The minimum amount required to create a neuron is what? 1 ICP? The tokens are not lost so it’s not a cost plus you’d have to take in account all possible ways to bypass the limitation, e.g make a proposal, then dissolve the neuron after it’s rejected and create a new one, personally I’m tired of all these proposed band aid fixes which only make the NNS experience worse for the average user while not completely fixing the underlying issue.
Have taken the information below for ICS
Make the Minimum higher and dissolve longer and the threat of revoking submitting proposal on a sliding scale.
Only Neurons can submit NNS proposals
Minimum 10 ICP and 6 months of dissolve delay
Absolute Majority Vote
more than half of the total voting power has been achieved
When the voting period ends
More than half of the total voting power has been achieved
Less than half of the total voting power has been achieved
Votes given to others specified in the Followers List
Change the governance parameters
Upgrade one canister
Motion proposals that facilitate discussions in the community but do not have any immediate, automatic effect.
I want to make sure there is no confusion. This proposal is narrowly focused on changing the proposal rejection fee. I would be open to suggestions for tweaks to what I presented, but not the broader scope that you described.
The Internet Computer (IC) is nothing more than an Internet Computer Protocol that runs software running on node machines from node providers which is called a blockchain network that can create new subnet blockchains to increase capacity.
The IC has a Network Nervous System (NNS) for governing the Internet Computer blockchain
ICP Coin Holders can participate in governance and contribute to decision-making for updates to the IC infrastructure, the underlying foundation or basic framework and network.
The IC makes it possible to build DeFi and dapps, open internet services, and enterprise systems but that process is decided outside of the IC and the NNS and through the CF and SMS.
The nodes and subnets are organized, tracked, and managed through the NNS by stakeholders who own ICP neurons.
There are rules that apply to be able to vote to make these updates to the Infrastructure.
Placing advertising, photos, rants and other proposals for voting is senseless as the IC would not be able to process such information other than to annoy those who understand the purpose of the ICP, Governance and voting.
Such proposals have a limited audience and have no impact on the NNS. It seems that people of very strong opposing views feel they need to take action where their beliefs are not being accepted or practiced.
Taking such steps that are outside of the NNS for financial gains, conspiring and not accepting the voting process will not bring success or change the process through their actions.
The neurons holders as a voter can make limited changes to the IC through the NNS which is only by software property changes that can include the rules to who can vote.
Putting up proposals that have no meaning or substance will give me personal rewards for rejecting their proposals but do nothing more than waste time and disbelieve from the IC teams.
How long before phishing and scam attempts become problematic from proposals, I think IC need some sort of community screening process before proposals are submitted to the masses
if their project does successfully implement their plan to roll out the CNS, in my opinion spam would be resolved because it would directly eliminate the worry. The community has to give the proposal enough positive consensus to actually reach the NNS correct? So, essentially anyone posting harmful content as mentioned would have to become public in some manner. It should remove the ability to post these drastically harmful NNS proposals we speak of. I believe @wpb’s point in this was to create an immediate (temporary) solution to the issue described.
I thought NNS was indeed designed to be “a megaphone” for people to express their opinions.
Maybe the right claim is “if you don’t trust NNS, feel free to join other blockchain ecosystems.”
It seems that the battle between DFINITY and NNS is the real battle.
In fact, Dominic should let DFINITY be under the control of NNS in the first place, which may make ICP a “perfect” public blockchain.
Well said @jsull9, a Community Nervous System (an asynchronous video forum where issues are discoursed and debated with the Community voting its level of resonance or agreement with everything said) would appear to prevent spam proposals entirely.
The first level of deterrence would be the necessity of putting your face on your spammy message, but if that is overcome the Community will immediately vote you down and possibly out. We are right now developing what we call an ambient moderation system, completely decentralized.
A third strong deterrent is the fact that the Civol panelists engaged in discourse before the Community will typically be experts with skin in the game and a reputation at stake. And fourth, it is extremely unlikely that a spammer could even become a panelist as there is an auditioning process and you have to be voted to the top.
So once the Civol CNS is in place, in order to make it to the NNS a spammer would have be willing to publish a video delivering the spam payload, it would have to then not only avoid detection as spam, but actually be deliberated and voted to consensus by the Community. Only then would it be sent to NNS for ratification.
In sum, it does look like the Civol CNS will be the end of spam proposals.
I agree. this should be an effective measure. I have seen a few other temporary solutions like @wpb proposed and I think all are worth considering. However, a good question might be what the timeline would be for this? I believe @wpb and others have been trying to come up with a temporary fix until this is implemented all the way. I’m assuming this means it might take a bit more time then the community wants. So, I think it might be useful for all of us to make it clear moving forward that what we are seeking is a temporary fix or solution until the CNS design is fully intact.
That said, I apologize for assuming @ysyms had poor intentions/ is not a credible actor (if he did not), because I am still trying to get a read on things admittedly. However, if @ysyms is the only one crafting and proposing spam proposals at this point in time, and we seem to have @civolian’s solution on the way… Would it not be the consensus of this thread (and overall topic) that maybe we just nicely ask @ysyms if he could refrain from the spam proposals until the CNS is in intact. This way he can see @DFINITY did just grant someone I believe 75k towards the project. Which essentially would be them saying, yes, @ysyms we hear you and the community and we are willing to give out a 75k grant just to attempt at a final solution. Because, if you do look closely DFINITY actually did spend more money than most of us have invested into fixing this problem.
I want to go a step further and say that if @ysyms is a credible IC member, and has the best interests at heart whichever way we feel they have handled it. Would you please openly engage with the possibility of stopping the spam proposals?
Would you be willing to work with us on a temporary solution as @wpb among many others proposed for a temporary fix at the very least? Until @civolian’s project is intact, and implemented, so we can see if this is going to be a solution to your original concerns of spam on the IC?
If you agree to stop, no one has to crowd fund or change anything, then no one has to overcomplicate the process further making nerves uneasy.
If right now there is only one spam creator (@ysyms), and we have a solution that has been funded and is in action almost ready for release, then can we not safely assume that if they agree to stop, based on their past willingness to take direct action, then they will in fact stop?
I would argue, doing so would give room for them to see this solution and then everyone could relax knowing
- nothings changed in the NNS
- spam is stopped for now
- A fix for spam will be implemented and has DFINTY’s funding
- @ysyms achieved their goal in all reality which should be celebrated as a community.
Maybe we should also have the ability to add votes on a discussion that has been put up on the Dfinity forum so we can gauge the majority response as a choice instead of a written response, maybe members feel uncomfortable with written responses from other members and then we all have a democratic outcome without the need or before we add a proposal on the NNS.
Maybe add the ability to change the vote as new arguments come up that may have changed our mind.
Thank you for starting this forum post @wpb
Here is some initial feedback (reflecting only my personal opinion, as syndication within DFINITY will take a few days)
- I fully agree that NNS proposals do not seem to be an appropriate forum for expressing opinion/frustrations. This forum or other platforms where replies & discussions are possible seem much more suitable.
- Raising the rejection fees seems like a quick fix for this issue at hand.
- We should discuss how we can facilitate submissions by community members in case of higher rejection fees. I think the kind of crowdfunding you suggest for this proposal is a good approach (and we should communicate this clearly so that people who are interested in submitting proposals are aware of this). Potentially some community members (who had been crowdfunded) could offer to submit proposals for others. I would be also happy to support here.
Thanks for your response @bjoernek. I would definitely be happy to help on your last point. I have submitted many proposals on behalf of others in the past and will be willing to continue performing that service. If a proposal reject fee is fully funded, then I don’t mind submitting a proposal even if I disagree or I think it will be rejected.
Raising the fee to 100 will stop the momentum we have for name neurons. I’d rather progress that and deal with a bit of spam.
The following proposal is still a valid,quick solution and pairs nicely with the voter based rewards as well. It would eliminate publicity for all but “spam” from large whales(who likely have financial stake to be heard regardless). Proposal to restrict rewards qualification to a threshold - #2 by wpb
I don’t think it will stop the momentum if these register known neuron proposals are crowdfunded and a 3rd party is willing to offer a service to submit these proposals.
If there were high confidence that a register known neuron proposal will pass (so the proposal reject fee is not lost), then it may not be necessary to crowdfund the full proposal reject fee. In order to build confidence that it will pass, specific criteria could be defined to justify a lower crowdfund amount. For example, all register known neuron proposals must start with a 4 day post in the Governance category on the forum, must contain the neuron name, neuron ID, description of the neuron and voting policy, and social media links for the registrant. If these criteria are met and nobody identifies a reason there would be risk of rejection when submitting the proposal, then the crowdfund only needs to meet a lower threshold. If these criteria are not met or someone identifies why there is risk, then the full proposal reject fee must be crowdfunded in order for a 3rd party to be willing to submit the proposal for the registrant.
Of course, there is nothing preventing a registrant from submitting their proposal themselves and paying the full proposal reject fee no matter how high. The point is just that it is possible to continue the momentum of adding register known neurons at a lower cost using 3rd party submission and crowdfunding.
Making proposals should be very expensive by design. Is somebody you want to make a change to the network then they need to put the money with a mouth is. Every single major blockchain has massive cost to change the protocol. So should the internet computer. At least with the IC you get your money back if it’s adopted.
The difficulty should be having the proposal accepted not getting it on the NNS.
Total opposite. A proposal should be good enough to get accepted easily. The threshold for acceptance should be 75%, not 50%+1.
I know @ysyms, and he is actually a straightforward and honest young man who expresses his views and puts them into practice, who challenges authority and takes responsibility for his own actions.
The spam proposal by @ysyms is a good test to improve the security of the NNS system. The spam proposal by @ysyms is much better than the real attacks that want to disrupt the IC, and I think @ysyms is helping us to prevent these potential attacks. We should thank rather than denigrate him.
This topic of avoiding spam proposals has been around for a long time, I don’t understand why we still need an interim solution to avoid it?
Last time it was raised from 1 ICP to 10 ICP
This time it will be raised from 10 ICP to 100 ICP
In the future it will be raised from 100 ICP to 1000 ICP?
I understand that you want to solve this problem, but I would prefer a permanent solution to a temporary one.