-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 170
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Create fip-0028 - remove DataCap from verified client #226
Conversation
Fixing extension
Co-authored-by: Jiaying Wang <42981373+jennijuju@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Peter Rabbitson <ribasushi@leporine.io>
re-attempting to fix formatting
This FIP has officially passed 'Last Call' status, and is 'Accepted'! It's ready for implementation in v15. @dkkapur could you address the changes requested by @arajasek and @jennijuju so we can move towards merging this FIP? |
@kaitlin-beegle is title correct fip0028 or fip0029? |
This is correct; is there a reason why you think it isn't? |
not see the latest commit, this commit has change filename to 0028 |
Yep! This is correct. |
The implementation session doesn’t
What you described seems like a governance discussion that belongs to fil+ program and is not irrelevant to this fip. id suggest you to raise your concern to fip+ Team/ community in https://github.com/filecoin-project/notary-governance/discussions |
Hi @kdreampool - please note that this comment was received after the expiration of 'Last Call', so it has not impacted the acceptance of this FIP. This FIP remains in 'accepted' status, and will be implemented in network v15. However, I believe the spirit of this FIP is intended to address the very situation you've outlined. If a storage provider is pushing a client to apply for datacap, then diligence is still done on that client. It is the responsibility of the FilecoinPlus notaries to do diligence on all clients and determine whether or not they are legitimate. This FIP simply allows verified client status to be revoked after it had previously been granted, should a reason arise in which a client seems suspicious and/or appears to be abusing their datacap allocation. However, there is no technical change we could make that would prevent direct, off-line collusion, if that's what you're indeed claiming is a problem. If you're aware of a storage provider that is working in bad faith, or is trying to take advantage of the FilecoinPlus program, I would heavily encourage you to get in touch with the FilecoinPlus team. CC: @dkkapur |
Thanks @kdreampool for the discussion. I agree with @kaitlin-beegle's points above that this is just an implementation step that will help us build tools to shut down malicious use/abuse of DataCap. I also agree with @jennijuju that the case you've outlined requires work on the due diligence side and on arming the notaries to learn more about each client to ensure DataCap gets to the right hands. If it ends up in the wrong place, having this FIP implemented gives us an additional lever to correct course. Would be great to engage you in a Discussion on the Fil+ governance side to improve our processes for this. |
FIP to enable notaries and the Filecoin Plus community to remove unused DataCap from a client address on the network. DataCap removal will require 2 notary signatures and 1 RKH signature.