You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: EOS - So you are missing the explanation for the frozen acocunts? Read this!

in #eos3 years ago

What is your assessment of early EOS abritration?

Let's see what the word "abritration" actually means.

the formal process of having an outside person, chosen by both sides to a disagreement, end the disagreement.


The question is: how does the above definition fit into what is happening on EOS? Is ECAF really acting as an arbitrator or more like police?


Good question, because it addresses some facts about EOS not well known. By using the blockchain, every participant agrees to the constitution and thus arbitration, and as for now no other forum has been defined, ECAF is the default arbitration, just as described by the constitution. So everything is there. And by starting the unstaking process on the nascent EOS blockchain, those scammers, did formally agree to arbitration.
If you are interested in this topic i recommend watching @dan's recent explanations how this works:

In addition: If in fact the arbitration-action would have been illegitimate, one of the current possessors of primary keys of those accounts frozen could have stepped up and dispute the arbitration ruling, but until now only uninvolved 3rd parties have done so.

Yes, I'm aware of this video and it only proves my point.

When you are a citizen of any country, you also agree to the constitution by choosing to live in that country and thus you are subject to its police and justice system, as defined by the constitution, if you commit a crime.

Just stop calling ECAF an arbitration, which in real life is an entity you opt to employ when you enter a particular contract with a third-party.

Instead call it police (combined with a court of law), and everything will be fine.

When you are robbed, you don't have a disagreement with the thief. You are a victim of a crime. You don't need an arbitrator, you need police. So when you're calling ECAF an arbitration, you're twisting the reality to hide the truth.

When you are robbed in real life, you call the police, that makes an investigation, brings the case to a court of law, which issues a verdict which is then implemented by the government.

When you are robbed on EOS, you call ECAF, that makes an investigation, reaches a conclusion, issues a verdict which is then implemented by the BPs.

The analogy is perfect. What we have is a policed blockchain. Is that what we wanted? I don't know.

I wouldn't call it police. Police in that sense would imo be the bps, because it's them to carry out the orders. ECAF rather resembles the court of law. and it might differ from offchain only in that sense, that offchain arbitration exists inside a judicial framework of law. The latter doesn't exist on EOS, so arbitration is the only legal entity we have. But still, its tied into the blockchain, and once you are using it, you are bound to it. you still have the liberty to not do so.
If you are asking me, my answer is a pretty clear:yes, this is exactly what i want, and it is exactly what i expected, since Thomas Cox has described that in length and repeatedly ahead of the launch.

I wouldn't call it police. Police in that sense would imo be the bps, because it's them to carry out the orders. ECAF rather resembles the court of law.

Nope, I'm sorry to say you are missinformed. Police does the investigation and brings the case to a court of law and so does ECAF, which performs both of these roles. It's police and a court of law combined into one entity, which makes it even more formidable.

If BPs can be compared to anything, it's the high court and the executive body (the government) combined but certainly not the police.

I'm not saying a policed blockchain is a bad thing. For me it doesn't make much sense but I guess some people might like it to be taken care of.

But why are you so afraid to use the right word to name it, and hide behind the arbitration phrase?

Nope, the arbitrators don't do any investigation, it's the parties in dispute, which are to bring up evidence, which then is assessed by arbitrators, who publish their ruling. So there is no ground for me to follow your terminology.
What i would be interested in, what would be your suggestion to do better? Letting scammers, hackers and faulty code, put investors at risk? Because that would be the consequence of dropping arbitration?

OK, so in your terminology the thief got into a "disagreement" with the victim, then they contacted the arbitrator who assessed the evidence brought forward by the thief and the victim, and made a ruling.

Sounds like a very solid reasoning.

As I said, I have nothing against police and ECAF. They serve a very important role and I wouldn't want live in a country where there is no police (though I'd prefer a blockchain where there's no police, just voluntary arbitration).

Just stop pretending, call ECAF what it really is, and I'm fine with it. What I'm against is twisting reality to hide the truth.

You got the case totally wrong! In this case it was the victims who contacted the arbitrators. They asked that their accounts are freezed, because scammers have got hold of their EOS keys and used them to unstake their tokens!

Yes, you're quite right, it's usually the victim who feels the need to contact the police. Maybe there are some thieves who do that, but usually not the clever ones, I guess.