Jump to content
Enumivo Community

Peesus

Members
  • Content count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Peesus

  1. Peesus

    Nominating Tezzmax To Join RoE

    Hi @PeiLin I did not have access to internet and made everyone aware I would be away. @Sosolean provided the screen grab of the conversation we had so how did I not vote?
  2. As the RoE has now got access to the voting power of the 50m fund I would like to propose a motion for the eurnoproject BP to receive said voting weight. As you know we have done a lot for this community, which ranges from making the current enumivo.org homepage to writing the original whitepaper and making the recent wordpress cross chain explorer plugin. Our BP is eurnoproject and was solidly in the top 21 since the chain went main net. Our website is https://eurno.org and we are actively developing for and on the Enumivo blockchain. We are one of few BPs which have completed everything all required by other EOS based chains. Vote YES if you think eurnoproject is worthy of receiving the 50m vote weight, vote NO if you think we aren't.
  3. Since people have voted against all BPs being required to reveal their true identity in order to receive the 50m vote from the RoE I would like to pass a motion for all BPs on the Enumivo chain to be required to prove they are unique individuals prior to receiving said voting weight from the RoE. The method by which individuality will be achieved can be discussed by the current RoE, this is simply a vote to ensure all BP owners prove they are not personally running more than one BP and that they are not part of an organisation which is also operating a BP. If this motion passes we will, as a community, decide how BPs will be required to comply with this ruling. This is to prevent numerous scenarios, for example: An exchange/wallet breaking their users' funds into numerous wallets and then dispersing them between multiple members of staff in order to acquire more than one BP slot under an umbrella of perceived individuality. One person from operating multiple BPs through numerous online personas. Reasons FOR the motion: We need to ensure our network does not have a cartel running the BPs If we do not ensure we have individual BPs a 51% attack is a real threat If we have a cartel on the BPs they can collude to do anything from take funds to kill the network. Security, in every aspect Reasons AGAINST the motion: You do not believe a cartel scenario is a threat You disagree that a company or person should be limited to one BP If this motion passes the RoE will go about deciding HOW to PROVE that each BP to receive RoE voting is not only operated by a unique individual, but that they also are not part of an organisation which also has a BP receiving RoE funding. Vote YES if you agree that all BPs should be required to prove they are unique individuals who are not a part of a collective of other block producers. Vote NO if you disagree.
  4. I am going to abstain from voting in this one bro. This is not a reflection of my opinion on the design at all I think it is a very good design, very clear and clean. I just think we should try and make a full branding pack which the logo is modelled around to give the RoE more of an official feel and appearance.
  5. Peesus

    The motion to limit members' replies

    You should rephrase your question then. It is not clear.
  6. Peesus

    The motion to limit members' replies

    Abstain. Users should be able to modify their post in the eventuality new information is brought to light. Changing your mind/stance is a part of learning and being human. EDIT: Changed to abstain after clarification it turns out this is pretty much what Dragos already has suggested.
  7. No, I know it is a fact that an account being active is no way associated to it being operated by a unique individual. If you cannot grasp that I really cannot help you.
  8. https://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/lrc/studyskills/factsandopinions.pdf
  9. It doesn't matter what you think. The fact remains.
  10. Doesn't matter what you think. The objective and factual truth is that an active account is not the same as a unique individual.
  11. Do you really need someone to explain to you the difference between being unique and having an active account? https://twitter.com/kodali_siva?lang=en Tweets very actively but is a self admitted bot, not even a person.
  12. Not in the slightest bit.
  13. Never said that. Pointing out that being unique and having an active account are two different things.
  14. Being unique and having an active account are two entirely different things.
  15. The current block producer situation of Enumivo is such that they have no accountability for their actions or their block producing node. The issue is something which has been brought up numerous times in the past but has not been solved. One of the sticking points to the situation is the topic of block producers being forced to reveal their identity in order to receive voting from the RoE fund. Some members believe they should not have to reveal their identity while others believe this poses a huge risk to the security of the chain. The current arguments AGAINST requiring identification are: It reveals the true identity of the person behind the BP] Bitcoin is anonymously operated The government will be able to see their name's with less effort The current arguments FOR requiring identification are: It makes the block producer accountable for their actions It ensures they are not running multiple BP nodes (increasing chance of an attack on the network Our network is not secure if we do not know who is being paid to secure it BPs are responsible for handling your money No one will take us seriously as a DPOS chain with anonymous block producers and developers. If you agree that block producers should reveal their identity in order to receive voting from the RoE then vote YES if you disagree vote NO. **For clarity, by reveal identity it is meant the block producers should reveal their true names and prove their identity - The method by which ID will be verified will be decided once we have decided this**
×