The guy who challenges would need to put something in stake, otherwise is like the pig and chicken story, understand that linking the challenger might be an issue but we definevely need a way to fight against ill intended challenges.
Strongly agree with this, its just a matter of removing those gray cases from rule, only allow challenge on duplicate or not a human. Maybe fix for this would need to be done inside kleros preserving anonymity, but thats a long road
Also strongly against this proposal, for the reasons explained by Jimmy and Clément. Not only would this reduce the security of the registry (and potentially of challengers too) but it’s also impossible to implement with the current version of the contract.
There are technical, practical and even moral reasons to reject this proposal.
3 Likes
I still don’t understand how a random person, not necessarily from outside the system would be a trustworthy person to hand in the keys of the curation of the system. This is not to disclose individual identities of people challenging, it is to keep a paper trail and guarantee true independence and traceability, just like any other blockchain effort.
The security of the registry is threatened by anonymous challengers that complain on absurd fine line in the rules that are currently vague, and they go against the spirit of true Sybil-Proofness (what does 8 pixels removal in the background changes in the grand scheme of things?).
100% oppose this proposal.
Why does it matter who the challenger is, what their intentions are, or if they are even human? As long as they are right and provide collateral to be able to punish them if they are not, we shouldn’t care about identities.
It seems absurd to me why challenging has to be a right exclusively devoted to those that prove they are human.
2 Likes
It would be an extra layer of prevention so that the Kleros Court is not involved in petty offenses which could be solved otherwise. If the dispute were to be so clear, why the need of a court then? Let’s put machines to decide as well.
I’ve been thinking this over and my feelings are that the issues raised in this HIP are something that could be better addressed through clarifications to the submission guidelines/rules, and improvements in UI/UX to make it more human friendly.
I also think developing a way for people(registered humans) to signal where the edges of these rules lay would provide a useful reference document for jurors to consult. A place that can be referenced that holds the public sentiment on what is acceptable. Kind of like an ongoing collective “evidence” of the PoH culture, which can be consulted alongside the specific case evidence.
Alongside this, thinking of ways in which we can indicate to people that their submission has a fault so it can be corrected quickly would be useful. But it is difficult to let someone know if you have no contact with them. Perhaps a ‘flag profile’ button which they will see on their profile page?
The issue ultimately leads me back to reducing the friction in creating a profile in the first place. I also think ideas that have been expressed in other threads around Ambassador programs, or members with facilitator roles, who can help people with their submissions and create introductory material will be of great use. This sort of work should be a focus of the dao imo.
It is harder to get there and may seem like more work, but I think that these approaches will help us more than introducing new security mechanics such as the one proposed, (which i’m not sure actually solves anything).
2 Likes
The signalling in the poll on snapshot would indicate that humans, in general, do not want unwatched watchers. I get that may cause some technical issues and challenges but fundamentally we need to create/innovate our way around them. I have a deep faith in this community’s ability to do that.
Ultimately we are building a system that needs to follow a set of human principles otherwise it ends up like degenerative some are more equal than others animal farm type project.
To have a proof of humanity protocol and not have major roles within the system use it is obtuse and fundamentally unfair. Humans like a level playing field. They like fairness. It is part of a set of core values of what it means to be human.
The approach to justice at the moment is causing toxicity, win/lose scenarios, zero compassion outcomes, frustration and indignation. It is mirroring a side of the world that many of us wish to leave behind.
2 Likes
The signalling in the poll on snapshot 1 would indicate that humans, in general, do not want unwatched watchers.
At this moment, 81% rejected the “principle of transparency” proposal. Isn’t that a good signaling against this HIP?
3 Likes
Not the same proposal, not argued in the same manner. I don’t follow why this “Vox Populi” argument holds.
I vote no, because of the following:
The purpose of a challenger is simply to cure the registry. Nothing more, nothing less.
It really doesn’t require this one to even be human. And if it isn’t, you’d be creating a programming element impressive enough to deserve those deposits. Because you’re actually making the registry safe enough for everyone.
Arguments in favor of exposing the identity of the challengers are very poor because reasons.
2 Likes
You are diverting the argument to a false premise. Proposition does not want to expose identities.
Actually, that is exactly what the proposal calls for.
I want them to be unique people, I do not want their identities.
1 Like
How would you do that?
This is a typical issue for new Kleros powered projects 
Example: Kleros Tokens, a curated list of crypto tokens.
In the beginning there are some ambiguities regarding token naming in the policy, so a proposal was created to standardise the naming. Later on some challengers are getting pedantic on image size / resolution, not unlike the current PoH situation. The community then quickly proposed another proposal to fix it. IIRC it took almost a year before the registry policy is finally stable.
It’s only because anyone can submit a challenge that we can quickly detect a weakness/exploit in the policy and proceed to fix it.
As a long follower of the Kleros court, I have full confidence that the system works. We just have to keep improving the policy so that it fully reflects the intention of the project.
8 Likes
Anonymity is not bad for me. But if I am against the vote of someone with a higher PNK position being worth more than someone with less economic power.
1 Like
Noted! Will adopt this and see how it goes.
To refloat this to another round of debate, there is one misunderstanding that I would like to clarify because it has been used as a diverting argument which is not valid.
In any part of the text I’m saying that I want the identities of the challengers to be public. The text is clear and it only refers that the requirement is that they should be unique and members of the Registry. There could be ways in which the challenger could be checked as member in order to initiate a dispute, without necessarily disclosing its identity.
1 Like