A Call for tungfa to Heed the Masternodes' Vote

[demo]

The crucial thing is not when the property was created, it's whether it has to do with the reason the person is being paid. Although technically, the MNs can stop funding a project for any reason, whether reasonable or not. Regardless, if the masternodes were to actually defund a project because it failed to obey a request, then they would have to deal with the consequences of that. If the project was still delivering more value than not, even though it did not obey a request, then the MNs would risk losing that value by trying to de-fund it.

This is the exact reason why numerical voting is needed.

In the currect budget system, you have only two binary choices, either fund or de-fund. These binary options cause severe conflicts, because they deal with problems as if they were black (de-fund) or white (fund). But things are often grey.

With numerical voting you have also the posibility to reduce the fund instead of de-fund. If you reduce the fund, then you may lose some value, but not all value is lost. With numerical voting MNs dont risk losing all value at once, because they can choose to reduce the fund instead of de-funding it.

 

[TroyDASH]

This is the exact reason why numerical voting is needed.

In the currect budget system, you have only two binary choices, either fund or de-fund. These binary options cause severe conflicts, because they deal with problems as if they were black (de-fund) or white (fund). But things are often grey.

With numerical voting you have also the posibility to reduce the fund instead of de-fund. If you reduce the fund, then you may lose some value, but not all value is lost. With numerical voting MNs dont risk losing all value at once, because they can choose to reduce the fund instead of de-funding it.

That sounds all great, but in the real world, contractors don't accept uncertain payment amounts. There are real costs associated with doing projects. If I propose a project and I know it's going to cost X amount, then I'm not going to do any of it if I don't get paid at least X. Either the project happens or it doesn't. It doesn't do anyone any good if I get paid 60% of X, I will have just been paid for no reason. This is really not relevant to the OP though

 

[demo]

That sounds all great, but in the real world, contractors don't accept uncertain payment amounts. There are real costs associated with doing projects. If I propose a project and I know it's going to cost X amount, then I'm not going to do any of it if I don't get paid at least X. Either the project happens or it doesn't. It doesn't do anyone any good if I get paid 60% of X, I will have just been paid for no reason. This is really not relevant to the OP though

The amount will not be uncertain, because MNs dont change their mind all together at the same time.
The amount will be rather stable, and it will change only in case something very important happens.

Finnaly it is must more safe for a worker to expect his amount to be reduced, rather than being in danger for the amount to be tottaly de-funded.

 

[TheDashGuy]

Are you guys competing for post count or what?

 

[TroyDASH]

The amount will not be uncertain, because MNs dont change their mind all together at the same time.
The amount will be rather stable, and it will change only in case something very important happens.

Finnaly it is must more safe for a worker to expect his amount to be reduced, rather than being in danger for the amount to be tottaly de-funded.

A contractor won't do work if their costs exceed revenues. There is no point in only reducing some of the payment if it means the project is dead either way.
I would very much like there to be improvements in modifying existing proposal amounts, but it would need to be different from you are suggesting. There would need to be a way for payments to be negotiated, not just sent down from whatever the MNs vote. This is not even considering the feasibility of implementing such a thing. Regardless, thank you for the discussion. I am sure this particular case will work out just fine

 

[demo]

A contractor won't do work if their costs exceed revenues. There is no point in only reducing some of the payment if it means the project is dead either way.
I would very much like there to be improvements in modifying existing proposal amounts, but it would need to be different from you are suggesting. There would need to be a way for payments to be negotiated, not just sent down from whatever the MNs vote. This is not even considering the feasibility of implementing such a thing. Regardless, thank you for the discussion. I am sure this particular case will work out just fine

Yes of course there is need to be a way for payments to be negotiated.
The contractor proposes an amount above which he will start working. The MNs vote on this amount using numbers. If the proposed amount is reached, then the job starts. If not, then either the contractor reduces the asked amount, or he waits for the MNs to change their vote.
This is a negotiation.

 

[halso]

@demo How many dash per month would it take for you to never mention "voting with numbers" again?

If this gets proposed, it will be a landslide YES.

 

[demo]

@demo How many dash per month would it take for you to never mention "voting with numbers" again?

If this gets proposed, it will be a landslide YES.

Masternode owners, in their majority, are a bunch of stupid people.
They deal with meaningless issues (like tungfa's youtube channel) and they dont care about enormously important issues (like the "pork barrel")

Someone has to remind them what the important issues are, and how those important issues can be solved.

 

[Voluntary]

> Masternode owners, in their majority, are a bunch of stupid people.

But voting with numbers would fix all that? Way to be consistent.

 

[demo]

> Masternode owners, in their majority, are a bunch of stupid people.

But voting with numbers would fix all that? Way to be consistent.

I am consistent.

Voting with numbers of course will fix that, because voting with numbers is a method that respects the opinion of the minorities. Minority opinion is respected when we vote with numbers, because in order to extract a result from the vote, the average is used.

So stupidity will be reduced, and the tyranny of the majority will also be reduced, if you decide to vote with numbers.

 

[noobtrader]

“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”

― Charles Bukowski

 

[TheDashGuy]

“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”

― Charles Bukowski

Captain Obvious! Where have you been?

 

[noobtrader]

Captain Obvious! Where have you been?

cmon ppl, this thread should be closed already, demo isnt even a MN holder.

 

[Voluntary]

@demo The only way a vote reduces tyranny of the majority is if the majority don't vote.

 

[demo]

Title: De-activate YouTube.com/DarkcoinTV
Owner: amanda_b_johnson
One-time payment: 1 DASH (8 USD)
Completed payments: no payments occurred yet
Payment start/end: 06-07-2016 / 20-08-2016 (added on 11-06-2016)
Please vote within: 21 days
Final voting deadline: in 1 month
Votes: 380 Yes / 166 No
Will be funded: No. This proposal needs additional 168 Yes votes to become funded.


Tungfa admitted that the DarkoinTV channel is not his property. So what are you waiting for? The result is clear, the channel must be de-activated.

I think it is stupid to wait another 21 days, or for another 168 "Yes" to arrive, because those hardcoded numbers (1 month and 548 yes required) are supposed to be there for proposals and budgets, and NOT for things like opinion asking (especially for unimportant opinion asking, like the deactivation of a youtube channel)

So the correct thing to be done is to have a never ending vote (why the vote should expire in 21 days? why not in 20 days, or in 30 days? Who decided that, and especially for what reason? Is there a theory behind, or they are just random numbers? Random numbers are bad, so better have a never ending vote to avoid randomness.)

And at this never ending vote, as long as the YES votes remain more than the NO votes, then the channel should remain de-activated.

Of course tungfa may still disagree, and in that case in order for MNs to force him, they have to take other measures (like voting with numbers and cut an amount from his salary)

 

[aleix]

I think it is stupid to wait another 21 days, or for another 168 "Yes" to arrive, because those hardcoded numbers (1 month and 548 yes required) are supposed to be there for proposals and budgets, and NOT for things like opinion asking (especially for unimportant opinion asking, like the deactivation of a youtube channel)

We have all sorts of profiles in our community, some of us cannot be connected 24/7. We need this month time to be able to connect and read the proposal, to discuss and to think about.

It is being voted, relax. It is not necessary to rush.

best,

 

[demo]

We have all sorts of profiles in our community, some of us cannot be connected 24/7. We need this month time to be able to connect and read the proposal, to discuss and to think about.

It is being voted, relax. It is not necessary to rush.

best,

If it is not necessary to rush then it is necessary to wait.
And if it is not necessary to wait then it is necessary to rush.

The question is this. Wait or Rush?
And who is about to decide that?

Wait or Rush is a very very important decision.
Because it applies to all decisions, and not only to unimportant decisions like the current one.

 

[halso]

@

If it is not necessary to rush, it is necessary to wait.
And if it is not necessary to wait, it is necessary to rush.

The question is this. Wait or Rush?
And who is about to decide that?

Wait or Rush is a very very important decision.
Because it applies to all decisions, and not only to unimportant decisions like the current one.

@demo have you bought your first DASH yet?

 

[demo]

@

@demo have you bought your first DASH yet?

No. Dash is not the currency I dream of. It has no future. So I wont buy it.

Unless the MNs change their opinion about voting with numbers.
In that case I will buy 5 dash in order to put my proposition to the budget.

And if the proposition pass, then I will invest in dash.

 

[halso]

I

No. Dash is not the currency I dream of. It has no future. So I wont buy it.

Unless the MNs change their opinion about voting with numbers.
In that case I will buy 5 dash in order to put my proposition to the budget.

And if the proposition pass, then I will invest in dash.

I believe the guys at Feathercoin are big into voting with numbers and universal dividends. Have you thought of hanging out there for a while?