Modification: Recommendation for removal of notaries for abusing Filecoin Plus

[raghavrmadya]

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

[herrehesse]

@fillove Please stop gaslighting. This behavior is very damaging to the real discussion. And your intentions are clear.

[Chris00618]

@herrehesse Please be quiet, if you don't want to explain carefully. In fact, I'm also curious.

A few days ago, I exposed the case of @ kernelogic illegally sharing CID (COVID-19, Fly brain, NASA, SS recovery, Unknown dataset) on Slack. The reason why Yanfei was exposed was that he is an active notary, a postive eco-builder and a famous LDN applicant, and he's also the close partner of Dcent (they had many cooperation nodes and multi-signed with each other). But my simple investigation showed that his application was clearly proved to be fraudulent. https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/457

In fact, there are more active members (including Filswan、Dcent、PikNik...) who have similar CID sharing and other multi-sign violation cases. They are all deliberately ignored by Dcent , but notaries from the East are repeatedly challenged and harassed by them. This is really worth our reflection. https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/278 https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/414 https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/432

Can these applicants with fraud experience be given a new opportunity to obtain more data caps? This is the topic of discussion that we will reach consensus. But at least, I believe that community members from the East should not be discriminated against, even though they may not have close relationship with Dcent.

In addition, I want to tell everyone clearly that sharing the public dataset CIDs of Covid-19 and NASA is essentially the same as sharing the public dataset of Tencent and Baidu. It is a kind of noncompliant fraud method that SP hopes to save the cost of data transmission. Don't think the former is tolerable, and the latter is unforgivable.

[cryptowhizzard]

@herrehesse Please be quiet, if you don't want to explain carefully. In fact, I'm also curious.

A few days ago, I exposed the case of @ kernelogic illegally sharing CID (COVID-19, Fly brain, NASA, SS recovery, Unknown dataset) on Slack. The reason why Yanfei was exposed was that he is an active notary, a postive eco-builder and a famous LDN applicant, and he's also the close partner of Dcent (they had many cooperation nodes and multi-signed with each other). But my simple investigation showed that his application was clearly proved to be fraudulent. filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#457

In fact, there are more active members (including Filswan、Dcent、PikNik...) who have similar CID sharing and other multi-sign violation cases. They are all deliberately ignored by Dcent , but notaries from the East are repeatedly challenged and harassed by them. This is really worth our reflection. filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#278 filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#414 filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#432

Can these applicants with fraud experience be given a new opportunity to obtain more data caps? This is the topic of discussion that we will reach consensus. But at least, I believe that community members from the East should not be discriminated against, even though they may not have close relationship with Dcent.

In addition, I want to tell everyone clearly that sharing the public dataset CIDs of Covid-19 and NASA is essentially the same as sharing the public dataset of Tencent and Baidu. It is a kind of noncompliant fraud method that SP hopes to save the cost of data transmission. Don't think the former is tolerable, and the latter is unforgivable.

Everything has been said that had to be said. Your gaslighting doesn’t add anything valueable to this discussion anymore. We are moving on and make the Filecoin space better. Didn’t you get that memo?

For those who want to ruin their future reputation, by all means, go on and don’t apologise.

[fillove]

Sorry, I have to refute.

wow， you are so funny hahahaha Once someone doubts you, you use gaslighting.

Can gaslighting explain everything, including CID sharing up to 3.5P? Including cascading notaries to cheat?

If possible, please all notaries learn from you, all explanations only say one word: gaslighting.

[fillove]

[fillove]

[fillove]

[fillove]

The evidence is conclusive, speak with facts: s0nik42 signed more than 12imes, MegTei signed more than 9 times, flyworker signed more than4 times, Reiers signed more than 11 times,

[fillove]

@raghavrmadya

[sklay]

My personal thoughts would be to re-trial them individually based on the offences committed. As one of the outcome of the discussions, all of us agree that there is a mismatch in the misconduct and notaries in this current issue. As such it would not be appropriate to apply the same form of penalty to all the notaries. And also at the same time, there would be time to round up all the other notaries who were omitted from this issue and apply the corresponding penalty.

If not, like @cryptowhizzard has mentioned and also alluded in issue #816, there is a good chance we have the new ones doing the same old things all over again.

My personal thoughts would be to re-trial them individually based on the offences committed. As one of the outcome of the discussions, all of us agree that there is a mismatch in the misconduct and notaries in this current issue. As such it would not be appropriate to apply the same form of penalty to all the notaries. And also at the same time, there would be time to round up all the other notaries who were omitted from this issue and apply the corresponding penalty.

If not, like @cryptowhizzard has mentioned and also alluded in issue #816, there is a good chance we have the new ones doing the same old things all over again.

I totally agree with your statement, you can't just emphasize punishment, this kind of malicious attack is not conducive to the development of ecology

[jamerduhgamer]

@Chris00618, not sure why you mentioned PiKNiK in this. https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/414 - has no CID sharing

and https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/432 - this dataset has been taken by other clients. PiKNiK was the original data owner of this dataset for the Slingshot V2 event.

@fillove, there is no limit to how many times a notary can sign a LDN especially if it is a public dataset which NASA NEX is public on AWS.

[NDLABS-Leo]

ND doesn't want to attack anyone, but the community needs free speech too. @claydrone

[Chris00618]

@jamerduhgamer Don't tell me FilSwan misused your PikNik's dataset for the other totally different applications without your authorization. If unlucky it's true, how are you going to challenge them? Why did your two partners(Cryptowhizzard & Kernelogic) sign your application THREE consecutive times in violation of the regulations?

[Tom-OriginStorage]

Origin Storage last 15 signed LDN Cases.docx

@raghavrmadya

[cryptowhizzard]

Hello @Chris00618

It seems to still lack the technical knowledge for understanding what is going on. That is a bit unfortunate because this lack keeps you repeating the same faulty logic over and over again.

Anyway , i will explain in clear language:

It is simply because of the way things work.

If Piknik has finished dataset building they can distribute it through their own LDN wallet or / and they can distribute that same set through the FILSwan platform that is build especially for this. When you distribute the same data with FilSwan the logical outcome is that you have CID sharing between the 2 wallets.

[stcloudlisa]

15 LDNs recently signed by STCould：https://docs.qq.com/doc/DWHdidWVYUWF4bGZm

[NDLABS-Leo]

Hello @raghavrmadya appendix is ND LABS latest 15 signature record disclosures: ND Signature Record.xlsx

[flyworker]

@herrehesse Please be quiet, if you don't want to explain carefully. In fact, I'm also curious.

A few days ago, I exposed the case of @ kernelogic illegally sharing CID (COVID-19, Fly brain, NASA, SS recovery, Unknown dataset) on Slack. The reason why Yanfei was exposed was that he is an active notary, a postive eco-builder and a famous LDN applicant, and he's also the close partner of Dcent (they had many cooperation nodes and multi-signed with each other). But my simple investigation showed that his application was clearly proved to be fraudulent. filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#457

In fact, there are more active members (including Filswan、Dcent、PikNik...) who have similar CID sharing and other multi-sign violation cases. They are all deliberately ignored by Dcent , but notaries from the East are repeatedly challenged and harassed by them. This is really worth our reflection. filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#278 filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#414 filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#432

Can these applicants with fraud experience be given a new opportunity to obtain more data caps? This is the topic of discussion that we will reach consensus. But at least, I believe that community members from the East should not be discriminated against, even though they may not have close relationship with Dcent.

In addition, I want to tell everyone clearly that sharing the public dataset CIDs of Covid-19 and NASA is essentially the same as sharing the public dataset of Tencent and Baidu. It is a kind of noncompliant fraud method that SP hopes to save the cost of data transmission. Don't think the former is tolerable, and the latter is unforgivable. I don't know what you are talking about. FilSwan get the dataset created in Oct 29, 2021, and our data server is running even before that.

FilSwan has been transferred more than 23,097,864.35 GiB in the past year through our communities network. We opened our data downloading servers with all the dataset we have for community use, and we did not charge for the bandwidth. We have spend over 100K USD on bandwidth last year to support the community.

Whatever your purpose it is to point at us, I don't give a shit. Opening a newly registered account and trying to cause confusion in the community is ugly.

We have more important stuff needs to do in the community, and I'm sorry I don't have time to join your ugly play.

[flyworker]

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

As I am tired of the argument, I support removing those notaries.

[herrehesse]

@flyworker full support.

[newwebgroup]

Hey RG@raghavrmadya NewWebGroup's last 15 LDN signings

[cryptowhizzard]

15 LDNs recently signed by STCould：https://docs.qq.com/doc/DWHdidWVYUWF4bGZm

Hello,

Reading this explanation i have the following questions:

30 november : Firstly, I signed 1 for #1155 for the reason that the project is under FIL-E and kevin-z has reviewed and indicated that the client has passed the detailed KYB certification. Second, I signed once for each of Feiyan's 6 large datasets

1507, ( 1 january )

1508, ( 1 january )

1351, ( 3 january )

1352, ( 3 january )

1105, ( 3 january )

1108, ( 3 january )

for the following reasons: Feiyan is a respected community member, the official Filecoin blog has a special article about Feiyan's constructive comments on both slack and GitHub. The number of sp's they work with is basically 1- as well as more, with each sp accounting for basically no more than 15%. I signed 1 for 1444 ( 9 january ) Venus is one of the core four protocols of FIlecoin, which started building a long time ago, and the amount of data is rich and respected community members, I gave my support. Then, I have 4 LDNs that are signed for the first time. I believe that the first signature, first, is a reflection of the trust given to the client, and second, if after the first round of signatures, the client is non-compliant with the rules, then I will no longer sign for the client.

I signed for #963 because, the total amount of the client's application 1.5P is more reasonable, and the client sent the domain email to verify the identity.

This is lacking self reflection. A —> #963 shows no trace of signing by you. Second, at 22 december it was already know that the SP’s visible of this client were all involved in CID sharing.

For #1208, the customer was established in 2012, more than 10 years old, better qualification, sent domain email.

Signed on 14th of december, The client gave his SP’s. Some are not reachable at all everything is on one location with no geo spread, no questions asked.

1308, the client provided 6 SPs and sent domain emails, provided more data cases, the client voluntarily gave more information to add after simon passed the application, I think it is a more sincere client.

All miners are unreachable. Most of them even don’t have an IP adres set. Not according to the FIL+ rules where miners should be reachable.

lotus net connect f0119336 f0119336 -> {12D3KooWCEQx7H6jv9WYw6zZJy2gr8JuXFBwxGp1Lv2YKLp27pgG: [/ip4/192.168.160.162/tcp/34567]} ERROR: failed to parse multiaddr "f0119336": must begin with / lotus net connect f01694564 f01694564 -> {12D3KooWNbLknJBaGFUCvgyqBvxSGvzhHY3ErEsaC11iKamEKMfp: []} ERROR: failed to parse multiaddr "f01694564": must begin with / lotus net connect f01482290 f01482290 -> {12D3KooWQH8nnW8jM6C5nd8ZGdscqJQSccmRyWpMtgnxysnpgufM: [/ip4/199.182.234.194/tcp/34907]} ERROR: failed to parse multiaddr "f01482290": must begin with / lotus net connect f0723722 f0723722 -> {12D3KooWLik7pXhAJLkkC97FUejj3aZmLPCk5XMzCmPukYfXFefV: [/ip4/71.167.152.39/tcp/24001]} ERROR: failed to parse multiaddr "f0723722": must begin with / telnet 71.167.152.39 24001 Trying 71.167.152.39... ^C lotus net connect f0840770 f0840770 -> {12D3KooWMPy9jK8HrVsryuSTDmSyCpNdhkcyiaQ3T7FXkxq6ibyC: [/ip4/206.123.144.236/tcp/24002]} ERROR: failed to parse multiaddr "f0840770": must begin with / telnet 206.123.144.236 24002 Trying 206.123.144.236... ^C

1220: cryptowhizzard did the due diligence and the client sent the domain email on Dec 22nd. Over the next 20 days, the client aitted many people on GitHub, but there was never a notary to sign for the client. So I left a message willing to support the client for the first time and said that I would never support him again if there was a violation.

The problem here is that you signed together with IPFS.CN. As you are both from one organisation ( You hold the same stake in miners according to your notary application ) this should not have been done.

Finally, for each of the following 4 LDNs, I signed once for the following reasons.

1085: 1 time, bot check is normal, SP assignment is reasonable, and CID looks healthy.

Same as in 1220. The problem here is that you signed together with IPFS.CN. As you are both from one organisation ( You hold the same stake in miners according to your notary application ) this should not have been done. Secondly there were enough flags visible by that time that things were not right.

1205: 1 time, bot checks all right, 10 sp's contacted, which is decentralized enough, no CID sharing.

No, it was not decentralized. As it was clear most of these were SP ID's were on Zenlayer. There was no duedilligence done who these SP id’s belong to, because if it was done it would be clear that most belong to Tom ( Orgin storage - subsidy of Chainup ) who co-signed on this application.

1002: 1 time, the client gave a very detailed explanation on GitHub and contacted me on slack

By this time the CID report was already in use. All the miners used by this client were involved in CID sharing. No actions were taken to get this LDN on the right path and ask the client to provide a new set of SP’s who were of good reputation.

1214: 1 time, 1214 is a continuation of 541, 541 was scrutinized, the amount applied for was only 1.5P, but the customer provided almost 1T data cases, the number of data cases provided was excellent.

1214 has LDN sharing and so does 541. You state that the client has rectified that, but you don’t state how / where / when and why. CID sharing is no mistake if someone does not store the data as he promised in his LDN request.

[cryptowhizzard]

Origin Storage last 15 signed LDN Cases.docx

@raghavrmadya

Hello Tom,

Apart from what you provide there is still an issue with origin storage / chainup.

I provided the community (and you) a Google spreadsheet. In this spreadsheet we have a lot of VPN's documented and on a lot of them most of the miners / SPid's belong to chainup and you are tight to that organization as origin storage is a subsidy of chainup.

It is clear that you signed on most on them. Are you going to give an explanation for that? Why did you choose not to disclose?

[cryptowhizzard]

Hello @raghavrmadya appendix is ND LABS latest 15 signature record disclosures: ND Signature Record.xlsx

Apart from the outstanding issues not answered:

1085 -> Signed while questions were outstanding by @herrehesse. Also the SP's were provided and it was clear that they were involved in CID sharing by that time.

1220 -> Signed without proper duedilligence. The sampledata was not visible anymore at the time of signing for first signature.

1205 -> Signed while questions were outstanding by @herrehesse. It was clear that these miners (SPid's) were on VPN already and mostly owned by Chain-Up ( Tom )

1002 -> Signed without geo spread. No due diligence done.

1214 -> Total cluster of ###########

1341 -> No retrievability checks done at all. Nothing retrievable / reachable.

951 -> 100% self dealing. Could have been checked in the dashboard of fil+ ( https://filplus.d.interplanetary.one/clients )

Any answers on this ? -> https://github.com/filecoin-project/notary-governance/issues/811#issuecomment-1397068552

[Tom-OriginStorage]

Origin Storage last 15 signed LDN Cases.docx @raghavrmadya

Hello Tom,

Apart from what you provide there is still an issue with origin storage / chainup.

I provided the community (and you) a Google spreadsheet. In this spreadsheet we have a lot of VPN's documented and on a lot of them most of the miners / SPid's belong to chainup and you are tight to that organization as origin storage is a subsidy of chainup.

It is clear that you signed on most on them. Are you going to give an explanation for that? Why did you choose not to disclose?

Thank you for your attention to my question @cryptowhizzard

1: I have publicly explained the LDN listed in this proposal at the beginning;

2: RG is to let us explain the 15 LDNs we recently signed. You can go https://filplus.d.interplanetary.one/large-datasets Check whether my export is correct;

3, your so-called VPN has no conclusive evidence up to now; ---This problem has been discussed above. You can check the historical information

4: We also have many strategies and methods to identify LDNs that do not conform to the rules. We just caught up with the Chinese New Year holiday a while ago, and we did not systematically do it. Next, we will also check all LDNs according to the rules, and try to find more problematic LDNs, so that FIL+ can develop in a healthier direction

[herrehesse]

@Tom-OriginStorage Could you respond on the 7 LDN applications @cryptowhizzard stated in the above message?

[Tom-OriginStorage]

I can respond to all the LDNs I signed, although I can't guarantee that all the LDNs comply with the packaging rules, because many of them can't be checked before the robot goes online. Now, after the robot goes online, it gives us a lot of basis. Next, we will also try our best to check the packaging of all LDN regularly and find out the defective LDN and give feedback.

[herrehesse]

And the self-dealing? Any explanation?

[fillove]

我发现了很多共享CID的LDN，让我们总而言之，不知道为什么表格跳过了那些LDN，我会继续寻找 filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#77 filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#339

filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#403

@raghavrmadya 我的天，他们为什么@herrehesse @cryptowhizzard 不在被撤销的公证人名单上？

就因为他们解释了吗？ 为什么他们的解释一定要合理？ 别人的解释就一定是不合理的？ 这不是完全违背了去中心化的精神吗？

The meeting of notaries will be held soon, please explain your CID sharing, your non-retrievable.

[herrehesse]

@fillove I see, the gaslighting does not stop from your side. We explained ourselves multiple times but you keep asking. Very unprofessional. You are discrediting yourself with every single response.

[fillove]

Don't always focus on other people's problems and ignore your own problems.

Don't always "step back" when it comes to your own problems.

When it comes to other people's problems, don't bite the bullet forever.

[Tom-OriginStorage]

First, you can check whether all LDN items are related to origin storage,

Secondly, what evidence do you have to prove this? Can everyone in the community freely accuse slander?

Third: I can see the historical news. Some people have also raised many LDNs that are much more serious than these problems. Why are they not found

Fourth: origin storage doesn't want to attack anyone, but it doesn't mean we are bullied.

[fillove]

Can you please explain, please, thank you @herrehesse

[herrehesse]

For people guessing what is going on --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

[raghavrmadya]

Hi everyone, as the issue creator I believe the discussion here is not productive anymore and I'm going to close this issue ahead of the governance call today.

[coldjoke1]

824 #Modification: [Remove Fogmeta & FilSwan from R4 notary] #824