Jump to content
Enumivo Community
Peesus

Motion to secure the Block Producers

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, smakeit said:

BTC is an open ledger, you can see balances and tx infos of the addresses, but you don’t know the real people or miners back of these addresses, this is privacy.

Whether or not people or miners of these addresses show their ID, that’s their right.

You trust BTC not because you know IDs of users and miners. 

Remember PoW and PoS are totally different. So your argument is not justifiable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, smakeit said:

BTC is an open ledger, you can see balances and tx infos of the addresses, but you don’t know the real people or miners back of these addresses, this is privacy.

Whether or not people or miners of these addresses show their ID, that’s their right.

You trust BTC not because you know IDs of users and miners. 

yeah you are right about this really, but remember BTC is POW and Not Dpos, people have to know the difference between this algorithm.. Dpos is more of a community thing than pow, pow you don't need community to vote you to become on top but on dpos you the community and this hasn't really been shown on enumivo project - many just go ahead and buy enu and votes on their bp not including the community - this game they are playing we gradually drain off the seriousness and oneness of the community until it dies off one day. 

 

we all should know dpos is community and we need to build trust in community, I'm not saying their ID cards should be revealed but they have to Id them selves for us to see that this guys are regular like us and someone to hold accountable for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Boyking said:

I'd vote for a "qualified" NO.

While I see the critical need for accountability to help ensure the reliability and integrity of the chain, I also understand the privacy concerns of some honest and credible BPs.

The goal is to achieve a blockchain of integrity.  It should be inherent upon BPs also comply with updates and regulations.

The RoE will exercise their voting power for the BPs. For the non-compliant, or perhaps malicious BPs, they will have to be weeded out accordingly.

if at the end it ends on no, then the Roe have one option left which is up 👆 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a question to the Chinese bp how do you hope to comply with “The guidelines require blockchain startups to allow authorities access to stored data, and to introduce registry procedures that would require ID card or mobile numbers from its users. Moreover, they will be obliged to oversee content and censor information that is prohibited under current Chinese law.

If a firm fails to comply with the regulations, it might face fines from 20,000 to 30,000 yuans ($2,900 and $4,400, respectively). In case of serial offences, the company might face a criminal investigation.

China first released draft guidelines in October for blockchain companies, which also contained recommendations that sought to eliminate anonymity in blockchain.”

this is in regards to article https://cointelegraph.com/news/china-introduces-new-anti-anonymity-regulations-for-blockchain-related-companies

which states these laws come into effect 15th February

Edited by Sosolean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote No, even though my identity is widely known - Tyler Xiong, the COO of Bixin.
1. BP's role in a blockchain is to provide data validation services. As long as it is providing this service, it can get the reward. It is how the blockchain works.
2. Please don't forget that our founder Aiden Pierce is also anonymous. I don't need to trust him; I only need to trust the code.
3. Anyone can get a lot of fake identities at low cost, so there is no point in this motion.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote YES. Same reasons as mentioned above and listed below.

  1. It makes the block producer accountable for their actions
  2. It ensures they are not running multiple BP nodes (increasing chance of an attack on the network
  3. Our network is not secure if we do not know who is being paid to secure it
  4. BPs are responsible for handling your money
  5. No one will take us seriously as a DPOS chain with anonymous block producers and developers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are pros and cons for having ID revealed but if you'll think about it there's more favor on our side. Surely, we can produce a better way of handling things without having an issue of revealing BP's identity. To put it simply, this is the only way to stop abusive BP's.

Edited by Cocojam0610

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sosolean said:

As a question to the Chinese bp how do you hope to comply with “The guidelines require blockchain startups to allow authorities access to stored data, and to introduce registry procedures that would require ID card or mobile numbers from its users. Moreover, they will be obliged to oversee content and censor information that is prohibited under current Chinese law.

If a firm fails to comply with the regulations, it might face fines from 20,000 to 30,000 yuans ($2,900 and $4,400, respectively). In case of serial offences, the company might face a criminal investigation.

China first released draft guidelines in October for blockchain companies, which also contained recommendations that sought to eliminate anonymity in blockchain.”

this is in regards to article https://cointelegraph.com/news/china-introduces-new-anti-anonymity-regulations-for-blockchain-related-companies

which states these laws come into effect 15th February

I wanna know this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Cocojam0610 said:

I wanna know this too.

Enumivo is not a company as I know, so this rule can't bother with Enumivo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A company is any entity that engages in business. So registered or not we are an entity that provides blockchain services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sosolean said:

A company is any entity that engages in business. So registered or not we are an entity that provides blockchain services.

image.png.3d7df40ceddefdfafb31516879be0aed.pngThis maybe a translation mistake, in Chinese, a company should be profit-making and register in gov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, PeiLin said:

Enumivo is not a company as I know, so this rule can't bother with Enumivo.

but Aiden said he paid for all taxes regarding the enumivo project......... I don't understand 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only concern is the bp and how they could show seriousness in what they do and i think identifying them self could save us from this - @PeiLin i do understand where you stand, you still think Roe could vote out un active Bps which is possible and we all could vote them out, but my other concern is how is how we present our self to the outside investors, crypto projects are like organization. and companies, how you structure and present the project, determines the attentions it draws, now if we want people to take us seriously - we need to take our post seriously - i think bps too are team of any DPOS projects. but anyways i hope we can find a better way to make the bps work again with seriousness. 

22 hours ago, Boyking said:

I'd vote for a "qualified" NO.

While I see the critical need for accountability to help ensure the reliability and integrity of the chain, I also understand the privacy concerns of some honest and credible BPs.

The goal is to achieve a blockchain of integrity.  It should be inherent upon BPs also comply with updates and regulations.

The RoE will exercise their voting power for the BPs. For the non-compliant, or perhaps malicious BPs, they will have to be weeded out accordingly.

if at the end it ends on no, then the Roe have one option left which is up 👆 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, PeiLin said:

image.png.3d7df40ceddefdfafb31516879be0aed.pngThis maybe a translation mistake, in Chinese, a company should be profit-making and register in gov.

Do the block providers provide their services for free? They receive payment in form of block reward which they hope will be profitable. We are not trying to be back room project run by amateurs we want to be seen as a viable alternative to EOS or we will never get anywhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, marshalllife said:

My only concern is the bp and how they could show seriousness in what they do and i think identifying them self could save us from this - @PeiLin i do understand where you stand, you still think Roe could vote out un active Bps which is possible and we all could vote them out, but my other concern is how is how we present our self to the outside investors, crypto projects are like organization. and companies, how you structure and present the project, determines the attentions it draws, now if we want people to take us seriously - we need to take our post seriously - i think bps too are team of any DPOS projects. but anyways i hope we can find a better way to make the bps work again with seriousness. 

if at the end it ends on no, then the Roe have one option left which is up 👆 

1, I dont against BP owners pubilc their name and ID. I just against use it as a compulsory. So there will be many open name BPs in the 21, since they will likely get more votes from RoE than those who didn't give their real names.

2, people can easily buy a fake ID and use a wrong name. nobody will knows. so dishonest people will get benefit and honest people will get hurt.

3, I think out side investors will more like a chain who has some anonymity BPs rather than a chain all BPs are in real names, which means they can easily get control by goverments.  If they like all real names blockchain, why do they use blockchain? they can just use a database provide by a company or goverment.

 

I dont want to reply for the motion anymore mate, coz it use too many of my time. I will respect and accept the motion result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sosolean said:

Do the block providers provide their services for free? They receive payment in form of block reward which they hope will be profitable. We are not trying to be back room project run by amateurs we want to be seen as a viable alternative to EOS or we will never get anywhere

I think i've said it very clearly, in Chinese, a company means register in gov. the rule is from China, and Enumivo didn't register in gov, so the rule wont bother with Enumivo. I dont want to reply anymore, I just wait for the result and respect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s funny you were the one who said motions should be debated after they are placed here on the thread. Now I’m trying to discuss this and you just not interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is slowly turning into a circus. Don't get me wrong but I was trying to find the curent status and it's hard to follow. I've talked with lex last night and he told me that people from China can reach surveymonkey. I will try to find a way to make a poll there and allow only RoE people to vote. A simple yes/no. And keep the forum for debates. It's sad we cannot use Google drive. Having one's email would have been easier to manage this. 

We should find a better way to organize this. I'm glad we've had a motion like this with lots of different opinions. We have a lot to learn from this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sosolean said:

It’s funny you were the one who said motions should be debated after they are placed here on the thread. Now I’m trying to discuss this and you just not interested.

I mean everyone have the right to debate in the motion, and now I think I've told most of my opinions here, so I dont want to told again, but everyone still has the right to debate here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote NO.

Even though RoE has the right to properly use the 50M voting power, we have to take the responsibility to make good use of it. We need to tell the good BP's from the bad ones.

But forcing the BP's to show their identity is neither reasonable nor practical.  On one hand, We don't need to know Aiden's identity, but we all know he's a great man. Same for the good BP's, they just need to do good job and secure the blockchain, that's enough. On the other hand, a bad BP can easily fool this system just asking several friends' ID card.  Introducing identity makes it too much complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote NO.

 

1.  BP has both the wish and interest to keep their nodes running for the block reward, no matter whether they have revealed their real world identification

2. If we want all the BPs  revealing real world identification, in my opinion that means the community wants BPs take their responsibilities. But the problem is that even after revealing, we still can not quantify the BPs' contribution.

3. Making BP revealing their identification as a mandatory rule brings another rule which might not be compatible with Enumivo technical rules that have been written in the code.  e.g.  All the BPs blocking an anonymous BP makes the voting system no sense.

4. I have no intention to consider ENU should always run like BTC, but BTC has its great advantage. The PoW mining makes the system very open and friendly to new comers, this feature makes the network bigger and bigger. If we add a rule as an admission, I think that will hurt the network growth.

5. Now we run enumivo as an EOSIO chain, but for the recent news from EOSIO/EOS we found that they have been reconsidering the community governance, so not all the rules from EOS community are correct, we should examine them carefully.

 

Edited by Daifuku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×