Every week (typically on Friday) there are Replica Version Management proposals that are submitted to the NNS by DFINITY. There is an active team of developers who review these proposals within 2 days and we are looking for additional help. Reviews include IC-OS Verification (build the replica and verify the hash) and performing sanity checks on the Release Notes. The bounty that is offered for this work is announced in this post each week.
If you are interested in participating and getting paid for a few hours of your time each weekend, then please Apply to become a reviewer on the codegov.org website and join our CodeGov portal on DSCVR.
Reviewers who consistently participate in these reviews can become Followees that cast the NNS vote for the CodeGov neuron 2649066124191664356.
I would like to find a few more reviewers to help with these Replica Version Management proposal reviews for the CodeGov project. The time commitment can be very flexible with your availability and there is plenty of funding to pay the bounties that are offered. If anyone is interested, then please let me know here in this forum topic or via DM. I’m happy to answer any questions.
Hey @Accumulating.icp thank you for this demonstration and being transparent about it by bringing it to my attention.
@diegop@domwoe@Ang are you aware that accounts or posts can be breached in this way? Is there anything that can be done about it? It has been happening on other forum threads by a few people. I know @Accumulating.icp@ZackDS and @ivan_uncensored know how to perform this breach, but I haven’t witnessed anything too nefarious yet and I haven’t seen anyone bring it to community or Dfinity attention yet. It seems like an issue that could be easily exploited, so hopefully you have resources that can solve it.
@justmythoughts tagging you because I seem to recall that you have a working knowledge of Discourse and might be able to contribute to a conversation about it.
In addition to this post title of this thread being edited by @Accumulating.icp above, the same happened on this other thread yesterday (check edit history of the OP)…
Upon receiving notice of this issue, our team adjusted permissions for TL3, and implemented additional measures to prevent the ability of certain users to recategorize and rename topics.
If you or any other members notice that the problem persists or if you come across any other concerns in the future, please do not hesitate to notify us. Your feedback is invaluable in helping us create a better forum experience for everyone.
Once again, thank you for your dedication to our community and for helping us maintain a positive environment. Together, we can ensure that our forum remains a welcoming and informative platform for all members.
Thanks @Ang . I appreciate the quick response and changing the post title back to the original.
Hey @Accumulating.icp since you are a trusted forum participant and you expressed concern that there is an abundance of issues with moderation based parameter, would you please start a forum post outlining them? @ang indicated Dfinity wants this kind of feedback and will look at addressing them. It would be great to see you help improve the forum in this way before more deficiencies are exploited in more nefarious ways.
Based off the fact a forum post wasn’t necessary to have your requested amendments made, I won’t be wasting my time with one either.
Quite honestly, the flaws I mentioned are beyond transparent & self explanatory, and a much greater issue than the one you had “patched” (while being addressed in the same thread) - if they wanted to fix it, they would have, or asked for clarification if it was misunderstood.
However, if you are striving for trust level 3, you are welcome to pursue the topic. Thanks.
Nope. My goal is not trust level 3. I’m happy being a contributor to the forum and it’s fair for others to make decisions on whether my comments and other peoples comments violate the rules. I will strive for civilized engagement and be happy when forum moderation is applied.
My apologies. I thought you were here to improve ICP and support the ecosystem and community. I was sure that you would be willing to share what you know about legitimate concerns with the forum.
I didn’t realize you just want to cherry pick when to use what you know to exploit the holes in the moderation configuration. It’s pretty serious in my opinion when you change the title of someone else’s post. I appreciate that you did it in this case only to prove a point and you were transparent about it.
However, I was shocked when you did it yesterday on Ivan’s post without calling attention to it and I only learned what happened because I asked you directly in Twitter. Ivan / Catpirate wasn’t too concerned, so I assume he was aware of the exploit too.
If you know of more exploits and moderation setting deficiencies, then it seems you should volunteer the information. If you don’t know other exploits, then why claim that they exist? If you know and don’t volunteer the information, then it just makes you look like you are here to stir up trouble. You are better than this…or at least I want you to be better than this because I know you are capable.
I can’t believe you just spent 20+ minutes (EDIT: In hindsight, you probably could have used all of this time to just write a forum topic on the issues you want addressed) writing that because I wouldnt indulge in wasting my time.
I’ve “volunteered” the information, and as stated, DFINITY quite clearly has no concerns with the ability to censor with flags, edit to uncensor, and flag to lock threads.
I am not going to go in-depth & break these down, because as I said, they’re self explanatory functions of the forum - very similar to the previous one I’ve highlighted.
If they wish to make amendments, they can adjust the parameters of the functions that I’ve listed - but as stated, they didn’t because they don’t want to.
Hey @domwoe I just realized this post that @Accumulating.icp modified is in the Developer category. It’s been tainted from its original purpose. Will you please unpin it? I will start a new post with updated information since it is about reviewing the Replica Version Management proposals and bounties offered to developers by CodeGov for this work. This post is old enough that I no longer have edit privileges.
