Again nothing I’ve mentioned is misleading or untrue, they’re statement of fact. If they invoke emotion, it’s because of good reason.
It’s not even a twitter post I’ll be there in person SPEAKING and you and anyone else is free to join
While we’re discussing single point of failures on Toniq today, which is a much more pressing matter, we haven’t even begun to touch on single points of failure from the KYT Provider
This is also very important and we need to discuss how this particular risk can be mitigated after concluding the Toniq issue
Also do we have full confidence that these KYT calls cannot be spoofed in any way?
I suppose this comes into how the KYT subscription is handled by Toniq and how much freedon others have to handle it but this is super important to look at if we havent already
Apologies in advance if it has and Ive missed it
Feel like after this, we’re ready to go
ckBTC done the right way
a reliable and trusted service (Cant be decentralised till NNS is truly decentralised)
For the record. The ICA is meant to be a members organization, but there are two challenges that have put its development on the back burner: (1) there are far more important things for the team to be working on right now, (2) we could not transfer legal ownership of ICP to the ICA for tax reasons; essentially that it would involve a gift, and in Zürich, where DFINITY is based, a substantial gift tax would be involved. So for now it controls voting neurons for security purposes (distribution of keys etc) and that’s it. We have ideas about how to fix this, and develop the organization, but it’s going to be a major undertaking, and we don’t have the bandwidth right now. Period.
Hadn’t realised that. Thank you!
2 Likes
Just stop crying theguy .
You demand this and that …how about putting your head down alittle and start researching instead ?
Toniq researched everything first and proposed to dfinity as a solution first . And what did you do ? You complained first . At least you are first in something lol
1 Like
The fact that decisions have been; closed doored, biased to first mover advantage, withheld community input, and a forced through approach to a major milestone based on chasing profits.
I will vote no on any proposals generated in the near future.
Do better and try again.
2 Likes
I’m honestly hoping toniq will give up on this and see who’s willing to earn basically nothing and in risk of losing money. Talk is cheap . No one will step up to do anything . People here complained about wpb previously , till now not a single one has stepped up. Lmfao
2 Likes
Toniq deciding they’re operating at a loss so they no longer want to pay is the EXACT situation we need to prepare for.
Toniq giving up on this will force dfinitys hand to consider a more robust ckBTC architecture which I cannot see as a bad thing
Nothing is worse than the FUD you get from users expecting a service and it being unavailable
Currently there is no expectations so we can actually deliver a resilient system from the get-go
2 Likes
I flagged my interest in this topic right at the start. I’ve got a meeting with chainalaysis tomorrow. Why wasnt I quicker? I had no idea that Dfinity would be up for a quick fix like this. Not given their prior comments about other single points of failure.
I get your emotion… but telling folk to stop crying isnt helpful. There are plenty of people who have questions.
It might be that the Dfinity/ Toniq plan is the best option however there is a lack of reasoning which addresses the valid concerns of the community.
4 Likes
Didnt they say more are welcome ? What more man ?
The cto asking people here to contribute not to cry . Toniq has a good solution and they decided to go with it . Don’t like it ? How about you come up with a better one please ? Cry about the rewards ? Join toniq to be a provider too
1 Like
I think you are misrepresenting my point. My point was Toniq did a lot of groundwork starting when Jan raised the issue almost a month ago in this thread. That put them in a position to be ready to go at this point.
2 Likes
Actionable steps have been mentioned multiple times here, we’re simply waiting on what dfinity plans to do. You can read through the chain to identify them.
And because of this its ok to go ahead with a single point of failure design
its not even clear if more will want to pay since apparently toniq is operating at a loss? so how is this model sustainable or resilient?
If we have to go with a single point of failure (while we look for better options) - why isnt that point of failure Dfinity?
I would suggest that more people would be happy with this. Nothing personal against Toniq.
3 Likes
Or even just do both, and put out official doc on how to join the KYT Sub crew
We already have to trust Dfinity since they control the NNS, so having them as the point of failure is atleast less parties involved (I’ve detailed the reasons why before)
I have to reiterate this
users don’t care about much other than, does it work and is it easy to use
and we’re really going ahead with something that can create noise on the user side at the detriment of end users and ICP reputation
All weve had so far is that our tech is solid and we should not compromise this
Putin also sought decentralization so that there would be no single point of failure.
A DIFFERENT THREAD NEEDS TO BE MADE FOR DEVELOPERS TO COLLABORATIVELY WORK ON:
-
Developing a KYT canister that incorporates multiple regulators. (because it’s highly likely that a decision has been made to permanently…let toniq be an oversight body of ckbtc)
-
Developing a non-KYT ckbtc (although this might be hard; if some of dfinity employees chip in then it’s just a matter of time.)
-
Start design of a SNS model that would hand over ckbtc business operations to the community. Community participation is highly needed as not a single entity cannot be up against dfinity but rather have a reasonable working relationship towards the future of decentralization.
1 Like
this is a FANTASTIC idea!
Ill be mentioning this in the space