From c953406d8cb4e0ef14ac2aed6a3059ca11d4046e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: TheRealJohnMac50 <101443318+TheRealJohnMac50@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 20:51:56 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Update and rename 0000-template.md to 0067-MCC_Reconstruction.md --- 0000-template.md | 97 --------------------------------- 0067-MCC_Reconstruction.md | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 0000-template.md create mode 100644 0067-MCC_Reconstruction.md diff --git a/0000-template.md b/0000-template.md deleted file mode 100644 index d1d7c803d..000000000 --- a/0000-template.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,97 +0,0 @@ -# HIP Template - -- Author(s): -- Start Date: -- Category: -- Original HIP PR: -- Tracking Issue: - -# Summary -[summary]: #summary - -One paragraph explanation of the proposal. - -# Motivation -[motivation]: #motivation - -Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What problems does it -solve? What is the expected outcome? - -# Stakeholders -[stakeholders]: #stakeholders - -* Who is affected by this HIP? - -* How are we soliciting feedback on this HIP from these stakeholders? Note that - they may not be watching the HIPs repository or even aren't directly active in - the Helium Community Slack channels. - -# Detailed Explanation -[detailed-explanation]: #detailed-explanation - -- Introduce and explain new concepts. - -- It should be reasonably clear how the proposal would be implemented. - -- Provide representative examples that show how this proposal would be commonly - used. - -- Corner cases should be dissected by example. - -# Drawbacks -[drawbacks]: #drawbacks - -- Why should we *not* do this? - -# Rationale and Alternatives -[alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives - -This is your chance to discuss your proposal in the context of the whole design -space. This is probably the most important section! - -- Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs? - -- What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not - choosing them? - -- What is the impact of not doing this? - -# Unresolved Questions -[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions - -- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the HIP process - before this gets merged? - -- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation - of this feature? - -- What related issues do you consider out of scope for this HIP that could be - addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this - HIP? - -# Deployment Impact -[deployment-impact]: #deployment-impact - -Describe how this design will be deployed and any potential impact it may have on -current users of this project. - -- How will current users be impacted? - -- How will existing documentation/knowlegebase need to be supported? - -- Is this backwards compatible? - - - If not, what is the procedure to migrate? - -# Success Metrics -[success-metrics]: #success-metrics - -What metrics can be used to measure the success of this design? - -- What should we measure to prove a performance increase? - -- What should we measure to prove an improvement in stability? - -- What should we measure to prove a reduction in complexity? - -- What should we measure to prove an acceptance of this by it's users? diff --git a/0067-MCC_Reconstruction.md b/0067-MCC_Reconstruction.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..eaa07b9a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/0067-MCC_Reconstruction.md @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +# HIP 67 + +- Author(s): <@therealjohnmac50> +- Start Date: <2022-06-29> +- Category: < meta > +- Original HIP PR: +- Tracking Issue: + +# Summary +[summary]: #summary + +- Many innocent people have been harmed by the MCC’s actions. These actions include but are not limited to banning Deeper and Panther’s maker keys without protecting innocent non gaming hotspot operators. Therefore, the current MCC structure is not viable and must be reconstructed. + +# Motivation +[motivation]: #motivation + + - The motivation and goals of this HIP is to prevent innocent people from being harmed and to keep the Helium Network’s decentralization ideals. + +# Stakeholders +[stakeholders]: #stakeholders + + - In reality, this HIP effects everyone, but specifically hotspot operators. + +# Detailed Explanation +[detailed-explanation]: #detailed-explanation + + - The community recognizes that the MCC are all (self-appointed) volunteers, with the objectives of protecting the Helium Network and keeping it safe. However, regardless of circumstance, many innocent people have been harmed by the MCC’s actions. These actions include but are not limited to banning Deeper and Panther’s maker keys. The MCC recognizes that (although not their intent) their actions may have harmed innocent people (financially and mentally), but do not see a viable alternative. Therefore, the current MCC structure is not viable and must be reconstructed. + + - This HIP proposes that the current authority of the MCC be limited, to comply with the Helium Network’s decentralization goals. Specifically, the MCC will no longer have the authority to permanently ban nor ban long-term any entity or entity’s maker key, without the approval vote from the community. However, in order to prevent an entity involved in institutional gaming from onboarding many hotspots prior to the results of the community vote, the MCC will have the authority to temporarily ban maker keys, until the results of the permanent/long term community vote come to pass. The process will be the following, should the MCC find an entity guilty of anything that they deem worthy of a permanent or long-term ban, then the MCC may propose a community vote on said ban. The results of the vote (no matter how few/many people voted) will be the sole final determination on whether (or not) a new potential applicant may join the MCC. + + - Additionally, this HIP proposes that all future new MCC applicants approved by the MCC must be voted on, for the MCC applicant to join the MCC. The results of the vote (no matter how few/many people voted) will be the sole final determination on whether (or not) a new potential applicant may join the MCC. + + - Finally and most importantly, this HIP proposes that the MCC may not propose a vote to ban an entity’s maker key permanent/long term, without first constructing a viable method for those innocent of any wrong doings, to still be capable of onboarding and continuously operating their hotspots/miners post banning said maker key. + +# Drawbacks +[drawbacks]: #drawbacks + + - Due to the lack of people voting on recent hips, it theoretically may be possible for ill intended people to out vote others. + + +# Unresolved Questions +[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions + +- How will the MCC construct a viable method for those innocent of any wrong doings to still be capable of onboarding and continuously operating their ? + + +# Success Metrics +[success-metrics]: #success-metrics + +Success will be when there is another permanent/long-term maker key ban, without any innocent people getting hurt as a result. + + + + + + + +