forked from heystraightedge/heystraightedge.github.io
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
faq.yaml
129 lines (103 loc) · 8.2 KB
/
faq.yaml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
en:
- section: FAQ
items:
- question: Is there an official whitepaper / manifesto for Straightedge?
answer: |
Straightedge is derived from the Edgeware project, and the original whitepaper is linked here.
https://straighted.ge/edgeware-whitepaper
Further, stay tuned for our launch post that delves into the advancements made
in Straightedge’s distribution, governance and plans for future development.
Also, join our public telegram community here:
https://t.me/HeyStraightedge
- question: What's the inspiration of the fork?
answer: |
Edgeware is an exciting new project, and will be one of the first chains launched on Parity’s
Substrate platform. While we applaud the testing of a novel form of distribution, (the lockdrop),
the design of signalling in the Edgeware lockdrop leads to many edge conditions that delegitimize
the lockdrop and centralizes the initial distribution. To ensure a balanced token model that is
both legitimate and inclusive of both lockdrop and signal participants, a number of distribution
improvements have been made prior to genesis.
1. Remove Signalling on Behalf of Contracts
2. Remove Generalized Locking
3. All signalled funds distributed in genesis
- question: Why is getting the initial distribution right important?
answer: |
The initial token distribution is of vital importance to any blockchain project with a viable
economic model. This is especially true when on-chain systems of governance allow protocol
level and other changes to be made through the votes and signals of token holders. Should
an initial token distribution favor certain parties, dominant voting groups and blocks will
continue to increase their power and distribution over time, shaping the future of any such ecosystem.
- question: What's the issue with signalling on behalf of contracts?
answer: |
Allowing contract deployers to signal on behalf of contracts is a fundamental misunderstanding of
the premise of smart contracting systems. Smart contracts are meant to be autonomous software that
are independent of their initial deployer. For example, in the Golem and the Digix project multi-sigs,
two of the largest in the Ethereum ecosystem, the deployer of the contract isn't even a member of the
multisig, yet is able to signal on behalf of all of funds. The same is true for many of the largest
contracts on Ethereum, like the Wrapped Ether (WETH) contract, and we wanted to make this right in Straightedge.
- question: What's the issue with generalized locking?
answer: |
A last minute change called Generalized Locking was added to the Edgeware lockdrop. It was declared that
"Generalized Lock" occurs when “an address that calls ‘Signal’ is unable to sign a transaction with
msg.value greater than 0 for the entirety of the 3, 6 or 12-month lock durations”,
and in these cases “that signal can be treated as a lock for the purposes of the allocation award”.
By removing the ability to signal on behalf of a contract, Straightedge has solved for Generalized
Locks and other edge case vulnerabilities. However, it is still worth explicitly pointing out some
of the issues with the policy. First, it places undue burden upon the launchers of the network to
audit and decide on different generalized lock contracts, which may contain edge cases such as
bypassing locking by issuing derivatives of the locked Ether (such as with WETH). Further, if a
contract does not correctly lock, or if code claiming to be a lock bypasses detection through
underhanded Solidity techniques, it could break the legitimacy of the initial distribution of
the entire network. Removing generalized locking removes the necessity for case-by-case decision-making
by a launch-team, and other edge case vulnerabilities.
- question: Were these faulty design decisions made in Edgeware to allow distribution to the victims of locked funds in the November 2017 Parity Multisig Exploit?
answer: |
The Web3 Foundation, the largest victim of the Parity bug, has a very close relationship
with the Edgeware project, and it is likely it is due to the influence of the Web3 Foundation
that these odd design decisions were made in the construction of the Edgeware lockdrop. But in
trying to right a wrong by recovering funds, design decisions were made that could threaten
the legitimacy of the project as a whole.
Let’s be clear: Like many in the community, we feel for groups like the Web3 Foundation,
and others affected by these attacks, but an open system of governance is one in which the
people have a say, while a system in which rules are changed to provide select parties with
powerful voting shares is not open. In the case of Edgeware, the potential for an open-future
was impeded prior to launch by late-stage changes to a token distribution model that aimed to
artificially provide favor to a small, select group of individuals and teams. The result would
provide a substantial voting-percentage of all network-tokens to a party or parties not in control
of the funds for which tokens are rewarded.
Nonetheless, the Web3 Foundation's support in funding the development of Parity Substrate
(the framework upon which Straightedge is built) is undeniable. To that end, possible ways
of rewarding them would be to use Straightedge’s decentralized on-chain governance process
to award those with funds locked in the Parity multisig with the Straightedge tokens that
they would have earned, had a successful signal been possible. This would allow the Web3
Foundation to successfully execute on its goal of recovering value from their locked funds
in a way that protects the legitimacy of the project, and which puts the issue to governance
and ecosystem participants. Should such a proposal be rejected by governance, the receiver
of the 10% founder's reward can also optionally choose to share their cut with the Web3 Foundation
or Parity if they so see fit.
- question: What is a zero-day fork?
answer: |
A zero-day fork is a novel type of fork in which two alternative implementations of a project
are launched at the exact same time, on a brand new network. Both Straightedge and Edgeware
are slated for launch on September 15, 2019. Thus far, in major network forks, we've seen both
the incumbent network gain market superiority (in the case of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash) and
the challenger network gain superiority (in the case of Ethereum Classic and Ethereum). It will
be an interesting experiment in governance to see the results of what happens in a zero-day
fork that launches two networks at the same time.
- question: How do I redeem my STR?
answer: |
It’s easy: All participants in the Edgeware lockdrop will receive STR to the same address and
using the same seed, all on the new chain. Signalers that participated from non-contract addresses
will receive STR in the genesis of the Straightedge chain as well, without a one-year wait. To
use your STR, simply install the Straightedge code which is located here:
https://github.com/sikkatech/straightedge-node/
- question: How are STR tokens distributed?
answer: |
Lockdrop and signal participants will receive 90% of STR tokens, with the exception of contributions
through signalling on behalf of a contract. The remaining 10% of distribution will be allocated as
a founders’ reward to entities contributing to the launch of the Straightedge project.
- question: What if I want to learn more about the lockdrop or technical details?
answer: |
Please review the Edgeware FAQs where you can learn more about the lockdrop contracts,
the Straightedge software, and incentives for validation.
https://edgewa.re/faq/