Closed skcin closed 4 years ago
Comment by grctest Saturday Jan 21, 2017 at 18:25 GMT
14 days for a whitelist poll (unless there's proven evidence of issues requiring a more prompt removal from the whitelist). 7 days for a casual/fun poll. 21-28 days for an expense? I was thinking that for technical polls regarding development direction we should make polls which last two or three months to bring as much attention to the subject as possible? Is there a maximum poll length?
Comment by Erkan-Yilmaz Saturday Jan 21, 2017 at 19:17 GMT
another question about: whitelist poll:
If that reason was fixed, and no other issues would exist. Still 14 days ? May become less relevant when greylisting comes (task #6)
Comment by grctest Saturday Jan 21, 2017 at 19:22 GMT
Yeah, I'd say that CPDN's situation where it was not exporting statistics correctly should remain 14 days, less than 14 days for projects that are hacked & distribute malware or something equally bad.
If a project fixes an issue before the end of the whitelist poll, it shouldn't invalidate the poll. They should have to campaign for being whitelisted again, this amount of bureaucracy could be reduced via the theorized grey listing mechanism.
Comment by Erkan-Yilmaz Sunday Jan 22, 2017 at 01:52 GMT
added above: "minimum balance/magnitude participation required ?"
Comment by Erkan-Yilmaz Sunday Jan 22, 2017 at 02:43 GMT
Should investors be able to vote on whitelist project removal/addition ?
chat excerpt:
xXUnRealXx: So I have a seriour question / concern. The POLLs that are created for projects SHOULD NOT allow INVESTORS to VOTE. Theres 2 INVESTORS with Lots of PULL Voting to REMOVE Projects Yet they do none of the work.
Gunde> INVESTOR could be users that still does boinc but use an investorwallet. Gunde> some user do use both part an split wallets Gunde> INVESTOR still have interest to health to gridcoin and to do it better Gunde> It could be do to security and be anon to split it Gunde> No trackback when vote is one part other is to not get a track of ip or other info as mail
xXUnRealXx> if so than a 51% attack is eaven easier then they say it is Gunde> As cm point out the lost grc that is not staked is biggest issue not those investors that vote today. Gunde> There is no trackback as they are infisible today, make POSv3 would be best or even make a sytem to burn after limit as it is so high amount of hidden coins.
Comment by 47an Sunday Jan 22, 2017 at 03:00 GMT
If no exporting of stats is done or the RAC reached below 100 from users it would be de-listed auto do to how NN works. This happend before and Denis/MindeModeling/CPDN have show that it will be out. This could be used as a grey-list but today the time is to long to use for this. Solution could be to set rules to NN to keep rac in NN in shorter timerange.
If projects that are hacked & distribute malware we should be able to shutdown reward without asking or use poll for it as it mainly bad and would hurt not only Gridcoin but boinc community it self. Same rules as to community platform or wallet or site we use we would not ask to act to protect these.
Comment by grctest Sunday Jan 22, 2017 at 20:27 GMT
Should investors be able to vote on whitelist project removal/addition ?
Yes, I believe that investors should be allowed to vote on project whitelist removal/addition.
Comment by grctest Monday Jan 23, 2017 at 09:05 GMT
RE: Technical polls --> several month long poll & a minimum vote weight required of 50% before a change can pass? This way, low stake weight participation in a poll does not allow mandate for change to be valid without a majority of the network agreeing with the proposal.
Comment by barton2526 Thursday Jan 26, 2017 at 20:48 GMT
Idea: Foundation Expense polls should require a minimum voting weight of the community in order to be considered binding. I suggest 10% minimum. Current active foundation poll activity is:
Comment by NeuralMiner Monday Feb 06, 2017 at 18:42 GMT
Though I agree there should be a minimum, if a minimum were to be set now at 10%... no foundation poll except one (and barely) would've passed in the last 4 months (at least). I'd say if the average was 15% participation in polls and a handful that were below 10%, then absolutely make 10% a minimum, but making 10% a minimum when just one poll in recent memory has even reached that 10% is just asking for trouble; no foundation polls will ever pass. You can't force people to vote if they don't want to. And they shouldn't vote if they don't understand the poll anyway; some people just want to crunch and don't pay attention to anything else that goes on. I don't think the minimum should be set at 10% when the average is 5% or less.
Comment by Erkan-Yilmaz Friday Feb 10, 2017 at 14:21 GMT
there is a poll currently about this topic also:
current standing:
Comment by Erkan-Yilmaz Monday Feb 27, 2017 at 13:39 GMT
the vote ended:
see pic + summary here
Comment by grctest Monday Feb 27, 2017 at 15:30 GMT
How should we evaluate the outcome of polls?
Comment by startailcoon Tuesday Feb 28, 2017 at 07:40 GMT
Regarding whitelist polls and Investors. Make the polls only Magnitude, not Mag+Balance.
Comment by mistermarmot Friday Mar 03, 2017 at 04:21 GMT
Currently there are two investors with something like $50 million in GRC stored and they can vote down any whitelist attempt. They currently haven't TMK, but that doesn't disallow potential future barrons from blocking all whitelist attempts. Is there any project, whatsoever, that has made a large GRC investment to influence GRC activities related to their project? I also strongly suggest MAG only voting on whitelisting.
Comment by Erkan-Yilmaz Tuesday Mar 21, 2017 at 11:38 GMT
"14 days for a whitelist poll (unless there's proven evidence of issues requiring a more prompt removal from the whitelist)."
Personally, for e.g. this poll, I'd have liked to create it for 7 days, since the reason is obvious (no WUs anymore)
Comment by startailcoon Tuesday Mar 21, 2017 at 16:47 GMT
Personally I think removal should be quicker than including. Removal is usually due to something happening. No WUs, flawed credit system, cheating etc. Of course we need to give users enough time to vote about it, but if the reason is obvious it should be automatic. What are we to do if 'No' get the most votes when its a matter of network security. We need to set up some ground rules regarding this instead so the network can make an automatic consensus without a poll.
Comment by Scalextrix Wednesday Mar 22, 2017 at 09:08 GMT
Because of the way RAC works, it takes time to build new RAC on a new project. So if we have 1000 RAC on a project to be delisted, that will decay over a number of weeks, to rebuild an equivalent RAC on a new project will take a similar amount of time. So with ATLAS for example, its no longer active, but its going to take time to rebuild that RAC on LHC@Home. In these circumstances (where the project is properly managedd and communication is clear) we have a 2 week vote on the dates on which the project will be removed, immediately, 2 weeks or 4 weeks. If a project admin is lazy, distributing malware etc. the vote should be quick and the removal immediate.
Comment by Erkan-Yilmaz Monday Apr 17, 2017 at 10:32 GMT
see also @grcjamezz ' comment about investors in the Pentathlon polls (see comment here)
Comment by barton2526 Thursday Apr 20, 2017 at 07:17 GMT
Perhaps in the future, for polls such as this one we should consider @grcjamezz 's suggestion above (see comment here)
Comment by XaqFields Wednesday Jul 12, 2017 at 14:41 GMT
Just a few ideas:
Comment by denravonska Wednesday Jul 12, 2017 at 14:55 GMT
Filed an issue over at https://github.com/gridcoin/Gridcoin-Research/issues/433. In my opinion all the options bug mag+balance are redundant.
Comment by Erkan-Yilmaz Thursday Jul 13, 2017 at 06:09 GMT
@XaqFields about https://github.com/Erkan-Yilmaz/Gridcoin-tasks/issues/17#issuecomment-314790867:
Comment by denravonska Thursday Jul 13, 2017 at 06:19 GMT
I think all whitelist polls, add or remove, should come with a basic TL;DR. Something like
- Reason for removal: Owner is a douche
- SSL: No
- Work units remaining: 90
- Estimated time to completion: 4 years
If we can get that info, that is.
Comment by Erkan-Yilmaz Wednesday Jul 26, 2017 at 17:53 GMT
how to act in situations where voters have problems like these ? magnitude zero, stuck in blockchain, ...
Comment by Erkan-Yilmaz Friday Aug 04, 2017 at 08:46 GMT
see also:
Define rules to poll name an question. It should be clear whether a poll is opinion based, actionable, foundation or whatever. I suggest:
foundation Polls about spending from foundation funds or about foundation itself.
casual casual? polls
survey Poll created to obtain an opinion or state of the community.
actionable Poll, whose result is going to be acted upon. This type should be used when voting on change that is going to affect the network or community.
alert Not really a poll, just an unintended use of the poll mechanism to mark off an end-of-life blockchain fork.
Whitelist, Greylist and De-list poll requirements included in Proposal #194
Issue by Erkan-Yilmaz Saturday Jan 21, 2017 at 15:19 GMT Originally opened as https://github.com/Erkan-Yilmaz/Gridcoin-tasks/issues/17
gather criteria, e.g.
and later let community vote on these
mentioned in hangout 2: see WuProp section