I think the best path forward is a fork coinciding with the the launch of Proof of Humanity v2, one fork which you can launch. Proof of Humanity v1 will ossify and users will choose when they resubmit their registration after expiry which fork of Proof of Humanity v2 they want to participate in. Kleros can help by deploying the contracts and providing documentation how things work, and you can launch and found that version. Let’s continue this discussion in the fork thread.
One comment about forking, on the axis of ‘exit’ vs ‘voice’, these concepts are a false dichotomy. And forking represents simultaneously voice and exit, the two are not mutually exclusive. What we are doing here is using voice to coordinate ourselves to agree to disagree and go our separate ways. Its as if we are in an unhappy marriage and we don’t consider divorce because our society frowns upon it. Forking supports the idea of opt-in non-coercive systems.
Speaking as a child of divorce, many of us in the Proof of Humanity community and builders who love the vision of POH want to see it succeed are like kids in a marriage, we don’t want to see our parent’s split up, but sometimes everyone is happier with the freedom to associate and choose, especially in an abusive marriage. Being forced to stay in an abusive marriage is terrible. Why don’t we agree to split the house and the car ‘the treasury’ in half? It’s better for everyone involved to have a clean amicable divorce, no lawyers involved, no constant bickering and arguing.
Exit is a father leaving for a pack of cigarettes and never coming back.
Voice is constant bickering and arguing in an abusive marriage.
Forking is agreeing to disagree and face the reality of a dysfunctional marriage, and amicably separating. It doesn’t mean that each parent doesn’t still love it’s children, it’s better for everyone involved. It also doesn’t mean that the parents should immediately divorce without trying counseling or reconciliation, but seeing as Clement is being physically threatened and Santi feels harassed, we are at a point of no return. I’m sure that the distance of the fork/divorce may even allow the both Santi and Clement to have a function relationship and be around each other at conferences.
has serious accusations of corrupting his own protocol
Subjectivocracy solves this. Kleros v2 will support fork-friendliness. If there is an attacker on the court, the PNK token is currently a minime token which means it can be easily forked. In kleros v2, the process to coordinate the fork will be formalized to provide users a manner to fork the juror set (PNK holders) over the outcome of disputes.
On the specific case in question, 1170, Avraham Eisenberg, infamous for the $100 million draining of mango markets and fortress dao hacks, was attempting to drain capital from Unslashed finance, a dapp which uses Kleros to arbitrate disputes over insurance claims. Many jurors had conflicting opinions, some thought the claim was legitimate, and others saw the claim as illegitimate. In hindesight, given Avraham’s history abusing protocols, IMO, Avraham was attempting to manipulate Kleros and failed. In such a case where jurors believe strongly that Avraham’s claim is legitimate, jurors can fork where everyone who voted against the claim are removed from the fork.
This also works for POH cases. If there is a POH case which splits the community, a fork can be coordinated where jurors who accept a submission will join fork A and jurors who reject a submission will join fork B.
does not believe in decentralization
I am against abuse of these terms. Can we avoid the fallacious underspecification of ‘decentralization’ and ‘democracy’ and rhetorical prods to win arguments. Please lets specify what we mean (client diversity, multisig signer thresholds, staker concentration, etc).
After the act of intolerance that goes against every principle Ethereum stands for during my talk
Ethereum does stand for calling out false founders. See Vitalik here calling out Craig Wright for being a fraud for claiming to be the founder of Bitcoin in a conference. Principles of open-source software is giving credit where credit is due. As Vitalik writes in his newly published “Proof of Stake” book,
About a year ago at Deconomy** I publicly shouted down Craig Wright, a scammer claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto, finishing my explanation of why the things he says make no sense with the question “Why is this fraud allowed to speak at this conference?”
Of course, Craig Wright’s partisans replied back with . . . accusations of censorship.
Did I try to “silence” Craig Wright? I would argue, no. One could argue that this is because “Deconomy is not a public space,” but I think the much better argument is that a conference is fundamentally different from an internet forum. An internet forum can actually try to be a fully neutral medium for discussion where anything goes; a conference, on the other hand, is by its very nature a highly curated list of presentations, allocating a limited number of speaking slots and actively channeling a large amount of attention to those lucky enough to get a chance to speak. A conference is an editorial act by the organizers, saying “here are some ideas and views that we think people really should be exposed to.” Every conference “censors” almost every viewpoint because there’s not enough space to give them all a chance to speak, and this is inherent in the format; so raising an objection to a conference’s judgment in making its selections is absolutely a legitimate act.
I don’t want to engage in Polemics, but for the record, Clement called you out for lying about being a founder of Proof of Humanity and claiming to have launched Proof of Humanity.
You made one commit on the Proof-of-Humanity repo. If that qualifies as launching Proof of Humanity, then Clement launched ERC-20. None of the developers and participants involved with the Proof of Humanity launch see you as a founder of Proof of Humanity or Democracy Earth as launching Proof of Humanity. Democracy Earth was the first integration. I won’t belabor this point and I don’t want to continue arguing over this topic.
I understand you spend lots of time advocating for Proof of Humanity to an extent that you feel ownership over Proof of Humanity. For many, you are the first point of contact on Proof Of Humanity. I applaud you for having used your platform and voice as a content creator with your podcast and interview sessions with other podcasts to speak about Proof of Humanity, which helped popularize Proof of Humanity. This is also important work.