Article I - v0.1 Draft EOS.IO Constitution - No Lying

Purpose

The purpose of this article is make lying (i.e. making statements that are misleading or false) be a violation of the Constitution and thus actionable.

Article I Text

No user of this blockchain shall make knowingly false or misleading statements, nor profit thereby.

Commentary on Article I

"User of this blockchain" should be read as meaning every token holder, every account holder, and every person who makes use of the blockchain through a DApp. This includes a person who may interact with a DApp where the DApp holds all the tokens that are used by the person, and the person has no independent or separate token holdings or account.

This seems to pass the "dead man test" for negative rights -- a dead man can fulfill the injunction to refrain from making "knowingly false or misleading statements."

There are two injunctions, one against making statements, and the other against profiting. This may be repetition or overstatement; the phrase "nor profit thereby" could be implied by the prior text. The phrase "nor profit thereby" is included in order to bring added clarity, and to indicate that if person A lost money or property to person B because of a false statement by person C, A can recover from both B and C.

References

None yet

If this was helpful, please UPVOTE. If not, please REPLY so I can improve.

Thomas Cox
blockchain governance expert - active in the EOSIO ecosystem
US: +1 503.516.3886

(all opinions are my own)

«1

Comments

  • ThurgoodMarshallFanThurgoodMarshallFan Posts: 20 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens
    edited March 27

    If you include profit thereby you should include "knowingly" there as well. Otherwise in your example if B is an unwitting participant in the fraud, B risks being punished more severely than C. Personally I would drop that section after the comma entirely. Just my two cents.

  • adrianbyeadrianbye Posts: 2 Brand New
    edited March 28

    This sounds problematic to me. I don't think you can define truth so easily. Thats why we have jury trials, as an attempt to determine truth in complex situations.

    What if someone says something that appears to be a lie but later is found to be true?

    What if someone wants to talk about a topic like race and IQ differences, which many people believe to be not true, but actually is true? Will EOS want to endorse race and IQ differences by endorsing its truthfulness?

    Personally I believe bitcoin core is going to collapse in future. If I make strong statements around this and am later wrong because core finally managed to do something right, am I liable under the EOS constitution? Or am I ok because I didn't know? What if I actually did? How can you be sure?

    While Wikipedia has become biased in some areas, at least you can see how they try to define truth:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

  • towerclimbertowerclimber Posts: 2 Brand New

    I think that this is a very dangerous article. Who decides what is true? A block producer? All block producers?

    How could this affect free speech on a reddit or Facebook-like dApp? This article is just foolish, a terrible and unnecessary regulation that could literally kill this project. Please, please do not include this!

    We have laws around things like libel. That is sufficient, and does not need to be codified into the eos platform. This opens the door to censorship!

  • ZachZach Posts: 4 Brand New

    I tend to agree with @towerclimber

    I think this article needs to be removed. Since the constitution governs the entire EOS blockchain, this would make it against the rules to post false information on any DApp.

    This seems to limit free speech. Suddenly I can be punished for posting false information on a forum or message board? Lying should be allowed. EOS is supposed to be about freedom. I should have the freedom to say whatever I want. In cases where it isn't clear what is the truth, we may find people getting censored because they hold a minority opinion.

  • cryptolionscryptolions Posts: 15 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens
    edited March 30

    My two satoshis for your consideration. Forgive me if this reads as rambling nonsense:

    Beginning with truth perfectly serves the larger mission of EOS -- the securing of life, liberty and property.

    Consider what @thomasbcox has said in interviews -- that having a small number of seminal laws is preferable to a large number of detailed ones.

    Truth alone comes very close to being enough to accomplishing EOS's mission, though it deserves a definition and some commentary, especially since EOS aspires to transcend cultures and existing systems of morality, allowing people to cooperate regardless of their beliefs.

    The need for a glossary is evidenced by the various etymologies of the word. The English word seems like it traces through the proto-indo-european words for "solidity" to the word for "tree" (probably "oak"). In other traditions, "truth" is the word of God.


    A working definition of "Truth" may look something like this:

    Basic Truth

    1) Identity of speaker who is giving testimony.

    2) An idea of Testimony: The steps taken which produced the observation or the reasons for your belief in a future event. As an interrogator once told me, "I don't care what they think is true, I care why they think it is true." (More below.)

    3) Internal consistency.

    4) External correspondence at correct level of precision.

    High Level of Truth

    5) Completeness: symmetry of relevant information between giver and receiver of information. (No lies by omission.)

    6) Pertinent. (No lies by overloading/framing.)

    Warranted Truth

    7) Accountability. Accepts responsibility to indemnify if good faith testimony is proven inaccurate.

    8) Warranty. Accepts responsibility to indemnify for any reason.


    Regarding Testimony, it may prove useful to alert the author of a constitution to a proposed method of speaking called "E Prime" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime).

    E-Prime suggests that speakers and writers forgo using all forms of the verb "to be".

    I think doing so forces you to articulate precisely what you mean, often by using consequential arguments, forgoing short cuts that can take for granted cultural or spiritual biases.

    Ex:

    Vote buying is bad.

    vs

    Vote buying risks incentiving voters to act against the interest of EOS's long term value, and in favor of short-term profit.

    Kellogg and Bourland describe misuse of the verb to be as creating a "deity mode of speech", allowing "even the most ignorant to transform their opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things".


    This seems to limit free speech. Suddenly I can be punished for posting false information on a forum or message board? Lying should be allowed. EOS is supposed to be about freedom. I should have the freedom to say whatever I want. In cases where it isn't clear what is the truth, we may find people getting censored because they hold a minority opinion.

    It may be beneficial to the long-term health of the EOS ecosystem to specify where the rules of truth and testimony apply and where they do not.

    As Jordan Peterson has argued, you need a place where you can say anything, because that's how you sort out your ideas.

    But, for example, when writing a Ricardian contract to outline your dApp, you better damn well be operating under the rules of truth and testimony.

  • dvercheredverchere Posts: 6 Brand New
    edited April 15

    I'm not sure you need to make lying and fraud a constitutional issue. It's probably more of an arbitrator issue.

    To use the earlier example let's say I lie about my belief that bitcoin will collapse because it didn't.

    Then my reputation will suffer because my belief was proven to be wrong.

    This seem like something that should be dealt with in arbitration. Let's imagine that someone took my advice and sold all their bitcoin then bitcoin went to 1 million each. They might take me to arbitration and they might win and I might have to pay them millions of dollars.

    Now let's say I was a crook and had a terrible reputation that was known and visible to all.

    The arbitrator would probably tell the bitcoin guy to get over it and don't take advice from a low reputation crook.

    If you look at the history of eBay everyone was surprised by how few crooks ended up on the platform. Most people are decent and if there's a way to report the jerks then the system self corrects.

    That said...there is the commandment "Thou shalt not steal." Maybe just use that and keep it simple then let the arbitrators decide what stealing is.

  • MortenMorten Posts: 27 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    I think many of the concerns regarding this article can be addressed by clarifying the relationship between the constitution and the other contracts on the platform.

    I don't think the constitution means to prohibit the creation of voluntary contracts/enclaves with conflicting rules to the constitution.

    I've posted a proposition to a constitutional article that tries to clarify this:
    https://forums.eosgo.io/discussion/610/article-proposition-freedom-of-contract#latest

  • cryptolionscryptolions Posts: 15 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    To use the earlier example let's say I lie about my belief that bitcoin will collapse because it didn't.

    Then my reputation will suffer because my belief was proven to be wrong.

    There are many such concerns. I think they are resolved by have a actionable definition of truth like the one I posted above.

    2) An idea of Testimony: The steps taken which produced the observation or the reasons for your belief in a future event. As an interrogator once told me, "I don't care what they think is true, I care why they think it is true."

    Of course, there remains work to do for arbiters, but I think articulating some principles of truth will help EOS's legal system transcend the many cultures and biases people will bring into the eco system.

  • zxc1daizxc1dai Posts: 6 Brand New

    If someone had posted the false information on a forum to pump the price of EOS, the other token holders unconnected with the man got the profit thereby, then the profit would be confiscated?

  • dvercheredverchere Posts: 6 Brand New
    edited April 16

    A prohibition against lying and the protection of free speech can't coexist. Eventually someone gets burned at the stake for heresy. :)

  • cryptolionscryptolions Posts: 15 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    @dverchere said:
    A prohibition against lying and the protection of free speech can't coexist. Eventually someone gets burned at the stake for heresy. :)

    Don't use hyperbole to defend fraud. It isn't as simple as you indicate. Laws against fraud are inevitably prohibitions against free speech.

    You need an idea of "Testimony". Under certain conditions, communication has to happen under the burden (and it is a burden) of truth.

    These conditions can be as simple as a declaration. "The following statement is true to the best extent of my knowledge, and anyone is able to challenge it under EOS arbitrage laws:"

  • cryptolionscryptolions Posts: 15 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    So basically -- I suggested replacing the vague and idealistic "no lying" with a rigorous definition of 1) truth, and 2) when the rules of truth apply.

    I think that's the only way to do it -- clearly distinguish the rules of truth, and when those rules apply.

    If there's another way, I'm all ears.

  • MortenMorten Posts: 27 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens
    edited April 16

    @zxc1dai said:
    If someone had posted the false information on a forum to pump the price of EOS, the other token holders unconnected with the man got the profit thereby, then the profit would be confiscated?

    No, that would not happen.

    In order to go to arbitrage and claim damages from someone, the three conditions below generally has to be met:

    1. Economic loss,
    2. Basis of liability
    3. Causality

    Firstly, In your example there is no one who claims to have had an economic loss. As a consequence there is no basis to claim damages from anyone.

    Secondly, the token holders who has benefited from a price increase has done nothing wrong (they have not lied) so there is no basis for liability.

    Lastly, there is no causal link between an action done by the token holders and an economic loss. So even if there was an economic loss, the loss has not been caused by the token holders actions. Therefore the token holders could not be held accountable.

  • MortenMorten Posts: 27 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    @Zach said:
    I tend to agree with @towerclimber

    I think this article needs to be removed. Since the constitution governs the entire EOS blockchain, this would make it against the rules to post false information on any DApp.

    This seems to limit free speech. Suddenly I can be punished for posting false information on a forum or message board? Lying should be allowed. EOS is supposed to be about freedom. I should have the freedom to say whatever I want. In cases where it isn't clear what is the truth, we may find people getting censored because they hold a minority opinion.

    Zach, you would only risk getting punished if another EOS user took you to arbitration claiming your forum post caused him an economic loss.

    To receive damages from you he would have to prove all of the following:

    1. The user actually had an economic loss.
    2. Your forum post makes you liable for that loss.
    3. Your forum post was the main cause of his loss.

    It would be hard to prove that your forum post was an intentional lie and not just your wrong opinion. Given that it's normal accepted behavior to post information on message boards, you wouldn't be liable unless it was proven that you post was intentionally fraudulent in nature.

    It would be even harder to prove that your post was the main cause of the users bad investment. Most investors go through a ton of information before making a decision. An arbitrator would probably find it unlikely that your single post on a forum caused the user an economic loss.

  • MortenMorten Posts: 27 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    @towerclimber said:
    I think that this is a very dangerous article. Who decides what is true? A block producer? All block producers?

    How could this affect free speech on a reddit or Facebook-like dApp? This article is just foolish, a terrible and unnecessary regulation that could literally kill this project. Please, please do not include this!

    We have laws around things like libel. That is sufficient, and does not need to be codified into the eos platform. This opens the door to censorship!

    If someone was accused of making an untrue statement, the accuser would have to take that someone to arbitration. For the case to be accepted for arbitration, the accuser would also have to claim that the untrue statement actually caused economic harm.

    The arbitrator would decide if the statement was true or not, after hearing the parties testimony and reviewing the evidence.

    The block producers would have no say in the matter, and would simply respect the arbitrators verdict.

    If a statement is not the subject of arbitration there is no reason to decide whether it is true or false at all.

  • dvercheredverchere Posts: 6 Brand New
    edited April 16

    @cryptolions said:

    @dverchere said:
    A prohibition against lying and the protection of free speech can't coexist. Eventually someone gets burned at the stake for heresy. :)

    Don't use hyperbole to defend fraud. It isn't as simple as you indicate. Laws against fraud are inevitably prohibitions against free speech.

    You need an idea of "Testimony". Under certain conditions, communication has to happen under the burden (and it is a burden) of truth.

    These conditions can be as simple as a declaration. "The following statement is true to the best extent of my knowledge, and anyone is able to challenge it under EOS arbitrage laws:"

    Don't straw man my argument. :)

    Lying is not the same a fraud. Lies can serve a noble objective.

  • RomanCryptoLionsRomanCryptoLions Posts: 44 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    I think we agree that you should not be able to make a "free speech" defense of fraud.

  • maomao Posts: 23 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    I think 'not lying' is a very fundamental quality of communication or everything. I looked at my daughter's homework, in English culture, people start to distinguish FACT from OPINION around 8 years old. So, I like the general idea of not lying but critique on 'misleading' as different people (even in the same culture) has different knowledge levels thus hard to define 'misleading'.

    Freedom of speech is a very interesting topic. This article needs more clarification on its scope. My version of this article might be about not lying on the blockchain in order to protect the freedom of speech. i.e. in order to protect freedom of speech, law enforcement are required not to lie in general?

    -EOSREAL
    A New World of EOS
    MP/VM: +1-949.468.5388

  • SunTzuSunTzu Posts: 22 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    Ordinary speech shouldn't be tested so strongly, IMHO but maybe I'm biased? Having to live ones life avoiding any lie at all .. means to cramp style and poetry. Instead, it might be possible to signal what we might call reliable statements.

    The BP named CoxEnterprises attempted to bribe me with a beer last night at the big EOS meetup. I make this reliable statement under the auspices of the Constitution of EOS, Clause 1, so help me arbitrator!

    Now, because I have firewalled off the statement, i've made a deliberate intent for you to rely on that. This could effect your voting on a BP so it's important!

    And I could be called to an arbitrator to support my statement. Who could also find me to have lied, or also find me to have been frivoulous "beers aren't bribes you douchebag" and fine me "you are to sweep up all the spilt transactions for the next month!"

    Now, we would like to signal better the reliable statement. Taking a leaf out of CAcert:

    CARS is an acronym signalling that this statement is a CAcert Assurer Reliable Statement which you can take to the Arbitrator. iang, CARS

    being a self-referential and reliable statement. Adding the letters C-A-R-S to the end of a statement with your name provided that simple signal. So we could come up with one like that for EOS to signal that intent.

  • MortenMorten Posts: 27 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens
    edited April 19

    @SunTzu said:
    Ordinary speech shouldn't be tested so strongly, IMHO but maybe I'm biased? Having to live ones life avoiding any lie at all .. means to cramp style and poetry. Instead, it might be possible to signal what we might call reliable statements.

    I agree that it seems very burdensome to live fearing that anything you say can be interpreted as lie.

    However, I don't think this will be the case if the arbitrators follow proper rules for legal standing.

    1. Personal legal standing
    Normally, to have legal standing means that you have had your personal legal interest invaded by an action. An arbitrator will only accept your case if your personal interests have been jeopardized. If you haven't had your personal legal interest invaded you will not have legal standing, and your case will be automatically dismissed without trial.

    For example: An ICO has false information in their advertising. In order to have legal standing against the ICO you must be an investor. As an investor you have had, or risk having an economic loss as a consequence of the false information. You are therefore qualified to sue, and an arbitrator would accept your case for trial.

    If you are simply a bystander observing the ICO, your own legal interest is not on the line. You will not have legal standing and any attempts to bring the ICO to arbitration would be dismissed.

    Furthermore, your personal legal interest needs to be invaded in order for you to have standing. It is not sufficient that a false statement on a forum offends you if it hasn't caused you any legally qualified harm. (Economic loss, loss of property, physical harm etc.) Loss of patience does not count.

    If we take the previous example: The fact that you are offended by a fraudulent ICO is not enough to qualify you for legal standing.

    2. Universal standing
    There is also the possibility of universal standing. Some crimes are considered to be of such a nature that anyone has a legal interest to bring their perpetrators to court, even if they themselves are not directly harmed. This can be the case with certain human rights.

    If you combine a prohibition against lying with universal standing you can risk a situation where anyone can bring anyone else to arbitration for any perceived lie. I don't think this will be a good solution for EOS.

    Maybe universal standing is more relevant in regards to vote buying, as @thomasbcox mentioned on the last EOSradio.

    3. The state has automatic standing
    A final kind of standing, is legal standing automatically granted to the state. This can be the case for crimes that are considered very harmful to society. In these cases the state is granted legal standing, even though the state is not itself the victim of the crime.

    For example: In some jurisdictions, the state can prosecute someone for domestic absue, despite the fact that the victim doesn't want to press charges.

    In EOS there is no state. (this is kind of the point). Since there is no EOS state, it can't prosecute anyone who lies on a forum. Block producers are not equivalent to the state. Their role is limited to validating transactions and executing verdicts from the arbitrators.

  • StarteosStarteos Posts: 5 Brand New

    Hi Thomas, could you please clarify "dead man test" please? Thank you !!

  • RomanCryptoLionsRomanCryptoLions Posts: 44 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    @Starteos said:
    Hi Thomas, could you please clarify "dead man test" please? Thank you !!

    A great litmus test to gauge the effectiveness of your recognition strategy is the "Dead Man's Test," coined by Dr. Ogden Lindsley in 1965. In a nutshell, "if a dead man can do it, it isn't behavior and you shouldn't waste your time trying to produce it."

    http://mcdowell-incentives.com/the-dead-mans-test

  • RomanCryptoLionsRomanCryptoLions Posts: 44 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    @Morten , @thomasbcox

    Why not near-Universal standing for all crimes, not just the crimes judged as "of such a nature that anyone has a legal interest to bring their perpetrators to court"?

    We all have an interest in a law abiding society, assuming the laws are accepted as just and not too numerous.

    My suggestion would be to Deputize the Polity. Let anyone whose reputation is above a certain threshold bring any crime before arbiters. My intuition would aim for a reputation threshold that accepts about 2/3 of citizens who've been in the polity for > 1 year.

    My only justification for 2/3 is that it puts us comfortably above the likely Pareto distribution of criminality.

  • StarteosStarteos Posts: 5 Brand New

    @RomanCryptoLions said:

    @Starteos said:
    Hi Thomas, could you please clarify "dead man test" please? Thank you !!

    A great litmus test to gauge the effectiveness of your recognition strategy is the "Dead Man's Test," coined by Dr. Ogden Lindsley in 1965. In a nutshell, "if a dead man can do it, it isn't behavior and you shouldn't waste your time trying to produce it."

    http://mcdowell-incentives.com/the-dead-mans-test

    Many thanks! Now i get it, btw, what does "negative rights" mean?

  • RomanCryptoLionsRomanCryptoLions Posts: 44 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens
    edited April 20

    @Starteos said:

    Many thanks! Now i get it, btw, what does "negative rights" mean?

    The flip side of a "right" is a responsibility imposed on everyone else.

    A negative right like the right to free speech imposes upon others to tolerate your speech. It's called negative because the responsible involves not stopping you.

    A positive right like the right to have freehealth care makes a bigger imposition. Society has to figure out how to give you something for free. It's positive because the responsibility involves getting everyone to do something.

    Generally, positive rights are viewed with much more suspicion than negative ones because they make a more sizable imposition on the rest of society.


    There's also this brutalist interpretation of rights which I don't necessarily agree with, but it's important to remember how dangerous the world can be: "rights" are things which weak people want but cannot secure for themselves.

    Calling something a "right" is reducible to saying "please fight for this."

  • StarteosStarteos Posts: 5 Brand New

    @RomanCryptoLions said:

    @Starteos said:

    Many thanks! Now i get it, btw, what does "negative rights" mean?

    The flip side of a "right" is a responsibility imposed on everyone else.

    A negative right like the right to free speech imposes upon others to tolerate your speech. It's called negative because the responsible involves not stopping you.

    A positive right like the right to have freehealth care makes a bigger imposition. Society has to figure out how to give you something for free. It's positive because the responsibility involves getting everyone to do something.

    Generally, positive rights are viewed with much more suspicion than negative ones because they make a more sizable imposition on the rest of society.


    There's also this brutalist interpretation of rights which I don't necessarily agree with, but it's important to remember how dangerous the world can be: "rights" are things which weak people want but cannot secure for themselves.

    Calling something a "right" is reducible to saying "please fight for this."

    I got it, many thanks for your detailed explanation~ :)

  • towerclimbertowerclimber Posts: 2 Brand New
    edited April 25

    I still think this article is problematic, as it opens the door to censorship around political and economic speech. I understand that the purpose of this article is to protect economic activity on the platform, and to create a more secure crypto economy. I would propose a reduction in the scope of this article so that it ONLY affects economic activity, rather than speech as a whole. Therefore,

    “No user of this blockchain shall profit from making knowingly false or misleading statements.”

    As it stands, this article in very dangerous for the censorship resistance of the network.

  • MortenMorten Posts: 27 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens

    @RomanCryptoLions said:
    @Morten , @thomasbcox

    Why not near-Universal standing for all crimes, not just the crimes judged as "of such a nature that anyone has a legal interest to bring their perpetrators to court"?

    We all have an interest in a law abiding society, assuming the laws are accepted as just and not too numerous.

    There are some good reasons why there are different rules on legal standing for different kind of crimes. One of them is that it should be up to the victim of a crime to decide what legal actions should be taken to address the crime. A similar principle applies in business where it is generally accepted that the contracting parties should have domain over their own contract.

    For example: A seller on EOS gives a false statement about a product, the purchaser suffers economically on account of this statement. The purchaser nonetheless decides that he values the relationship with the seller higher than a refund, and decides not to take any legal action.

    If you add in universal standing to this example, a third party with no connection to the transaction could interfere and bring the seller to arbitration for lying. This would be disruptive for both the seller and the purchaser. The contracting parties then lose domain over their personal business to a third party who has no "skin in the game" other than than a wish for a just society.

    Another example could be an ICO making a settlement with its investors. The investors know that the ICO has been less than truthful, but they decide it's in their best interest to accept the settlement and not pursue their case with arbitration. If we add universal standing to this example we allow outsiders to bring the ICO to arbitration despite any investor objections. This could be detrimental to the ICO's operations, and the settlement to the investors could be jeopardized.

    Although universal standing combined with a general prohibition against lying could lead to a law abiding society, I think it's more likely to lead to EOS being a difficult place to do business.

  • RomanCryptoLionsRomanCryptoLions Posts: 44 Jr. Member - 1/5 EOS Tokens
    edited April 25

    @Morten said:

    One of them is that it should be up to the victim of a crime to decide what legal actions should be taken to address the crime. A similar principle applies in business where it is generally accepted that the contracting parties should have domain over their own contract.

    For example: A seller on EOS gives a false statement about a product, the purchaser suffers economically on account of this statement. The purchaser nonetheless decides that he values the relationship with the seller higher than a refund, and decides not to take any legal action.

    If you add in universal standing to this example, a third party with no connection to the transaction could interfere and bring the seller to arbitration for lying. This would be disruptive for both the seller and the purchaser. The contracting parties then lose domain over their personal business to a third party who has no "skin in the game" other than than a wish for a just society.

    Another example could be an ICO making a settlement with its investors. The investors know that the ICO has been less than truthful, but they decide it's in their best interest to accept the settlement and not pursue their case with arbitration. If we add universal standing to this example we allow outsiders to bring the ICO to arbitration despite any investor objections. This could be detrimental to the ICO's operations, and the settlement to the investors could be jeopardized.

    Goal: Create a long-lasting, law-abiding polity.

    We agree on the goal, but disagree on the means.

    Thank you for your comment, however in both cases, I think a victim claiming there was no crime takes precedent over a third party. So in both these cases, Universal Standing doesn't interfere.

    Separately, universal standing offers these benefits:

    • Hedging against the possibility of people unwilling to be whistle blowers.

    • Incentive to protect users who are non-technical, busy, and unfamiliar with arbitrage. If we're successful, there will be LOTS of beginners using EOS.

    • Alerting arbiters to the possibility of victim intimidation.

    • Creating (and rewarding) specialists who actively police the community. Having such specialists helps ensure that tiny crimes (the crimes so small that the cost of prosecuting them isn't worth the reward) are addressed.

    Although universal standing combined with a general prohibition against lying could lead to a law abiding society, I think it's more likely to lead to EOS being a difficult place to do business.

    I do agree that the prohibition on lying is a problem as stated. @SunTzu has talked in the gov chat about having to deliberately envoke the "rules of truth".

    "The following statement . . . . ."

    I think something like that, combined with an actionable definition of truth is essential.

    Edit: See the above comment from @SunTzu

    Ordinary speech shouldn't be tested so strongly, IMHO . . . .

    CARS is an acronym signalling that this statement is a CAcert Assurer Reliable Statement which you can take to the Arbitrator. iang, CARS

  • drbitsdrbits Posts: 3 Brand New

    To outlaw lying is very extreme. We all tell lies and some are good lies. We might want to limit to just cases of fraud - wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

    If you take it further to all lying you're outlawing things like me lying about having any more cryptocurrency when an extortionist contacts me over the EOS network.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.