People Parties - Community Proposal

To your point on linkability, I think that comes from Step 2, where the PP can sends the local Principal of the user to the dApp can; allowing the dApp can to store the PP Principal, and compare against other dApp registrars in a side-channel.

If I’m correct, this would be mitigated if the PP can holds a “verification ledger” of addresses, that appends a new {address, Principal} mapping for every Step 1 call. Then pass that newly created address to the dApp can to validate against, instead of the PP Principal. Once the validation is completed, the entry is cleared and the dApp can label that local Principal as “human” in any way they please, with any timeout they please.

I think that would get rid of the linkability, as long as the PP can validation ledger is not logged or queryable at any point.

2 Likes

Would the people party dapp be usable by anyone or is it only usable by Dfinity.
I can imagine many dapps can use it to distribute tokens or NFTs to unique people, it would be an excellent feature.

4 Likes

The verification flow “is user X a validated person” will be available to any dapp on the IC. There is actually nothing specific to DFINITY in the canister, in particular DFINITY will have no privileges that other parties on the IC do not have.

There will be one special case, which is the interaction between the NNS and the people party canister for implementing neuron boosting. But that also is not special to DFINITY in any way, since the NNS is the decentralized governance system of the IC.

3 Likes

Update:

NNS Motion proposal is live: https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/31159

5 Likes

Hi Guys,
if it can help, I drafted a few years ago some thoughts about proof of location.
Fell free to check it out, and ask if something is unclear: GitHub - GuiguiZ/LouisGiraud2000: LPWAN Proof of location
Maybe helium network and/or foam.space (if they still exist at all) can help achieving a crypto proof of location.

3 Likes

I did not realize until today but the Cycle_DAO voted against this proposal. On Twitter Arthur provided justification that the Dfinity Foundation needed to focus on other projects like ETH Integration. https://twitter.com/ArthurFalls/status/1463523913326022663?s=20

@diegop one suggestion for future proposals would be to add some additional info about the proposal’s impact to current projects. I noticed this proposal said the ETA was December so I’m not sure how this would impact ETH integration but perhaps it just needs to be stated more clearly?

5 Likes

Macro: I agree with the general point (making a clear explanation of opportunity costs and trade-offs).

Micro: In this particular case, the ETH integration is not affected as it is different people and skillsets (as far as I know there is no overlap of people). The ETH integration is behind the BTC and Threshold ECDSA projects. At first glance, those projects could be considered “blocking for ETH integration”, but it is my understanding that a higher level truth is that they are enabling ETH integration since a lot of the work will be leveraged.

7 Likes

I also think it is awesome that Arthur and cycle_dao folks voted their mind.

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.

2 Likes

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?

1 Like

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.

2 Likes