RE: Some Thoughts (and Concerns) About EOS DPOS Block Producer Independence
I think you're raising a lot of interesting questions. People had some semblance of 'security' when it was default that 'code was god'. That OBVIOUSLY led to problems, as 95% of people aren't devs, and 99% of people aren't blockchain devs. Funds were lost, some livelihoods ruined, and reputations tarnished.
I think the shift to something more forgiving is absoloutely necessary, and despite how much people piss and moan about it, I think that EOS, with it's community and constitution is a step in the right direction (whether it's the be-all and end-all solution? I find that doubtful).
I hadn't thought about the ability to manipulate a token contract after people have signed up for it, and it indeed raises some very concerning questions. I was really excited about the "Virtue Poker" dApp for ETH, precisely because the contract allowed it to be trusted. I worry that this is just going to end up turning into another "terms of service" / "Can't be bothered to read this shit" trap that we're currently living in -- but perhaps people can be motivated to step up their awareness, or better yet -- maybe some institution of actual democracy can be implemented in more of the services that we utilize?
Thanks for sharing, dude.
You're welcome! Thanks for watching.
Two follow up questions for you (one related, one not):
I'm curious about setting up an EOS block-producer, and am wondering if it's generally the same system. (I.e -- there are 21 "top" block producers, but there is room for a hundered or so back-up BP's). Are you able to share if that's indeed the case, and if it may be worth it (say from maybe a "yeah you'll sign a few blocks here and there", or a "nah, you'll likely never sign a block, so I probably wouldn't bother" kind of perspective) to set up an EOS BP?
Thanks for the informative response. I hadn't really dug into the '3 year' rule for maintaining rights to property -- but I definitely like @dan's logic behind putting the onus on the property owner to put in the minimal effort to maintain their rights, rather than resting it on the community. I'd chalk that one up as a big win for the community at large, not because of whatever 'treasures' may get scored, but precisely because it's removing risk off of the communities shoulders, and placing it on individual property owners who must exercise due diligence.
As far as the naming / wording of the ICC / "EOS Core Arbitration Forum" stuff goes -- I've never been on to read too much in to names and the like -- but I deal pretty extensively with standardized construction contracts. One of the most appreciable parts of them is the "default" dispute resolution steps that must be followed if anything starts to go sideways -- so I think I can appreciate the intent of the system there.
As far as setting up a BP for EOS -- I don't see myself jumping in any time soon. The competition looks pretty vicious, hahaha.
But maybe if I start seeing some compelling dApps and the like, I might be interested in setting up a node of some kind.
Thanks again for the info!
You're welcome!