search

filecoin-project / notary-governance

113 stars 55 forks source link

Modification: Recommendation for removal of notaries for abusing Filecoin Plus #811

Closed raghavrmadya closed 3 weeks ago

raghavrmadya commented 1 year ago

Issue Description

Certain notaries have been found to have abused the Filecoin plus program by awarding DataCap without conducting thorough due diligence and raising flags for collusion

Impact

Proposed Solution(s)

Remove the following notaries from the Filecoin Plus program:

  1. ND Labs
  2. Newwebgroup
  3. Gate.io
  4. ipfscan
  5. STCloud
  6. Tom - Origin storage

Timeline

  1. Proposal discussed in Jan 17th, 2023 Governance calls.
  2. All notaries in question will pause signing completely
  3. Community Discussion until Jan 20th 2023 at 12 noon PST
  4. Action taken by RKH based on community consensus

Technical dependencies

RKH singing to remove notaries from multisig

End of POC checkpoint (if applicable)

Risks and mitigations

Related Issues

fillove commented 1 year ago

I hope that more people will use FIL, more people will buy FIL as a pledge, reduce circulation, and let FIL UP!

Finally, I express again that fairness is a must.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@fillove I respectfully disagree with the arguments presented above. I believe that the evidence and reasoning provided do not support the conclusions drawn.

DaYouGroup commented 1 year ago

From the perspective of fairness and justice, it is necessary to prove the relationship between the LDN client, SP, and notary. If clients and SPs can be detected and punished for doing evil, this should be undisputed, but the question now is how to prove the relationship between the notary and them, and whether the notary participated in the evil? Is there objective and convincing evidence? Or is there any way to detect it? Otherwise, if the notary signs it, he needs to bear the risk of the client or sp doing evil. This is a horrible joint mechanism. I think it is still necessary to deal with this issue calmly and objectively.

cryptowhizzard commented 1 year ago

From the perspective of fairness and justice, it is necessary to prove the relationship between the LDN client, SP, and notary. If clients and SPs can be detected and punished for doing evil, this should be undisputed, but the question now is how to prove the relationship between the notary and them, and whether the notary participated in the evil? Is there objective and convincing evidence? Or is there any way to detect it? Otherwise, if the notary signs it, he needs to bear the risk of the client or sp doing evil. This is a horrible joint mechanism. I think it is still necessary to deal with this issue calmly and objectively.

Read up. Both ndlabs and newwebgroup have been heavily involved in CID sharing ldn’s with their OWN applications. This is enough as is.

DaYouGroup commented 1 year ago

From the perspective of fairness and justice, it is necessary to prove the relationship between the LDN client, SP, and notary. If clients and SPs can be detected and punished for doing evil, this should be undisputed, but the question now is how to prove the relationship between the notary and them, and whether the notary participated in the evil? Is there objective and convincing evidence? Or is there any way to detect it? Otherwise, if the notary signs it, he needs to bear the risk of the client or sp doing evil. This is a horrible joint mechanism. I think it is still necessary to deal with this issue calmly and objectively.

Read up. Both ndlabs and newwebgroup have been heavily involved in CID sharing ldn’s with their OWN applications. This is enough as is.

The evidence seen so far shows that the sp seems to be deceiving the fil+ program, and the LDN applicant should bear direct responsibility for this. Can we prove that the notary was directly involved in this matter?

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@DaYouGroup We are set to unveil detailed evidence in the coming days, which will conclusively demonstrate the extent of the fraudulent activities perpetrated by a significant number of notaries. Our findings indicate that the scope extends far beyond a handful of questionable cases, as many of these notaries were found to have recklessly and indiscriminately signed dozens (if not hundreds) of applications without conducting any meaningful due diligence or fact-checking whatsoever.

Jefferson111 commented 1 year ago

@DaYouGroup We are set to unveil detailed evidence in the coming days, which will conclusively demonstrate the extent of the fraudulent activities perpetrated by a significant number of notaries. Our findings indicate that the scope extends far beyond a handful of questionable cases, as many of these notaries were found to have recklessly and indiscriminately signed dozens (if not hundreds) of applications without conducting any meaningful due diligence or fact-checking whatsoever.

I think @herrehesse that piece of evidence should be prepared before raising this issue. Raising the issue with only the VPN stuff as evidence just caused chaos.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@Jefferson111 It is my belief that this should have been addressed months ago and every day that goes by without a resolution is detrimental to the community. Although I did not initiate this dispute, the input from those accused and community members has been valuable in understanding all perspectives.

Let us continue the dialogue, provide evidence and facts, and demonstrate the correct course of action to each other.

Jefferson111 commented 1 year ago

@herrehesse While I definitely agree with you that these issues should be addressed months ago, the technology (and probably manpower too) wasn't ready yet at that time to discover the issues.

On the other hand, I disagree that this is the right approach, and that continuing the discussion here without proper reports, evidence and investigations with the suspects is not a good idea in my opinion. I'm not sure how long you have been in the Filecoin ecosystem or any other blockchain ecosystems, but I really do not recommend pointing fingers in order to unearth things.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@Jefferson111 It has been brought to my attention that some individuals believe that my approach to addressing fraud within the community is overly assertive and may elicit negative reactions from others.

I respectfully disagree with this perception.

I believe that we have become too inclusive in our efforts to combat fraud within the Filecoin+ program and the broader Filecoin ecosystem. It is incumbent upon me to voice my concerns regarding potential large-scale, multi-million dollar fraud publicly. Those who have been accused bear the burden of disproving these suspicions.

Jefferson111 commented 1 year ago

@herrehesse I do in fact agree with ur opinion. Raising concerns regarding potential large-scale, multi-million dollar fraud publicly does sound like it would do a better good for the community.

But not pointing fingers and accusing in my humble opinion. Specifically in this setting where there wasn't any definitive evidence raised for all the accused. I think that is just toxic internet behavior.

And in the case of this example, it would be more apt to say:

Here are some LDNs that we found which did XXX And here were the notaries, miners, etc involved XXX And we might have to suspend the notaries if investigations discover they are fraudulent

Rather than saying let's remove these few particular notaries.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

Define sufficient evidence. I believe we got a reasonable amount.

Jefferson111 commented 1 year ago

@herrehesse Please do correct me if I am wrong. All I see is one, which is the VPN thing, which I honestly don't even understand how it works, and there were a lot more notaries involved. And @cryptowhizzard provided some evidence for NDLabs CID sharing.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@Jefferson111 let’s discuss this on our next T&T call. Love to give you all the details!

As of the above dispute, it’s not opened by my and the statement is extremely clear:

Jefferson111 commented 1 year ago

@herrehesse Would definitely hop-in as usual if time permits, and listen to the details.

I understand, which is why I think we should come to a consensus that a better planned & structured issue should be raised rather than doing the arbitrary voting of notaries removal in this issue, when the statement is really only backed by the VPN stuff (and does not even have the right coverage of the notaries).

cryptowhizzard commented 1 year ago

@herrehesse Please do correct me if I am wrong. All I see is one, which is the VPN thing, which I honestly don't even understand how it works, and there were a lot more notaries involved. And @cryptowhizzard provided some evidence for NDLabs CID sharing.

Some?

Shall i give you an example then? -> #422

I Quote :

In order to confirm your participation as a Notary in the Fil+ ecosystem, please respond to the following:

Please confirm that the region of operation for client applications you will focus on is Greater China.



Please confirm each of the following items below (you can do this by quoting each of the following bullets and adding a line under each section agreeing that you'll abide by these operational principles).



• Upfront Disclosures: Prior to being confirmed as a Notary, Notaries are expected to disclose all relevant addresses which they control, have a financial stake in, or are strongly connected to by other means. For the disclosure, the Notary should state the relevant addresses and the nature of the relationship
.

• Promoting Client Best Practices: Notaries agree to educate approved clients about the best practices for using their DataCap (e.g. how to request additional services from miners, storing data redundantly across many miners, etc). Some reference information can be found here.


• Commitment to efficiently serving the Network: Notaries agree to serve as fiduciaries of the Network, striving to work towards bringing useful data onto Filecoin and improving the experience for clients to do so. Notaries should generally be able to respond to Client applications and updates within 3 days, and should be comfortable communicating with Clients and Notaries if an application needs to be redirected.


• No Self Dealing: To prevent conflicts of interest, Notaries should not allocate DataCap to Clients over which they control the private keys, or to a Client who intends to specifically spend the allocated DataCap with an address affiliated with the Notary. When in doubt, Notaries should bias towards transparency (i.e. public disclosure) or to getting a different Notary to handle the individual request.


• Operating in Good Faith: Notaries hold a position of trust in the network, and as such it is expected that they operate keeping the Principles of this mechanism in mind. While each form of abuse cannot be exhaustively defined, Notaries are expected to bias towards caution and act in a way that promotes transparency. Notaries should expect to potentially receive requests or questions for allocation decisions (within reason) - and should make decisions with this in mind.


• Community Governance Participation: It is expected that you will participate in the program 60 hours a week. Along with data allocation, participation in Github issues and Slack conversations, Notaries are to make an effort to regularly attend the scheduled Governance calls. As these calls are a forum to shape this process, it is important to ensure Notaries are present to provide their context, with discussions and input.


Again :

Operating in Good Faith: Notaries hold a position of trust in the network, and as such it is expected that they operate keeping the Principles of this mechanism in mind. While each form of abuse cannot be exhaustively defined, Notaries are expected to bias towards caution and act in a way that promotes transparency. Notaries should expect to potentially receive requests or questions for allocation decisions (within reason) - and should make decisions with this in mind.


Moreover, and i am looking into this now:

We have a system where 2 notary's perform due diligence independently. One proposes, second approves. However there are overlaps between notary's and their disclosures. It's Sunday evening here so i won't go into details, but if you check Github you can see that notary's share the same stakes ( STcloud / IPFS.CN f.e.) There were guaranties a while back where we brought this up and they confirmed they would not sign together as a group ( effectively killing the independency ) ... however if you check carefully you can see that ND-Labs / St-Cloud and IPFS.CN sign in the same application's. As they are 1 group they push this application through effectively and kill the second line of due diligence.

Jefferson111 commented 1 year ago

@cryptowhizzard My bad on the wording. The some I used here refers to the number of notaries included in ur evidence (out of the 6 in total), not the number of evidence u hav provided.

fillove commented 1 year ago

@herrehessecc 我还是希望宽容一些，但是如果大家这么苛刻，那我们就只创建一个新的提案，所有签了VPN的LDN的公证人，签了CID的公证人，还有疑似的勾结公证人被列出。我只是想表达公平，我不针对任何人。如果被删除，我认为所有签名的人都应该被删除。

但是，我还是要表达宽容、宽容、高瞻远瞩。只有团结才能让FIL尽快回到200U。

如果这是一个互相攻击、分裂的社区，FIL可能永远只能徘徊在5U。毕竟FIL的总量是20亿，太多了。

Why do you disagree with my point of view?

As a fair and just judge, everyone should be treated equally.

Strictly speaking, all notaries who have signed cid sharing, vpn, sp distribution unequal, etc., should be dismissed.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@fillove Everyone deserves a fair opportunity, as we are all human. However, the incidence of fraud in for LDN applications should be kept below 5%. Notaries who demonstrate a pattern of signing fraudulent LDN's should be disputed and may be removed from the program.

cryptowhizzard commented 1 year ago

815

NDLABS-Leo commented 1 year ago

Sorry for the late reply. I hope everyone on a good New Year and hope that the Filecoin will explode into a more prosperous ecology in the new year with FVM and the retrieval market. About the proposal #811, RG has mentioned “It appears that we are not looking at multiple locations, but rather one physical location with multiple VPNs being used to conceal the true location and comply with FIL+ regulations." so we instinctively understand that

  1. ND Labs
  2. Newwebgroup
  3. Gate.io
  4. ipfscan
  5. STCloud
  6. Tom - Origin storage The above notaries will be removed for their involvement in the review of these LDNs and for not following the guidelines of the Filecoin+ program. Also, @cryptowhizzard mentioned that "I have not read other comments then "We are supportive" , "Everything looks beautifull", "Willing to support" but not once a comment of doubt and that you were withholding on signing." PLEASE show me the evidence. Which are the signatures made by abusing the Datacap without following the guidelines of Fil+? When ND is reviewing LDNs, it will mainly bass on the following rules:

The following screenshot is the supporting evidence.

回复04 回复03 回复02 回复01

In addition, the discussion has been on the rise recently, and it is no longer a matter of a few notaries or a few LDNs. In addition to the issues that have been mentioned above, these are the issues that we need to think about for the Fil+ community.

  1. how to deal with inactive notaries? the community requires notaries to be active, but there is no consensus on the norms of the audit, but if the audit is not satisfy for someone and is considered to be an abuse. How to define the audit of notaries?
  2. Not all notaries are capable of meeting the standard (e.g. retrieval, invest a lot of time to check whether there are VPN problems with multiple LDNs), is there a clear rule for notaries to handle the problem?
  3. whether it is reasonable that RKH is currently passing LDN applications in large volumes and all the review work needs to be undertaken by notaries?
  4. In the case of more and more people participating, is it necessary to develop more comprehensive tools to help notaries conduct a unified review? Instead of denying the work results of people with less technical ability without perfect tools.
  5. Incentive for notaries. If there is only punishment but no reward, how to incentivize those who are good notaries?
  6. Due to the discussion of this proposal, the number of signatures and data onboarding speed have been greatly reduced. Is this a good cycle?
  7. There are hundres of Github application has been locked, but if you look back to view the past, there are still a large number of LDNs that also have cid sharing issues, how are these LDNs handled? If notaries who have signed these LDNs are removed, does that mean that active notaries will all be punished?
cryptowhizzard commented 1 year ago

As a result of the T&T i want to link the latest Google doc.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qSWH4lSv8nOvKRNrrC-4p0W7E9hVh5YO0gLEjfcNizI/edit#gid=0

Summary:

It has all the LDN's who have stored data non compliant with FIL+ (CID Sharing). Other data was stored then the applicant stated in his LDN application, mostly CID sharing and just data without any value.

It has an overview of 3 notary's belonging in one organisation ( Stcloud / IPFS.CN / ZiZi-Defil ). By beeing one organization they should refrain of signing multiple persons in one LDN as it overthrows the system of security and independent notary's. I don't need to submit proof as they did themself when they signed up as round 4 notary. They provided their stakes in their SP's and the SP's they share.

It has one notary who self-signed on 16 VPN LDN's. The company Origin storage is a full subsidy of Chainup. Chainup owns miners in the LDN signed in Red by Origin storage.

It has 2 notary's ( Ndlabs / Newwebgroup ) with their own LDN who have stored data non compliant. Other data was stored in contrary to what the applicant stated in his LDN application, mostly CID sharing and just data without value.

NDLABS-Leo commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/1529

  1. Why did you sign this latest signed ldn without any questions?

  2. Is it reasonable to require LDN to make a form submission and pay for it? @raghavrmadya image image

  3. Why don't you list the signatures of the notaries you are responsible for in your form?

Jefferson111 commented 1 year ago

@cryptowhizzard I took a brief look, but I don't see Gate.io in the investigation? image

And I think the count is probably incorrect (I did some simple math based on the LDN rules; minimum 4 notaries required per LDN, it doesn't even add up correctly), maybe the web scraper didn't expand these fields in the LDNs or there's something wrong with the on-chain metrics crawling? There are at least a few hundred to a few thousand counts of notary infringements not being included. image

Would like to be objective as possible before making any claims

flyworker commented 1 year ago

As a result of the T&T i want to link the latest Google doc.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qSWH4lSv8nOvKRNrrC-4p0W7E9hVh5YO0gLEjfcNizI/edit#gid=0

Summary:

It has all the LDN's who have stored data non compliant with FIL+ (CID Sharing). Other data was stored then the applicant stated in his LDN application, mostly CID sharing and just data without any value.

It has an overview of 3 notary's belonging in one organisation ( Stcloud / IPFS.CN / ZiZi-Defil ). By beeing one organization they should refrain of signing multiple persons in one LDN as it overthrows the system of security and independent notary's. I don't need to submit proof as they did themself when they signed up as round 4 notary. They provided their stakes in their SP's and the SP's they share.

It has one notary who self-signed on 16 VPN LDN's. The company Origin storage is a full subsidy of Chainup. Chainup owns miners in the LDN signed in Red by Origin storage.

It has 2 notary's ( Ndlabs / Newwebgroup ) with their own LDN who have stored data non compliant. Other data was stored in contrary to what the applicant stated in his LDN application, mostly CID sharing and just data without value.

I have to say the form very clearly revealed the relationships between the notaries and the SP ownership according to my knowledge.

I have been watching the debate for days and decided to speak out.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@Jefferson111 There are at least a few hundred to a few thousand counts of notary infringements not being included.

This is completely accurate, it’s only V1 of our research. We have more documents coming on different subjects. This doc only looks at CID sharing without explanation.

cryptowhizzard commented 1 year ago

filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1529

  1. Why did you sign this latest signed ldn without any questions?
  2. Is it reasonable to require LDN to make a form submission and pay for it? @raghavrmadya image image
  3. Why don't you list the signatures of the notaries you are responsible for in your form?

Hello,

  1. Sorry. We did our due diligence a while ago as Nebula / FilSwan is a respected community member and also known in the community and has a good track record. I left that as a comment in their LDN.
  2. I adjusted the text. "Dcent may ask for $2.49. This costs are 1 on 1 the costs of veriff.com. You can check yourself on their website.
  3. In the next hours/days we plan to contact more notary's who want to join us for KYC purpose. It is solely meant to make the onboarding proces more efficient. There are 360 tickets open on our dashboard to proces. Outsourcing KYC eliminates risks of abuse and saves us time to serve potential interested clients to get going with FIL+ faster.
  4. In the T&T call of yesterday i discussed this. If we perform faster KYC and get a grip on the SP's of first allocations (The SP's a client intends to use it is much more easy to make a rational, carefully considered decision)
Tom-zhang987 commented 1 year ago

As a result of the T&T i want to link the latest Google doc.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qSWH4lSv8nOvKRNrrC-4p0W7E9hVh5YO0gLEjfcNizI/edit#gid=0

Summary:

It has all the LDN's who have stored data non compliant with FIL+ (CID Sharing). Other data was stored then the applicant stated in his LDN application, mostly CID sharing and just data without any value.

It has an overview of 3 notary's belonging in one organisation ( Stcloud / IPFS.CN / ZiZi-Defil ). By beeing one organization they should refrain of signing multiple persons in one LDN as it overthrows the system of security and independent notary's. I don't need to submit proof as they did themself when they signed up as round 4 notary. They provided their stakes in their SP's and the SP's they share.

It has one notary who self-signed on 16 VPN LDN's. The company Origin storage is a full subsidy of Chainup. Chainup owns miners in the LDN signed in Red by Origin storage.

It has 2 notary's ( Ndlabs / Newwebgroup ) with their own LDN who have stored data non compliant. Other data was stored in contrary to what the applicant stated in his LDN application, mostly CID sharing and just data without value.

@cryptowhizzard

1: Is the VPN problem confirmed? If you can't, please don't jump to conclusions.

2: Is the result of this form completely correct? Why do I see a lot of data missing, give an example #628 form shows only 1 notary signature, but actually 8 notaries signed it.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@Tom-zhang987 The onus of providing evidence falls on the accused, and it is not possible to definitively (100%) confirm the use of a VPN from the outside.

Taking you back to the Slack thread about this issue: https://filecoinproject.slack.com/archives/C01DLAPKDGX/p1674482967857869

Why were none of the following questions considered, raised, or addressed:

Tom-zhang987 commented 1 year ago

filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1529

  1. Why did you sign this latest signed ldn without any questions?
  2. Is it reasonable to require LDN to make a form submission and pay for it? @raghavrmadya image image
  3. Why don't you list the signatures of the notaries you are responsible for in your form?

Hello,

  1. Sorry. We did our due diligence a while ago as Nebula / FilSwan is a respected community member and also known in the community and has a good track record. I left that as a comment in their LDN.
  2. I adjusted the text. "Dcent may ask for $2.49. This costs are 1 on 1 the costs of veriff.com. You can check yourself on their website.
  3. In the next hours/days we plan to contact more notary's who want to join us for KYC purpose. It is solely meant to make the onboarding proces more efficient. There are 360 tickets open on our dashboard to proces. Outsourcing KYC eliminates risks of abuse and saves us time to serve potential interested clients to get going with FIL+ faster.
  4. In the T&T call of yesterday i discussed this. If we perform faster KYC and get a grip on the SP's of first allocations (The SP's a client intends to use it is much more easy to make a rational, carefully considered decision)

Is this statement reasonable?

Does it comply with the FIL+ due diligence specification?

If it is reasonable, then can all notaries be said to do offline investigations afterwards?

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@Tom-zhang987 The information in the sheet is accurate, but not exhaustive. We are constantly updating it, dedicating hours of our time, at no cost, for the benefit of the community.

This task should have been handled by the accused notaries. We welcome assistance from others, if you would like to contribute, please copy our sheet and fill in the missing notary information. The more people working on this, the better it will be. There are still thousands of unprocessed applications.

It's important to note that as we continue to add data, the situation for most entities will become increasingly unfavorable.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@Tom-zhang987 Is this statement reasonable? If those seeking to have their data stored, whether for free or at a negative cost, want to be considered, they should meet high standards of Know Your Customer (KYC) and transparency. This is a reasonable request from the community.

Does it comply with the FIL+ due diligence specification? There is no clear due diligence specification, working on that here: https://github.com/filecoin-project/notary-governance/issues/813

If it is reasonable, then can all notaries be said to do offline investigations afterwards? Notaries can make any claims they wish, as long as they can provide evidence to support them and make it available for the community to view on Slack or GitHub.

Tom-zhang987 commented 1 year ago

@Tom-zhang987 The onus of providing evidence falls on the accused, and it is not possible to definitively (100%) confirm the use of a VPN from the outside.

Taking you back to the Slack thread about this issue: https://filecoinproject.slack.com/archives/C01DLAPKDGX/p1674482967857869

Why were none of the following questions considered, raised, or addressed:

  • The ownership and control of these miners remains uncertain and unverified.
  • The reasons behind the sequential nature of the addresses used by these miners are unclear.
  • The similarity in growth patterns exhibited by these miners raises questions.
  • The allocation of the full datacap of numerous applications to these miners is worthy of investigation.
  • The recent creation of GitHub accounts associated with these applications raises questions.
  • The prevalence of fraudulent, fabricated or inadequately vetted applications, all of which are signed by the same notaries, raises questions.
  • The poor or inaccessibility of these miners is concerning.
  • The apparent inability to retrieve data from these miners is a significant issue that requires attention.

@herrehesse I think what you said is only the last one is a problem, it needs to be solved, the rest are not a problem, besides, the growth rate is hardly a problem, right? You should know the encapsulation logic of File+ best. If it is the same LDN, in order to meet the requirements, it basically needs to be encapsulated at almost the same speed in different regions. We don’t understand why these questions will be regarded as suspects?

Tom-zhang987 commented 1 year ago

@Tom-zhang987 The information in the sheet is accurate, but not exhaustive. We are constantly updating it, dedicating hours of our time, at no cost, for the benefit of the community.

This task should have been handled by the accused notaries. We welcome assistance from others, if you would like to contribute, please copy our sheet and fill in the missing notary information. The more people working on this, the better it will be. There are still thousands of unprocessed applications.

It's important to note that as we continue to add data, the situation for most entities will become increasingly unfavorable. it is not incomplete but wrong. A wrong data has no reference value. It is harmful to the community and will lead the community in the wrong direction. We can gradually increase the data integrity, but we need to ensure the correctness of the data in the dimension of LDN

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

The data is wrong? Give me an example.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@Tom-OriginStorage

I am unsure as to why you keep providing evasive responses about the potential abuse of VPNs by miners. Your personal views on the matter do not affect me, but as a member of the community, I seek answers to the questions that have been posed. Can you provide any answers or clarification?

It has been revealed that a complex web of deception exists and these miner IDs are entangled in it. If the owner is willing to come forward and provide the community with answers to our questions, we will proceed accordingly. If not, we will assume that abuse has occurred.

Regardless of the suspicions and issues at hand, these miners are mostly filled with data that cannot be recovered. This is detrimental to all entities that strive to be transparent and store valuable information. We will no longer tolerate this behavior from anyone.

Tom-zhang987 commented 1 year ago

The data is wrong? Give me an example.

https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/628

Tom-zhang987 commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/1440

This is the project I applied for. I know that the first 5 SPs of this LDN really exist in their area. I also stated my doubts above. I will still contact the SP to confirm later, because it is not an institution.

claydrone commented 1 year ago

filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1529

  1. Why did you sign this latest signed ldn without any questions?
  2. Is it reasonable to require LDN to make a form submission and pay for it? @raghavrmadya image image
  3. Why don't you list the signatures of the notaries you are responsible for in your form?

Hello,

  1. Sorry. We did our due diligence a while ago as Nebula / FilSwan is a respected community member and also known in the community and has a good track record. I left that as a comment in their LDN.
  2. I adjusted the text. "Dcent may ask for $2.49. This costs are 1 on 1 the costs of veriff.com. You can check yourself on their website.
  3. In the next hours/days we plan to contact more notary's who want to join us for KYC purpose. It is solely meant to make the onboarding proces more efficient. There are 360 tickets open on our dashboard to proces. Outsourcing KYC eliminates risks of abuse and saves us time to serve potential interested clients to get going with FIL+ faster.
  4. In the T&T call of yesterday i discussed this. If we perform faster KYC and get a grip on the SP's of first allocations (The SP's a client intends to use it is much more easy to make a rational, carefully considered decision)

Is this statement reasonable?

Does it comply with the FIL+ due diligence specification?

If it is reasonable, then can all notaries be said to do offline investigations afterwards?

Nebula block is a long-term participant in the community, even before origin storage joins the filecoin slingshot, we have supported Starling, Estuary, from slingshot v1 to v2.8. They are also worked in SPX program back to 2021.

Boqian is also an active community member and assists lots of ecosystem projects like Filmine and Estuary doing integration testing work.

For nebula block related information you can find it here.

Some notaries already know us for a long time, so they do not ask questions in the thread, but that does not mean no due diligence has been done.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@Tom-zhang987

It is evident that this entity is attempting to conceal their actions, as they have taken steps to restrict our access to these endpoints. We are not naive, and we expect to see concrete evidence to support any claims of legitimacy. If you assert that the first 5 SPs of this LDN truly exist in their designated area, please provide tangible proof to back up your assertion.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@claydrone Being a recognized member of the community or having a long-standing presence does not automatically grant trust. Everyone, regardless of their status, is capable of making errors or engaging in fraudulent activity, whether intentional or not. It is crucial that we work together to ensure transparency and fairness for all members of the community.

claydrone commented 1 year ago

@claydrone Being a recognized member of the community or having a long-standing presence does not automatically grant trust. Everyone, regardless of their status, is capable of making errors or engaging in fraudulent activity, whether intentional or not. It is crucial that we work together to ensure transparency and fairness for all members of the community.

Yes, I don't mind if anyone wants us to provide material or follow any process for transparency. We fully support the fil+ rule.

Tom-zhang987 commented 1 year ago

I found a lot of LDNs that share CIDs, let's round it up, don't know why the table skipped those LDNs, I'll keep looking

https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/77

image

https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/339

image

https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/403

image
herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@claydrone very happy to hear that! @Tom-zhang987 You have made it very clear that you do not want to answer my questions. Thank you. Please keep looking at CID examples where the applicant have made a clear statement and explanation of why it happend.

What you are now doing is called gas-lighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting. Please stop with this behaviour and stick to the topic discussed.

claydrone commented 1 year ago

@NDLABS-OFFICE is also doing the gas-lighting trying to pull us into the water. Sorry ND Labs, you just make yourself looks more suspicious.

You should answer your own problems instead point to us, saying:" hey why you don't check nebula block." it does not help to solve your issue, only make you look like trying to avoid answering something.

It is also not wise a set a person who is not on your opposite now start watching your behaviour. You should do your own homework.

Tom-zhang987 commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/293

@Tom-zhang987

It is evident that this entity is attempting to conceal their actions, as they have taken steps to restrict our access to these endpoints. We are not naive, and we expect to see concrete evidence to support any claims of legitimacy. If you assert that the first 5 SPs of this LDN truly exist in their designated area, please provide tangible proof to back up your assertion.

What kind of evidence do you need, and who should this evidence be provided to? how? I've made it clear above that I can confirm the first 5.

Tom-zhang987 commented 1 year ago

@claydrone very happy to hear that! @Tom-zhang987 You have made it very clear that you do not want to answer my questions. Thank you. Please keep looking at CID examples where the applicant have made a clear statement and explanation of why it happend.

What you are now doing is called gas-lighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting. Please stop with this behaviour and stick to the topic discussed.

@claydrone very happy to hear that! @Tom-zhang987 You have made it very clear that you do not want to answer my questions. Thank you. Please keep looking at CID examples where the applicant have made a clear statement and explanation of why it happend.

What you are now doing is called gas-lighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting. Please stop with this behaviour and stick to the topic discussed.

Why stop, isn't it problematic?

Tom-zhang987 commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/335

image
Jefferson111 commented 1 year ago

@Jefferson111 There are at least a few hundred to a few thousand counts of notary infringements not being included.

This is completely accurate, it’s only V1 of our research. We have more documents coming on different subjects. This doc only looks at CID sharing without explanation.

Glad to know. Took a brief look at the LDNs, I would say the current V1 research really only scratches the tip of the iceberg and insufficient to claim culpability on all the notaries accused in this particular Github issue. Will have to wait for the complete picture before giving further comments.

I really still suggest to halt this issue and do a separate one when the evidence and research are ready.

herrehesse commented 1 year ago

@Tom-zhang987 I kindly request that you cease attempting to manipulate the situation. The applications in question are duplicates due to the fact that the datasets are identical, which results in identical CIDs, as confirmed by the CID reporter. The packing and distribution labor has been done by both @cryptowhizzard as @xinaxu.

I respectfully request that you provide evidence, as you have claimed "I've made it clear above that I can confirm the first 5" on these questions: