Create fip-0028 - remove DataCap from verified client

[dkkapur]

FIP to enable notaries and the Filecoin Plus community to remove unused DataCap from a client address on the network. DataCap removal will require 2 notary signatures and 1 RKH signature.

[kaitlin-beegle]

This FIP has officially passed 'Last Call' status, and is 'Accepted'! It's ready for implementation in v15.

@dkkapur could you address the changes requested by @arajasek and @jennijuju so we can move towards merging this FIP?

[hunjixin]

@kaitlin-beegle is title correct fip0028 or fip0029?

[kaitlin-beegle]

@kaitlin-beegle is title correct fip0028 or fip0029?

This is correct; is there a reason why you think it isn't?

[hunjixin]

not see the latest commit, this commit has change filename to 0028

[kaitlin-beegle]

not see the latest commit, this commit has change filename to 0028

Yep! This is correct.

[jennijuju]

The implementation session doesn’t

Am I late? In case of no confirmed CLIENT activity or abuse of systems and incentives, the current level of discussion and action is correct. However, it is often the SP that drives CLIENTs that use Datacap in unethical ways, such as excessive self-transactions, unsearchable data, etc. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss how to strictly limit these SPs.

For example, the SP concludes that a CLIENT without valid data simply meets the conditions to apply for a data cap. The SP then moves the CLIENT to apply the DataCap application on behalf of the CLIENT to request a DataCap or power on *10 with garbage data.

As discussed so far, there is no limit to these malicious SPs. SP recreates new CLIENTs used for unethical behaviors such as excessive self-transaction and inability to view data.

What you described seems like a governance discussion that belongs to fil+ program and is not irrelevant to this fip. id suggest you to raise your concern to fip+ Team/ community in https://github.com/filecoin-project/notary-governance/discussions

[kaitlin-beegle]

Am I late? In case of no confirmed CLIENT activity or abuse of systems and incentives, the current level of discussion and action is correct. However, it is often the SP that drives CLIENTs that use Datacap in unethical ways, such as excessive self-transactions, unsearchable data, etc. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss how to strictly limit these SPs.

For example, the SP concludes that a CLIENT without valid data simply meets the conditions to apply for a data cap. The SP then moves the CLIENT to apply the DataCap application on behalf of the CLIENT to request a DataCap or power on *10 with garbage data.

As discussed so far, there is no limit to these malicious SPs. SP recreates new CLIENTs used for unethical behaviors such as excessive self-transaction and inability to view data.

Hi @kdreampool - please note that this comment was received after the expiration of 'Last Call', so it has not impacted the acceptance of this FIP. This FIP remains in 'accepted' status, and will be implemented in network v15.

However, I believe the spirit of this FIP is intended to address the very situation you've outlined. If a storage provider is pushing a client to apply for datacap, then diligence is still done on that client. It is the responsibility of the FilecoinPlus notaries to do diligence on all clients and determine whether or not they are legitimate. This FIP simply allows verified client status to be revoked after it had previously been granted, should a reason arise in which a client seems suspicious and/or appears to be abusing their datacap allocation.

However, there is no technical change we could make that would prevent direct, off-line collusion, if that's what you're indeed claiming is a problem. If you're aware of a storage provider that is working in bad faith, or is trying to take advantage of the FilecoinPlus program, I would heavily encourage you to get in touch with the FilecoinPlus team.

CC: @dkkapur

[dkkapur]

Thanks @kdreampool for the discussion. I agree with @kaitlin-beegle's points above that this is just an implementation step that will help us build tools to shut down malicious use/abuse of DataCap. I also agree with @jennijuju that the case you've outlined requires work on the due diligence side and on arming the notaries to learn more about each client to ensure DataCap gets to the right hands. If it ends up in the wrong place, having this FIP implemented gives us an additional lever to correct course. Would be great to engage you in a Discussion on the Fil+ governance side to improve our processes for this.