You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: What could a blockchain Constitution look like?

in #eos4 years ago

Wouldn't it be more practical to allow members create their own constitutions within their own smart contracts? I believe it will be inefficient to just have a general constitution for a single currency. It is self-limiting.


And when there is a dispute between two people who both use the same platform?

Nothing stops two people from agreeing to a higher level contract that supersedes the constitution so long as it is not in conflict with the constitution.

The contract itself owes to be self-sufficient to resolve such issues due to the inevitable limited understanding of the parties involved.

I do think it is a good idea to have a general constitution but I can't help to ponder upon all the misunderstandings that will surface. Take for example today's constitution; simple words like "property" can take quite a different spin in regards to how it is perceived and defended (depending on given vested interests).

This is why we create smart contracts which eliminate most misunderstandings.

well, exactly my point. The constitution is rendered redundant.

As I see it, the constitution is the yard-stick, where smart contracts are the inches. That is, a constitution provides the framework, and smart contracts handle the specifics.

I share some of this concern, however this appears to be an excellent first attempt.

I did notice there seems to be some ambiguity in ARTICLE 7:

We agree the Producers may, but are not required to, update the Blockchain software...
The minority Producers shall either upgrade their software according to the approved update, or they shall cease producing blocks immediately.

I understand the first sentence to say updating the software is voluntary, whereas the last part dictates that to remain a Producer one must upgrade to the majority Approved version, once conditions for approval have been met. In legalese, shall and must are synonyms (equivalent). I am curious what the rationale for the first sentence is, and what situation or scenario it was meant to address. IMHO the "but not required to" should be removed. It is important that the versions of software in use by all witness are compatible, and this section defines the terms for which Witnesses are required to upgrade that software so it remains so.

What does this say about dissenting minorities? Isn't this the essence of how hardforks are used to split a blockchain? Could this be viewed as a means to maintain the status quo? Perhaps you should consider a clause similar to the U.S. Declaration of Independence which states (paraphrased) that when the governance ceases to represent the will of the people it is their duty to establish a new contract that conforms to the will of the people.

So yes, the English language is versatile enough (some would say ambiguous enough) to provide for such constructions that could be viewed as contradictory.

Still, aside from this specific section this is very well written and is indeed an excellent template upon which refinements can be made.

Well done @dan!

In the Constitution it appears you are giving AI or a "legal person" full rights. I am not judging that, I wonder if there is an issue with a possible imbalance in votes between what we call a "normal person" today and AI population in the future? If we gave IOT devices full voting rights we are already a minority.

Every agreement we undertake is a form of government. There are an impossible number of governing agreements presently, and many features of many of them are, in fact, neither lawful nor enforceable. In previous comment I have pointed out that there are certain facts of human existence that make a core of agreement both possible and universal of application.

I have also pointed out that it is possible to create a single form of agreement that can sustain a variety of sub-agreements that exist on top of the core of universal application, yet permit utterly contradictory agreements to co-exist.

While you and I could agree all people need to paint their homes green, others might agree that all people need to paint their homes red. Both these agreements could co-exist side by side. Neither agreement could be compelled to be adopted by those that disagree, and signatories thereto could, in a rational blockchain Constitution, withdraw at will at any time they change their mind.

It is also impossible to envision precluding the formation of other constitutions, in a just world.

I strongly advocate for a form of currency that is limited to one per signatory, that is assignable by proxy as I have previously outlined, and that expires upon the termination of the agreement. This seems an essential feature of any just form of blockchain constitution.