Either stay away from ICP, or fight these termites to the end！
your premise is incorrect. This is crypto, no one knows the owners of all of the neurons in WTN. a single person could have 1000 neurons inside WTN, you don’t know, I don’t know.
If it was only effecting the WTN dao I wouldn’t care but the WTN dao casts leveraged votes that could potentially compromise the NNS.
You’re right, but let’s take the word of people who are know for botting sns sales such as anvil and Adam.
By the way we can see the voter following vp of each neuron. So that means these people are logging into hundreds of identities to cast a vote on each proposal. That isn’t impossible but it is highly unlikely.
2 Likes
no, all it would take is someone who knows how to automate things, the same way the yuku guy automated the sns sales.
look man, I get that you might genuinely not realize all these things.. but @wpb know’s better and is endlessly deflecting the point.
I assume you meant let’s not take… I agree with this opinion, let’s not take anyones word for anything. That is the ethos of crypto. Let’s make the protocol strong and trustless.
I think implementing every precaution is worth while. The solution he offered is a good one for something that can be done quickly while the long term solution gets worked on. I’m not sure why this is a disagreement as we both want something to change.
i would prefer they work on the thing that actually solves the problem. and not whatever distraction they’re suggesting to present the illusion of fixing things.
But I’m not a WTN holder so I have 0 say in the matter, im merely an 8 year nns guy who doesnt want an SNS project controlled by (???) to have 10% of the NNS voting power in the future casting binary votes. All while purporting to cast a vote representative of the holders.
When presented with data it is ignored for a solution proposed out of emotion.
No cabal owns 51%, a way to ensure this stays this way is to allow people to follow nns known neurons outside of wtn. The attack vector is there for this and the solution is as simple as a vote relay.
By the way what’s the difference of wtn having 10% vp and Adam having 10% vp?
One of the two currently has close to this number.
Like i said, I’m thinking about the long term.
As The network grows Adam’s VP will shrink. As (will dfinitys) and every other individual holder. and this is a good thing.
As the network grows WTN VP will grow. this is not bad if the protocol is truly decentralized, and the voting is granular enough to represent all the holders. But if WTN is casting binary votes its a massive vulnerability to the whole protocol.
It’s not a massive problem yet because they don’t have too much power (yet). but do you think if someone gained 10% of the nns (without paying anywhere near the cost you would through staking) that they would just give it up? The guys who designed this thing are smarter than you and me they already thought of this, it’s by design.
It’s not by design that is why the dao has governance rights. Someone being malicious would not assign governance to the dao, they would retain it for themselves.
Sticp is an example of this after they got acquired by metapool the metapool team retains all vp on icp.
If they retained 100% that would only allow them to leverage the VP of the liquid stakers.
selling 49% allows them to leverage that ICP as well.
basically they can almost 2x their power by selling almost half (in theory of course)
Why do you make arguments based on speculation when there is data that directly shows you’re incorrect?
because this is crypto and in crypto we dont trust people, we design systems so that they are trustless.
The data shows you how it’s trust-less. Speculation isn’t trustworthy as well. Even when presented with facts and numbers you argue on speculation and theory. This ignores the real problem.
The “data” proves nothing. There is no way to prove who owns any of the unknown neurons in WTN.
I don’t need to prove anyone did anything to make my points valid. It is simply possible that it is compromised (now or in the future).
(Because theres a hole in the ship! 
). I don’t need to prove to you that the ship is filling with water to justify the need to patch the hole!
always a pleasure to chat with you buddy, goodnight! 
You have some good analogies.
You are rejecting the right patch for this hole because of fear of the unknown. The right patch for preventing the 51% is to allow for wtn neurons to have a way to follow neurons outside of wtn.
As it’s proven the only way to have 51% currently is through follower vp. Just because you think there could be a bigger hole doesn’t me we ignore the solution to the first hole.
1 Like
How does this address the concern about direct VP potentially belonging (>50%) to a clique?
As I’ve said before, a basic solution (which would be super simple) would be to make the mirrored proposals a critical topic (requiring >66.6% to adopt). If that much VP is centralised then there’s no solution that will work (as the canister could always be upgraded instantly to action anything).
The propotional voting solution is harder, but would improve the protocol in more ways than one.
What did you present really. All you guys have done is say “There can’t be a 51% attack”
Wenzel, are you saying we are not civilized, some blockchain savages, because we don’t trust what you are saying?
Your actions speak louder than words. We have a public blockchain for a reason. It is there so we don’t have to rely on trust.
1 Like
We need to remove that Dragginz rubbish from the IC..
