[Phase-1] HIP 81 accept evidence after the challenge has occurred

DAO
#1

The evidence section should be used to provide evidence that the human is real. Jurors must consider evidence of a dispute as valid. For example, if the lighting or the face are not clearly seen and they get challenged, and the disputed person can upload a higher quality of their face.

The new uploaded video is now part of the profile submission, so there is no risk whatsoever to the Sybil resistance of the Registry (quite the opposite, now there’s two videos of the same person). External auditors can check either the main video or the evidence video if needed. This aligns perfectly with the idea of using human jurors in disputes and why it is superior to automated methods: humans can asses evidence!

1 Like
#2

I am strongly opposed to this proposal; it would break proof of humanity. If you want more details please just ask and I’d be happy to explain.

#3

If you have any arguments, they should be here. Void arguments and scaremongering that “it will break it” do not stick.

#4

As an attacker, all I would have to do is:
-Create a profile that is purposefully invalid (bait someone into challenge)
-Don’t submit any evidence
-Lose case
-Appeal case, other person appeals
-Finally submit correct evidence, challenger loses all ETH

If this proposal passes, there will be 0 challengers, and thus 0 Sybil resistance.

#5

Great, thanks for giving me an idea that would solve it. Rule applies for the first round. The attack is thwarted at step 3.

#6

Not at all, the challenger still loses their deposit to my attack. That isn’t winning, is it? Sure, I might not gain anything explicitly, but it would mean more case numbers in Kleros court. More cases is always good, especially when you have a significant stake like me.

#7

If you bait a challenger and as an attacker you do not submit evidence, challenger wins.

#8

If I bait a challenger, then I submit evidence. Challenger is still losing all of their money, which disincentivizes challengers, which destroys Sybil resistance.

#9

Also, why should challengers be the ones to pay for the applicant’s mistake? It should be the other way around, no?

#10

Not if jurors refuse to arbitrate, right?

#11

Nope, even if it results in refuse to arbitrate (which it almost never does), the challenger still loses their gas and part of the deposit.

#12

But the attacker does not get anything

#13

Does not matter if attacker gets anything or not, the attacker is able to successfully destroy Sybil resistance. They could indirectly benefit from this by shorting UBI/PNK, for example.

#14

Extremely highly unlikely that something like this happens. Current exploitative challengers like you are breaking it by vouchallenging. Conclusion: As to this point, additions to the HIP would be:

  • Valid for first round.
  • Jurors should refuse to arbitrate.

We hope we catch REAL attackers of the sybil resistance, like duplicates and fakes (not correctable under anyn circunstance if this passes).

I am sure you can find some other sources of speculative profit somewhere else. This is the end of my argument with you.

#15

You say that, but you shouldn’t try to test me. I’d be happy to try and “attack” the system in a different way, as I have done many times in the past.

To be quite frank, I’m pretty sure this is actually KIP territory, because I’ve only heard discussion of such policies in the Kleros telegram. Don’t quote me on this though.

#16

If your stubbornness continues and this passes, you are going to destroy the project. I’d be happy for you to do so in your own fork with your friend Santi, but please let the Origin people be.

1 Like
#17

Vote against the proposal then. Until the split is just one DAO