aragon / whitepaper

An opt-in digital jurisdiction for DAOs and sovereign individuals
https://aragon.org/network
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
111 stars 25 forks source link

A few questions #28

Open yeqbfgxjiq opened 5 years ago

yeqbfgxjiq commented 5 years ago

Overall the paper made a lot of sense. I think the Court will help to balance out the human aspect in DAOs and this will make them able to help with many more problems that code alone could not. I had a few questions though:


In the Juror Drafting section it says:

Juror drafting is managed via a process of stake-weighted sortition. In order to manage the sortition process efficiently, all of the court's operations are scheduled into Terms. Terms are defined in seconds and cannot be changed after the Court has been initialized. Terms are transitioned by calling a public heartbeat function which is used to make updates to active juror stakes from the preceding term and generate a new random seed for use during the subsequent term. A portion of the courts fees are used to compensate the caller of the heartbeat for gas usage.

How is this random seed generated in a way that is verifiably random?

For each dispute or appeal we have a number of available juror slots that must be filled. Each slot can be thought of as a seat on the jury. A single juror can occupy multiple seats, but each seat is associated with an equal portion of their stake, which is committed and locked until the dispute is fully resolved.

When it says that a juror can occupy multiple seats, does that mean multiple seats in the same jury of the same case or multiple seats but in separate juries for separate cases. Since jurors are chosen via randomized process, this was not clear.


In the Appeals section it says:

Appeals can be triggered after a dispute has been resolved with a preliminary ruling in favor of one outcome or the other. In order for an appeal to occur both sides of the dispute must deposit additional collateral. If neither side deposits the required collateral to trigger the next appeal round, the preliminary ruling is finalized. If only one side deposits the required collateral the ruling is immediately finalized in their favor. If both sides deposit the required collateral then the appeal round is scheduled.

What if someone is in a dispute with a whale? The whale can easily extend the process to the highest court, but the average ANT holder might not have the collateral for those fees. This would result in the whale winning by default even if they are in the wrong. Is there a defense against this?


In the Final Ruling section it says:

After a final ruling has been decided, all the adjudication rounds in the dispute can be settled. Jurors that didn't vote for the final ruling will lose the tokens that they had at stake. All the aggregated penalties and the juror fees in a round will be distributed proportionally among the jurors that voted for the final ruling option.

Can new evidence be submitted when a dispute is raised to a higher court, or is the evidence submitted at the beginning of the process all that is allowed?

Here's a few thoughts on that:

How do you defend against this?

bingen commented 5 years ago

How is this random seed generated in a way that is verifiably random?

For every term the initial blocknumber hash is used as a source of entropy:

draftTerm.randomness = block.blockhash(draftTerm.randomnessBN);

When it says that a juror can occupy multiple seats, does that mean multiple seats in the same jury of the same case or multiple seats but in separate juries for separate cases

A juror can occupy multiple seats in the same case and in the same appeal round (so, in the same jury, yes).

What if someone is in a dispute with a whale? (...) Is there a defense against this?

I would let @lkngtn or @izqui elaborate more on this, but the collateral could be crowsourced. People would have economic incentive on helping "the poor" here if they think he's right, as they could make money winning the case. We may actually provide a Contract to allow managing this crwodfunding easily.

Can new evidence be submitted when a dispute is raised to a higher court, or is the evidence submitted at the beginning of the process all that is allowed? (...)

Interesting. Not sure about it. What would be the benefit of poorly presenting evidence in first rounds though?

yeqbfgxjiq commented 5 years ago

Can new evidence be submitted when a dispute is raised to a higher court, or is the evidence submitted at the beginning of the process all that is allowed? (...)

Interesting. Not sure about it. What would be the benefit of poorly presenting evidence in first rounds though?

Time.

Any of these scenarios, and more that aren't listed, could change a case dramatically. If jurors in a lower and earlier court make a ruling based on 1 set of data, but then new data emerges in subsequent courts (within the game of the Aragon Court, or out of band via social media), it would make sense that the rulings could be different. Punishing the earlier jurors seems like a poor way to handle this. What other options are available?