100% against forking.
Don’t split the attention, previous work, and advancements just because less than 5 people can’t behave.
PD: I think that chart is offensive, of bad taste, and cringe. You should stop using it / delete it because it makes it really hard to take you seriously.
Who “can’t behave”? Who are these “less than 5 people”?
The two factions can’t work together. Advancement is no longer possible, or requires too much work that is wasted in politics instead of building.
Yeah I think we are in a presence of a Network Defect where the sum of both forks would be more valuable than the status quo.
Even the basis of the project, Sybil Resistance is now rejected by a short majority. We have to wake up and realize that currently the majority of voters do not even the basis of the project. It can be good for them, maybe they want a project focuses on internal politics and UBI.
I don’t, I want PoH as the most successful Sybil resistant project.
With a fork, both factions can get what they want.
I’ll be meeting with Santi in Bogota to discuss on some details of the forks.
On my side I know what we did wrong:
Our side of the fork will fix those issues.
Thank you for sharing the info and updates! I hope your discussion with Santi goes well.
A good place to bring up the Network State. It’s interesting because I was then reminded of the discussion of Recentralization a few chapters later. Obviously far in the future from now, post-fork, in our case.
I definitely think a constitution from the earlier stages would have been great. We are an excellent data point for researchers on DAOs.
I for one voted against this proposal due to the proposed implementation (retroactive) - even though I support the principle. A new proposal, more concerned with the raised problems could probably pass.
Voted against it, because it’s not enforce’able in practice without high level of centralization. Replace any account founded from “puppeteer address” with coinbase or aztec / tornado and there is no on-chain proof. The only evidence is correlated behavior, like voting and the rest (DeFi activity, etc) can be faked anyway. This brings me to another argument, which is that it’s very dangerous - PNK holders (juries) can wipe out whole clusters of people who voted against them and claim they were “puppets” with no hard evidence.
Proof of Humanity is all about “humanity”. If there are willing people who will record a video of themselves and forgo UBI for $5 - there is nothing that the protocol can do about it. DAO should ensure that that it can protect itself from such governance attacks by activism or bootstrapping (temporary) board with veto powers, say until governance puppet attack is economically unfeasible (e.g. 1m registered humans?). Until then, it’s only LARPing, anyway.
It might also be a better idea to ensure that those people can wise up about it and avoid getting screwed, like adding something about “Proof Of Humanity” or “Universal Basic Income” into phrases they speak, so they can just google it, look up the prices and do the math themselves.
Forks are fine after capture occurs - it may have happened to you, but unfortunately for you, it’s a democratic one.
Ryan made a pol.is poll to see points of agreement and of divergence within the community.
I’d advise everyone to look at it as it is important as it could enlighten whether or groups are sufficiently apart for a fork to be worth it.
Hello PoH! Choosing our priorities is important. Our priorities will determine the direction we take.
Please participate today and let us know what YOU THINK PoH priorities should be.
What is important to you? TELL US!Please visit
https://pol.is/54m6pbpnyr
and make a note to keep checking in - we are going to run this experiment until 2022-10-31.Please react to this message if you have made your contribution. We’re hoping for at least 100 participants.
Thank you! The future of PoH and democracy depends on you!
X posting from the phase 1 HIP-48 thread, in my reply to Santi
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.
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.
Ok, this is just too much hostility. Perhaps a fork is possible if we force people to pick one protocol or the other initially. You should naturally be allowed to sign up on the other, but those who are most hostile would probably refrain from doing so.
it’s an interesting game theory scenario: will the hostile fork or the inclusive fork lead to more adoption?
i think we have to prepare ourselves for a world of multiple human attestations and multiple scoring algorithms.
having two different approaches will lead to more adoption overall! the inclusive vision will be executed without the burden of satisfying the people that care about stability and security.
the security/sybil-resistance-first people will be able to pursue their vision too, and that might attract more integrations that expect the registry to be sybil-proof.
we might not lose much with the network effects, because probably a lot of people will be interested in both forks.
the end game is creating a strong and plural sybil-resistance 