-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
published proposal about polls #17
Comments
14 days for a whitelist poll (unless there's proven evidence of issues requiring a more prompt removal from the whitelist). |
Yeah, I'd say that CPDN's situation where it was not exporting statistics correctly should remain 14 days, less than 14 days for projects that are hacked & distribute malware or something equally bad. If a project fixes an issue before the end of the whitelist poll, it shouldn't invalidate the poll. They should have to campaign for being whitelisted again, this amount of bureaucracy could be reduced via the theorized grey listing mechanism. |
added above: "minimum balance/magnitude participation required ?" |
Should investors be able to vote on whitelist project removal/addition ? chat excerpt: xXUnRealXx: So I have a seriour question / concern. The POLLs that are created for projects SHOULD NOT allow INVESTORS to VOTE. Theres 2 INVESTORS with Lots of PULL Voting to REMOVE Projects Yet they do none of the work. Gunde> INVESTOR could be users that still does boinc but use an investorwallet. xXUnRealXx> if so than a 51% attack is eaven easier then they say it is |
If no exporting of stats is done or the RAC reached below 100 from users it would be de-listed auto do to how NN works. This happend before and Denis/MindeModeling/CPDN have show that it will be out. This could be used as a grey-list but today the time is to long to use for this. Solution could be to set rules to NN to keep rac in NN in shorter timerange. If projects that are hacked & distribute malware we should be able to shutdown reward without asking or use poll for it as it mainly bad and would hurt not only Gridcoin but boinc community it self. Same rules as to community platform or wallet or site we use we would not ask to act to protect these. |
Yes, I believe that investors should be allowed to vote on project whitelist removal/addition.
|
RE: Technical polls --> several month long poll & a minimum vote weight required of 50% before a change can pass? This way, low stake weight participation in a poll does not allow mandate for change to be valid without a majority of the network agreeing with the proposal. |
Idea: Foundation Expense polls should require a minimum voting weight of the community in order to be considered binding. I suggest 10% minimum. Current active foundation poll activity is:
|
Though I agree there should be a minimum, if a minimum were to be set now at 10%... no foundation poll except one (and barely) would've passed in the last 4 months (at least). I'd say if the average was 15% participation in polls and a handful that were below 10%, then absolutely make 10% a minimum, but making 10% a minimum when just one poll in recent memory has even reached that 10% is just asking for trouble; no foundation polls will ever pass. |
there is a poll currently about this topic also:
current standing:
|
the vote ended:
see pic + summary here |
How should we evaluate the outcome of polls?
|
Regarding whitelist polls and Investors. Make the polls only Magnitude, not Mag+Balance. |
Currently there are two investors with something like $50 million in GRC stored and they can vote down any whitelist attempt. They currently haven't TMK, but that doesn't disallow potential future barrons from blocking all whitelist attempts. |
"14 days for a whitelist poll (unless there's proven evidence of issues requiring a more prompt removal from the whitelist)." Personally, for e.g. this poll, I'd have liked to create it for 7 days, since the reason is obvious (no WUs anymore) |
Personally I think removal should be quicker than including. Removal is usually due to something happening. No WUs, flawed credit system, cheating etc. Of course we need to give users enough time to vote about it, but if the reason is obvious it should be automatic. What are we to do if 'No' get the most votes when its a matter of network security. We need to set up some ground rules regarding this instead so the network can make an automatic consensus without a poll. |
Because of the way RAC works, it takes time to build new RAC on a new project. So if we have 1000 RAC on a project to be delisted, that will decay over a number of weeks, to rebuild an equivalent RAC on a new project will take a similar amount of time. So with ATLAS for example, its no longer active, but its going to take time to rebuild that RAC on LHC@Home. In these circumstances (where the project is properly managedd and communication is clear) we have a 2 week vote on the dates on which the project will be removed, immediately, 2 weeks or 4 weeks. |
see also @grcjamezz ' comment about investors in the Pentathlon polls (see comment here) |
Just a few ideas:
|
Filed an issue over at gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Research#433. In my opinion all the options bug mag+balance are redundant. |
@XaqFields about https://github.com/Erkan-Yilmaz/Gridcoin-tasks/issues/17#issuecomment-314790867: |
I think all whitelist polls, add or remove, should come with a basic TL;DR. Something like
If we can get that info, that is. |
how to act in situations where voters have problems like these ? magnitude zero, stuck in blockchain, ...
|
see also:
|
gather criteria, e.g.
and later let community vote on these
mentioned in hangout 2: see WuProp section
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: