You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proposal for an incremental Constitution and Dapp layer governance on EOS
How could there be a secure method of communications set up with people who didn't exist?
How could there be a secure method of communications set up with people who didn't exist?
You said ECAF was in an advanced state of readiness with a list of arbiters and administrative processes all in place. I disagreed and said this wasn't true and nothing you have said has changed my opinion on this.
ECAF's readiness or lack thereof appears to change as and when it suits your argument.
If ECAF were ready, then regardless of which BPs got elected, ECAF could have stipulated their chosen method of communication so BPs knew who they were dealing with. They didn't and this caused a great deal of confusion. BPs had no way of knowing who was a member of ECAF and who was a fake.
I still don't think you quite grasp the concept of needing to prove your worthiness before requesting such positions of power.
lol... it's always possible to cherry pick one little point and use that to proove the other guy is "false".
"Advanced state of readiness" is a subjective thing, not a thing provable by one detailed question.
Overall, ECAF was ready because it was able to handle the cases that came in. Look at the history of the 7 frozen accounts. ECAF did its thing, returned its results. As far as I can see, no particular case was badly handled beyond what you would expect in the normal starting phase of a complex and complicated operation.
(And did so securely. BPs were not confused. BPs knew who they were talking to. It might be that the public saw confusing results. But that's not the same as the BPs being confused.)
Ian, I respect you greatly, but I feel you are not recalling recent history correctly. Please read the article below written by a very dismayed and very respected block producer:
https://medium.com/eos-new-york/the-state-of-eos-governance-ecaf-regarbiter-401c073d622d