EOS Amsterdam Telegram Gov channel summery 6 july 2018

Patrick_EOSAmsPatrick_EOSAms Posts: 16 Brand New

(from 6 july 03:39)

The channel is mainly talking about Shell BP’s at the moment. Are they hurting the network? User Eggman (not Thomas Cox) says they are. User Ryan Bethem aks if top BPs who do know but feel afraid to respond. User Ramsay replies by stating it’s primarily laziness and fear. It’s not trivial to initiate arbitration and possibly lack of good evidence.
User Anna states (in response of Eggman) that @eosdallas has said this already and that people are waiting on ECAF and/or the top 21 are waiting on enough evidence that won’t cause them to lose votes. User Ramsay asks why he doesn’t file a claim? User Bethem replies to User Anna by stating the incentive isn’t here to rock the boat. He calls the system broken.

User Average Joe fills the channel with another topic. He says there needs to be more focus on proxy voting. More campaigning, more education, more tutorials etc.

User Dylan state that proxy voters could be paid from WP to literally vet BPs all day everyday. User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox replies that he is working on this right now and asks if anyone wants to see it. A few users reply that they want to. (more on that further in the summary)

User Average Joe suggest a block producer watchdog organization. User Bethem asks if this is basically the SEC? User Average Joe replies that it’s more a global decentralized group acting like ambush reporters and doing impromptu and scheduled visits reporting live to the network. Offering voting advice/educational tools to vet BPs on an individual level.

User Kevin Rose suggests creating a reg producer contract that not only outlines criteria for compliance but also the process for removing a produces who is not in compliance. Then, empower BPs to execute on it. Ryan Bethem replies by asking if Kevin Rose thought about creating metrics to come up with compliance standards which would result in a healthier democracy?? Kevin Rose replies by stating that they are already much of the way there with the current regproducer. There just need to be tweaks.

He also says that what’s missing is the threshold and process for removal.

User ‘The Eggman’ gives his personal and firm belief that the current Constitution plus the current Regproducer and ClaimReward commands, taken together, give standing for any BP who gets less reward than he would have otherwise to file a dispute with the non-producing BP for violating the terms of both RegProducer and ClaimReward.

User Ross (EOSphere) shares a link about ‘Proxy your EOS vote for the good guys’. For the article click the following link: https://steemit.com/eos/@eosphere/proxy-your-eos-vote-for-the-good-guys

Daniel Larimer replies to Ryan Betham that Anonymous BP will not get B1 vote.

A lot of users agree with this

User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox shares his zoom walk-through of BP rating Framework and Proxy System. It can be watched through the following link:

User Dylan asks what would happen if 15BP’s elected from one country would get interference from the Government. User Josh Kauffman replies by stating that Dylan may be giving this too much weight at this moment. It’s a far off possibility.

User Dylan then stated that he was wondering what could one rogue BP do at worst. User Josh Kauffman replies that he’s struggling to think of something a single rogue BP could do that was bad right now. User Sharif Bouktila replies by stating that one rogue BP at worst could clog up the Telegram and keybase channels. 15 are needed to collude the odds of that are almost zero.

User Todor states that ‘As a proxy, you can’t vote with a different weight for different producers, you vote all or nothing.’ Dylan asks if this can be fixed. Todor replies that this is pretty hard, the whole voting system in EOS is designed around that. Sharif Bouktila replies by saying it doesn’t need fixing. Todor agrees but Thomas BP rating system can’t function well with proxies with this system.

User Dylan asks why he as a proxy should be denied the possibility of weighting votes. User Todor replies to Dylan by asking him to slow down on the fixing request. The voting system is at the heart of EOS consensus. Can’t just ‘fix’ it, lots of things to consider.

The discussion now moves to the amount of votes going to one proxy. User Todor states that one or few proxies dominating is what could be somewhat problematic. He states that it could be a problem only if this service becomes too popular and most votes go through 2-3 proxies. User Bonz Manifest replies by stating that it seemed like with that tool there could be many proxy, with all different values for the different aspects that would be important to you. Todor replies that he thinks it is likely to happen that voters converge around 2-3 proxies.

After a bit of back and forth User Todor states that approval voting seems to work well with wide stake distribution. Proxies reduce distribution, so we should be careful with how they are promoted.

User John Chamberlain say’s that the last few BP calls he has seen have been relatively pointless and uninformative. User Lord Valhealla replies by saying that some people don’t even seem like they want to be on calls. She states that we may need to get Berwick in to straighten this out.

User Gregory Prinsze states that he is looking forward to Block One voting. He then asks if the tokens can be leased once Chintai or another token leasing platform is operational? After avoiding the initial question User Douglas Horn replies by apologizing and that he can’t give a definitive answer.

User D-Cortes asks when we are voting for new constitution? User Clement replies when a proper voting tool is out and that block.one is working on it.

User Anna states that many are concerned about the new proposed constitution omitting article 4 (vote buying). She than asks Thomas Cox if there is some insight on why this could be a good thing? User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox replies by saying it’s not a good thing. Dan is scared of conflict and thinks he can ban things at a voluntary layer two. User HeadiEddie replies by saying that you can remove ‘buying’ and it still reads true.

User Natoshi Sakamoto asks if anyone is looking AT FOMO moment at RAM trading start of second parabolic curve he expresses his concern that this needs to be fixed fast or else it’s going to kill EOS.

User SUPER DOG replies that supply of ram can be increased very cheapily so don’t worry about the price. Also we can implement paging to hard disk if needed. He then gives an example for ram. User Natoshi Sakamoto replies by not believing that’s true. In reply to the example he says that this would need consensus and community voting and can’t be done easy. User Todor replies to the example by saying that this means that BPs will have to take the risk to offer more RAM than they actually have on their machines. Perhaps it’s workable, but we need more time to gather statistics on RAM usage. He then wonders if it’s viable to provide virtual memory that can also be accessed by contract, but this consumes more CPU. This way dapp providers have an alternative to RAM. User SUPER DOG replies with:

User Anyx then shares an article from Greymass and states that using actual virtual memory (and paging) is a bad idea without application signals. Article can be read here: https://steemit.com/eos/@greymass/leasing-eos-ram-without-forceful-memory-frees

From this point the channel switches to talking about the proposal of User Anyx.

Users SUPER DOG and Anyx go into a small discussion about the proposal which results in agreeing with each other.

User Todor replies to Anyx and states that his proposal implies that frozen data cannot be accessed by contract? He wonders if this can be allowed. User Anyx replies by stating that it cannot and points at the post. It would be open to attack vectors.

User Aneta states that Dan came in with another solution. He wants to enable derivatives trading. She then asks what the rest thinks. User Anyx replies by stating that Dan is trying to support speculation. Anyx’s proposal removes it. It also enables billions of accounts. User Aneta doesn’t see any issue with speculation.

User User0 is in favor of dan’s solution. Considering how much in fees it has already taken in and made the network deflationary he thinks is a win/win. The only downside is the number of accounts.

User User0 asks Anyx about setting up the leasing system on future ram added to the network whil leaving the current supply in hand of the people that own it? Anyx says he doesn’t like it. User0 asks if it goes up for referendum? Anyx replies that it would definitely will.

The discussion then furthers about the proposal from Anyx and the current model. It concludes in a few users liking Anyx solution and that dan should look into this.

(till 6 july 23:59)

Sign In or Register to comment.