It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
(from 00:00 July 7th)
July 7th starts with User Lapapanite explaining about trading on RAM:
User Natoshi Sakamoto shares his thoughts about RAM about explaining the common investor that RAM is and will be the real EOS.
User Lapapanite agrees with Sakamoto by stating he makes a very good point. And shares his opinion on RAM/CPU.
User Raman Bindlish states that for making CPU and NET more scarce, we need running dApps. He asks where the community effort is to support fast dApp development. User Lapapanite replies by stating if RAM price stat is high it could be non negligible impediment to dapp development. Ram become barrier to entry for devs.
User Raman Bindlish asks what the use is of $1 billion funds created by B1? And that they should fund good dApps. User Th Gj replies by saying they have 5 things on the table. User Lord Valhealla replies by saying FITBLOX is launching on EOS. User Raman Bindlish sums it up by stating that we need to think positively and focus on good things about EOS. That it’s one of the most useable blockchain and we need to get the ball rolling with real world applications. Lord Valhealla adds to that that it would help price action.
User controllinghand wants to make a proposal for consideration to be added to the new constitution. He then says that the EOS BP Compliance date/research group would like to submit the following proposal. Link to Preface: https://github.com/controllinghand/minbpcreq And link to proposal: https://github.com/controllinghand/minbpcreq/blob/master/MinimumBPCRequirements.md
He states that they are still working out the details but want to get the list of articles for consideration. Users David P, name lastname, Kevin Rose and Michael Yeates share a bit of their thoughts on the proposal. It concludes in Kevin Rose stating ‘There are good things in there. I don’t want to sound negative.’
User The Crypto Type asks what’s more valuable to hold the RAM or the EOS? User Th Gj replies by saying TUSD is pretty stable. User Natoshi Sakamoto replies by saying RAM.
User Martin shares his thoughts on Dan’s proposed solution:
User Kevin replies by stating all of crypto is a speculative feeding frenzy. User Martin replies that he hopes it will be about the dApps. User Kevin hopes that too but tells that 99% of the crypto projects out there are garbage and hopes EOS survives. It concludes with User Martin saying it needs to be cheap enough for an unfunded dApp with a great idea to launch. Treat the RAM issue as a bug. He then sums up what to do:
After User Josh Kauffman reacts to User controllinghand (proposal from before) User Dylan states that Dan has already solved many of the issues including unneeded, self-conflicting bugs. User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox asks Dylan for an example of an ‘Unneeded self-conflicting bug’. User Dylan posts the following links: https://forums.eosgo.io/discussion/1506/the-right-to-publish-of-article-12-is-a-positive-right-and-in-direct-conflict-with-article-3#latest (on this one he was trying to fix the first draft) https://forums.eosgo.io/discussion/1460/vague-undefined-and-misleading-words-could-would-render-constitutional-consensus-impractical#latest (on this one he was trying to improve Dan’s updated constitution) https://forums.eosgo.io/discussion/1571/clarification-is-never-a-bad-thing-constitutional-additions#latest
User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox than states to User Dylan that he is engaged in a multi-week global project. And that he is hosting work sessions in Seoul and Shanghai between July 19-24 connected to the meetups in those cities and tells him to PM him anything he would feel wouldn’t be useful to share publicly.
After a bit of back and forth between User Josh Kauffman and User controllinghand (again about the proposal) about explaining a relationship between top BPs and whales (voting disclosure) it comes to the conclusion that it might have to go. Then User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox states that nobody has even TRIED to enforce the ban on vote buying and that it is absurdly premature to suggest it doesn’t work. User controllinghand then asks User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox if he could look over the proposal again. User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox asks how much input he has gotten yet. Controllinghand replies by stating a lot mostly from other BPs and BPC and the EOSBPCompliance team. Then User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox shares his concern that the document is both quite long and in places vaguer than he’d like. He then gives a few suggestions.
The discussion changes as User Ramsey asks User Syed Jafri about his response to block.one’s statement release on Jun 28th. This goes back and forth for a long time. It concludes in the following:
User John Chamberlain adds that he would use words trust or understand it’s decision precess, lack of transparency along with bad first impression following random reasoning to exclude then include it as a default forum. User Ramsay states to fix it and not throw it out. Instead of a new constitution let’s fix the old one.
User Martin states that staked bonds could also help justify DAC BPs. As in stake to cover disputes against the BP they are a member of. He later states that it’s an option for constitution V3 and that Dan proposed it a while back.
The discussion then revolves around whether or not EOS needs Legal teams.
User Dylan thinks EOS doesn’t need Legal teams, he states we can be lawful instead of legal. User Tanish Verma thinks we do need legal teams, not everything can be solved by maths. User Dylan thinks legal teams will kill EOS. User Clement adds that if eos gets used by real business there will be a need for legal team. User Tanish Verma agrees with Clement and states that without a strong foundation, accepted and trused by masses we could not think of mass adoption.
Later User Syed Jafri states that they would like for the constitution to come back to the current version over the long term and he see’s v2 as a starting point. To start at something more absolute and add subjectivity as the processes are built.
User Todor shares his thoughts on V1 and V2:
User John Chamberlain states the following:
User Bai adds ‘don’t forget RAM trading. Must need to unstake those.’
User Tanish Verma asks User Todor if eos.sudo could help with bypassing BPs and empowerint the dapplication arbs forum or the founders to freeze funds/accounts? Link: https://github.com/EOSIO/eos/tree/master/contracts/eosio.sudo
User Todor replies by stating ‘No, sudo can be used by active BPs, so this won’t bypass them, it will instead empower them.’ User Tanish Verma then asks how the sudo function empowers the BPs. User Todor replies it’s just a common method for BPs to agree on atypical actions. Basically a way for BPs to enforce arb decisions. After an explanation about how arbs functioning as per constitution v2 User Tanish Verma asks if the changes on dapplication level hinder any process of IBC, but later User Todor states that this is a dapp problem, not a chain problem.
User Sun Tzu replies to a message from User Aneta about the ‘another solution from Dan’:
To which User Aneta replies that the answer is obvious but when it’s not possible to get rid of speculators it’s good to create a separate market for them. User Sun Tzu replies that he’d rather see some evidence of shortages and hoarding before creating a market where we think one is needed. She then asks how User Sun Tzu would address the issue in a different way? User Sun Tzu replies
User Urius replies to User Sun Tzu by stating that Devs and community are wondering the same thing. It wouldn’t be as much concern if we had the IBC and path to create new chains. A new chain (or multiple) would be a better market response to high RAM.
User Urius then shares a youtube video about the history of the internet and how disruptive technologies win or lose. Link:
After a while User Urius proposed the following RAM pricing idea:
User HeadiEddie replies by stating that the actual cost of RAM is pretty much a nonissue when looking at what a BP makes. User Urius states that by putting the prices discovery with the BP’s might be a better solution. It could be ‘free’ or low cost but it’s a logical approach to this issue. User HeadiEddie says that it could be set at the actual market cost. User icx asks what if we make RAM a fixed price and keep speculation in EOS tokens. User Urius states that you want ‘X’ amount of RAM, you pay ‘X’ amount in EOS per BP bid schedule. If BP’s get out of line, we go to another chain and build there. He states that it would be more transparent. BP could tell community how they arrived at cost. User HeadiEddie states that BP’s have way too much power and that there is no need to put that many warring eggs into one basket. User Urius states that they technically already control the RAM market.
Later User Urius states that the cost of RAM is decoupled from the value of the EOS chain, and the cost to do RAM upgrades. User Katie Roman states that this is the main problem. If developers can’t even build on EOS, what’s the point?
After this there is a lot of back and forth between different users about RAM, dapp developers and the community.
After that User Aneta posted:
User Tanish Verma replies by stating we need to learn from trial and errors. Dan will certainly turn thing around but we need to tell him what looks good/bad.
User Daniel Larimer states that RAM prices are the result of scarcity. He doesn’t like it any more than the next dev. User Th Gj replies by saying that the derivate market will reduce this. Especially if the derivate fees are significantly smaller then the ‘physical ram’ market.
User Todor supports a rental model because the problem with a free market is that a large portion of the RAM will remain unused. User Daniel Larimer replies by saying that the problem with a free market in oil is that large reserves are never used and we should make people burn it all for cheaper oil. User Todor replies by saying that oil is not a big bottleneck like RAM on EOS is.
After a lot more conversations on RAM the channel changes discussion towards arbitration
User Urius says the main concern is the extent arbitration applies between two users within EOS. User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox asks what the concern is. User Uriurs says threats of arbitration for items that do not involve a contract between two parties. User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox asks by whom? Be specific. User Urius says if scope isn’t well defined and someone files a claim against another user, understanding the protocols/procedures ECAF takes to investigate that claim is a critical concern. User Stu mixes by stating that you sacrifice objectivity with subjectivity when you toss out code is law with intent of code is law. User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox agrees. User Stu says that instead of programming a solid system, you just lean on subjective precesses. User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox says that’s absolutely a risk and agrees. User Stu says that ECAF can just freeze accounts if they want or there is a ‘reason’. That reason is completely subjective or course.
User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox later states the following:
The remainder of the day is a back and forth between a few users about arbitration, examples (ebay), authorization of an arbitrator, and a lot more. User Thomas ‘The Eggman’ Cox states that we are operating under constitution V1 until the referendum process is in place.
(till 20:30 July 7th)