[DataCap Removal Proposal] Abusive Behaviour Detected on jevticgallonsd1466 & Hugh-Top on 2054 & 1974

[herrehesse]

Issue Description

Two instances of abusive clients have been identified involving the following activities:

• Self-dealing their own applications
• Utilising VPNs to conceal their true location, indicating that miners are not operating from the claimed location. (US , New Jersey , Clifton)
• These two throwaway accounts are the same entity, making use of the same funding address: f1eto4dfafkoeukxenoc7vzexrvf6i4yqvhszrq2y

This situation serves as a prime illustration where the client assumes the role of the storage provider, receiving support from negligent notaries who fail to fulfil their responsibilities.

Impact

This organisation has the capability to accumulate datacap exclusively for its own miners, disregarding regional distribution and engaging in significant self-dealing. Such actions contradict the rules and guidelines of the Filecoin+ program, granting them undue financial advantages over entities striving to operate fair and decentralised storage provider businesses.

Details

Clients

Link	Title	Client	Funding Address
filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#2054	Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS)	jevticgallonsd1466	f1eto4dfafkoeukxenoc7vzexrvf6i4yqvhszrq2y
filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1974	TCGA	Hugh-Top	f1eto4dfafkoeukxenoc7vzexrvf6i4yqvhszrq2y

Storage Providers

MinerID	Client	IP Address	Name	(VPN) Location	Percentage
f0143858	f02185055	159.203.96.29	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	19
f01969779	f02185055	159.89.177.42	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	19
f02201190	f02185055	138.197.95.12	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	9
f02301	f02185055	159.65.189.52	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	19
f02032191	f02185055	123.157.235.35		CN , Zhejiang , Jiaxing	8
f0240185	f02185055	159.203.96.29	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	11
f03223	f02185055	159.65.189.52	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	11
f02230935	f02185055	43.228.183.100		HK , Central and Western District , Central	1
f02230939	f02185055	43.228.183.100		HK , Central and Western District , Central	1
f02230375	f02185055	43.228.183.100		HK , Central and Western District , Central	1
f02230941	f02185055	43.228.183.100		HK , Central and Western District , Central	1

MinerID	Client	IP Address	Name	(VPN) Location	Percentage
f0143858	f02213534	159.203.96.29	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	19
f01969779	f02213534	159.89.177.42	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	19
f0240185	f02213534	159.203.96.29	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	19
f02301	f02213534	159.65.189.52	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	19
f03223	f02213534	159.65.189.52	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	19
f02032191	f02213534	123.157.235.35		CN , Zhejiang , Jiaxing	3

Notaries
Aaron01230
kernelogic
METAVERSEDATAMINING
NiwanDao
stcouldlisa

zcfil
Aaron01230
Bitrise0111
DaYouGroup
kernelogic

Proposed Solution(s)

We propose the following actions to address the situation:

• Immediately eliminate the remaining datacap granted on clients.
• Initiate disputes against notaries who have signed inappropriately.
• Immediate removal of repeated offending notaries from the multisig.
• Blacklist the storage providers implicated in the incident.

Timeline

Discussion at July 11th 2023 WG Call
Community open audit until July 14th 2023 at 5 pm ET
Decision announced async at 5:01 pm ET

Additional

Newly opened by the same client: filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#2067
Also self-deal application from topblocks: filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#2021

[kernelogic]

The reasons for my signatures are the following:

1. As I have stated previously in many different issues, I do not object VPN / firewall usage. It is not at consensus.
2. The data is real. Not generated from a pool.
3. SPs have super high retrieval success rate.

[herrehesse]

@kernelogic I appreciate your prompt response. I have a few questions for you regarding the issues at hand:

• Could you please address the allegations of self-dealing that have been raised? It seems that there has been no response from your side so far.
• In your opinion, is self-dealing considered acceptable in cases where miners have high retrievability? (against the rules)
• What are your thoughts on the use of VPNs by storage providers to intentionally create a false sense of distribution and engage in more self-dealing?

While we acknowledge the high rates of retrievability, the fact remains that this entity is almost fully self-dealing, which is a violation of FIL+ rules.

[kernelogic]

From my own criteria:

1. Self dealing over 25% is not acceptable in later stage of distribution.
2. However, if it's early tranches, I would allow client get a chance to explain and improve.
3. Use VPN to give false geographical distribution / self-dealing, ethically not allowed, but we need a way to consensus-ly prove it.

I have examined my signatures in 2054 and 1974, both are in early stages. I hope the clients can give a convincing explanation.

[guanxinlian]

Let me make it clear that #2021 is the first DC list I applied for, and I am not an organization that accumulates data for its own miners. For the time being, I am focusing on the encapsulation of a miner(f02032191), and I am also trying to exchange other data with other LDN in different regions. I don't know whether it is my partner's problem or mine. Now my demand is to carry out encapsulation, and we are just a small filecoin team. And I didn't apply for #2067

[herrehesse]

@guanxinlian Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, our question remains unanswered. We would like to know the reason behind storing nearly 70% of your data with a single entity or company. This action contradicts the rules set forth by Filecoin+.

[herrehesse]

https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/2067

[guanxinlian]

@guanxinlian Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, our question remains unanswered. We would like to know the reason behind storing nearly 70% of your data with a single entity or company. This action contradicts the rules set forth by Filecoin+.

#2067 I said that I did not apply for the data, and now I am completely looking for ldn to exchange data to meet the requirements of different areas of encapsulation mentioned by the project side, and I am also encapsulating data at different nodes, so I am not clear about what you said, that I have 70% of the data stored in the same company, I understand that one node encapsulates one piece of data. And I am still actively looking for other sp partners to carry out subsequent packaging. #2021 is also my first aws open data application

[herrehesse]

@guanxinlian Let me make this simpler by adding your client data below:

sp	client	ipadres	name	location	vpnresults	percent
f02032191	f02204248	123.157.235.35		CN , Zhejiang , Jiaxing	FALSE with fraudscore 0	22
f01843178	f02204248	220.168.154.104		CN , Hunan , Yiyang	FALSE with fraudscore 0	9
f01969779	f02204248	159.89.177.42	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	TRUE with fraudscore 87	15
f0143858	f02204248	159.203.96.29	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	TRUE with fraudscore 75	15
f0240185	f02204248	159.203.96.29	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	TRUE with fraudscore 75	13
f02301	f02204248	159.65.189.52	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	TRUE with fraudscore 75	13
f03223	f02204248	159.65.189.52	topblocks	US , New Jersey , Clifton	TRUE with fraudscore 75	13

69% is stored at the same company.

[jevticgallonsd1466]

1. We here disclose f02301,f03223, f0143858,f0240185 are ours.
2. The utilization of VPN is to protect our SPs from cyber attacks. It is NOT to spoof geographical location. Our data center is indeed located in the U.S..
3. Huge-Top contacted us to store his dataset and we did. We are not the same entity. #2054 client balance is not from f1eto4dfafkoeukxenoc7vzexrvf6i4yqvhszrq2y.
   

[guanxinlian]

1. 我们在这里披露了F023012f0223,F014385f0240185是我们的。
2. Vpn的使用是为了保护我们的卫生和植物免受网络攻击。这不是对地理位置的欺骗。我们的数据中心确实位于美国..
3. 赫赫塔普联系我们来存储他的数据集,我们做到了。我们是不同的实体。#2054客户之间的平衡不是来自F1Eto4Dfafkoeuk31-oc7Vzexrvf6I4yqvhszrq2y。
   

I didn't know it, I was only in accordance with the requirements in the exchange data with other people, I also don't know F023012, f0223, F014385, f0240185 is the same company, and I took a look at this a few node has not reached 75%, the total storage I will ensure that each sp node encapsulation is more than 30%. Now I have only one node, f02032191, located in Jiaxing, Zhejiang. I have been actively looking for other sp partners

1. We here disclose f02301,f03223, f0143858,f0240185 are ours.
2. The utilization of VPN is to protect our SPs from cyber attacks. It is NOT to spoof geographical location. Our data center is indeed located in the U.S..
3. Huge-Top contacted us to store his dataset and we did. We are not the same entity. #2054 client balance is not from f1eto4dfafkoeukxenoc7vzexrvf6i4yqvhszrq2y.
   

I didn't know it, I was only in accordance with the requirements in the exchange data with other people, I also don't know F023012, f0223, F014385, f0240185 is the same company, and I took a look at this a few node has not reached 75%, the total storage I will ensure that each sp node encapsulation is more than 30%. Now I have only one node, f02032191, located in Jiaxing, Zhejiang. I have been actively looking for other sp partners

[cryptowhizzard]

1. We here disclose f02301,f03223, f0143858,f0240185 are ours.
2. The utilization of VPN is to protect our SPs from cyber attacks. It is NOT to spoof geographical location. Our data center is indeed located in the U.S..
3. Huge-Top contacted us to store his dataset and we did. We are not the same entity. #2054 client balance is not from f1eto4dfafkoeukxenoc7vzexrvf6i4yqvhszrq2y.
   

I am sorry, but now i lost you. Are we now going into discussion that the data on the blockchain is wrong?

https://filfox.info/en/address/f1hhv5js4gxnw5z4vs7jvgr2cwygtp6gcecog4mui

f1hhv5js4gxnw5z4vs7jvgr2cwygtp6gcecog4mui is the wallet from this LDN . It has been funded by f1gwg6hajm752whcloffiirsvb4ujkhax34rfw3ty proving that the ownership is there.

LDN 1974 ( f1tzbllzb7nbmswrw4zgn2nnewqd45nj7qp7vajoy) is funded by f1eto4dfafkoeukxenoc7vzexrvf6i4yqvhszrq2y

As you can see in this message:

https://filfox.info/en/message/bafy2bzacec765a5l3cw32fr2r3jlpb6kmcckq5oo3kydvxowkpxpsbjg2nq62

They were transactions for funding.

[cryptowhizzard]

1. 我们在这里披露了F023012f0223,F014385f0240185是我们的。
2. Vpn的使用是为了保护我们的卫生和植物免受网络攻击。这不是对地理位置的欺骗。我们的数据中心确实位于美国..
3. 赫赫塔普联系我们来存储他的数据集,我们做到了。我们是不同的实体。#2054客户之间的平衡不是来自F1Eto4Dfafkoeuk31-oc7Vzexrvf6I4yqvhszrq2y。
   

I didn't know it, I was only in accordance with the requirements in the exchange data with other people, I also don't know F023012, f0223, F014385, f0240185 is the same company, and I took a look at this a few node has not reached 75%, the total storage I will ensure that each sp node encapsulation is more than 30%. Now I have only one node, f02032191, located in Jiaxing, Zhejiang. I have been actively looking for other sp partners

1. We here disclose f02301,f03223, f0143858,f0240185 are ours.
2. The utilization of VPN is to protect our SPs from cyber attacks. It is NOT to spoof geographical location. Our data center is indeed located in the U.S..
3. Huge-Top contacted us to store his dataset and we did. We are not the same entity. #2054 client balance is not from f1eto4dfafkoeukxenoc7vzexrvf6i4yqvhszrq2y.
   

I didn't know it, I was only in accordance with the requirements in the exchange data with other people, I also don't know F023012, f0223, F014385, f0240185 is the same company, and I took a look at this a few node has not reached 75%, the total storage I will ensure that each sp node encapsulation is more than 30%. Now I have only one node, f02032191, located in Jiaxing, Zhejiang. I have been actively looking for other sp partners

We by now know the excuse "I did not know." Blockchain knows.

[guanxinlian]

1. 我们在这里披露了F023012f0223,F014385f0240185是我们的。
2. Vpn的使用是为了保护我们的卫生和植物免受网络攻击。这不是对地理位置的欺骗。我们的数据中心确实位于美国..
3. 赫赫塔普联系我们来存储他的数据集,我们做到了。我们是不同的实体。#2054客户之间的平衡不是来自F1Eto4Dfafkoeuk31-oc7Vzexrvf6I4yqvhszrq2y。
   

I didn't know it, I was only in accordance with the requirements in the exchange data with other people, I also don't know F023012, f0223, F014385, f0240185 is the same company, and I took a look at this a few node has not reached 75%, the total storage I will ensure that each sp node encapsulation is more than 30%. Now I have only one node, f02032191, located in Jiaxing, Zhejiang. I have been actively looking for other sp partners

1. We here disclose f02301,f03223, f0143858,f0240185 are ours.
2. The utilization of VPN is to protect our SPs from cyber attacks. It is NOT to spoof geographical location. Our data center is indeed located in the U.S..
3. Huge-Top contacted us to store his dataset and we did. We are not the same entity. #2054 client balance is not from f1eto4dfafkoeukxenoc7vzexrvf6i4yqvhszrq2y.
   

I didn't know it, I was only in accordance with the requirements in the exchange data with other people, I also don't know F023012, f0223, F014385, f0240185 is the same company, and I took a look at this a few node has not reached 75%, the total storage I will ensure that each sp node encapsulation is more than 30%. Now I have only one node, f02032191, located in Jiaxing, Zhejiang. I have been actively looking for other sp partners

We by now know the excuse "I did not know." Blockchain knows.

I don't know the reason why you're so unfriendly to everyone. I can only tell you that #2021 is the dc I applied for for the first time, and then I found different ldn to exchange data. I don't know whose wallet you mentioned. If the packaging ratio is not appropriate, I also have a limit to find other sp to cooperate with.

[guanxinlian]

1. 我们在这里披露了F023012f0223,F014385f0240185是我们的。
2. Vpn的使用是为了保护我们的卫生和植物免受网络攻击。这不是对地理位置的欺骗。我们的数据中心确实位于美国..
3. 赫赫塔普联系我们来存储他的数据集,我们做到了。我们是不同的实体。#2054客户之间的平衡不是来自F1Eto4Dfafkoeuk31-oc7Vzexrvf6I4yqvhszrq2y。
   

I didn't know it, I was only in accordance with the requirements in the exchange data with other people, I also don't know F023012, f0223, F014385, f0240185 is the same company, and I took a look at this a few node has not reached 75%, the total storage I will ensure that each sp node encapsulation is more than 30%. Now I have only one node, f02032191, located in Jiaxing, Zhejiang. I have been actively looking for other sp partners

1. We here disclose f02301,f03223, f0143858,f0240185 are ours.
2. The utilization of VPN is to protect our SPs from cyber attacks. It is NOT to spoof geographical location. Our data center is indeed located in the U.S..
3. Huge-Top contacted us to store his dataset and we did. We are not the same entity. #2054 client balance is not from f1eto4dfafkoeukxenoc7vzexrvf6i4yqvhszrq2y.
   

I didn't know it, I was only in accordance with the requirements in the exchange data with other people, I also don't know F023012, f0223, F014385, f0240185 is the same company, and I took a look at this a few node has not reached 75%, the total storage I will ensure that each sp node encapsulation is more than 30%. Now I have only one node, f02032191, located in Jiaxing, Zhejiang. I have been actively looking for other sp partners

We by now know the excuse "I did not know." Blockchain knows.

I don't know the reason why you're so unfriendly to everyone. I can only tell you that #2021 is the dc I applied for for the first time, and then I found different ldn to exchange data. I don't know whose wallet you mentioned. If the packaging ratio is not appropriate, I also have a limit to find other sp to cooperate with.

Others are not willing to reply to your basically do not reply, I applied for the first dc you so targeted, really feel disappointed. Our original intention is not to make filecoin better and better on the way to storage, but you have been making it difficult for some customers to apply for dc

[jevticgallonsd1466]

1. We here disclose f02301,f03223, f0143858,f0240185 are ours.
2. The utilization of VPN is to protect our SPs from cyber attacks. It is NOT to spoof geographical location. Our data center is indeed located in the U.S..
3. Huge-Top contacted us to store his dataset and we did. We are not the same entity. #2054 client balance is not from f1eto4dfafkoeukxenoc7vzexrvf6i4yqvhszrq2y.
   

I am sorry, but now i lost you. Are we now going into discussion that the data on the blockchain is wrong?

https://filfox.info/en/address/f1hhv5js4gxnw5z4vs7jvgr2cwygtp6gcecog4mui

f1hhv5js4gxnw5z4vs7jvgr2cwygtp6gcecog4mui is the wallet from this LDN . It has been funded by f1gwg6hajm752whcloffiirsvb4ujkhax34rfw3ty proving that the ownership is there.

LDN 1974 ( f1tzbllzb7nbmswrw4zgn2nnewqd45nj7qp7vajoy) is funded by f1eto4dfafkoeukxenoc7vzexrvf6i4yqvhszrq2y

As you can see in this message:

https://filfox.info/en/message/bafy2bzacec765a5l3cw32fr2r3jlpb6kmcckq5oo3kydvxowkpxpsbjg2nq62

They were transactions for funding.

Yes, I told you that he is our partner. When we first started working together, we may have transferred fils to him, but this does not prove that we are the same entity. I remember this transfer in April is what he needed some fils.

[jevticgallonsd1466]

If we send some fils to you, are you also topblocks?

[cryptowhizzard]

These transactions were made for the purpose of funding, and if you wish to challenge the evidence supporting these claims, you are welcome to do so. However, it is evident that the funding wallets are under the control of an entity that provided funds to both client wallets, and this raises significant suspicions.

[herrehesse]

"Yes, I told you that he is our partner. When we first started working together, we may have transferred fils to him, but this does not prove that we are the same entity. I remember this transfer in April is what he needed some fils."

Sorry but this does not make any sense at all. The main wallet clearly funded both of your client wallets, providing solid evidence of ownership and potential collusion. Any claims or denials cannot change the factual information recorded on the blockchain.

[jevticgallonsd1466]

This is not meaningless. Hugh-Top is a customer of our computing power business, this is normal business behavior, and we are still maintaining close contact.

These were originally trade secrets, but because this matter has affected the interests of both parties, it has been revealed reluctantly (it took a long time to communicate with the customer before they agreed to reveal it). This has seriously affected the business reputation of my company

This is our business introduction:

[cryptowhizzard]

It still seems that whatever you post here , that the transactions originate to one owner wallet and one organization. That's blockchain my friend.

I am sorry if i am interrupting your business plan running hundreds of machines where you control them for your customers, but the FIL+ rules and guidelines are clear here. You are allowed to store one replica per organization at those also need to be geographically spread , not only with a VPN, but for real. Pushing all these machines online and fill them 100% with the dedicated datacap you apply for is not the way forward and not what decentralization is all about.

Again, sorry if this was not clear to you when you started this pyramid. I will forward this to the governance team. I advise to stop using the datacap immediately and not make things worse then they are already are as the community will need to thing about a path proceeding forward with this.

[jevticgallonsd1466]

I finally understand that no matter what I say, your ultimate goal will not change.

Question:1
I told you that Hugh-Top is our computing power customer, and we have transferred the earnings of computing power to him. I don't think there is any problem with this, and it has been going on for three months now. As for how he uses his earnings, we have no right to ask.

Question 2
I have already explained the VPN issue.

Question 3
We have not 100% packaged ourselves, maybe in the early stage our four (f02301, f03223, f0143858, f0240185) nodes have a high packaging ratio, but it will decrease later, and it will definitely not exceed 25%.

We have explained what we can. I don't think we have violated the rules.

@Kevin-FF-USA @raghavrmadya Arguing like this is pointless. Please help review it. Thanks

[herrehesse]

@jevticgallonsd1466 Your provided "responses" completely disregard the evident facts presented above. Your inquiries hold no significance in light of these facts.

1. It doesn't matter who you or they are; rules are rules. Any violation will be held accountable.
2. The use of VPN itself is not problematic, unless storage providers conceal their actual location to exploit additional self-dealing.
3. Your claim is false; it exceeded 25% across all applications. The notion of it decreasing later holds no significance since rules are rules.

You are entitled to your thoughts and beliefs, but facts remain facts, and abuse is abuse. It's as simple as that.

[cryptowhizzard]

adding issue 1248 :

filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1248

90% of datacap sealed by Topblocks.

[Aaron01230]

For LDN filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1974 ,I am the signer of the first round , and do not know the next sealing transactions.
For LDN filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#2054, the applicant promise they will not store more than 30% of Datacap to the nodes and I believe them and the report shows they did it.

I don't think we have any responsibility.

[herrehesse]

@Aaron01230, the information you provided is inaccurate. The self-dealing was evident in the initial CID report, and despite this, notaries proceeded to approve it.

[woshidama323]

I am Harry from Topblocks,
We prepare a ppt to clarify our relationship with f01979669 and VPN usage but do not have enough time to share it during the Notary Governance meeting

TopBlocks_Response_For#913.pptx

Our sealing plan is gravely disrupted, considering our deep involvement with Filecoin. As a leading storage provider for Filet, the integrity of our borrowing process from our partner Filet has been severely compromised, exposing us to substantial financial losses and the imminent threat of liquidation. These detrimental consequences arise directly from an unsubstantiated complaint lacking any valid grounds. If left unresolved, this situation could trigger a domino effect, leading to a potential exodus of storage providers from the ecosystem.

[alchemypunk]

Now we can see all the true.

[peter6wei]

This is Peter from TopBlocks. I have been focusing more on the operational growth and taking an observational role in the notary governance. Our team is maintaining a reasonable record.

It was my first time attending the Notary Governance meeting yesterday, and I would like to express my gratitude to everyone, especially Kevin FF for moderating.

Here are a few thoughts I'd like to share:

1. There seems to be an excessive "darkweb" mentality. While we are dealing with blockchain and distributed computing, it's important to remember that storage is a real-world business involving real people and real transactions. We shouldn't assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent. It's both amusing and disheartening to see anyone involved in the [DataCap Removal Proposal] Abusive Behaviour Detected on jevticgallonsd1466 & Hugh-Top on 2054 & 1974 #913 discussion being labeled as "TopBlocks" and having to prove otherwise. They may be LDN or SP partners we know or may not know.
2. It's true that transactions are recorded in the blockchain. We don't deny that. In the real world, monetary transactions between business partners are normal, as long as they are not a significant portion of the pledged collateral. Regarding f01969779 (Nick)'s case, the node currently has 89,000 FILs as pledge collateral. It would be unreasonable to consider it 'funded' if the transfer amount does not constitute a significant portion of the pledged collateral.
3. VPN is currently a significant topic of discussion. It would be greatly appreciated if the work group or PL could provide clarification on whether VPN or proxy usage is prohibited or allowed under specific circumstances. In the event that they are prohibited, it is crucial to establish an enforcement action plan. If consensus cannot be reached on this issue, I propose that we refrain from weaponizing it for personal convenience or agendas.
4. We have been involved with Filecoin since the Space Race days and were ranked No. 3 and No. 7 in North America (https://spacerace.filecoin.io/?region=021). Since then, we have continued to invest in Filecoin without selling any FIL during the 2021 spike. Some may consider this foolish, but we see it as a matter of belief. Yes, we have a long-term commitment to Filecoin. Our investments in this project have amounted to tens of millions so far, and we have a global team of over 30 members. This is not something we boast about; it's simply our dedication to the project.

Baseless complaints like these are seriously harming our business. With the case still ongoing, we are experiencing significant financial losses and disruptions to our execution plan. @herrehesse @raghavrmadya , we would suggest closing this case for now. If new substantial findings are raised, the case can be reopened. In my opinion, we are all learning how to maintain civility in this community. We should consider the implications of issuing injunctions, as precedents are established through cases, similar to the US common law system. Inaccurate or unsubstantial precedents can have a long-lasting impact that may be underestimated initially.

During my visit to China this week, I had the opportunity to meet a few SPs. I was impressed by everyone's journey and stories. I'm looking forward to meeting more fellow SPs, PL, and PikNik teams next week during ESPA.

Thank you for taking the time to read, and best wishes,

Peter

[raghavrmadya]

If there are concerns regarding 308, 1840 and 2021, kindly open a seperate dispute with associated evidence

11:07
All three initial allegations clarified.

[cryptowhizzard]

Dear @raghavrmadya Through tonight's T&T session and historical comments on the content, proxies are not VPNs and nothing is wrong with them so they are not designed for abusive behavior. 913 should be shut down to avoid misleading other community members. 📕

No, it should not be closed. There is still 50% + datacap sealed to the miners of topblocks where only one replica of a dataset is allowed. With a total of 5 replica's this means 20%. This goes for everyone in our community thus also for Topblocks.

But, I will guide you @0xXPunkX @ars-bubu :
I don't see a reason why this issue can't be closed when there is acknowledgement and understanding on what happened, together with a clear recovery plan that is presented to the community including the new SP's who will receive the datacap from Hugh-Top , when and where including their validation by the @filplus-govteam. We must make sure that this will not happen again and the only way this can be achieved is when there is understanding.

@raghavrmadya there is really no discussion possible. The SP's of topblocks are revealed in their own notary application and the checkerbot displayed their presence + amount of datacap % sealed.

[cryptowhizzard]

In the initial two rounds, I did indeed send an excessive proportion of DC to topblocks. Previously, I believed that as long as the final percentage did not exceed 30%, it would suffice. However, based on your perspective, I now realize that my assumption was incorrect. I have ceased sending deals to topblocks in order to reduce this ratio until the proportion of DC to topblocks falls below 30%.

See here.

[ars-bubu]

Hi @cryptowhizzard
I don't think what you're saying is a problem. I'm also an LDN applicant, and I can't control sending orders well. Sealing requires a process, and there are regional differences that make it difficult to synchronize data.

[ars-bubu]

I reviewed the content of # 913, and the client explained it and it was approved and closed by the community. I don't know what you're going to do, I think it's strange what you're doing. VPN is not a problem, transfer is not a problem, and data cannot be seen as self trading.

[fdate11]

I participated in the meeting tonight. There is no problem with #913. What is the core reason for not closing it? If there is no dispute, I suggest that #913 be closed as soon as possible.

[fdate11]

Regarding the explanation of #913, I think it is enough to solve the doubts, we should believe them

[kernelogic]

I am seeing a few concerning dispute raised by members that seems "reasonable" but in fact there is no concrete evidence or written rule regarding them.

1. For #1974 saying Hugh-Top is the same entity of TopBlocks and self dealing. Why? Because both names contain the word "top"? Or is there any concrete evidence that I missed? If Hugh-Top's client address created those topblocks' SP, I would take that. But I wouldn't assume any client - SP entity relationship based on a partial word, especially such a common word "top".
2. For #2054 saying jevticgallonsd1466 is self-dealing. I can see jevticgallonsd1466 has disclosed he represents topblocks and f03223, f02301, f0240185, f0143858 belong to topblocks. However the whole LDN is 7PiB large and so far only less than 500TiB has been onboarded. If I were the notary signing it after seeing the distribution, I would consider it is still in early stage and remind the client to improve on it, that's all.
3. Some members say only one replica is allowed per entity per LDN. Sorry as a notary I have never seen such rule written down as the official guide, in my 200+ signing experience if the overall percentage of one entity <= 25% that's a pass (in mid - later stage of course).

[cryptowhizzard]

I am seeing a few concerning dispute raised by members that seems "reasonable" but in fact there is no concrete evidence or written rule regarding them.

1. For #1974 saying Hugh-Top is the same entity of TopBlocks and self dealing. Why? Because both names contain the word "top"? Or is there any concrete evidence that I missed?

correct, you missed. Check their notary application.

If Hugh-Top's client address created those topblocks' SP, I would take that.

Correct, it is.

But I wouldn't assume any client - SP entity relationship based on a partial word, especially such a common word "top".
2. For #2054 saying jevticgallonsd1466 is self-dealing. I can see jevticgallonsd1466 has disclosed he represents topblocks and f03223, f02301, f0240185, f0143858 belong to topblocks. However the whole LDN is 7PiB large and so far only less than 500TiB has been onboarded. If I were the notary signing it after seeing the distribution, I would consider it is still in early stage and remind the client to improve on it, that's all.

not only this LDN but also in finished LDN’s.

3. Some members say only one replica is allowed per entity per LDN. Sorry as a notary I have never seen such rule written down as the official guide, in my 200+ signing experience if the overall percentage of one entity <= 25% that's a pass (in mid - later stage of course).

That rules was there to avoid sealdealing.

[kernelogic]

1. I just checked Topblock's notary application and yes f03223, f02301, f0240185, f0143858 are their SPs. This is aligned with what jevticgallonsd1466 said too. But I don't see where Hugh-Top fit into this.
2. #1974's on-chain address is f1tzbllzb7nbmswrw4zgn2nnewqd45nj7qp7vajoy, and f02301's creator address is
   f3qhvpg5byv25lcdch2z62ml7jp3rxnpt5ogg5jtokjwv7q6sqwzd2e4qw2sqh5kvh7nitnejhao6bc5xnqdna , why do you say Hugh-Top created f02301?
3. Where in writing it says one replica per SP only? Slingshot program?

[jevticgallonsd1466]

@raghavrmadya
Thank you very much for your comments and for initiating the meeting that clarified our questions about #2054

It is evident that many people are quite familiar with Topblocks. As storage providers, we have numerous important tasks to undertake, yet much of our time has been consumed by unproductive debates over this issue .

We wish for these disputes to cease as quickly as possible, allowing us more time to focus on creating more products and enhancing the Filecoin ecosystem. We should not squander any more of our time on this issue.

[kevzak]

1. I just checked Topblock's notary application and yes f03223, f02301, f0240185, f0143858 are their SPs. This is aligned with what jevticgallonsd1466 said too. But I don't see where Hugh-Top fit into this.
2. #1974's on-chain address is f1tzbllzb7nbmswrw4zgn2nnewqd45nj7qp7vajoy, and f02301's creator address is
   f3qhvpg5byv25lcdch2z62ml7jp3rxnpt5ogg5jtokjwv7q6sqwzd2e4qw2sqh5kvh7nitnejhao6bc5xnqdna , why do you say Hugh-Top created f02301?
3. Where in writing it says one replica per SP only? Slingshot program?

Guidelines have always lived here: https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#current-scope

• No more than one replica should be stored with one SP ID
• Each storage provider should not exceed 30% of the total DataCap that the client was allocated and the storage provider should have published its public IP address

[kevzak]

Here are CID reports if needed:

• https://github.com/data-preservation-programs/filplus-checker-assets/blob/main/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/2054/1690210939320.md
• https://github.com/data-preservation-programs/filplus-checker-assets/blob/main/filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets/issues/1974/1689673701048.md

[kernelogic]

No more than one replica should be stored with one SP ID

Is it a "best practice" only, or is it an enforceable rule to remove DCs, banning SP and remove notaries?

[kernelogic]

It clearly says it's only "best practices", "ideally", "recommendations", "not strict rules", each notary can utilize their own best judgement to sign. I am sure the governance team intention is the same when these guidelines were drafted.

For me allowing <=25% on the per SP entity basis is my own best judgement to help the whole network to grow without too much obstacles.

[kevzak]

@kernelogic no disagreement here. Just getting it out there for all to see. Let's see how the LDNs play out with their storage. Thanks

[Hugh-Top]

Regarding to #1974， I would like to clarify once again that I am an individual miner, just as I stated in my application information. My only node is f01969779, and you can check the basic information in the LDN application section.
I sincerely hope that the community can communicate effectively, cease the disputes, and work together to promote the development of the Filecoin ecosystem.

[herrehesse]

@Hugh-Top

#913 (comment)

[cryptowhizzard]

In a slandering attempt on slack Topblocks ( Harry Ma ) just posted this.

We can close the discussion now "IF" hugh is working for Topblocks. I did not want to push private discussions here but since they have done themselves now i see no need to withhold.

https://filecoinproject.slack.com/archives/C01DLAPKDGX/p1690798239998679?thread_ts=1690606951.304359&cid=C01DLAPKDGX

[woshidama323]

#913 (comment)
also add time when we talk

[cryptowhizzard]

Thanks @woshidama323

We can finally put this to rest now. Hugh is working for Topblocks. Glad you acknowledged this yourself.

[woshidama323]

Thanks @woshidama323

We can finally put this to rest now. Hugh is working for Topblocks. Glad you acknowledged this yourself.

Please look at the comments above.
BTW,

Why did you hide my name when posting this picture?

[Sunyaoyaomk]

Comments from a DC seller, we are inclined to ignore.

[raghavrmadya]

Hi, based on this conversation and thread, there is no evidence that proves that Hugh is not working for Topblocks. This issue is being closed and DC must be removed from the aforementioned applications

[woshidama323]

We just had a Zoom meeting with RG regarding the matter concerning issue 913. Here is a summary of the discussion:

1. Given that issue 913 has remained unresolved for an extended period, the decision is to keep it closed. However, we intend to initiate a dispute concerning the DCRemoveRequest. This action is prompted by the distortion of the private message exchange between Hidde and Harry by Hidde.

2. RG has provided assurance that regardless of the outcome of issue 913, no individual, including Hidde, will be permitted to employ it as grounds to impede TopBlocks from adopting DataCap as a Service Provider, implementing LDN as a Data Provider, or fulfilling the role of a notary.

@raghavrmadya Thanks for your time, Please correct me if I missed out anything here.

[herrehesse]

@woshidama323 Stop personally attacking me and take your loss. Good luck with your dispute.