Dead, Inactive and Toxic Nodes

Nobody likes to see the angry scorned investors, I don’t like seeing it. Doesn’t make me happy. Like I said, the only way to stop this is to give control of the network back to ICON, where only white-listed people could register a p-rep. If the majority of the community wants to do this, I don’t think ICON would necessarily have a problem with it. The next step for this would be a text proposal vote to give ICON back control of the network and the authority to whitelist specific p-reps. If you have some other idea I’m open to it, but I believe this would be the only option to actually stop a large stakeholder from operating a node.

As for the 95% uptime has been solved at a protocol level in ICON 2.0. I already said that we can solve this manually on ICON 1.0 by DQing dead nodes if that is what the community wants. The next step here would be a text proposal discussing the specific objective circumstances about when to DQ an inactive node. From there, if it passes, I would suggest some sort of social media blast and attempt to spread awareness on the change.

@Cali @Brandon_FBM The ball is in your court. If you want to see a specific change, put together the proposal and write it in the Network Proposal section. Then it can go to an on-chain vote.

1 Like

Thanks @BennyOptions_LL I understand what you are saying.

I would much rather we remain decentralized as possible and this was all largely to gauge the community’s feedback on the situation.

I feel that if we agreed on some basic rules as a community regarding P-reps responsibilities as representatives, then it becomes more objective in nature, but I absolutely recognize the potential for abuse.

Maybe it’s just an issue with terminology for me. “Public Representative” carries a specific connotation that I feel implies some measure of responsibility. But, functionally, we can’t objectively enforce anything more then “Node operator” so i’m torn.

I’m not sure. I’ll see what others think if anyone else responds. I know ICON 2.0 will effectively solve the dead/inactive node issue so maybe it’s not worth the energy now with that on the horizon, especially since ICONists may lose out on rewards unknowningly.

Either way I appreciate the discussion so far.

1 Like

I just want to 100% clarify that I’m not saying that this won’t work because of potential for abuse (though I do believe that too), I’m saying it’s not possible without centralization. If you DQ an investor for breaking the rules, then they can just deploy a new node that is completely anonymous.

If you DQ Bob the Irritable P-Rep for violating rule number 2 above, I know what I what do if I were him. I would send my ICX to an exchange to make it untraceable, withdraw it to a few different wallets, deploy a new P-Rep named “P-Rep XYZ”, and vote to it with my few new wallets. Nobody would ever know that P-Rep XYZ is owned by Bob the Irritable P-Rep. Bob’s twitter would still be just as toxic and he would still be earning just as many rewards. You just wouldn’t be able to tie the twitter handle to a node anymore.

So if you truly want to remove angry scorned investors that trash the project on social media from running a p-rep, the only way I could think of is to have ICON manually interview, KYC, and approve each P-Rep. Open to other ideas, but wanted to make sure you understood why I was saying this doesn’t work. It’s not only the fact that it can be abused, it’s also the fact that it just wouldn’t accomplish your goal.

1 Like

@BennyOptions_LL

Right, I understand. Sorry, I guess I was glossing over that outcome outright. My thought process is centered more on the idea that the community might come together to dissuade this kind of behavior from a public facing entity directly associated with ICON. While the individual could simply register a new node, they couldn’t openly attack the community AND still call themselves a P-Rep. In this case it might well be a slap on the wrist, but there would also be no way to publicly attack the community as an actual P-Rep without exposure. I think a lot of people from the outside simply see this person as P-Rep, and that gives more credence to his nonsense.

I don’t expect the individual’s social accounts to change, or the fact that they are earning rewards either, just that they can’t behave this way as a Public representative.

In that case, I don’t think it’s worth the effort simply to remove their name from the tracker/ICONex (which would be the end result of DQing the node, because the new node would have a different name). Their twitter account would still say P-Rep, and I don’t expect the people that listen to him on twitter to head over to the tracker and say “hey, this guy isn’t on the list anymore, he must be a fraud”.

1 Like

@BennyOptions_LL And that was the unfortunate conclusion I was (slowly) coming to.

It just comes down to slinging mud and going back and forth and kind of does nothing positive for the community anyway.

But I’m glad to be able to talk through it.

1 Like

How about having both?

Anyone can deploy a node without a centralised authority as currently is (call this unverified P-Rep).

P-Reps can go through KYC process, go through interview etc. They are called (verified P-Rep).

Verified P-Reps will get more reward compared to unverified ones. Only verified P-Reps can become a main P-Rep.

It is somewhat centralised but maybe over time, reputable P-Reps that keep working can stay as main P-Reps and have governance power around it, with community votes perhaps.

Hmm interesting idea, but frankly speaking do you really see a point to unverified p-reps at this point? What value would they actually bring and why would we spend network inflation on rewarding them?

I don’t really see what problem that would actually be solving

1 Like

What about 2 kinds of p-reps? I would be interested in seeing verified self staking whales be given rewards the same as p-reps, but not be on the list or allowed any more delegations besides their own. And traditional p-reps being “put on a leash” so to speak, actually expected to run a node and perform under specific rules? I and many would agree the current model is broken and causing major confusion and drama

It is true that they may not bring a lot of value to the network, if any. It’s of self-interest in most cases. But I guess it is a counter-ish argument for centralisation vs decentralisation.

It is also possible that some would like to contribute anonymously, or just trying it out before going through KYC to see if they think they’ll be fit to run as a proper P-Rep. Call it ‘on probation’ if you’d like.

Reward could be substantially less to encourage KYC process though. The reward ratio is something I can’t really comment on.

To be honest, its seems we are trying hard to come up with solutions to get rid of one or two bad apples, even to the point of having to re-design the whole network. The only main issue I see here are P-Reps collecting rewards while holding an in-active node, but this has been address with the idea of rotating slots on ICON 2.0. Ok, its not coming tomorrow but we know its coming, which to me is good enough. We sometimes forget about the big picture in crypto and focus on the now, sometimes emotions run high and patience is lost. Just think of it this way, do you think those P-Reps will be around in a year or two? I personally dont think so.

In regards to bad mouthing on tweeter or other media platforms. I dont think its that serious of a problem to be honest, most people dont even listen to them and it really has no affect on the ICON brand when looking at the bigger picture. My advise to everyone is to ignore them, block them and move on. Eventually (just like a child), they’ll stop because they are not getting any attention. Anyway, thats my two cents.

4 Likes

@TonyD you are absolutely right and I’m willing to admit this was largely because of my emotions. I really don’t like that we have a prep doing this, but its probably not worth the effort beyond icon 2.0 changes.

4 Likes

I don’t think it’s emotional or strange to want representatives to represent you in a positive way. What is strange is to have completely unchecked people representing you in a negative light and no one really cares… I guess other p-reps/the foundation peeps are making money so they don’t care. IISS 3.0 was supposed to curb p-rep rewards. Guess that got pushed back a further half year to icon 2.0. Kind of shitty

@Cali It’s not really a matter of caring, but a matter of sacrifice.

Benny is right that in order to properly address this (prevent P-reps from doing this and vetting P-reps), we sacrifice decentralization. That alone would send way more people packing. One of the core values of blockchain is decentralization. Unfortunately that means no one person or entity is or should be in control by design.

That’s why appealing to the community as a whole was my approach, but it may very well take far more time and resources then it is worth to achieve.

It’s just a matter of which is more important, unfortunately.

2 Likes

It seems the foundation is in control though, and we are not truly decentralized. Grants go through them, they hold the number one spot by far on preps, they approve the direction of everything. So why stop now? Having a node openly fud and still be a part of icx is embarrassing to the project. So just turn a blind eye? Continue to green light that nodes grant proposals? Seems like garbage leadership to me.

Because its one thing to control the Grants (which are funded with the ICX that they own) and their self-delegation (as they own most ICX), its another thing to have total control of the network. The latter will result in a lot of people leaving the chain and will prevent a lot of new ones from joining in (as decentralization is a very valued aspect of a crypto chain)

I think that what @TonyD suggested is actually best - we just starve those people for attention, everyone blocks them and does not give them extra publicity and we leave them to shout in the open void. It worked with bloc8 in the past (the people that have been here longer know what Im talking about), it should work now as well

2 Likes

Very interesting topics in this section. At the core of this discussion, we seem to be discussing how to protect our republic from failing and prevent corruption in the democratic process.

This is a very old problem and judging from our attempts to try and solve this in “real life”, it is clear that there is no perfect system.

All republics without exception turn to oligarchies (due to self interest) over time. So, how do we establish a rule of law that applies to everyone (no one being exempted or above the law) and how should penalties be: proportional or progressive.

Essentially we are trying to prevent the creation of “career politicians” and elect “benevolent and ethical representatives.”

Now at the same time, we seem to be attempting to create a positive constitution. One that limits government and is structurally designed with an internal mechanism of checks and balances.

I think speech of any kind should never alone be grounds for disqualification. It’s one of the oldest freedoms that is essential to the success of a society.

Congressional term limits is often discussed in politics but since we attribute one of the p-reps function to be running of node and validating of blocks, a clear outline in underperformance should be treated like how a company will treat an underperforming employee. After X attempt to retrain or improve their output fails, you should waste no time firing/replacing the employee otherwise you risk increasing your cost and inefficiencies.

Too much bureaucracy can also lead to a devolution of visionaries so that is another balancing act to make. Anyway just sharing a passing thought. Blockchains from a social order point of view is an even more fascinating experiment.

Yes, we agree that p-rep should, at a minimum, run a node. And it goes for all p-reps, whatever the rank they have…

1 Like