About the recent arbitration, here are some Pros and Cons from Chinese communities.

SiqiSiqi Posts: 18 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

_About the recent arbitration case in which 27 accounts are frozen, there are different voices among Chinese communities, especially among those who are preparing to actively join the global governance. We hope different opinions and questions in Chinese communities can be heard, and we would like to hear your opinions very much. We will be grateful to hear your thoughts of the following ideas. :)

PS: Personally I think the decision to freeze the accounts is quite understandable, but that is just my personal perspective and might be flawed. That is why I have gathered both the Cons and Pros on this issue. I have tried my best not to distort the original meaning when translating them into English._

Cons:

Opinion1:
The evidence that can prove these accounts are compromised is not revealed to the public by the ECAF. This has given rise to serious concerns in Chinese communities.

Opinion2:
If the evidence is listed for anyone to check, the arbitration would be totally OK. But for now since we cannot see the evidence, it is quite understandable to have concerns. Could the ECAF provide the reason why evidence is not provided immediately? Is there a possibility that this is for protecting the privacy of victims?

Opinion3:
What the public need is cryptographic evidence, such as transaction with corresponding eth signature. It would be outrageous that you freeze an account without at least crytopraphic evidence. As for the possible compromise of victims’ privacy, it is a necessary cost. There must be open evidence.

Opinion4:
ECAF is supposed to give public the evidence on this case. If the victims don’t want the information be spread, ECAF should at least give an announcement on this.

Opinion5:
What is the logic behind this decision? How can I prove that my account has been compromised if I can prove I possess the private key of the account? Also, am I allowed to buy a private key offline? If yes, then there is a chance that my account could be frozen by the seller. The fundamental question is how to confirm the owner? ECAF seems to be vague on this question.

Pros:

Opinion1:
This is what emergency is for. ECAF has already given a preliminary explanation. When things are done, we can decide later on whether the arbitration is appropriate or not and then carry out further reward or punishment. This is a proper procedure. In my opinion, the problem is that some BPs don’t trust the existing ECAF. But since you are using EOS account, that means you have already agreed to the constitution, which says that arbitrators have the right to do what has been done.

Opinion2:
If we go where the majority go at the cost of sacrificing the interest of the minority, wouldn’t this lead to a violence of the many? On the other hand, if we keep considering the opinions of the few, when on earth can anything be done?

Comments

  • SamupahaSamupaha Posts: 52 Member - 2/5 EOS Tokens

    Thanks for writing this! I'm not a member of ECAF, but I'll try to give some answers.

    It's important to understand that arbitration is dispute resolution between two or more parties. For example, A and B have a disagreement which one of them owns certain tokens. They agree that arbitrator C should resolve this dispute. So usually there is no need for the public to know what the dispute was all about. If A and B voluntarily agree that C is the arbitrator for their case, they will respect the solution presented by C, so they can do it without the public being involved in the case in any way.

    There can be cases when some party of a dispute is unknown. For example this current case. I don't think that the suspected hacker has contacted ECAF. He has the private keys for those accounts, so he has a right to tell his side of the story. He can try to prove that accounts were not hacked and people who opened the cases are trying to steal his accounts.

    Everything will be recorded in the blockchain which makes it easier to see if somebody did something bad. This applies to arbitrators, too. If they make a bad decision, the victim can go to another arbitrator and open a new case. The new arbitrator can look at the case, and if there is misconduct, he can make a ruling against the earlier arbitrator. It should be remembered that our system is not about punishing people who do wrong, but finding a way to make things right. If an arbitrator does something wrong, we have the possibility to make it right again afterwards.

    While usually the public doesn't need to be involved in an arbitration case, because it's between private parties, in this case public involvement is somewhat understandable. This is about genesis accounts which were there when the blockchain was launched. These accounts become part of our community, so in this case it might be preferable that the public knows whether or not those accounts might be controlled by scammers. So I personally agree that arbitrators should give more information, such as cryptographic evidence of Ethereum account ownership.

    Another reason for the public to become involved in this case is the fact that one party of the dispute is unknown. If somebody doesn't respond to a case handled by an arbitrator, it might mean that he is not aware of it. That's why it's good that public will make some noise to ensure nobody's property rights are violated just because they didn't know their account is involved in a case. Making some noise will help unknown parties to become aware that there are cases open where they might be part of.

    It's true that communication by ECAF hasn't been good. but this is still very young system and not all procedures are carefully designed. This is work in progress, so all feedback is welcomed. They are trying to do their best to become trustworthy organization. Best way for the public to help ECAF is to give constructive criticism on what they could do better. But remember, it will take some time because there is still a lot of things to do.

    What is the logic behind this decision? How can I prove that my account has been compromised if I can prove I possess the private key of the account? Also, am I allowed to buy a private key offline? If yes, then there is a chance that my account could be frozen by the seller. The fundamental question is how to confirm the owner? ECAF seems to be vague on this question.

    In many cases this won't be easy thing to do. Just like in the real world, all crimes can't be stopped and all criminals can't be caught. Arbitrators know this and will ask for strong evidence for all claims. If there is no strong evidence, ECAF can't do anything about it.

    If you buy an account offline, you can mitigate potential problems in many ways. You can ask the seller to write a message to the blockchain, for example, "today this account is sold to person X". EOS is based on voluntary contracts, so you should make sure you can prove that there is a contract. If it's offline, you can make a old style paper contract. The more valuable the account is, the more proof there should be for the contract. Seller could use other trustworthy ways to indicate that the contract was voluntary and consensual, such as using his Keybase account to sign it. Or you could shake hands and take photograph and put it in the blockchain.

    There are a lot of ways to prove a contract, I think we will see new innovations for "proof of contract" because it's so essential feature of EOS ecosystem.

  • SiqiSiqi Posts: 18 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    @Samupaha said:
    Thanks for writing this! I'm not a member of ECAF, but I'll try to give some answers.

    It's important to understand that arbitration is dispute resolution between two or more parties. For example, A and B have a disagreement which one of them owns certain tokens. They agree that arbitrator C should resolve this dispute. So usually there is no need for the public to know what the dispute was all about. If A and B voluntarily agree that C is the arbitrator for their case, they will respect the solution presented by C, so they can do it without the public being involved in the case in any way.

    There can be cases when some party of a dispute is unknown. For example this current case. I don't think that the suspected hacker has contacted ECAF. He has the private keys for those accounts, so he has a right to tell his side of the story. He can try to prove that accounts were not hacked and people who opened the cases are trying to steal his accounts.

    Everything will be recorded in the blockchain which makes it easier to see if somebody did something bad. This applies to arbitrators, too. If they make a bad decision, the victim can go to another arbitrator and open a new case. The new arbitrator can look at the case, and if there is misconduct, he can make a ruling against the earlier arbitrator. It should be remembered that our system is not about punishing people who do wrong, but finding a way to make things right. If an arbitrator does something wrong, we have the possibility to make it right again afterwards.

    While usually the public doesn't need to be involved in an arbitration case, because it's between private parties, in this case public involvement is somewhat understandable. This is about genesis accounts which were there when the blockchain was launched. These accounts become part of our community, so in this case it might be preferable that the public knows whether or not those accounts might be controlled by scammers. So I personally agree that arbitrators should give more information, such as cryptographic evidence of Ethereum account ownership.

    Another reason for the public to become involved in this case is the fact that one party of the dispute is unknown. If somebody doesn't respond to a case handled by an arbitrator, it might mean that he is not aware of it. That's why it's good that public will make some noise to ensure nobody's property rights are violated just because they didn't know their account is involved in a case. Making some noise will help unknown parties to become aware that there are cases open where they might be part of.

    It's true that communication by ECAF hasn't been good. but this is still very young system and not all procedures are carefully designed. This is work in progress, so all feedback is welcomed. They are trying to do their best to become trustworthy organization. Best way for the public to help ECAF is to give constructive criticism on what they could do better. But remember, it will take some time because there is still a lot of things to do.

    What is the logic behind this decision? How can I prove that my account has been compromised if I can prove I possess the private key of the account? Also, am I allowed to buy a private key offline? If yes, then there is a chance that my account could be frozen by the seller. The fundamental question is how to confirm the owner? ECAF seems to be vague on this question.

    In many cases this won't be easy thing to do. Just like in the real world, all crimes can't be stopped and all criminals can't be caught. Arbitrators know this and will ask for strong evidence for all claims. If there is no strong evidence, ECAF can't do anything about it.

    If you buy an account offline, you can mitigate potential problems in many ways. You can ask the seller to write a message to the blockchain, for example, "today this account is sold to person X". EOS is based on voluntary contracts, so you should make sure you can prove that there is a contract. If it's offline, you can make a old style paper contract. The more valuable the account is, the more proof there should be for the contract. Seller could use other trustworthy ways to indicate that the contract was voluntary and consensual, such as using his Keybase account to sign it. Or you could shake hands and take photograph and put it in the blockchain.

    There are a lot of ways to prove a contract, I think we will see new innovations for "proof of contract" because it's so essential feature of EOS ecosystem.

    Thanks for your perspective, Samupaha! I will translate your reply into Chinese and make sure it will be heard among Chinese communities. Hope this kind of communication will continue, it is really important we hear each other's voice. :smiley:

  • SamupahaSamupaha Posts: 52 Member - 2/5 EOS Tokens

    I'm here to help! You can also find me from Telegram if you have any additional questions.

    If you didn't notice yet, EOS New York published pretty good proposal how to develop arbitration system: https://steemit.com/eos/@eosnewyork/the-state-of-eos-governance-ecaf-and-regarbiter

  • SiqiSiqi Posts: 18 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    @Samupaha said:
    I'm here to help! You can also find me from Telegram if you have any additional questions.

    If you didn't notice yet, EOS New York published pretty good proposal how to develop arbitration system: https://steemit.com/eos/@eosnewyork/the-state-of-eos-governance-ecaf-and-regarbiter

    Yes, we have read and translated the article already, thanks for reminding!

  • SamupahaSamupaha Posts: 52 Member - 2/5 EOS Tokens

    Now it seems that Dan has changed his opinion to reduce what kind of cases ECAF can take. He thinks that it should only handle cases when smartcontracts are not functioning as intended (there are bugs in the code). He will be publishing his thoughts on this soon, so you might want to wait for that before doing anything else.

Sign In or Register to comment.