Dan Larimer Releases Proposal to Fix EOS
EOS founder and Block One CTO Daniel Larimer has published a new blog post addressing the recent controversial actions taken by the EOS Core Arbitration Forum (ECAF). In it, he proposes a change to the EOS Constitution to stop arbitrary decisions by creating a new voting system for block producers. Whether this solution will be agreed upon remains to be seen.
Subscribe to the Bitsonline YouTube channel for great videos featuring industry insiders & experts
Proposal Seeks to Amend the EOS Constitution
The proposal comes less than a week after ECAF, which was originally set up to arbitrate disputes on EOS, took several unexplained actions, including the freezing of 27 accounts and revoking tokens. ECAF’s actions came after block producers had already acted unanimously on June 17th to block seven accounts. While some sources say the frozen accounts were targeting other EOS users with spam attacks, many in the EOS community objected to what they saw as unjustified and arbitrary moves.
In his piece, Larimer proposes that, when disputes arise, a supermajority vote by elected block producers or the use of an agreed-upon arbiter be used to find a resolution:
“Block One calls for an end to all arbitration orders other than to render non-binding opinions on the intent of the code. We believe the elected block producers should be the jury, which must render a 2/3+1 [Ed: 66 percent plus one vote] decision to freeze a broken contract and/or to replace a broken contract with one that operates according to the original intent (as determined by arbitration).”
Pun Absolutely Intended
To be put into effect, EOS’s constitution would have to be amended. Larimer titled his piece, “The ‘Intent of Code’ is Law,” a play on the phrase “Code is Law,” which holds that any bugs, hacks, or other errors on a blockchain are irreversible. EOS was created explicitly with the idea that there should be some on-chain resolution process. As he says in his piece:
“EOS set out recognizing that bugs happen and that the community needs a process to quickly establish the intent of the smart contracts and to resolve things accordingly. This is nothing more than the formalization and acceleration of the same kind of process Ethereum used to resolve the DAO hack or that Bitcoin used to resolve the 0.7/0.8 fork.”
Proposal Comes After Internal Discussion
Larimer had previously made comments which presaged the post. On an EOS social media forum on June 26th, he had this to say:
“My official opinion on disputes regarding stolen keys is that no action should be taken. The producers should campaign on using some of their pay for donations to make the victim whole. I am preparing a blog post for my rationale.”
He also added that:
“… bottom line, damage to community from ECAF is greater than funds we hope to restore to users.”
Yet, the person who signed the ECAF orders, Sam Sapoznick, appeared to disagree with Larimer’s proposed solutions. He replied to Larimer on the 26th:
“I’m going to say this because, again and unfortunately, I seem to be one of the few placed to do so — not being a B1 [Block One] employee, contractor, shareholder, etc. I believe, Dan, that you may be making overtures in a direction which could sabotage the entire project by undermining or completely dissolving the so-far reasonably-well-respected thesis that the main-net is independent of B1’s control and influence. Don’t shoot the messenger, please. There may be no other one. @daniellarimer”
Varied Reactions to Latest EOS Drama
As difficult as the latest crisis may be for the EOS community, crypto observers have been following developments closely. Emin Gün Sirer, a professor at Cornell University and frequent crypto commentator, seemed to side with Sapoznick:
EOS is the best Store of Drama, bar none.
Now, "the arbitrator" is telling "the dev" to buzz off, since he's the central figure of authority. The funny thing is, he's right. https://t.co/2M97UAFYQ5
— Emin Gün Sirer (@el33th4xor) June 27, 2018
Sirer also said that making changes to EOS now would be “an aggression, which goes counter to the EOS Constitution. And if you go counter to the Constitution, the Kangaroo Court can freeze and auction your assets.” This is an argument that Larimer seemed to implicitly accept with his proposal to change the Constitution.
Crypto observer Crypto Bobby also seemed to be following developments in EOS:
As much as I joke around about EOS, it is pretty fascinating to watch this attempt at decentralized governance play out in real-time.
— Crypto Bobby (@crypto_bobby) June 27, 2018
Bitsonline reached out to several current Top 21 EOS block producers to get their perspective on the problem. EOS New York had this to say on Twitter:
There are impactful proposals contained in @bytemaster7's article. We will reflect on what it would mean for EOS and whether or not we think it's in the best interest of the network. Ultimately, it's up to the token-holders to decide what's best, not any one person or group
— EOS New York (@eosnewyork) June 27, 2018
EOS DAC also commented:
eosDAC welcomes the just release proposal and as it is a radical change we will be assessing it and whether any ammendments should be tabled.
— eosDAC (@eosdac) June 27, 2018
EOS Price Ticks Upward Despite Rash of Controversies
EOS’s market price is down around 23 percent in the last seven days per Coinmarketcap, though the wider cryptocurrency market has similarly slumped. Therefore, it is difficult to say how much the dispute is affecting the price, though it is up around four percent in the last 24 hours, beating all other top 20 coins.
The latest dispute arrives after a somewhat rocky start to the mainnet, which saw the network temporarily taken offline three days after launch. Since then, no major technical glitches appear to have occurred, with the recent problems relating more to the humans behind the network.
What’s your take? Is this ongoing saga a sign of maturing negotiations between parties and positions or a souring of goodwill?
Images via Pixabay