Notice how you continuously evade anything that I’m saying, because you know you can’t respond to these points…? Well the rest of us have.
I’ve already rebuked your silly theory, and made it clear why I am pursuing this proposal - decentralization in a blockchain is important.
Why is it that you, and the DFINITY foundation, want to void a proposal that has already passed - effectively making governance in a “decentralized” blockchain useless?
Again, I’m waiting for you to respond to any of these messages. It’s really telling when you refuse.
There’s literally a firehose of technical magic coming out of the dfinity foundation now, all in the name of decentralisation.
Yet you cherry pick a proposal that was passed over a year ago.
You can’t hide the fact you’re fixated on this one proposal, and why? Because it’s the lowest hanging fruit you can go for that takes voting power away from DFinity.
Nobody is taking away from that. I, myself have said it probably is the best case scenario that people assign their voting power to DFINITY, currently.
However, that doesn’t negate the fact that upon Genesis, DFINITY self assigned themselves 100% of voting power, with no means to see it decentralized.
You can add as many decentralized aspects as you want, but it all boils down to the NNS - and that is centralized.
So this is by no means cherry picking - I can quite clearly articulate my position, as I have been pursuing this since the proposal originally passed.
And again, I’d appreciate if you stopped changing the subjects & started addressing some points☺️
NNS is centralised, ok, I didn’t know that. I was under the impression it was originally mostly controlled by the foundation, early contributors, VCs, seed investors, etc. But now you’re telling me its centralised, well that’s a huge red flag.
100% of voting power too, my god, how did nobody see through this literal power grab and scam.
Stop bashing your keyboard in anger and get some sleep.
I was being sarcastic. Do you have any proof that DFinity has anywhere close to 100% voting power or is this just BS to push your false narrative and agenda? Please I’d love to see your research.
Maybe you’re just being a big idiot and trying to drown everybody else out though…
I know you were, but I figured this deep, I’d entertain it❤️
You can observe their voting power through code based topics. When DFINITY votes, ~440m+ (depending on dissolves) voting power is cast, as depicted below;
The only topics they don’t have self assigned control over are Governance & SNS/Neuron Fund. The first of which are non-binding, and do not effect change, as we’re currently seeing.
Meaning at the end of the day, governance proposals are glorified polls and mean nothing.
When you call yourself “a contributor” yet intentionally, indefinitely self assign & retain 100% of voting power on code based topics (the only ones that effect change, aside from the SNS, which just acts a controlling tool), you are no longer just a contributor, but the gatekeeper of the network.
You become the one who makes decisions in regards to what’s implemented to the protocol, as you have unilateral voting power.
That is only magnified when it’s insinuated that it is a security risk if DFINITY loses their self assigned supermajority - as nobody else can vote for themselves.
You can’t call it a decentralized blockchain, when DFINITY has decided all changes & implementations must be approved by them first.
If this were true liquid democracy, neurons should have to assign that voting power to DFINITY themselves.
Completely unrelated, but how well do you think this “decentralization” arguement would fare in the SEC case?
Fwiw @borovan, despite what you and others seem to think, my criticisms have never come from a place of malice or ill intent.
I work in an industry where establishing trust in systems is a huge deal. Im very aware of the real world threats that exist. I was first introduced to the IC by someone on LinkedIn who referenced it in a discussion about Zero Trust architecture. I fell in love with Dom’s vision of a world computer and fighting for that is truly what kept me around for so long.
Unfortunately the whole “Internet community” thing was entirely new to me. I had never done social media before and in hindsight I should have just stuck to the forums so I could focus on learning about the IC. It doesn’t shock me that my comments are perceived to be FUD given the environments I chose to engage with people. But then again, these forums aren’t much better, just a different status quo.
All that aside, I wish the best for the network but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t disappointed with DF’s decision making. For that reason I’ve chosen to be a passive observer going forward.
I’ll point out that we have little evidence that they would wield this control because, to my knowledge, no one has actually tried to submit a wasm for installation that they didn’t generate. If you did so, and they voted within the first few minutes to reject, I’d grant your point. But if they let voting go for 4 days, and people take the time to spread the word about the proposal, I doubt they would get anywhere close to 99% if the proposal was open-sourced, done in good faith, and benefited the network.
I understand your desire to not waste your time, so maybe approach something less complicated and just see if your theory is correct?
The fact that 99%+ of voting power gets casts when they vote is not valid evidence…?
I understand what you’re saying - that hypothetically, they could allow a proposal to be voted upon - but when it is time for DFINITY to cast their vote, they are casting all remaining voting power.
Assuming you’re using governance topics as a reference of inactive vs active voting power (as done in this proposal) - DFINITY retains the ~50% inactive VP, as well as their personal ~20% VP - while ~30% VP “vote for themselves” (assign followees, in reality).
Not quite 99%, but it’s certainly more than an absolute majority.
write the code already and submit the proposal…show the community that DFINITY doesn’t want to decentralize the IC.
and don’t say that you don’t want to waste your time, because the time that you have spent in this thread should have been enough to do it.
