Voting needed new Ballot -- Add new Validator


#1

Validators,

Created (3) ballots ( one for each affected keys: mining, voting, payout ) for Gerry Howatt

Experiencing some churn in voting Dapp so please use following URL for voting purposes.

https://hungry-pike-439109.netlify.com/oracles-dapps-voting


#2

Hello Jeff, happy to vote. Where can we see Gerry’s license info?


#3

@henryvishnevsky

Here is Gerry’s Info:

Full Name ( name you sign as Notary ): Gerald Howatt
Address: 351 Mead Farm Rd. Hinesburg
State: Vermont
Zip Code: 05461
Pubilc Notary License #: no numbers in Vermont
Expiration Date of license: February 10, 2019
Validator email: [email protected]


#4

Thanks a lot, Jeff. I was able to locate his license. Voted Yay!


#5

Henry,

Thanks! May I ask the following:

  • What browser did you use?
  • Did you use Oracles Metamask plugin or regular Metamask plugin?
  • Did you use the hungry–pike URL above?
  • I created new ballot ( Johnny Test ) wondering if you can ‘No’ vote using the following URL
    https://oraclesorg.github.io/oracles-dapps-voting
    As I had trouble

Finally, there is another bug in the Ballot Display, this is actually John LeGassic : )

Thanks!
John


#6

Jeff, let me answer your questions:

What browser did you use?

  • Chrome Version 62.0.3202.94

Did you use Oracles Metamask plugin or regular Metamask plugin?

  • I used Metamask plugin running Oracles private network.

Did you use the hungry–pike URL above?
-Yes

I created new ballot ( Johnny Test ) wondering if you can ‘No’ vote using the following URL
https://oraclesorg.github.io/oracles-dapps-voting1

  • I was able to vote “No” on both “Testing Unanswered Page” proposals.

Let me know if I can help any further.


#7

Validators,

Created (3) ballots ( one for each affected keys: mining, voting, payout ) for Gerry Howatt

https://oraclesorg.github.io/oracles-dapps-voting

Clock is tic, tic, tocing …


#8

@igorbarinov
@rstorm

How many Validators does it take for a Ballot to be approved, i.e. is does the following requirement still hold true in the voting DApp README.md " If total number of votes > 3, notary will be added or deleted from the network"

Please advise.


#9

The current consensus threshold is 3. We will be able to create a specific ballot if we want to change this number using our governance Dapp. It’s work in progress at this moment.


#10

to increase the number from 3 to more people. Not to decrease it.


#11

Why not to decrease it? Let say we made a ballot to have 8 minimum validators to vote in order to make a change, then we realize it’s very hard to get this number, so we create new ballot to decrease required number to lets say 5.


#12

I think we need to prohibit set minimum threshold less then 3. It makes sense.


#13

A malicious actor can propose important voting, e.g. to remove Master of Ceremony from consensus. By default, it will require 3 votes.
The actor could raise the bar and invite a broader group of validators to vote against MoC. Some of them will be easier get their votes against MoC. When the majority of 3 against will be reached, the actor will decrease the number of required votes to 3 and will finalize the ballot. Thus, it’s a door to manipulation.

@jlegassic we need your input here


#14

First, as I read the current requirement: “If total number of votes > 3” so we need a minimum of 4 Yes votes to add a new Validator.

I would prefer requirement be restated as “at least 4 Yes votes to add a new Validator”.

This means that the ballot to add Gerry Howatt failed as it obtained only (3) yes votes before expiring.

I’m really not sure what the long term intent of Governance is beyond added/removing Validators.

I can imagine a Governance model where the minimum number of Yes votes required for a particular ballot is a function of a “Ballot Type” and the number of Validators currenly on the Network.

For example, if there are 12 Validators and a Ballot to add a new Validator gets (4) yes votes and (8) no votes … I’m not votes not sure what currently happens. Is the Validator added to the network or not?

As for manipulation as described by Igor above. Seems to me that a Ballot needs to have a immutable Ballot context created at time of ballot creation, i.e. ( time to live, # of yes votes to approve, # of no votes to deny, total # of votes required for ballot to be viable/actionable)

Finally, need to find a way to penalize non-participation. Can imagine a queue of Validators on the “bench”. If a Validator does not participate in a Ballot request then they are swapped out for the next “bench” Validator in queue ( these are pre-approved Validators but do not participate in consensus, i.e. do not create blocks nor get rewards). The booted Validator enters a lockout period ( say 2 weeks ) after which they are placed on end of queue. In this way, there is competition for paying attention and participation in the network.


#15

@jlegassic

  1. We do store immutable threshold at the time of ballot creation, so manipulation is not possible.
  2. The way it works now, is we need to collect at least X number of votes(3) in order to make a decision. So if 2 voters said yes and 1 no, that means the validator will be added.
  3. Ballot types: right now there will be 2 maybe 3 types of ballots:
  • add/change/remove mining/payout/voting key
  • change min global threshold
    ? - change contract’s addresses when we want to upgrade our smart contract(WIP)
  1. Automatic penalty for not being online. There is already untested feature in parity build which can automatically ban validators and remove them from the list if they are not being active. We decided that we will test this feature later to make sure it works the way it should be(You know, it’s from Parity :slight_smile: )

#16

From README.md

“If total number of votes > 3, notary will be added or deleted from the network”

So don’t understand:

  1. The way it works now, is we need to collect at least X number of votes(3) in order to make a decision. So if 2 voters said yes and 1 no, that means the validator will be added.

as total number of vote = 3 and the requirement is strictly greater than 3.

What is the status of this Ballot?

Has it been accepted or not? Where do I go to find out?

I do not find the new Validator on the Validators DApp list ( I think there is a know bug for this issue ).

In the non-participation ( this is scoped to voting not node availability ) paradigm I described above likely would not want to rely on Parity for our Governance model ( documentation lacking so hidden bugs/features alike ) and may not be representative of community of Validators and/or users of network at large.


#17

I think that only three votes were cast. It does beg the question - should we (as a group) also adopt emailing one another. Sometimes an email is more powerful form of communication - as you have to click it away :wink: . But seriously, would this be something that we try to do? And if so, should we (as a group) start a google doc/sheets with names and emails (shared only with ourselves - or open)?


#18

So do I need to resubmit my ballot or where are we?


#19

Gerry,
Testnet will be obsolete next week. You will have a chance on the next one, Codename “Sokol”


#20

Hey Igor, Did you ever make it back to Vermont? ETA on Sokol ?