It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
5/6 July 2018
The discussions are now focussed on moving from the first draft of constitution to a new one proposed by Dan, which excludes human arbitration. User Clement said yesterday that situations which cannot be evaluated by code (ricardian contract) should not be treated in constitution, because they involve human subjectivity. Clement thinks that in the end we will have layers of constitution with a non-human base, just to make sure mechanics are not biased. User Jem sees non-human judgement ability as a complete abandonment of the concept of a governed blockchain. Kevin Rose thinks we will find a balance, but we can’t until we introduce token holder voices as a third facet to the system. Rose said we’re a two-legged stool right now. User Stu pleaded to get rid of 'intent of code is law' and switch to 'code is law'. Basically if a smart contract doesn’t perform as it's supposed to, council can intervene and modify the effects of that outcome. Even if the code performs as it’s supposed to. In other words, the DAO hack can't happen on EOS, because EOS / ECAF will come in and freeze accounts and attempt to revert damages. Even though it was a bug with solidity code and not the developers of the contract. An article by Dan on 'intent of code is law' can be read here:
Juni Lee said that you need 15/21 BP’s to vote. Hence anywhere close to 6 BP’s from the same government/political region is worrisome. There should be a cap of BP’s from any single country to a max of 3. Let them fight it out within their respective countries for a BP place, while EOS BP/network remains geographically and politically diverse. To Simone Ruggeri it doesn't make much sense to set rules about BP location. Some may also be "transnational", having different access to the network from different places. However there should be principles and those who follow them should be rewarded. User Dylan shared his opinion that EOS has to be kept sovereign and free from manipulation from the outside, such as government infringement. BP’s should be deactivated in the event of any foreign government trying to interfere. Dylan would like to see this as a more automated process, with less human intervention. The problem is to write code that could recognize when a government uses their monopoly on violence. It would need a lot of human insight.
User Anna asked the community about their views of real identities as a must have to contribute to EOS. In her opinion real identities are against the idea of blockchain. Nevil H doesn’t think EOS should be anonymous. If BP’s should be transparent, so should the token holders. Nevil sees that as EOS’ true selling point. Thomas Cox reacted by saying that recourse and safety is what most of the people really want when they opt for real identities. If someone uses a pseudonym, but posts a performance bond and keeps their word, do we really care who they are beyond that? Dylan added that there should be an option to be anonymous. Therefore ID should be left out of the main EOS code and leave it to dApp devs to be required or not. Sun Tzu concluded that the use of real identities is a terrible idea, because individuals will be fully exposed to attacks by outside enemies.
Anna also stated that bad actors perhaps can be voted out now if there is a 15/21 BP vote. The BP’s only vote against bad actors if they have really good evidence that those producers are hurting the network. Ryan Bethem replied that interestingly being an unknown BP isn’t already seen as hurting the network. If these rogue BP’s were here for the people, they would make themselves known. Besides, top BP’s are afraid to disturb the current situation and upset people. They’re afraid to lose votes. Dan Larimer made sure that anonymous BP’s will not receive a vote by B1.