France was blocked because the founder’s French, go figure.
!ONLY “1 ICP” IN ICX'S SNS ICP Treasury! What is the Warning!, the Reflection!, the ACTION! for us?!?!?!
wow. doesnt look good does it. French founder bans France to give investors confidence he cant make purchases on alternate accounts. Then never includes the ban and he was able to buy the entire time.
Edit: thats just an assumption. I dont know why he banned france specifically. Just how it looks from my point of view.
I was also blocked, so I’m pretty sure US was geo-blocked. I think every SNS has geo-blocked the US and their operating countries to avoid any regulatory issues
It looks like old SNS proposals don’t display the payload. Probably the change from the 2 proposal flow to the 1 proposal flow. Modclub and Kinic also geoblocked many countries but it’s not shown in their payload either cuz they used the old flow. Nuance and Sonic are the only ones who used the new flow
You are correct the US was blocked from participating in the Modclub SNS. You can view restricted countries by calling the governance canister method
get_sns_initialization_parameters and reviewing the section
If that is the case then there is a bug that needs to be addressed as i am from a country that was supposedly banned in the Boom swap yet i have tokens and neurons from that swap.
The error is mine as I often only review the payload and skip a lot of the TL DR. When I didnt see any restriction in the payload of the proposal i purchased during the swap.
If I was able to so then so were others.
I didn’t invest in the projects i thought had a good chance of withdrawing funds quickly without a clear process and development plan. I know other felt the same. So yes I believe protection was needed.
I believe that the restriction is based on the participant’s IP address geographical location.
Possible cause (other than using VPN or HTTP(S)/SOCKS Proxy) then might be that location of your IP changed - previously was in a non-restricted country - and GeoIP database that is used by NNS was not updated and needs refresh (DFINITY), for example:
No VPN or Proxy but my IP did change recently since i closed on another house in Sept and moved into it. But it shouldn’t have changed my geolocation much as I can look out my window and see the other house.
Yup, it’s not so much about your real geographical location - ISP (the one who provides you internet service) usually obtains a ‘basket’ of IP’s (including the one you have) so location of the networks can change - KYC would be more exact for such verification, but also would be much more limiting.
ICP had a plans with
People Party - that might be best compromise - but no idea about the current status.
OK, they did nothing wrong this time but there ought to be a solution to stop this from being mismanaged not everyone has the time to read every whitepaper and lots of folks are following neurons and so are definitely not reading.
Easier explanations of the proposals would be great for end-users like myself. I don’t always understand the code trees as I have no coding experience and the summaries can be sparse. I have been using ChatGPT to explain it to me which has been a big help. I saw Dominic post something about an AI on ICP, is there a way to integrate a linguistic AI like ChatGPT to create accurate summaries of code and proposal details?
Cool idea. Can you give some examples of how you use ChatGPT for this? Do you ask it toe explain the entire repo or a diff between two commits, for example, and what do typical chatgpt prompts for this look like?
Here is what I prompt it with:
"This code is from a proposal titled “Assign Node Operator ID (NOID)”:
What does this code do and what does it mean in the greater context of the IC?"
This is the response: "The provided JSON object is part of a proposal titled “Assign Node Operator ID (NOID)” within the context of the Internet Computer (IC). Let’s break down the key components:
"ipv6": null: This field appears to be the specification for the IPv6 address associated with the node. In this case, it is set to
null, indicating that there is no specific IPv6 address provided or that IPv6 is not relevant for this proposal.
"node_operator_principal_id": "xbvdm-vrdwg-wcvpo-dwsdp-akpmo-sresk-53cg5-mwpn3-adhco-rwzym-gqe": This is the unique identifier assigned to the node operator. Each node operator in the IC network is identified by a principal ID, and this ID uniquely identifies the entity responsible for operating the node.
"node_allowance": 1: This field specifies the allowance or the number of nodes that the operator is allowed to run. In this case, the operator is allowed to run one node.
"rewardable_nodes": : This array is currently empty, indicating that there are no specific nodes listed for rewards in this proposal. It might be relevant in the context of reward distribution based on node performance or other criteria.
"node_provider_principal_id": "3oqw6-vmpk2-mlwlx-52z5x-e3p7u-fjlcw-yxc34-lf2zq-6ub2f-v63hk-lae": This is the principal ID associated with the node provider. The node provider is the entity that provides the physical or virtual resources for running the node.
"dc_id": "li1": This field specifies the data center identifier. Each node is associated with a specific data center, and this identifier helps in organizing and managing nodes within the broader network infrastructure.
Meaning in the Greater Context of the IC:
- Node Operator and Provider Identification: The proposal is assigning a Node Operator ID (NOID) and Node Provider ID to a particular node. This is crucial for tracking and managing the responsibilities of different entities within the IC network.
- Allowance and Resource Allocation: The “node_allowance” field indicates the number of nodes that the operator is allowed to run. This is part of the broader governance and resource allocation mechanisms within the IC, ensuring fair distribution and utilization of network resources.
- Reward Mechanism: The presence of the “rewardable_nodes” array suggests that the proposal may be related to rewarding node operators based on their performance or other criteria. However, in this specific proposal, the array is empty, indicating that there are no specific nodes listed for rewards.
- Data Center Assignment: The “dc_id” field associates the node with a specific data center. This is important for managing the geographic distribution of nodes and ensuring redundancy and fault tolerance in the network.
In summary, this proposal is about assigning identification, allowances, and provider information to a node operator within the Internet Computer network. It plays a role in the governance, resource allocation, and operational aspects of the decentralized infrastructure."
This is very useful when it comes to making an informed decision. If every proposal had this info or integrated an AI response like this. It would greatly empower individual voters to make more informed decisions and not blindly follow neurons to do voting for them.
I agree that ChatGPT can help explain the mechanics of Node Admin proposals (and other proposal topics/types), but that’s only one part of what it means to make an informed decision on this type of proposal. There is a node provider onboarding work process and an ongoing node optimization effort that was passed via NNS Governance Motion proposal 125367 that also needs to be considered. Making an informed decision on these proposals requires being able to check the details of the proposal against these other criteria to make sure they are consistent and compliant with the overall strategy. I’m not aware of anyone in the ICP ecosystem other than DFINITY who is currently reviewing and casting informed votes on Node Admin and Participant Management proposals, but if there are people who are interested in this task then I’d like to chat. I think we could build the capability to perform these kinds of reviews within CodeGov project. In my opinion, people should get paid bounties for performing this kind of work because it is a non trivial time commitment, requires attention to detail, and requires a technical understanding of the work process. Review and approval of Node Admin and Participant Management proposals seems like a good way for the community to help share responsibility of advancing decentralization of ICP, but only if voting on these proposals really is intentional and informed.