How to avoid someone posing as a public identity to apply for named neurons

Take this proposal as an example(It does not mean that the content of the this proposal is false) How to confirm the authenticity of the named proposal content? How to avoid someone posing as a public identity to apply for named neurons? What happens if I impersonate Apple and apply to become a named neuron?

1 Like

my stance is that all following on governance proposal should be removed and not possible.
I have not seen any critical governance proposal yet that I recall. So could have a rule that governance proposal are submitted the first day or 2 of each month only so voters would not have to check and vote everyday. Easy, simple and much more fair voting TMO. The dead owners or lost accounts would not vote with a possibility that a very important proposal would change the course of the blockchain due to a (or multiple) dead voter.

1 Like

Just take RawTech Ventures as example. RawTech Ventures has an offical contact email [ contact@rawtechvc.com ]. Email interaction with contact@rawtechvc.com could be a feasible way to verify the identity.

This is why I prefer to see a forum post including social media profiles and neuron ID before the NNS proposal is submitted. That enables basic verification.

3 Likes

In this case, I’m not sure that would mean much more than a random proposal. I’ve never heard of Rawtech or seen them participate in discussions on the forum or other social media. So IMO any post here would be equally questionable.

1 Like

I don’t expect to recognize every organization, but I would expect for them to have a presence. That would be verifiable with social media links. It would be possible to reach out and directly ask if they are pursuing the register known neuron proposal. The only issue is when people choose to use a new anonymous identity and don’t want to link it to their normal social media presence.

1 Like

Personally I agree, with your overall stance @wpb. Making sure it’s verified to a basic degree, at least to see who they are, and that they are a real person not impersonating prior to the proposal being submitted would be extremely beneficial. IMO it could weave out a lot of these questions we’re debating right now. I respect autonomy and I would approve of more autonomously named neurons if there was a way to get basic verification. On the other hand though, I want to ask, what about individuals are not active on major social media platforms? What if the user respects their autonomy, and private data so much so that they only actively use and invest in the IC for d-social applications. Then perhaps, someone like me, who is a noob eventually works their way into being more established and an active community member, however they then refuse to sign up for major social media platforms in order to conform to that concept. Imo the whole purpose of the IC is to stop using these major platforms and take the power back and give it to “The Average John/ Jane”. So, what if perhaps after being here for 8-12 years someone in my situation chooses to help other noobs along the way, and does not want to be confined to their major social media presence? Is this something we are willing to consider?

Yes. Great points. I think social media presence on any platform meets the intent. Hence, Distrikt, DSCVR, OpenChat, the DFINITY forum would all be platforms that could work. I would think that anyone who wants to be a public known neuron in the NNS dApp has the intent of making it known who they are and how they vote so they can attract followers. Hence, they are likely to be public in some way.

1 Like

I see your point, at the same time though, they may just want to keep their anonymity, and remain silent without publicizing it to the full community for a variety of reasons as discussed in @Always_Votes scenario. Just for users who want to and it acting as a placemat for a protest votes. For this instance here, in @ysyms question could we not have them use their VC Information and verify the team is real, and making the proposal themselves through a verified VC account? Then forget the individual need? I can see where this is problematic though.

1 Like

Perhaps they could disclose it to the team in private without needing to verify what we need for verification, then if that is the case we can rest assured there has been that established? Is that what you are trying to say? Forgive me, if I am mis interpreting something.

Also, random question… Say something hypothetical like this does occur and it somehow passes, is there a way to remove it as known neuron in the future? May have missed that too

I think I was just expressing a preference to see social media user names and neuron ID posted on the forum prior to the proposal being submitted to the NNS. It’s certainly not a requirement.

The only scenario I find difficult to evaluate is a brand new anonymous identity. @Always_Votes did a good job in helping me understand he is a currently active member of the IC community because of his well informed interactions during deliberation.

1 Like

Currently there is no way to remove a named neuron, but it was a recent point of discussion by DFINITY in another forum thread. I suspect that is on their roadmap now, but perhaps not the highest priority.

1 Like

Out of curiosity, why did you vote in favor of 77328 @ysyms? Did you manage to contact “RawTech” and verify that they are indeed behind this proposal?

2 Likes

This is a solid question, that I don’t want taken poorly, however, I would love to know if you contacted and were able to verify this way a real VC as well.

This imo is going to need to take an extra boost forward. Imo I full whole heartedly agree with having named neurons. If there comes a time where I need a break from this journey (for my mental health) then this concept is exactly what I am looking for. However, @Manu makes some great points about contacting them. Part of me is suspicious of this named neuron for a variety of reasons. I’m not willing to deny its opportunity however, I think @Manu is right. We really should hear back on verification prior to it being approved. My only concern is, the time we have to verify might perhaps be to long for the time delay on the proposal. I want to be clear though, I am not discrediting this as a possible VC, I just think manu is right and we need to hear back with a solid response. making @wpb your point about removing named neurons needing to be more of a priority. It looks like this VC has a lot of natural support in voting power which can be seen as a good or bad thing imo.

1 Like

I found out that they are following projects in the IC ecosystem on Twitter, so they should be able to discover this proposal. I’m not sure if the description in the proposal is true, but I guess it doesn’t affect them having the name.Because In the past few named neuron proposals, I also can’t confirm the veracity of their description of themselves, and dfinity also voted for it, so…

mm that isn’t exact enough verification for my liking. Anyone can create a twitter and follow ic projects. I think its important to verify that like you said its not just a single individual cat fishing new users.

1 Like

At present, what we can easily prove is only have the information of the proposer’s neurons. Maybe in the future, we can prove the openchat account and all other on-chain assets that they have through some other technologies. But information about the proposer in the real world is hard to prove.

1 Like

I see, thanks!

and dfinity also voted for it, so…

DFINITY has not voted on 77328 yet.

2 Likes