@LightningLad91
You make a fair point that within the suggested monitoring the exclusion of canister-controlled neurons belonging to DAOs is not sufficiently clear. Thank you for pointing this out.
To resolve this while maintaining simplicity in monitoring, I suggest to temporarily remove the exclusion of DAOs. Instead, I will emphasize that this aspect could be revisited in future monitoring enhancements. For instance, the materiality threshold could be adjusted (pending NNS approval) following a materiality analysis of canister-controlled neurons belonging to DAOs.
@bjoernek
How would the neuron control restrictions work for merging ICP between two different internet identities? Also, for neurons controlled by a hardware wallet, would it be able to remove that restriction so you can merge 2 different identities as well? Thanks in advance!
Thank you for the nudge (I was busy with something else last week). The proposal will be submitted this week. I will share the proposal link in this thread, once it is visible.
Hi @GSWfan
This particular proposal only suggests that in future a canister will be able to be the controller of a neuron; in addition the materiality of canister controlled neurons is suggested to be monitored (because these are transferable). It is not suggested to facilitate transfer neurons from one controller to another (or merge neurons) as this would make all neurons transferable.
Hello, if this proposal is approved, can I transfer my neurons to a different ID? Do I understand correctly? Do I need to write any code for this? Can this be done easily with nns? I would be very happy if you could help me.
So when the boxes stop controlling neurons will we be able to sell neurons on idgeek? I just want to sell my neurons without selling my identity. Could you please inform
No, this is not part of the proposal. The proposal aims to reduce restrictions on neuron control, specifically allowing smart contracts (called canisters) to control neurons; this opens up several interesting use cases. However, it is not intended to encourage the development of neuron markets, in order to maintain the incentive for users to vote in the long-term interests of the protocol.
Hi, i have a concern about security of my funds, looks like Dfinity is not thinking on people like me that locked our ICP on the NNS without knowing after we created the internet identity and locking the tokens there, we wouldn’t be able to then put a hardware wallet (ledger) to control that neuron, I’m not looking to sell or even interested in transfer it, my concern goes straight to SECURITY and how i want to manage my funds, please tell me I’m wrong and with this proposal i’ll be able to add a ledger wallet to my neuron already created with internet identity.
Otherwise Dfinity would be almost committing a crime by not allowing me to have possession of my assets and exposing them to a cyber attack, because I cannot eliminate the seed phrase either and assign a ledger as a recovery method. Please tell me with this ill be able to put a ledger to my neuron.
Also i want to remove the seed phrase and add a hardware wallet, why Dfinity didn’t explain this damn things when you are just locking you fu kin g funds for 8 years !! This is incredible really, sorry for the word but this was never a concern for me as I thought internet identity was super secure, but reading another post on the forum @lastmjs make @bjoern explained that even the internet identity without using a ledger is not a place to store thousands of tokens, i have a huge investment here i’m so worried right now. My seed phrase could be vulnerable, I can’t put a ledger as recovery instead of that seed, and also I can’t put a ledger to my neuron. Come on this can’t be possible
Ah okay…so for example, this is not going to allow us to use a ledger instead of Internet Identity to protect our neurons?
Perhaps we should start another thread again discussing the security situation around II controlling neurons. It’s a bit disheartening that we’re just stuck with II and can’t ever change to a more secure method of controlling our neurons.
Yes, I second this. I would like to see at least a separate thread/ forum post discussing this and let us give feedback/ vent.
I also would like a more appropriate place to ask @wpb and Codegov questions related to this. For example, as of right now, the most secure method would be removing any access to your II leaving anything attached to it in a safe deposit box at a bank, and forgetting all about it unless I need to change my following. However, I want to be able to vote with that neuron and continuously need to access my safe deposit box and have a whole process… Especially, with talks of incentivising manual voting and docking a follower… It almost feels like someone could have their neuron/ II information stored at the bank, and be forced into following to keep no attachment to the II, but then be docked because we followed…
Maybe I’m not wrapping my head around all of it and that’s why I’d like a separate post that goes into detail @lastmjs@bjoernek I hope what I said makes sense or you get my confusion/ urge for safe security practices.
I do hear the development staff on the neuron markets and the complexity of the situation so don’t take this as disrespect. I’m just confused…
Also, @wpb does codegov consistently check the Revise Elected GuestOS Versions? I think I need to adjust, or is it that your neuron can sometimes cast the vote last minute?
PS. I’m not against offering individuals incentives for the work behind voting or “docking us”. However, I just want a place for all these questions to play out as they relate to both posts in a way? Not sure if I’m explaining my confusion right… Let me know if I need to clarify.
You could use hotkeys to avoid the whole process. Hotkeys enable you to vote, set Followees, toggle “automatically stake new maturity”, toggle “participate in neurons fund”, increase stake, and view voting history. You can create and set a principal for an identity that has no asset value as a hotkey for any or all of your higher value neurons so you can use that principal to control the functions described above while leaving the higher value assets stored in a safe place such as a safety deposit box.
The CodeGov neuron votes on all IC-OS Version Election proposals within 2 days of the creation date of the proposal. This includes the Revise Elected GuestOS Versions proposal type. We have a self-imposed 48 hour deadline for the completion of our reviews and voting to ensure we are able to vote before DFINITY and to enable us to communicate to the ICP community what we found from our reviews with plenty of time for others to consider the information before they vote if they are interested.
Just as a clarification: The level of security of II in my opinion hinges on end device security. If you use II on your day-to-day device, that device is pretty likely to be exposed to malicious software – and all operating systems and browsers tend to have security bugs from time to time. Such a device is also more likely to be lost or stolen from you. My concerns are really not about security issues of II as a protocol, but about the security procedures for the end devices you use II with.
My suggestion in such cases is to create two IIs, one that you use infrequently and from devices where you apply stricter security measures to those devices. That II can be used to hold more value. And one II that you use from your day-to-day devices to interact with all kinds of applications.
I’m just tagging you both since I don’t think anyone else can answer this. I’m just curious what’s the status on this proposal? Is it being looked at and worked on?
I ask because I hope to use the feature soon and I know others do too, so it could help me plan out tasks.
Yes the proposal the revaluation of neuron control restrictions has been added to the roadmap and is been looked at. Adding @georgi and @daniel-wong from the NNS team in case they can give further insights.
(I was busy with something else last week). The proposal will be submitted this week. I will share the proposal link in this thread, once it is visible.