People Parties - Community Proposal

Thank you. I figured it wasn’t blocking since BTC/Threshold integration was still being worked. i was just trying to figure out how they might have drawn that conclusion.

Sure. I don’t take issue with the vote. I follow their neuron so I trust their decision. I was just trying to understand their perspective.

I do not know, but I think it is clear that I did not communicate this earlier well enough so it left room for this interpretation. That is on me. I will try better next time.

I hope I don’t come across like I’m trying to put this on anyone. I was just trying to highlight a possible process improvement

You did not. I saw it as very helpful feedback and suggestion for improvement. I appreciate the coaching.

1 Like

Are there plans for further actions apart from showing surroundings, like placing a common object (coin, newspaper etc.) somewhere?

1 Like

How will you treat users that do not yet stake in the NNS? I for example can’t do that yet, due to unclear taxation rules revolving around staking. Tax law does not quite evolve as fast as one would hope. Once cleared I will start to stake, but as of now, I can’t. If I get verified at the people party/parties held in the future one would hope/expect to reap the benefits of this as well. E.g. could I boost my future neuron at a later time or will there be a “best before date” to boost a neuron? Primarily, at this point in time, I just want to get verified to be able to use the full spectrum of all services I have been/will be involved with on the IC.


Is your question whether it is usable by any canister on the IC or whether it is usable by any service in the world, even outside the IC? The answer to the first question is definitely yes. The answer to the second question isn’t clear. It’s maybe/TBD I would say.

1 Like

Good idea. Interacting with the environment is needed. Maybe not in the first party but soon, so it is good to start thinking about how this interaction can look like. I was thinking before of writing a number that is suggested by others in the group with chalk on the floor or on a wall. That doesn’t work very well when it’s raining though. So using a coin is much better. But if it is a given that a coin is involved in the challenge then what unpredictable randomness is left? Is it where the coin is supposed to be placed?

What we have to make sure with the challenges is that the videos cannot be pre-recorded.

1 Like

First I was mainly thinking about placing it at a possibly awkward position in the surroundings. But it could be more then just placement (like flipping, spinning, balancing on the side, showing parts close to the camera etc.). More then one coin/object would add even more possibilities like patterns to lay out etc. so even higher percentage of unforeseeable interactions.

I have a different scenario that I’m thinking about which I’m not sure could be serviced in this case.

As an individual using Internet Identity, I have 3 identities I have created. They are:

  • a secret one - primarily to be used for holding my ICP long term as well as any NFTs that I purchase. Basically my wallet
  • a regular one - primarily to be used for interacting with social apps where I provide contact info in the dApp and is not anonymous. Basically like my email ID or my public Twitter account
  • an anonymous one - this would primarily be for trying out new dApps whose reputation is not yet known and this II is considered a low risk, replaceable identity in case something goes wrong

Now, with people parties, I imagine most social apps would want to provide additional benefits to verified principals and hence I should verify the 2nd principal. But I would also want the voting boost for my 1st principal to maximise staking return. But I wouldn’t want to connect my secret II with social apps on the IC.

Any thoughts on the above?


I have a similar setup.
For me, I do not plan to expose the secret one for any boosting because the boosting is minimal and for a limited time in relation to my balance. Also I will not expose my secret one to any other wallet ( except NNS dapp and that’s also because of legacy issues).

All NFTs , I will buy from my public address.


I think the security problem of Internet Identity should be solved before people parties being set up, otherwise, a lot of people like @mparikh, @saikatdas0790, me, won’t take the risk of using their main Internet Identity, and won’t have patience to create another Internet Identity, what it is very bad for massive adoption.

Everybody should claim the Internet Identity seedphrase can’t be suppressible or changeable without having to enter the seedphrase in the first place. This risk of seeing one’s Internet identity and its associated staked neuron lost forever is insufferable. None whale wants to take such a risk ! It has to be corrected ASAP. I already talked about this several times, but no one among @Dfinity or Dev seems preoccupied by this eminent lack of security whereas users are ! Without this, no massive adoption.

What is the security problem with II? Sorry if you’ve stated this before and I missed it

1 Like

Don’t worry my friend. I just rewrote again the problem : Internet Identity Lack Of Security


Very good question. I expect the integration to work in a different way so that you don’t even have to make that choice: You can use any principal for the personhood validation, even an unrelated 4th principal. Then for each dapp you get to boost or otherwise obtain some privilege in that dapp. What that boost or privilege is is entirely up to the dapp. The most common use will that the dapp allows exactly one of its user accounts, identified by one principal, to be flagged as being associated with a person. But it does not matter if the principal used by the dapp is created with an II or not. And if it is created with II then it does not matter which II. So in summary, in your scenario, you can use a 4th II to establish personhood and then boost all of your other 3 IIs, just for use with different dapps (not two IIs with the same dapp).

On a completely different note, just because you bring up using multiple IIs: You have to see each II as a separate security domain and you only use multiple IIs if you have multiple security domains. Here, by “security domain” I mean the security of the weakest device on which you use the II and the stake of the highest valued asset that you are controlling with that II. For example, say you have one II (#1) which you use on all devices including ones that you don’t protect very well and on all browsers, regardless of how secure they are. Say you have a second II (#2) which you only use on a dedicated well-protected device and in the browser that you think has highest safety. The II #1 you use for low-stake social media accounts and the II #2 you use as a hot wallet with some ICP.

You have to separate your IIs based on how save you consider the browser(s) in which you start a session with that II and how much value you are controlling with the II. It is not about how much you trust the dapp! That is irrelevant. The dapp cannot “steal” your II and steal any value outside of the dapp itself.


Your concern with the security that you raise is legitimate. Since you opened a separate thread for it I will respond there. But whatever the conclusion there it should not be blocking people parties. As I explained in a response to saikatdas0790, the principals or IIs used to establish personhood are unrelated to the ones receiving the boost. So there already is enough room to configure different security domains if you need them.


Of course ! Totally agree ! It was for more in opérer to underline the problem which remains ignored by Dfinity, than to delay people parties. I look forwards people parties, but won’t join as long as the II problem won’t be solved, like a lots of people I think.

1 Like

That’s exactly the part I don’t understand. Please read my response to saikatdas0790’s question. If the principals are unrelated to each other then what exactly is the concern? You are not putting any high-stake II at risk here.

I meant: But whatever the conclusion there it should not be stopping you from participating.

1 Like

Cause I won’t take the risk of using my Internet Identity with my phone, and the phone seems to be the way chosen to prove personhood.

For this too : “Now, with people parties, I imagine most social apps would want to provide additional benefits to verified principals and hence I should verify the 2nd principal. But I would also want the voting boost for my 1st principal to maximise staking return. But I wouldn’t want to connect my secret II with social apps on the IC.” Cause this social dapp, to be efficiently and fluidily used, have to be uses with phone. So I won’t have any use of people parties eventually. Too risky. And if it is to me, I am sure it is for a lot of people : at least all investors.

1 Like