Dfinity is pitched as a protocol with infinite scalability, top-notch security, no data loss and a slick DAO system that safely updates its code. Sounds perfect, right @dominicwilliams ? That’s the promise, at least.
On the flip side, users are raising legit issues on the forum—only to get shut down hard. Take a look at this thread: [WaterNeuron ICRC-1 Ledger Change Request]
Complaints pop up, and bam—admins (looking at you, Severin!) slap a totally misleading “SOLVED” stamp on unresolved problems.
If your ex employee ( Hi Enzo and Leo, leader from Waterneuron ) can’t even solve this, I don’t know why people interested in this protocol could believe the aforementioned pitched capabilities.
It is important to inform the users about real protocol issues
Forcefully close a thread is at best an attempt to hide the truth
The protocol should adapt to fit its pitch aka. Make the protocol easier to use
I think you misunderstand what that discussion was about. A user sent his ICP to the wrong address, and expected devs to fork a high security component to modify it in a way that allows them to retrieve the ICP that the user sent in error. That’s not the way these things should be handled in my opinion. The user’s tone gradually became threatening, and repetitive, and he wasn’t accepting the answers given.
The solution to this problem is - don’t send your funds to the wrong address. You should send a small amount first and confirm before sending larger amounts
Perhaps english is not your mother tongue, this is not called a “solution”, this is the “hypothesis”. The solution is to solve the user issue.
In a nutshell, the current issues I can see are :
Apparently the protocol is too complex for even ex-member of Dfinity to add a function to a canister
Funds have not been send back
The abuse of power in this forum perpetuated by individuals who lack empathy and/or are unwilling to acknowledge flaws in the protocol or the processes for resolving issues
On the first 2, i think you are completely wrong or maybe lack some technical knowledge on the facts
As stated previously in the other thread
“It’s not the DAO’s responsibility to be held accountable for your mistake. If you want to change it, fork the ledger code, add what you need and put it up for proposal. And if you can’t yourself, get in contact with somebody that can, but might cost you more then what you lost. Stop pointing fingers and take action yourself”
Who should send them back?, no person has access to the funds, if you want it back try what I previously stated
We both know that any proposal led by the DAO leader would pass
Also they hide behind “security risk” and that is what is pointed out in my previous message. This kind of change should be easily doable. You simply ignore it, show how biased you are.
This just gives a big red flag to big companies that would maybe want to use the IC stack.
" Well.. ahem you know we have DAO’s but well some Ex-Dfinity employee dont want to change stuff because we are effraid - you know - our tech is complex, they dont even totally understand it and fear for safety. "
And when someone raise this on forum, we just silence them. Commun practice here. Nothing to see, move on.
I closed the thread because the discussion was not productive anymore. I do not remember if I marked the last post as a solution, but I doubt it.
The problems with calling untrusted canisters are documented e.g. here. Or which part are you talking about?
No, deleting the thread would be way better at covering up. As you can see it is still there.
It is not too complex. But this is about security-critical code that can have far-reaching consequences if there are issues. Going through the process of adding the functionality would be very arduous and is definitively not worth it for the amount of tokens that thread was about.
The code we’re talking about is controlled by the DAO, but also needs to be blessed by the NNS. The DAO is not powerful enough in this case, as explained in the original thread EDIT: I’m wrong
I close discussions once they become unproductive and they show no signs of calming down. I do not want to spend hours to sift through angry people yelling at each other to no useful end. If my goal was to silence a topic I would delete it outright
Maybe introduce another more casual forum section where people can talk more openly about less technical subjects. Most of us here want ICP to be a success, but there are some issues and concerns that occur every now and then and it’s wise to address them as freely as possible. Some concerns will turn out to be misunderstanings or just differences of approach, but sometimes real and significant issues. It often takes a bit of back and fore before we get to the heart of the matter.
Hear me out Big companies and Governments, not sure if the IC is mature enough for you. Just follow this thread to know when this will be solved.
In time of history where AI is here to makes stuff easier, this situation is certainly showing a good drawback. Looks like you consider this issue with the eyes of a developper considering/(accepting?) ICP limitations.
Actually in the future of DAO, it will be a DAO where code will be written by an AI, initiate a simulation of the change to check the outcome, and everything safely directly from humain prompt and just have to be confirmed by DAO member. And the future is tomorrow ( We live in exponential times )
So this thread will be solved when that happens - DAO evolving and having functionality piloted by users/community and through AI.
I guess at that time the IC will be attractive. Until then, since even ex-Dfinity member are effraid to make this Minor change, its probably not a good bet.
This has nothing to do with being biased, why should somebody else put their time and resources into a problem they did not create, the person is question made a mistake and he / she payed for it. Next to that i think it would set a wrong precedence.
SNS is just a form of DAO, a “big company” is not required to choose the SNS tech-stack as their go-to DAO structure, so this reasoning is not valid to avoid the IC, they can come up with their own DAO structure.
My personal opinion is that the person from the thread was just ranting that his problem needed to be solved and didn’t accept any input or potential solutions. He was just bumping the thread every week. It was far from constructive and was just noise, so locking the thread was a good thing.
Not sure why you keep looking this with the lens of someone that is looking for guilty behaviour while you could simply take this opportunity to make the IC better.( Start to see your bias now ? )
The only thing you promote is “we have always done it this way and we wont evolve”.
Imagine you create a tool, and this tool hurt the people. You can either blame the user for not making the perfect move. Or you can design the tool better ( and this sounds like a better way to make people use it right ? ).
Here with the IC we should thrive to make the tool better and not silencing people that are actually Helping pointing areas of improvement.
And that is the key since lowering barrier = ADOPTION
You need to widen your perspective, making the IC better has nothing to do with the SNS design that you don’t agree with, the SNS DAO is just one tool that runs on the IC, if you want it changed, propose it on the NNS to make the change.
Nobody is forcing you to use the SNS as the DAO infrastructure, If you think you can build a better DAO framework (tool), then you are free to do so.
But it feels like you already made up your mind, so i’m not going to put more energy into this back-and-forth.