The discussion about Absolute majority got heated and went around in circles, but there is one concept that should have become part of the discussion but did not. It is this: statutes often have wider ramifications than the immediate cause of their creation, and those ramifications need to be considered independently.
To give a practical example: the US Bill of Rights was a compromise document. Anti-federalists wanted certain rights that were already acknowledged in state law and common law to be included in the federal constitution itself, without which they threatened not to ratify the document. Let us imagine that Jefferson wrote the Bill of Rights and meanwhile the anti-Federalist faction was persuaded to ratify the constitution without the compromise. Would that render the Bill of Rights irrelevant?
Obviously not.
How does this connect with the Absolute Majority thread? As many on the pro-Dfinity side of the argument have maintained, the immediate purpose of the periodic follow proposal was to eliminate spam which had come into existence as a result of a tokenomics change. Since another road was found to eliminate spam, the pro-Dfinity side argued it rendered the entire periodic follow proposal invalid or unnecessary.
I disagree.
The proposal furthered a very important agenda independent of spam prevention, which was increasing decentralisation. Just like the Bill of Rights would remain important even if the cause of its creation, namely anti-federalist sentiment, vanished, so also the underlying potential of the periodic follow proposal was broader than its immediate intent of tackling spam. That underlying potential was to increase decentralisation in a heavily centralised system, a system that itself proclaims decentralisation as a major objective.
A lot of posts pointed out that great decentralisation at this point would impose costs that outweigh any benefits decentralisation confers. I accept that point. It is early days, Dfinity needs to have a free hand to steer the ship.
However, surely there needs to be a roadmap for decentralisation, some idea of how Dfinity, in the medium and long term, proposes to push it along. The lack of urgency in figuring out this roadmap is disconcerting.
I personally thought the way would be to create a treasury, bring on board experts through the committee neurons proposed by @lastmjs which would gradually take the burden of vetting replica code off Dfinityâs shoulders. Although I find much to support in @Accumulating.icp 's recent proposal, the fact that he seems willing to write this particular piece of code gives no assurance that the mammoth task of improving and vetting the systemâs code could be done through ad hoc acts like this. He suggests everyone has a vested interest already in helping out because it will help their coins gain value, but the fact is that the coins of those who do nothing will gain the same value of those who do a lot, which is a recipe for most people doing nothing and the few who do a lot feeling increasingly bitter. Those who do a lot need to be compensated much more than those who do nothing except voting by following another neuron.
Anyway, the Treasury idea received very negative feedback from important community members, and now seems a lost cause. I now see no path to decentralisation for the IC, it seems that Dfinity will be in total control of the network in the medium and long term. Decentralisation does not happen spontaneously or magically, it needs to be planned, and there is no plan. It is one of the reasons I have begun the dissolve of my neurons. Nevertheless, I hope a discussion can continue on the issue and maybe a different path found.
âI now see no path to decentralisation for the ICâ
How about you or your group prove to investors that you have the ability/knowledge to contribute to ICP more than Dfinity does from now to the future, and voters should follow your neuron instead of Dfinity?
Find some proposals that Dfinity voted âYesâ, but it should be âNoâ or vice versa. Then prove to investors that you have the ability/knowledge to contribute to ICP more than Dfinity does from now to the future, I am happy to give my voting power to you.
Imagine Google or Microsoft announces that they have invested massively in ICP, and they want to contribute to developing ICP. I think all voters will follow Google/Microsoftâs neutron. Dfinity will no longer have total control over the ICP. Goal achieved =))
I have no group, no named neuron, and certainly no ability to contribute to ICP in terms of coding or cryptography. I am merely an investor who was drawn to the ICâs potential but have become sceptical enough about its future to seek a financial exit. I do believe there is great value in the network, just not anywhere near the degree I had thought possible in the first months following Genesis. That is partly because I did not fully understand some of the tradeoffs made in the core protocol, which I understand better now, and even more because I believe Dfinity has made a series of bad choices in the intervening period, one of which is to convince itself that accusations of excessive centralization are nothing more than fud.
I take issue with the implication that if one cannot do something better than an organisation one loses the right to critique anything about that organisationâs functioning. Since you have joined the group a mere five hours ago, I recommend you familiarise yourself a bit more with the context of my post.
Why did Thomas Jefferson want a bill of rights? History teaches us that it was to guarantee personal liberties such as freedom of religion, freedom of the press and trial by jury among other bill of rights.
While Thomas Jefferson wrote that âALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUALâ, history also teaches us that he enslaved more than 600 people over the course of his life. In NOTES OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, (Query XIV) Jefferson wrote that he suspected that blacks were inferior to both whites and Indians. It is worth noting that he also believed in the gradual necessity of ending slavery.
The point I want to bring across is; Slavery ended in 1865 but it wasnât till 1965 when Blacks were granted rights to vote and as such included in the democratic processes of participation in the society. It took time for ideal change to occur.
Amazon was created in 1994, Google was created in 1998 and Alibaba was created in 1999. The trend here is that all these companies have been in business for almost 300 months and it was not till several 100âs months later after they were founded that they were on their prime . The IC has been in operation, slightly over 25 months as of mid 2023. There is no comparison on the maturity of the IC network in relation to tech giants who have been in operation for a much longer period of time. Decentralization takes time and all options must be weighed in the decision making about the networkâs longevity and as demonstrated above, it takes time for an institution to achieve its desired goals.
Hey Denis, I havenât been around here long, but I figured I would give a little different perspective.
Some members of our government have a habit of tacking a bunch of extra âstuffâ on to bills that have a high likelihood of passing. The creators of the bills will accept some of them to get more votes, or reject it if they donât need the votes. My point being, it is up to the creator of the bill to write in a way that is very specific in its intent. Bills get modified all the time before theyâre passed. Sometimes, theyâll get passed, and over time, people will realize they arenât effective any longer and they need to be amended or replaced with new bills. Thereâs nothing wrong with that. I believe that is the case here.
A lot of people insist on debating over the old proposal, the reasoning behind it, its intent, whether Dfinity should implement it even though part of the proposal has been solved etc. Thatâs all fine, debate away! But while that debate is happening, a new proposal could be written by anyone. Any member with 10.001 ICP can write a proposal and ask the community to vote on it, but it sounds like no one has time, or wants to do it because theyâre waiting for someone else to do something. As the saying goes, âIf you want something done right, to do it yourself.â which I think was attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte.
Iâll get a little philisophical here and apply this to our government. Politicians obviously handle everything to do with the laws here, and the only thing I do is vote on them. My quality of life goes up and down based on what they do, just like theirs does. I believe politicians do that work because they enjoy it and WANT to do it. If they donât want to do it, they donât have to. Just like people in this community donât have to contribute in any way. I believe @Accumulating.icp does what he does because heâs passionate about it and wants to improve ICP as a whole, not because heâs expecting something in return. Whether he becomes bitter over time remains to be seen. Ha ha!
I agree with you 100%. Thereâs nothing stopping anyone from creating a bounty for decentralization proposals. Considering the passion shown among the members of the community, Iâm wondering if Dfinity would approve a grant proposal for anyone willing to write short term decentralization proposals that move them closer to full decentralization over the long term? Thereâs a few options out there to try and get compensated for work performed, but thatâs up to the individual to seek them out. In my mind, the people building really useful things right now are passionate about them, or are getting compensated by someone else who is passionate about it.
Mainnet just had itâs 2 year birthday. Using the Bill of Rights as an example, it took 7 years before the first amendment was added, 6 more years for the next, then over 60 years for the next? I get the feeling people think governance should move faster because itâs on a blockchain. In my view, anything involving a large amount of people trying get anything done, ESPECIALLY relating to governance, is going to take a HUGE amount of time, no matter how much tech you throw at it. On top of that, if no one steps up to write new proposals because they donât have time, donât want to waste their time, or are waiting for something/someone else to do something. Then theyâll just have to be content to wait for someone with more passion/drive/time to get it done.
I donât disagree with very much here, or see value in getting into the nuance of laws etc, from my positioning (Iâm not an American citizen & am not educated in regards to these matters as such) - however Iâd just like to reiterate that the reason I havenât capitulated to simply agreeing to void the original proposal, and submit a new one, is because of the precedent that sets.
The proposal explicitly states the main benefit, and most important factor of the proposal, is the fact that it directly contributes to the decentralization of our liquid democracy.
When you allow an entity to retain a self assigned 99% supermajority over voting power & void proposals that have passed via the NNS because they personally feel as though they no longer apply - youâre throwing decentralized liquid democracy out of the window, and agreeing to a dictatorship.
If governance means anything, proposals that have passed should be treated as such. Not walked back upon a year later, under the premise of âwe didnât do proper due diligenceâ.
I decided to join this project because of the roadmap and principles with little understanding, it just sounded right.
I resonated with the project as I was tired of the problems that have arisen with the use of the internet and it frustrated me as a normal user looking for the ability just to use the internet to conduct my personal needs without the centralize bullies telling me how I need to do things their way for their gain and the cowards who feel that I am game for them.
Locking funds into a neuron to vote on proposals was a foreign idea that was made with a lot of uncertainty but I took a chance on.
The frustration with voting and having the ability to make voting decisions was a learning curve but more frustrating was seeing voting being executed before I had the chance.
It seems simple to me that as a neuron owner it is my right to vote and I do not feel I have that right and it is taken from me by those who have the power.
The mention of a 4 day time frame for voting is not always the case and I do want to vote.
Following gave me the opportunity to give my vote to others that I approve of as having better understanding and if they were seen as bad actors then the community would react with feedback as I have read with the discussion on EMC which as a community seem to work as at first that project seemed to me as not making the cut but after reading the discussion as it unfolded I believe the decentral system worked.
I supported the idea of a following list as it overcame the frustration of not being able to vote and those who opposed it in the early stages with comments about how they should receive more voting rewards as they do more just frustrated me more as I saw that behavior as centralize in that they wanted more benefits for themselves and nothing to do about us as a community, I want everyone to share in the voting and for all of us to have a share of rewards.
Voting will only work when all neuron owners are allowed to vote or have the ability to sustain from voting. The more people that vote the less likelihood bad actors can have control.
Maybe those who you say do nothing, do more than you think.
I canât say much about Alibaba, but I shopped on Amazon and searched on Google very soon after they launched, and they were already very easy to use and far ahead of the competition in most respects. Iâm old enough to have used AltaVista and Lycos, 
clearly remember typing into Googleâs minimal home page for the first time and getting the precise sites I needed at the top of the search results: felt like magic.
The entire âearly daysâ premise needs to be questioned. Remember, also, that a five year effort went into the IC before genesis.
Exactly so. This proves my point that the Bill of Rights had a function over and above the immediate cause of its creation. It even transcended the prejudices of its creator.
The Bill of Rights containing ten amendments was ratified around four years after the US constitution came into force. The more important point, and one I will stress again using this example, was that many delegates signed on to the US constitution only because they knew there was a Bill of Rights in the pipeline. The roadmap gave them confidence to sign. I donât mind if full decentralisation takes 10 years, but right now there is no plan that moves us from here to there. All Iâm asking for is a plan or roadmap, not actual immediate decentralisation.
I agree with this, as I wrote on your thread.
I see, that makes sense. I wouldnât mind seeing one either.
Have you considered putting it up on the feedback board at https://dx.internetcomputer.org? If you put it there and enough people upvote it, maybe they would consider making that more of a priority.
So what? Even when I CAP my letters my words are TRUE 
First, the whole talk about urgency on decentralization is relative; it is not like no work is being done.
Being a Sunday morning, Iâd recommend to read the story of the GOOD SAMARITAN; Luke Chapter 10 verse 25 to 37. A further read for anyone working on decentralizing projects is THE BOOK OF THE BAD SAMARITAN by Ha-Joon Chang. Perhaps we can be Good Samaritans after all, and encourage policies that are promoted in good faith and that are not being forced upon; and to do that, the networks has to adapt on /and at its own pace.
DECENTRALIZATION WOULD BE THE OUTCOME, RATHER THAN THE CAUSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECTS ON THE IC.
Amin, brother. .(damn 20 min char)
Thatâs it guys, pack it up weâre done here.
Anybody notice that every other thread on these forums is concern trolling about centralisation?
Yep. And you have more stamina to push back than I could muster after reading all of it.
Anybody notice that every post by Borovan is ad hominem attacks without ever a shred of substantive reasoning? Of course, the guy who centralised the first supposedly decentralised child of the NNS is the perfect person to âpush backâ against questions about centralisation.
I temporarily centralised it thank you very much.
Weâre working on the tokenomics but the aim is for the SNS to be fantasy world governance, and a non profit organisation where every penny gets reinvested into the game. I will get zero tokens - I want DKP to be owned by the players and contributors. Itâs a FU to the gaming industry.
It was probably not what people were expecting. Itâs a hybrid of a âpublic goodâ and a centralised creative direction. The SNS-1 was a blank slate and now itâs Dragginz, and Iâm not sorry.
With the US Bill of Rights being the practical example here:
Youâre saying this document is great, but donât even mention the Articles of Confederation? Because- after all this time itâs obvious that the Bill of Rights is the better working document. And while youâre talking about the path to Decentralization, the SEC still considers ICP to be a British Colony. So there is that tooâŚ
But technologically though, what is Decentralization? Sure everybody says itâs great, but itâs an idea transposed upon technology. And right now there are way too many people saying they understand the idea, without understanding the technology.
There are a good number of Decentralized Cryptocurrency Cloud Hosting projects which are already out there (Shoutout to Akash). And, they are ALL having the exact same problem here as Dfinity is with the Internet Computer: Decentralization requires a certain number of nodes +2.
The lack of urgency comes from people feeling like we just started this road trip. For me, I participate in the wgs, community calls and whatever else presentations. Knowing exactly what is going on with this project has instilled me with a rather serene calm. Also, being able to give my input on the things like the NFT standard is pretty cool too.
In all the time Iâve been researching decentralized crypto projects, the only truism Iâve ever seen about Decentralization, is that it is glacially slow to implement. Decentralization doesnât just require n+2 nodes, it also requires a certain number of those nodes to be consistently good. And, people make about the worst kind of node there is when it comes to decentralization. Code doesnât have an idea of risk vs. reward. And when decentralizing- there is always a certain point reached where the risk vs. reward doesnât line up well enough for people to be good nodes. There is also the issue of how long are they going to be a good node. An important part of Decentralization might be rotating nodes.
Were n a larger number on the IC, I think youâd gain more traction for your idea.
Penasihat yang telah mengkritik semua proyek karena perlunya fokus pada desentralisasi mengatakan mari kita terima desakan AS untuk tidak fokus pada proyek-proyek tersebut. Saya sangat kecewa.
Hollywood saat ini sedang mogok kerja dan inilah saatnya bagi teater besar ini untuk beristirahat.
The rapidity with which individuals here pounce on you is truly amusing.
I must confess, your comment was so funny that I ended up spilling my coffee in fits of laughter, making it your fault entirely.