with new (which I have already done for both Dash.org and DashPay.Atlassian.net to ensure all links are properly replaced -- I'm willing to assist anyone else with their own site, too). If this is how things remain, I will withdraw my proposal and ask that you downvote it.

If, however, Dash's masternodes believe that their votes should actually count -- that the voting system is binding -- then I will know that Dash really is what I think it is, and I will remain on and give you a better YouTube channel than you ever hoped for. The loss of the view counts on the old channel will pale in comparison to the heights reached with the new channel.

The power to persuade tungfa is now in your hands. I have done all that I can.

Sincerely,
Amanda B. Johnson


Oh boy.

/popcorn.

I might add in a real post halfway through this thread, but I don't want to accidentally derail it...

Let's see how this plays out...

edit: since noone is biting. Might as well drop an opinion or two.

From reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/4nia0c/a_call_for_tungfa_to_heed_the_masternodes_vote/
 
Last edited:
The only real power the Masternodes have is to fund and de-fund things. If tungfa does not comply, then the only real power the Masternodes would have at the moment is to stop paying him, which right now happens through the core team budget. But regardless of what the MN's can or cannot do, it would be against the spirit of the dash DGBB model for a paid core team member to blatantly disregard a very clear instruction from the MNs, especially if it is something relatively trivial like giving up a practically worthless YT channel. I would urge tungfa to reconsider, and if not, would urge the core team to seriously re-evaluate his status as a paid team member.
 
There should be no argument here.

Your proposal has passed @amanda_b_johnson so it is your right to do what the masternode's agreed with.

@tungfa You are going to need to listen to the network here buddy. This has been voted on formerly and is now basically set in stone so even if you have a reason for not doing this, it shouldn't matter unless you create a proposal yourself to counter @amanda_b_johnson

@amanda_b_johnson It is my understanding that this will not be a problem in the new system (12.1) as we will be voting on project managers whom if they do not listen to the network, then they will have their funding cut.
 
Imo, based upon what little I think I know, all things prior to the switchover to DASH official name should now be archived up, packed away, and put in cold storage for some time in the future when someone may want to do research.
Anything that may be an imediment to the newest, biggest, best DASH should be set aside so it does not distract.

I remain confused about this 'employee' thing...
Perhaps someone could direct me to where this is specifically detailed ???

HUGE difference between 'employee' and 'contractor'.

IMO, DASH most likely has 'contractors'.

If anyone was unaware, having 'employees' opens the door to many, many pages of legislative acts.
IMO, DASH should be structured to avoid this scenario.

If a contractor does not perform tasks as directed, discharge for cause is straight-forward and direct.
Replacement a simple task, ...Is there someone more competent available ??

By golly I know none of the particular details ! Get a 2nd opinion !!!
rc

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daf
Imo, based upon what little I think I know, all things prior to the switchover to DASH official name should now be archived up, packed away, and put in cold storage for some time in the future when someone may want to do research.
Anything that may be an imediment to the newest, biggest, best DASH should be set aside so it does not distract.

I remain confused about this 'employee' thing...
Perhaps someone could direct me to where this is specifically detailed ???

HUGE difference between 'employee' and 'contractor'.

IMO, DASH most likely has 'contractors'.

If anyone was unaware, having 'employees' opens the door to many, many pages of legislative acts.
IMO, DASH should be structured to avoid this scenario.

If a contractor does not perform tasks as directed, discharge for cause is straight-forward and direct.
Replacement a simple task, ...Is there someone more competent available ??

By golly I know none of the particular details ! Get a 2nd opinion !!!
rc

.

Employees = blockchain contractors here.
 
What if the masternode network votes that one of its employees ought to perform a certain action, but that employee then refuses to do so?


You cannot force someone to do something, even if he is an employee.

The only thing you can do is to ask again masternodes owners if they wish to fire the employee or to reduce his salary, because of his disobedience to your voted proposition.

So stop whining, and if you think the disobedience is so grave, then ask masternodes owners again to vote whether they approve or not the employee's behavior. And if not ,what are the mesures they propose.

This is again a tree like voting, and a voting with numbers. Dash needs a tree like voting. and voting with numbers.

Do you agree with the employee's behavior?
Yes-> end of voting
no--> What measures do you want to take against him?
->fire him!(yes/no)
->reduce his salary (voting with numbers about the reduction of the salary)​
 
Last edited:
Hi guys
I don't have an opinion about the Youtube channel itself just a couple of thoughts about the voting process that came to mind when I read this post:

1. As a general rule it would be better to consider a budget proposal binding when the proposal voting cycle closes as masternode operators vote at different times during the month and approvals often change or new competing proposals come online, things like that.

2. The spirit of the proposal that was made to the network clearly was for the creation of a new Dash Youtube show that I believe we are all very excited to see happen soon. If in any proposal like this, a specific sub-item turns out to be controversial, like whether or not to delete the old Youtube channel, then a second proposal could be submitted just asking whether the network thinks the old channel should be deleted or not. This way the nodes get to be more specific in their intention and we all achieve our goal of following the decentralized decision making process more accurately.


Just my thoughts. What do you guys think?
 
Employees = blockchain contractors here.

That's what I would/hope to expect...
Someone keeps using the incorrect word...

I kinda like 'workers'.
honeybees1.jpg

It's a Get r' Dun kinda thing.

There's no argument about it... when they are unable to work for the common goal, they are set aside...

Best
rc
 
Hi guys
I don't have an opinion about the Youtube channel itself just a couple of thoughts about the voting process that came to mind when I read this post:

1. As a general rule it would be better to consider a budget proposal binding when the proposal voting cycle closes as masternode operators vote at different times during the month and approvals often change or new competing proposals come online, things like that.

2. The spirit of the proposal that was made to the network clearly was for the creation of a new Dash Youtube show that I believe we are all very excited to see happen soon. If in any proposal like this, a specific sub-item turns out to be controversial, like whether or not to delete the old Youtube channel, then a second proposal could be submitted just asking whether the network thinks the old channel should be deleted or not. This way the nodes get to be more specific in their intention and we all achieve our goal of following the decentralized decision making process more accurately.


Just my thoughts. What do you guys think?

Yup.
And what that means is, the proposal was not written in specific detail.

Best
rc
 
Yup.
And what that means is, the proposal was not written in specific detail.

Best
rc

Just to clarify, I do think the proposal was clear in its intention to delete the old channel. It is very clearly stipulated in the description. I guess what I was saying is that in cases where there is multiple items that are part of one proposal. If no controversy surfaces about any of the sub items that are beyond the spirit of the main proposal then there is no need for any clarification.

But in cases where there is controversy after the fact about a minor item within a bigger proposal, then it would be wise to submit the previously perceived to be minor item again to the network as an independent question, so that you can give the network the opportunity to be more accurate in its choice. I actually volunteer to donate the 5 DASH necessary for the submission if it turns out to be necessary in this case.
 
Hi guys
I don't have an opinion about the Youtube channel itself just a couple of thoughts about the voting process that came to mind when I read this post:

1. As a general rule it would be better to consider a budget proposal binding when the proposal voting cycle closes as masternode operators vote at different times during the month and approvals often change or new competing proposals come online, things like that.

2. The spirit of the proposal that was made to the network clearly was for the creation of a new Dash Youtube show that I believe we are all very excited to see happen soon. If in any proposal like this, a specific sub-item turns out to be controversial, like whether or not to delete the old Youtube channel, then a second proposal could be submitted just asking whether the network thinks the old channel should be deleted or not. This way the nodes get to be more specific in their intention and we all achieve our goal of following the decentralized decision making process more accurately.


Just my thoughts. What do you guys think?

Yes but why are we wasting the masternodes on such trivial stuff as @yidakee has pointed out to me many times in the past, along with many others. Tungfa just needs to be relieved of his decision making "abilities" in situations such as this. Thats half the point here.

I agree though, in general we can refocus our goals via the MN's voting on things and/or people just agreeing in general as well.
 
Hi guys
If in any proposal like this, a specific sub-item turns out to be controversial, like whether or not to delete the old Youtube channel, then a second proposal could be submitted just asking whether the network thinks the old channel should be deleted or not. This way the nodes get to be more specific in their intention and we all achieve our goal of following the decentralized decision making process more accurately.

Just my thoughts. What do you guys think?

Again. this is a tree like voting. A tree like voting is a voting where the result of a vote depends on the result of a previous vote. Dash needs such a thing to be implemented asap.

The more branches the tree like voting has, the more specific the masternode owners can be in their intentions. So whenever someone adds a tree like vote and not a flat vote, this means that he respects masternode owners, and he does not want to trick them in the details.

Here is a simple tree like voting for the problem of the employee disobedience:

Do you agree with the employee's behavior to refuse to implement this budget proposal?
Yes-> end of voting
no--> What measures do you want to take against him?
->fire him!(yes/no)
->reduce his salary (voting with numbers about the reduction of the salary)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: daf
Just to clarify, I do think the proposal was clear in its intention to delete the old channel. It is very clearly stipulated in the description. I guess what I was saying is that in cases where there is multiple items that are part of one proposal. If no controversy surfaces about any of the sub items that are beyond the spirit of the main proposal then there is no need for any clarification.

But in cases where there is controversy after the fact about a minor item within a bigger proposal, then it would be wise to submit the previously perceived to be minor item again to the network as an independent question, so that you can give the network the opportunity to be more accurate in its choice. I actually volunteer to donate the 5 DASH necessary for the submission if it turns out to be necessary in this case.

You are ignoring the fact that one single person (tungfa) is causing this to be happening in the first place. Amanda made her case and is correct in doing so and such we need to move along, not argue with someone who thinks "he knows better" all the damn time.
 
We had an exhaustive conversation about this point in the Dash Nation Consensus thread. It was made clear that Masternodes indeed have no power to decide anything except for budget concerns.

It was said that we are not ready for true decentralized governance in this way, and that eventually we will move more to this type of system where the Masternodes have a power over policy as well as budget.

The Masternodes do have an option though, to relieve Tungfa of his monthly Dash stipend. I personally would not want to do this, as Tungfa works harder than almost everyone on this project, and even if that wasn't the case, he falls under the core team umbrella. If we wanted him defunded, we would have to defund the whole core team. That's not an option, IMO, as they as a whole are doing a fantastic job.

These types of conversations will continually come up as we grow and attract more people. I have these conversations all the time on Twitter, that's why it's important to me. Maybe we'll make some more progress in that regard through this.

@amanda_b_johnson Here is the link to the discussion, FYI:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-nation-consensus-discussion.8759/

EDIT: Maybe we should also wait for @tungfa to state his case as well before we crucify him... :)
 
Last edited:
Hi All,
I would like to ask all of you to step back and think broader about the entire situation. Without personal attacks.
This particular case is very tricky because the proposal itself was about the creation of a new channel - which seems to be very attractive activity with potential advantages. (Unfortunately) part of the proposal was deletion of the old channel.
I am pretty sure that most of the votes were given for creation of the new, attractive content but almost no one cared about the old one during the voting process.

Personally I do not have an opinion on this particular case at the moment (I would need to know more about potential pros and cons of deletion of the old channel). However I have a general opinion and I would like to share it.
The old channel and its content was created as a collective effort of many people, who dedicated their time and talent for Dash. They still own copyrights to the content and it is their intellectual property. It is also hours or days of their work that would potentially disappear with all deleted links (together with entire history of the channel, likes and comments). Deletion of this old channel looks a little disrespectful to these people and their efforts.

It is a controversial topic to me. In my opinion it should not happen that one proposal erases the efforts of the other people.
I see some valid points on both sides and I feel like there is no good solution here. I would propose to have a call, consider pros and cons and make the best possible decision to resolve this case (best for Dash).

This case also shows that our system is not perfect (yet) and requires improvements.
 
Nothing needs to be deleted. Deactivate the account and all videos will become inaccessible to anyone but the owner(s). They will permanently remain on YouTube servers ready to be re-activated anytime, retaining all copyrights etc.
I speak from personal experience: I have several original videos "invisible" on YouTube and no one can watch them unless I choose to allow it (namely by re-activating my account or give out a secret link iirc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: daf
Nothing needs to be deleted. Deactivate the account and all videos will become inaccessible to anyone but the onwers(s). They will permanently remain on YouTube servers ready to be re-activated anytime, retaining all copyrights etc.
I speak from personal experience: I have several original videos "invisible" on YouTube and no one can watch them unless I choose to allow it (namely by re-activating my account or give out a secret link iirc).
This is the greatest compromise. I love it! Everyone wins. Thanks @Macrochip.
 
Back to the worker bees again...
https://jenasol.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/honeybees1.jpg
This thread is the buzz within the hive !
EDIT: Maybe we should also wait for @tungfa to state his case as well before we crucify him... :)
Of course !

I don't view this as a 'sink or swim' issue, yet it's good education to see how all this shakes out !
Patton was left to set on the bench when the PTB felt the need to do so... Then called back into the action.

As said above... this is tedious bs for the MN voters to deal with.

They can't get buried in the small details or nothing would get done.

Certainly a good indication there should be a project manager for significant things funded...
Or, is That tungfa's position ???

Best
rc
 
Hello, everyone, thanks for the input.

@Macrochip: thank you for the suggestion. Deactivation is certainly an option not yet put forth. That sounds grand. I'll propose it to the network, as Evan and others have suggested.

To clarify for @Minotaur and @kot: the proposal is not about creating a *new* channel. At this time, two channels exist which are exact replicas of one another in terms of content: youtube.com/darkcointv, and youtube.com/dashorg. They are replicas. Because they are replicas, they are splitting one another's view counts and subscribers, which makes both look worse.

And @Minotaur, I'll take that 5 Dash reimbursement. Please send to Xy1jmkj55JwtAEWjAaHtqH64NJqAfy489c. I'll make the proposal shortly.
 
Back
Top