I have been asking if this is a valid amendment to their proposed “Security Risk”. I have stated multiple times; I am not trying to undermine DFINITY, and would like to see this implemented in an optimal manner for them.
If they don’t think this is a valid solution, I’d love to hear why, because we need to come up with something to fit the edge case they’re concerned about.
Otherwise, there is quite literally no point in me writing the Periodic Followee Confirmation proposal - as they have stated they are not content with its current form.
It’s all perspective I guess…as far as we know they would only choose to reject wasm proposals as a veto(this is a valid and rational set up for a multi cameral type dao systems. Maybe they will only vote accept on their own proposals? We don’t know because no one has tried it.
There is nothing in the code that says what I suggest, and the code certainly makes what you suggest possible (and thus worthy to consider), but real life systems that work have a lot of shimmy and shake to them.
We may need a code change to keep them from abusing power, but until we have a situation where they can abuse their power it is tough to say it is a sure thing.
I 100% get your concern and I’m looking forward to a wider array of contributors, but I don’t think we’re in a situation to get hung up on this one with how absolutely damn busy everyone is right now.
I’m going to suggest to the ICDevs board that we change our following on replica to CodeGov and then try to out some effort into promoting that other folks do the same as they are the first valiant attempt to attempt some outside expertise. But man is it tough…the codebase is deep and in a really frustrating language for outsiders. I think it will be a while before it is really safe to drastically diversify voting power on the topic.
I appreciate your objective standpoint on the matter.
My primary question / concern is, if this is a liquid democracy, should we be complacent rather than proactive in regards to the potential abuse of that voting power, when they have assigned it to themselves?
If we were to allow the scenario you reference to occur, through the active circumvention of proactive measures, what does that do to the optics of the protocol?
I am by no means saying DFINITY shouldn’t have the voting power they have - I am saying if this is a decentralized liquid democracy, as claimed, it should not be indefinitely self assigned by DFINITY to DFINITY.
Voting Power is something that should be consciously allocated to the best followee the neuron owner sees fit.
I respect that you, @wpb and many others are actively contributing towards making a difference with CodeGov.
Upon consideration, I too believe it’d be best to switch the replica topic followee for the Accumulator Neuron - I appreciate the inspiration, as indirect as it was.
I’ve tried to be more proactive. I had hoped that ICDevs would have raise enough to have code and replica review as part of the service we provide. The price action has decimated those plans. I received one amazing anon donation at the very beginning in ICP. The entire treasury is now worth about 2/3 of that one single largest donation at the time. In hind sight it was a mistake to bet that maturity off a 8 year neuron would fund an entire organization. The entire community has a similar story. All of that to say, it is hard to be proactive if you don’t have the resources to do so. If the price had started low and then gone high we would have very different problems(but sweet lambos!)
It is up to us and sweat at this point. I’ll do all I can to contribute to helping form expertise outside the organization that can contribute and evaluate. I’ve made suggestions in the past and I’ll keep pursuing these(multiple replicas, diversifies subnets, slashing so node providers have skin in the replica integrity → expertise). But these are heavy lifts and I’m open to better ideas for the short term.
Some other comments completely mischaracterize and/or show a misunderstanding of the topics, and it is hard for me to parse out whether this is honest misunderstanding, honest disagreement, or trolling. Your style of communication tbh creates such ambiguity. I however, left those because I am leaning towards “honest misunderstanding” and one should not be penalized for being not having the full picture.
You have been warned multiple times about the style of communication. I am sorry to say, but if you continue with this style, I will have to silence your user account. It is very important that we keep a civil place for communication.
With all due respect, I disagree. decentralization is VERY important to DFINITY.
I interpret your comment to think that the “reset foloweees” proposal in question is about decentralization, shows the fundamental issue at hand. The proposal was about spam, but some folks seem to:
a. Not care about spam
b. Love the side effect
I think that is a very reasonable take, but worth being upfront about it.
I really want to be clear that the base assumption is DFINITY saw this proposal being about spam… Once you see this, you see why:
It was low priority… so other resources were on high priority things
@bjoernek and @lara and others at DFINITY made time to think deeply about the proposal (based on user feedback). Their take-away was what they wrote.
The trade off or costs that @bjoernek pointed out of his “design flaw” can be summarized “since this not urgent, is this cost worth paying?”
So the main point stands:
DFINITY think it is best to decouple spam from other intents
You keep asking what DFINITY would vote if X, but there are so many versions of X, that it really depends on the implementation, and security costs and decentralization benefits. As it stands, the spam proposal has a very low upside (spam is not critical issue) and some security costs. Indeed, even this thread shows almost NO ONE cares about the spam issue which is literally the intent of the feature. The calculus is not there.
I think it is reasonable you ask for feedback, but my feedback is this: rather than ask in high level terms, I think it is best if you write the actual proposal in terms of concrete costs and benefits. Even if its on the forum for feedback. The old proposal has clear feedback from DFINITY:
the upside/benefits for spam are much less
even proponents of the feature do not care about spam, but the side effects
This is beyond telling - because DFINITY wants to void the proposal & avoid discussion, you’re inclined to lock the thread?
Let’s not forget that you all asked me to come to the forums because you don’t like the optics of this being on twitter.
I’ve asked on multiple occasions to articulate how this addresses spam.
On multiple occasions the topic is avoided, diverted, ignored, etc. , because nobody can articulate how this addresses spam - quite frankly, because it doesn’t.
(Linking a response to Borovan because it has both referenced comments within it)
I should highlight (because the comment above may imply otherwise):
I honestly write this in good faith @Accumulating.icp , and with all the confidence I am dealing with a reasonable person where we just happen to disagree in the moment in one issue. I think you are intellectually honest.
I’ve flagged Borovans comments on multiple occasions, every instance he attempts to derail the conversation. Notice how they’re all still here, yet Ivan’s are gone?
There is a clear instigator in this matter - and it’s not the people being censored.
I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say here Diego. Perhaps you can be more clear and point out what’s wrong with my replies? There are multiple useless comments in this thread which are irrelevant, why do you chose to censor me of all the people? Do I need to show my wallet to get a say here?
People have flagged your comments (so I know i am not the only one who finds them aggressive)
They are very aggressive and not on the subject at hand
If you are thinking, “But X also wrote useless comment, what’s the deal?”
The answer is simple:
My main initial input are user-generated flags, because I cannot keep up with all the threads and comments. If you see something bad, please flag. If someone attacks you, know that i will remove anything that does that.
I do remove other people’s stuff too, but I usually comment when there is a pattern. There have been a few people whose comments I have removed but I did not do a meta comment on the thread.
How are you making this jump? DFINITY is not saying the proposal is valid. DFINITY is saying that it chooses not to invest precious resources on a proposal where:
the goal is spam (and spam is low priroity)
the goal is spam (and some people do not think will help spam)
the goal is spam (and some people dont care about the spam at all, but side effects)
the goal is spam (and some people voted on it because it is for spam, not the side effects)
Why not just submit a proposal for the real goal you want?
And what does that screenshot of what you posted supposed to mean?
That screenshot shows DFINITY did EXACTLY what it has said:
DFINITY admitted it had not dedicated a team to work on proposal as it was under water in other work
DFINITY recently passed the proposal for a team to look at. And their conclusion was clear (@lara posted it).
To be clear, many people have answered this question and I have personally answered it multiple times in this thread and referred you to the OP where it was explicitly discussed in detail. I keep seeimg you repeat this message and it is not true. At some point people have to stop responding to you simply because you don’t accept any other opinion. I still don’t want to argue about it, but repeating your claim over and over doesn’t make it true.
