HIP-9 [Phase-1]: Require registered users to challenge profiles

[Jrag]

Anyone human can enter the registry so requiring challenger to be in the registry to challenge does not bring anything new to the table.
If we were to find a way to make it anonymous, the challengers (who might already be in the registry) would just continue their current behavior.
This issue is a policy matter, not a technical architecture matter.

[0xa92efcdca7a14561f536d577fb5a79990f5873f3_Ethereum]

AGAINST
This will only serve for doxing challengers.

If the challenger is wrong on the basis of its challenge, the jurors would vote accordingly.

@ludovico What I do I believe it should be important to find a solution is: to find a way to make sure that a Challenger is not able to become a Juror in the same case!

[ludovico]

Well, the time has come so that the arguments against this HIP are no longer there, since now there is the possibility to anonymize the challengers.

[forgeron.eth]

I am against it for 2 reasons:

• It weakens the protocol by adding a barrier for challengers, one which does not accurately target “PNK whales” or potential conflicts of interests but instead also targets honest challengers/whistleblowers who might be anyone.

• It’s bad for the privacy of the challengers. Of course it’s already bad for the privacy of the submitter but there is no need to make also the situation worse for the challenger. In practice it’s very likely that challengers are also registered humans but using a different address to challenge. EDIT: a Sismo badge should address the privacy issue.

[green]

You don’t want to add extra barriers to challengers. That’s how you can get some guarantees on people looking at the registry.
If rules are vague, exploitable, or too strict, you fix them.

[ludovico]

It is amazing how when an argument that was firstly portrayed as the bigger barrier (“let us not dox the people, it will lead to prosecution”) then the argument is shifted somewhere else.

[0xjean.eth]

@ludovico

It is amazing how when an argument that was firstly portrayed as the bigger barrier (“let us not dox the people, it will lead to prosecution”) then the argument is shifted somewhere else.

Sorry, but I can’t stress enough how disingenuous you are. Lots of other arguments were presented, that still remain:

@0xjean.eth

Cons that are not mentioned:

• Added complexity;
• Possibly increased gas cost for challenges - which in turn could have a side effect of increasing the required deposit;
• Development resources spent on implementing this change could be spent elsewhere, with more impact.

@Jrag

You don’t want to change the system in a way that reduces the number of challengers like this proposal does.

@clesaege

Overall we want to allow as much challenges as possible to keep the registry as safe as possible, limiting or pressuring the challenges is going against this.

Suffice to say, you claim:

@ludovico

If an anonymous actor can influence the judiciary system of a country from the outside, it would leave it open to foreign powers to leverage their positions for their own benefit.

Sismo badges are anonymous. How anonymity solves the issue of… anonymity?