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
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.
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.
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.
I think you haven’t seen my response then. In short: just create a different II for the personhood stuff and you’ll be fine. The II used in the personhood app is unrelated to all other IIs that you use.
Yes, I red it, but if I prove my personhood with an II to which I did not attach any neuron with staked ICP, I don’t have any interest for doing this anymore. And as soon we have to create different Identities tu use dApp, there is a big problem. The main purpose of II was have an Identity to do everything, not multniplicate anymore account like we do on web2 with by entering email adress and create multiple password etc. if we have to remember several Internet Identities and are not able to gather our staked icp with app uses to increase the yield, the target is missed, and people will flee away. So I should to create another identity to accumulate benefits, like better percentages for my staked icp, but would not have icp with the identity I would use.
As I understand it, the people parties are not planning to give a multiplier to your II’s neuron. Instead they give you a fixed amount of ICP (someone proposed 20 ICP) to an II for participating. This bonus should be transferable to your main neuron on a more secret II. So you can still pocket the same bonus on anothet II and not lose out on the rewards while keeping your secret II off your phone.
Yes, that understanding is correct. You participate in a people party with an II and then get to boost an arbitrary neuron of your choice. It doesn’t even have to be yours because there is no way to check that. Keep in mind that II is an entirely optional feature across the IC. There are dapps that integrate with II and there are dapps that don’t. If you establish personhood then you should be able to use it in any dapp, regardless whether that dapp integrates with II or not. That’s why the II that you use to participate in the people party is completed unrelated to the dapp in which you take advantage of your personhood.
Thanks ! Still, one unique identity was one of the main marketing and attractive points enlighten by Dfinity to prove the ICP eminency compared to current web2. But thanks, my problem is solved.
So you get 20 ICP for taking pictures here and there…And then sell it on an exchange, so you get 800$ (at today’s price)…Well paid per “working” hour. And since I don’t need to show my face, I can do it in every “people party”… Just tell me when it happens, I’m interested !
I don’t think the outcome of a people party is to give away ICP. I think it is a way to boost voting power by the equivalent of 20 ICP. If the neuron has 1 ICP, it would have voting power as though it has 21 ICP. If the neuron has 1000 ICP, it would have voting power as though it has 1021 ICP. Neuron configuration of age bonus and dissolve delay bonus still apply to the voting power calculation. Voting reward distribution proportional to voting power still applies as well. The voting reward yield would appear large for small neurons, but the absolute amount of voting reward would be equal for everyone (assuming equal neuron configuration). But kind of to your point, if you stake 1 ICP in a neuron then you will get ICP rewards much faster if you attend a people party than if you do not, but you still have to stake that 1 ICP with dissolve delay of 6 months to 8 years, you still have to vote on governance decisions, and you still have to wait for that neuron to accumulate 1 ICP in rewards before you can disperse the rewards. IMHO it is a clever way to attract lots of people for little effort and introduce them into the IC governance system, but you are not going to get paid $800 for taking pictures… At least that is how I understand at this time.
My concern was about the ability to transfer it.
If this voting power increase can be transferred to a “secret” identity, then it is a kind of “tradable security”. What would prevent someone to write a contract that buys this 20 ICP increase for say 10 ICP ?
As far as I understood it, having a proof of humanity is a way to mitigate the wealth of cartels acting in the shadow for their own interest. Even with this proof of humanity, it is hard to mitigate “on chain vote buying” (see On-Chain Vote Buying and the Rise of Dark DAOs), especially if II are anonymous. I think it would be far better to increase the voting power each time the user identifies (eg. each time you identify, you get voting_power = current_voting_power*1.1, also each time you vote you get your voting power increased, each time you miss to identify you get you power decreased, clamped of course to a minimum). This would create a kind of “proof of involvement” that, in my opinion, would make more sense.
And attracting lots of people in IC governance… Isnt the right to vote in a fair DAO is reward in itself ?
I haven’t fully understood the discussion about transferring the people party boost benefit among neurons yet, so I’ll have to go back and study up on it a bit more.
It would be helpful to see a clarification from DF of whether this a distribution of real (exchangeable) 20 ICP into the selected neuron that is being boosted or if the 20 ICP is just an ICP equivalent that has an additive voting reward benefit.
I think one of the goals of people parties is to benefit every individual participant equally no matter how much ICP is staked. Hence, the bonus can’t be a multiple of voting power or staked ICP. It must be an addition term in the voting power calculation.