It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Although for a short period of time the discussions in this channel were about RAM, it soon went back to Gov based debates above all else. For all the RAM discussions the Telegram EOS RAM channel can be followed: https://t.me/eosram
The opinions are far apart whether code-is-law should be persevered in EOS. Simon Case posted yesterday that 2.0 Constitution isn’t an implementation of absolute code is law. Case clarifies that it has to be seen as intent-is-law. A world of arbs and rules is possible on EOS, it just has to be on a dApp level. The current Constitution is trying to apply dApp type rules to a platform, which won’t be useful. However it is very useful at a dApp level, for it gives those who want such a system to have it, but doesn’t force it on everyone.
Simone Ruggeri replied that the gov project isn‘t perfect, which makes the option to remove all governance a possible solution. As it isn’t the only solution, another solution would be to try to set up the gov process in a better way. Ruggeri isn’t saying ECAF should revert transactions without ruling, but the most important topic for now has to be no vote-buying. This is why B1’s constitution proposal is flawed. It’s necessary in DPOS that there is a possibility to control who is contributing actively to the community and who is just seeking rent. Ruggeri has also written an article on his view of governance:
User Martin trusts in the ECAF ruling on theft, if there’s nothing more to do to restore things. The opinion itself would be worthwhile for the person suffering and to the reputation of the offender. Eosblockzero stated that real live identities should be excluded. The only reputation that can be harmed is the reputation of your digital identity. User Todor replied that vote-buying is a grey area, hard to enforce or detect, it’s better to not have such rules, as all they cause is rumor-mongering and discord in the community. better to have an economic incentive instead. Case added that enforcing is not practical or helpful. Some smart ways have to be found to incentivise the behaviour the community wants, and to discourage those it doesn’t want.
User Urius plead for the de-centralization to be a solution for all holders to have security. All participants in a forked network have to observe each other within the same chain. Todor thinks the community shouldn't be split by this point. The only thing it will lead to is a race to see who first builds the necessary tools and smart contracts for the system to work, while it should be a race of quality and value.
Dan Larimer added to this that all blockchains start out centralized. The challenge is to build a system that spreads and grows to become decentralized. Who is more likely to vote for decentralization of producers, B1 or anonymous whales voting for their pals as producers? Larimer added that bad producers can be voted out, along with the whales who voted for them. Rhett Oudkerk Pool stated that many people talk about a different kind of bad. There are BP’s who do nothing but vote for themselves, run the nodes and collect the rewards. Larimer confirmed that lazy BP’s will not maintain votes from B1.