In relation to the main «creators block» of EOS – selected by the holders of the token members of the network responsible for the blockchain and confirm transactions – was told by a very unflattering words after Monday the fifth of the capitalization of cryptocurrency in the world have invoked public anger over the confusion going on within the community.
The system control EOS has already caused a lot of criticism and accusations of centralization, as the creators of the block, in fact, unable to make their own decisions on inclusion in the blocks for certain transactions and possible collusion in danger of gaining full control over the network.
Kevin rose (Kevin Rose), co-founder and head of strategy of one of the «founders units» — groups of EOS New York, said that the application may be addressed to the larger problems the software has faced since the release. However, this comment, apparently, was focused specifically on the work of the EOS Core Arbitration Forum (ECAF).
So far it seems that many, both inside and outside the community EOS not quite understand what ECAF (the main body charged with resolving disputes between the owners of token in the network) and what control it has over transactions.
This is largely due to the fact that the roles and responsibilities of the ECAF has been discussed for several months on the forum, but the precise methods and processes, it seems, were not approved. Over the past few days, it became apparent that this information is necessary to eliminate confusion and to clearly structure the rights and obligations of the ECAF to the community.
Boom of discontent started on June 17, just three days after the launch of the network when the creators of the units of the network unanimously adopted a decision to freeze seven addresses. This decision was retroactively approved by order of the ECAF (the referee initially refused to make a decision on this issue).
Then June 22 it became known that the ECAF wants to block another 27 locations, noting that «logic and reason for these actions… will be published later.» June 24 was issued another order requiring that the tokens were withdrawn even with some addresses. This order, however, turned out to be fake.
During this chaos band, EOS New York has made an important decision. «Maker blocks» made an official statement
on Sunday noting that he will ignore the ECAF solution or solutions that seem to be solutions ECAF until then, until confidence in the accuracy and literacy of the actions of the arbitrator.
«We can confidently follow any orders, alleging that they reflect the position of the ECAF. We will resume normal operation once the network is established adequate communication in which the orders can be checked as EOS New York, and the community».
Rose also described the situation as «a rampant misunderstanding as to what arbitration is» in network EOS. According to him, the ECAF needs to improve its processes to make them more transparent and adequate.
Roshan Abraham (Roshan Abraham) from EOS Authority, another «Creator’s block», agreed that the ECAF processes have disadvantages. Meanwhile, the EOS chats in Telegram depressing complaints, speculation and unanswered questions about the arbitrator.
The judge and bailiff
«Founders units» are supposed to adhere to certain and clear rules of governance – the «Constitution» EOS, which is still at an early stage of development, despite the fact that the network is already running. And this, it seems, is the key issue of the network.
After a fake order of revocation tokens for some addresses, rose said
«I woke up due to the fact that scanned PDF file, which would demand travel tokens appeared on Twitter. I spent the next 45 minutes trying to figure out if he was real. I don’t have time for this. It is not safe. Professionals don’t work».
«Instead «spend their time analyzing the merits and evidence of the order Creator will be able to leave the arbitration to someone who’s trained referee who can just tell us what to do,» added rose. In other words, the creators of the units should be similar to police officers, who simply execute the judicial decision.
However, until now such trust by the manufacturers of the blocks was impossible, given the quality of the work ECAF. Its decisions are not stored in any single repository, and distributed in social networks as screenshots of the PDF files that are signed manually.
From ECAF have a website, but «you would think that this is some kind of shadow a front company,» said rose. And this can lead to misinformation if not outright fraud, such as false display of orders that will thrive in this community.
This situation is particularly shameful for the EOS community, which tried to reject the anarchic control system of most cryptocurrencies and blockchains. EOS erected a quasi-official institutions controlled quasi-legal structures that follow a written Constitution. But while the embodiment of their model is poor.
Not for the centralization
It is important to note that he rose, EOS New York and other creators of blocks are not upset by the alleged centralization, which caused a storm of discontent among members of other cryptocurrency communities.
All of these events, and in particular the promise ECAF «to explain their decision later,» provoked criticism, mainly outside the community EOS. The creators of the units became known as «the junta» and «the cartel», «bankers» and «centralized authorities». ECAF, which uses its bright and obscure legal terminology, have begun compared with the «children» playing in the giveaway. Simultaneously, the network of EOS in General were accused
in «building consensus via teleconference».
However, the idea that transactions without censorship – the main purpose of cryptocurrency (as considered in many communities), were met with scepticism and even rejected blocks manufacturers EOS. Instead, the supporters of the EOS want the blockchain was quick and cheap, but also had a management structure that allows you to make decisions that meet the interests of the user.
That is why EOS was built on delegated proof of stake (dPOS), which allows a certain number of organizations to validate the blockchain, instead to apply a system of mining proof of work (PoW) (as is done, for example, Bitcoin).
While any user (with appropriate hardware) can be the miner in the block chain with proof of work, the creators of the EOS units constantly selected network users voting will take place every two minutes. At the time of publication there are 370 candidates for the role of «creators block», who wanted to be among the elect.
As for the belated explanation
ECAF regarding an order about the freezing of 27 addresses, rose found it satisfactory. It was, according to him, verified by the owners of the addresses that you want to freeze your own accounts, because they were afraid of theft by phishing, hacking or fraud.
Despite all the difficulties, it seems that the process of arranging arbitration began to move in the right direction.
Sam Shoemaker (Sam Sapoznick), signed the disposal of ECAF from June 22, said that he could not officially speak on behalf of ECAF. However, he wrote in the Telegram that the arbitrator «is working on a reasonable project proposals for the settlement of disputes».
In a blog entry from June 24, EOS New York has outlined specific proposals for interconnection exchange arbitrators, managed by smart contracts.
In addition, the EOS group Argentina (occupying 22nd place in the ranking of applicants for the role of «creators block») recently released
the application is based on EOS for signing and adding a timestamp for documents in the blockchain, inviting ECAF to use it. Other creators of note blocks that henceforth the orders of the ECAF must be published through a «reliable source», not just in social networks.
Position EOS Authority, for example, is that all the orders «must be published via a trusted source – blockchain EOS or verified by electronic signature ECAF». In addition, Abram added that «all of the evidence and the reasons for certain decisions should be published simultaneously with the orders.»
But until then, unless any particular technical solution, rose expressed concern that the community will continue to face challenges until it corrects the «confusion» regarding the role of different stakeholders and of arbitration in General.
First of all, he said, «ECAF does not accept these decisions, an arbitrator with a particular name on paper makes the decisions». While these referees are just volunteers. Although ECAF is not (or should not) have any power beyond its role as a qualified referee, said rose, the group has to face competition in the «system of justice in the free market».
However, at the moment the network has not reached a consensus in resolving contentious issues. In order to solve the issue with the Constitution of the EOS required by the system, allowing to carry out a referendum among the owners of the tokens directly in the blockchain, and it is no.
The View Block.One
In connection with the latest events, technical Director of the company that developed the network Protocol EOS, urged to significantly reduce the role and capacity of the arbitrator.
«My official opinion on the disputes connected with stolen keys is that no action should be taken,» said Dan Larimer (Dan Larimer) on channel EOS Telegram. «Producers should raise money from its Fund of remuneration to compensate for the losses of the victims.»
After EOS New York refused to follow the orders of the ECAF, in the end, which a fake, Larimer wrote:
«This is the bottom. The damage to the community from ECAF more than the funds we hope to return.»
It is not clear whether Larimer to ECAF was completely disbanded and its role was limited. He cautioned that ECAF will be the «regulatory authority uncertain and unpredictable power.» On the other hand, he indicated that he still sees a place for arbitration in the network EOS.
«Arbitration should be limited to remedying the fact code he wrote, adding: «the Freeze must be limited to these cases.»
Shortly thereafter, Larimer published
an article entitled «The ‘Intent of Code’ is Law», which detailed its position on this issue.
In the near future problems of management of EOS have to be resolved, as they create obstacles to the development of a promising network. It is hoped that community members will come to consensus and prove the appropriateness of the control system.