Hello, I have a question regarding punishments/penalties. What are the range of degrees of punishable offences? What is the harshest one all the way down to the least? I noticed the team has ways to adjust gas fees, such as the new delegate opportunity where gas payment is not needed. Is there a way we can impose a tax vote on a specific account when transactions are going in and out of the punishable account holder?
What you propose, raising gas fees on a particular account, would be repugnant to our culture of decentralization.
Would it also be possible to define the categories of activities that might call for penalties?
Hypothetically, this might include:
- causing harm to consumers
- illegal behavior
- trademark impersonation
the community would then need a process to decide if a candidate’s activity qualifies. THEN we could consider the appropriate punishment or penalty.
Tom Barrett - EnCirca (Delegate)
Hello, & thanks for asking.
This should be posted inside the forums as new Category(s) / Topic(s). ^ People forget.
Is there reason why they are not; i.e. the introduction thread is archived and unsearchable.
↓ is from ENS Discord.
It is not ENS’s role to institute its own process of investigation and adjudication in place of civil, criminal, or regulatory processes of a jurisdiction that would have subject matter and personal jurisdiction over any alleged unlawful acts of a member, which ENS can’t supplant. Such a proposal runs contrary to ENS’s constitution and values of decentralization. Moreover, even if it were centralized, it still could not undertake such sanctions without subjecting itself to litigation for breach of contract, fraud, and other claims. What you are asking is that ENS create a quasi court system. Please read and familiarize yourself with the materials in ENS Documentation to better understand why your proposal could not fit within the framework of ENS.
So, what just happened to Brantley?
So, again, what just happened to Brantley?
I’m not being flippant, here. I really need you to explain to me, how - in this all inclusive ‘decentralised’ environment that is being crafted - that what happened to Brantley, happened. From within the framework of a ‘decentralised’, open network that is supposedly going to set us all free in some way. I cannot see any connection between the concept, reasoning and logic behind ‘decentralisation’ and the events that occured regarding Brantley. They are not mutually exclusive - Etherium is either decentralised, or it is not. It is clearly not decentralised, because a group of determined people were able to exercise an enormous amount of power - instantly - and have Brantley disappeared.
Does anyone here understand the concept of decentralisation? I’m being serious.
Teach us oh lord, the knower of all things dEcEnTrAliZed. Brantly is still here by the way. He is the Director of ENS Foundation and the most powerful delegate by votes.
I already suffer enough anxiety as it is, when pointing to paradoxes that no one wants to see. It’s extremely unsettling to receive the reactions that I so often do, so, on this occasion, I’m bowing out.
What you are pointing to is not a paradox but a limited understanding of a concept and then the failure to engage meaningfully. Brantly is not cancelled. ENS Protocol is still impartial and will remain impartial. He or anyone can still mint whatever domains they want and no one could do a thing about it. For example, I/anyone can mint:
However, he loses certain freedoms when he becomes a Director of ENS since that additional Directorship comes with intrinsic liabilities and responsibilities that a person in such a position cannot forgo. If he wants his freedom back to be an individual with full autonomy, he can do that from a neutral position of an average ENS user but not its Director. Freedom of Speech is not absolute; it never was, it never will be.
I am sick of explaining this to countless people that Brantly is not cancelled.
I apologise if I sound rude, but I don’t know who you are and I don’t understand why I should trust you as the last word on the matter. I have my own worldview that has developed over 55 years and I am quite comfortable with it, within myself.
I feel you may have misunderstood the concept that I was highlighting - and again, I apologise for not making myself better understood.
Decentralisation is a very specific and widely recognised term, which has nothing in common with the other words, such as ‘cancellation’, that have been attached to it.
Admittedly, I used the example of Brantley, but there are numerous other examples that I could have used. Brantley is the ‘hot topic’ of the moment and one that most of us can relate to, so I felt it was appropriate to use, in this circumstance - as an example of the fallibility of a system that claims itself to be decentralised i.e.
‘a system that has been fashioned into existence using reason, logic and just cause, which remains immutably incorruptible by external force.’
The above statement substantiates that which I understand to be the definition of a ‘decentralised’ network. A network, that no matter how tastes or fashions change, impassionately and resolutely stands as a pillar of solidity - and a respected point of reference - for all that use it.
If the minds that are creating that pillar - from the ground up - are easily swayed in one direction or another, what chance is there that an edifice will be built that stands the test of time? I would fear that the foundations are built on constantly shifting sand.
It’s obvious that my worldview is repugnant to many of you, which reinforces how far away from reality my mind now is. But that doesn’t preclude you from hearing what I have to say. We still have free speech, after all.
ENS does not need a reason to justify the removal a Director, it is enough that it has lost confidence in the particular Director to serve the interests of ENS, as its representative. ENS did not remove Brantly from ENS, but it is in the process to undertake a vote to replace him, as Director, which it has the power to do.
The recent discussion of whether ENS should have someone with certain views represent the community, is a community decision.
The “determined people” may or may not have had the power to influence enough of the community, but the vote, as it presently stands, is to replace Brantly.
I think you mean TNL not ENS here?
A helpful helpful write-up by @matoken.eth is here:
That helped clarify some things for me on what happened/is happening etc. Hope it helps others.
No, TNL is a separate and distinct entity from ENS Foundation. Thus, the TNL position is not the same as the position of Director of ENS Foundation; the TNL position is governed by contract whereas the ENS Foundation position is an appointment, and serves at the pleasure of ENS.
I agree with you, but is it possible or not?
I’m not sure to what you are referring. Is what possible?
Raising gas fees on a targeted account? Irrespective of the constitution, does the protocol allow such a thing? I understand gas fees can be changed across the board, but it’s concerning to think that specific accounts could be targeted in the future.
I’m not sure, but I would strenuously object to raising gas fees on a particular account, as punishment.