If you don’t think it’s necessary, then Apple’s products, Microsoft’s products, Amazon’s products, a lot of their data is self-verifiable. Many of their products are also distributed architectures and have consensus mechanisms. So, why do we need an IC?
Don’t you feel it? IC is moving further and further away from the crypto industry, and the signs are dangerous. Investors thought dfinity was a crypto project to give it such a high valuation and provide them with money to burn. I can’t comment on dfinity’s strategic goals, but I understand that in recent years the only resources that will keep dfinity going will be from the crypto industry. In any case, dfinity has to keep itself and its ecosystem alive first.
There are several reasons why this is necessary, and I’ve stated them above. If you don’t think it’s necessary, have you thought about why? Where does the basis for the decision come from?
In common sense, Crypto projects are data-transparent by default. If you feel that the IC project is not necessary to open data, then you need good reasons to explain. Rather than asking “why is it necessary”.
If you don’t agree with me, then that’s fine. whether IC can open a few subnets with open and verifiable data (providing interfaces and SDKs) and you see how the market will choose is an interesting phenomenon and I want to know the answer.
Absolutely makes sense. Why a Dex would choose IC over AWS? Technically Cex data are now partially open including trades and transfer. But could we trust them? No! Because not all of their data are transparent. Defi needs to be FULLLY transparent in order for the public to trust and the community could build ecosystems around the DEX. Remember any crypto project is NOT by single entity. Like Uniswap, communities could build Inch, flash loan. Now, if Uniswap’s data is not public. What would happen?
It looks like there are tons of support for this feature reading the comments. How did the foundation reach the conclusion that there wasn’t? Are you guys reaching out to developers personally and ask them or is it just on the forum? Please reconsider this.
Besides that, Let’s look at IC dashboard, how do we verify the TPS is real, how do we know the block finalization is real. We don’t even know the block height!
I agree that IC dapps should be able to be publicly verifiable. I am asking is there a way to make IC dapps publicly verifiable that are on a private subnet? Like having the dapp itself publicly publish it’s own transaction histories and cryptographic proofs.
There is no 100% secure system in this world (including blockchain), and open and verifiable data the last line of defense to protect users. If the blockchain consensus is wrong or nodes conspire to cheat, it can be discovered by the user, who can then leave it and be spared from continuing to be harmed by it.
If ic doesn’t open up the data, how can the user verify it? Should he trust the ic core code? Should he trust the programmer who developed it? Should he trust the dfinity foundation? Should he trust the nodes? Should he trust the “secure hardware” on the node that he does not see?
If the data is not publicly verifiable, you will eventually come to the conclusion that ic is not trusted.
It is not that a system built using cryptography is a blockchain system. It is a sociological concept, similar to, any society with opaque governance (even with electoral mechanisms) is not a democratic society. I don’t consider ic a blockchain system if there is no open verifiable data.
If you agree with me to some extent on the above, then it is time to make a change.
Unless a user runs a node themselves they won’t be able to tell IC data is 100% correct anyway. A majority of dishonest nodes could sign invalid blocks and there would be no way for any users (that don’t run a node) to detect that.
Thank you for the perspective you provided, it finally dawned on me, and I suddenly understood the core reason why IC’s DEFI can’t be done. I remember that there was a public discussion before, and a developer said a similar point of view. The logic is I didn’t understand this one at the time, but now I suddenly understand it. Indeed, if it doesn’t change, it’s impossible for DeFi to become bigger on ic
And it gave me a deep understanding of why IC’s so-called full-stack on-chain is far less attractive than asset on-chain on ETH plus DAPP code open source
In the past, I always understood it as a competition between two routes. Looking back now, I still don’t understand it deeply enough. For public chains, it is obvious that open source verifiable is more vital
And from these core discussions, I began to understand what @shaoan said before that the foundation lacks encryption development experience and encryption spirit, which is indeed the case
Regarding this point, it should have been mentioned repeatedly by developers as early as a year and a half ago. , after the DEFI on the IC still has no substantive changes, most people in the community still don’t understand the core logic
Based on the comment history of this thread, would this be defined as “controversial”?
Moving a proposal is a better way to go, but with the large number of ICPs held by the foundation, the decision still rests with them. So Dfinity can’t avoid this issue, Dfinity team need to take a stand and justify it.
This topic is more important and urgent than BTC integration and ETH integration. It is about whether ckBTC and ckETH assets are accepted by the crypto ecology once they enter the IC network. Don’t think you have a chainkey to prove it is safe, why should they trust you (assets need trustless environment, They can’t trust a technology or institution that they can’t verify.)?
I don’t think anybody called it “controversial”, but i said that the comments here were giving mixed feedback: Some say “yes make everything public”, others say “fully public or fully private is not granular enough”, others are concerned about making the NNS subnet public and potentially reduced privacy for users.
Great, glad we agree that moving forward with a proposal is a reasonable way to make progress. Yes, DFINITY has a lot of voting power, although not a majority (currently 22.6%). I don’t think DFINITY is “avoiding the issue”, this forum thread was meant to ask the community for input. I’m pretty sure DFINITY is in favor of opening at least the NNS as a first step.
Yes. Action can be started by opening certain subnets. This will allow for real feedback data as well as solving new problems faced. More benefits include giving developers in the IC ecosystem options and more possibilities for IC ecosystem development.
I think it starts with opening up some of the subnets. Ultimately one needs to seek maximum data transparency. Some non-dependent subnets can remain private, such as the subnet where II is located, and users who do not recognize it can not use II.