In Missouri, a fingerprint and background check are not required for notary license. @jflowers
could you please show the source about background checks?
I found this online - http://www.notarylearningcenter.com/nsa_screen.html …looks like it is required in California, but many states do not require. Rather, it is pertinent that an individual swear that they have not been convicted of a felony or a lesser offense involving moral turpitude of a nature that is incompatible with the duties of a notary public.
I just spoke with the county clerk office I belong to and they confirmed they don’t require a formal background check to become a notary, but rather the individual must get proper training from vendor and pass the state-issued exam. Here is more about the state-specific requirements : https://www.nationalnotary.org/file%20library/nna/reference-library/state-law-summaries/missouri.pdf
Also, no mention of this requirement in Missouri Sec. of State handbook: https://s1.sos.mo.gov/Business/Notary/general
Seal is required:
I was thinking two thoughts:
Data that is not typically a part of any notary procedure - specifically, email. I realize that this is in the setup file of our nodes. However, I have seen at least one email on the testnet (via the netstat website) that contained a typo (i.e. emails that do not work.) Perhaps we may need to think about the types of data that we might want, and ensure the processes at obtaining are well thought out.
During outreach, I went through the validator introductions of people that had expressed interest but for what ever reason did not follow up. I would email and in many cases call the individual to ask if I could be of any help, answer any question.
Prior to these phone calls, I would procure and read through the requirements for their state wrt obtaining a notary license. This is where I noticed a wide variety of ‘requirements’ - coming from a California lens, I understand that my state goes a bit over regarding requirements. However, I saw a number of applications in which one need only find current notaries to sign off and the person could mail their application in (foregoing a physical inspection.)
Furthermore, some talk about random inspections - like in the case of Texas’:
It is the job of each validator to perform due diligence and verify everything. I believe that we do this, going beyond, but it never hurts to reiterate this idea.
I know in the midwest - speaking for Missouri, primarily, we have to attest to no criminal background, act in good standing, and pass the state provided exam. This all escalates pretty quickly, as it seems fairly easy to receive notary public if you comply with all requirements and act in good faith.
Interesting point about the additional requirements being stressed strongly in California and other states having differing requirements.
The concerns in the thread are really valid. To me, they boil down to questions:
- Does someone from a state where notary requirements are less stringent (e.g. no exam, no background check etc.) stake his or her identity to a lesser extent than someone from a state with tougher requirements?
- Does someone who provided a PO box as an address stake his or her identity to a lesser extent than one who provided a physical address?
And, if the answer is No - how do reconcile that with the fact that someone whose home address is displayed is inherently more exposed, not only from a legal perspective as @jflowers mentioned, but also exposed to malicious actions targeting a validator.
I really value the questions you asked here…
Coming from a state that has lesser requirements than, per say, California - my personal opinion is that I feel staking one’s identity is still very prevalent in the network. Very personal information is still being displayed publicly for all that are deemed notary public. The variance is there, but I do think any display of personal information is the glue that holds us all together on common ground. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts!
I cannot speak to a PO box being used in staking identity. Again, any display of one’s personal address is a breach in privacy and a validator is exposed and should be aware of the possible concerns that go along with this.
I do think that having a set min, a basket of ‘data’ if you will, that we can properly stake would be wise for a number of reasons. This basket of identity can be fluid and evolving as required, but we need to address this…
Firstly, it would give all stakeholders even more confidence as it would demonstrate the ability of self regulation (and not having to wait for government to catch up to our Network’s needs.)
Secondly I think that we mustn’t have two sets of validators with regard to the amount/type of information that is exposed. Even if this “set of” is perceived and perhaps not “real”. Systems are comprised of people, and the best systems are those comprised of peers.
What I’ve done: I’ve made a spreadsheet of the information that is publicly staked. I suggest that other might do this as well, and then you can see what the actual data looks like across validators. One idea that I was thinking about, cross referencing requirements to see what that actually looks like. This might help better frame the issue.
Great idea with using the public information to create a spreadsheet with actual data to compare validator information. These are very valuable concerns to be taking into consideration.
Jeff - great idea. I know you wrote that you encourage other validators to create a similar spreadsheet…but is there value in you sharing what you created for everyone to utilize? Just a thought on avoiding recreating the wheel. Thanks!
Jeff, I wonder if you published the spreadsheet somewhere? If its public, may I have a look at it?
I love sharing, and believe that data needs to be free.
However, this is one of those cases where the act of creating this resource should result in discovery. So no, I regrettably will not be sharing this document.
I will be asking potential candidates to our mainnet (Core) the following:
Will you post your address that you intend to use for the staking of your identity in your forum introduction? Please also state if this address is a : PO Box, Personal, or Business.
I cannot help but to think of the value that validators play. The key value added to this novel new consensus mechanism (PoA) over PoW sits within the staking of personal identity. The identity of a validator, put out into the Universe, is much a part of our duties and responsibilities as is the maintaining of our nodes. We understand that identity is multifaceted, with the whitepaper talking about the start of how to define.
Consider this - Instead of spending capital on GPU’s/ASIC’s/etc and energy bills, we are spending our personal/reputational/social capital. One of the key components is (and always was) our address. The address acts as a tool allowing for rapid connection and communication to the network. An active notary license (for Core only) is but one part of the staking of identity process. Address is also key.
Whilst this information is captured in a dapp… I believe that it needs to be stated in their forum posting beforehand. I completely understand if potential Core validators would wish to wait until they were closer to their on boarding into Core - I understand that they don’t need to for the testnet. I just would like to see this information as earlier as possible, as it demonstrates (at least in my eyes) commitment to the project and the ideals underpinning this grand endeavor.