EOSIO Telegram gov channel summary 30 June/1 July 2018 - EOS Amsterdam Telegram

Daniel_EOSIOAmsDaniel_EOSIOAms Posts: 8 Brand New
edited July 1 in General

30 June/1 July 2018

The discussion is still going on whether the community has a preference for arbitration on the base layer or dApp layer. According to Tanish Verma both sides have its merits and demerits. The base layer arb forum was creating a lot of chaos and there could have been many cases which couldn’t be resolved by ECAF. The community isn’t managing ECAF anymore, b1 is. And with b1 going against the constitution v1.0, ECAF has become obsolete. Verma states that if the community wants an arb forum on the base layer it should be headed by the likes of Eva Stowe and Ian Grigg. Therefore the community has more trust in ECAF, otherwise we’re just heading towards v2.0 voted in.

Watch this (33min) video for the keynote speech of Eva Stowe and Ian Grigg on why we need gov and arb:

User Emma has made suggestions how to improve the constitution. The structure being imposed is aimed at centralizing understanding, while ensuring that power is not centralized. Josh Kauffman emphasized that anyone can propose a constitution. If you for example like parts of v1 and v2, meld them together in a way that makes sense. Don’t wait on b1 to to change things, for they are nothing more than a participant in this community. Simon Case stated that perhaps vote-buying shouldn’t be included in the constitution. The main argument to not include it, seems to be that it’s not enforceable. It does however set a standard.Therefore if all you are doing is laying out standards, it belongs in the BP agreement and not in the constitution. See this link for the detailed version of Emma’s draft: https://forums.eosgo.io/discussion/1540/a-framework-for-an-improved-eos-constitution/p1?new=1

User Yannick wondered why not all BP’s are fully transparent, even when the community wants them to. User HeadiEddie debounced this thought as just a farce, being slightly insulting to the crowd an discrediting to the BP’s. Full transparency of off chain matters is impossible. Community can demand it where possible and refusal will bring distrust form the community. A whale or collection of sock puppets can keep whoever they want in place, for whatever nefarious or non-nefarious reasons they have in mind, for whatever off chain agenda they seek. The BP might not even need to be aware of such agenda’s. A community driven BP could be fully automated and verifiable that no other forces are at stake.

Rhett Oudkerk Pool commented on Controllinghand’s article that Bitfinex is a exchange and a block producer. Controversially, the BP part worked with the procedure an the exchange helped route event 5 away. See this link for the mentioned article: https://steemit.com/eos/@controllinghand/eos-accounts-blacklist-details

Rob Finch proposed the idea yesterday to secure wallets like the b1 iPhone hardware wallet, to eliminate almost all key theft. When recovery is added through a recovery partner, stolen keys will be reduced to nearly 0, without centralized arbitration power. Kauffman replied by saying that it isn’t sure when this wallet comes out. On top of that it can only cover the amount of people who use a phone with a secure enclave. Kauffman thinks it’s great a wallet is coming, but you can’t just say sorry to everyone until it comes.



  • someoneElsesomeoneElse Posts: 17 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    Thanks for the summary. In what sense is B1 now managing ECAF?

Sign In or Register to comment.