You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why EOS BPs should follow rulings from dispute resolution
Is this post an academic excercise or was it inspired by actual events?
Is this post an academic excercise or was it inspired by actual events?
There has been quite a bit of debate within EOS community regarding whether the ECAF decisions should be followed by BPs. I know of at least one Voter Proxy who has stated that he will not be voting for any BPs who follow ECAF decisions, and some BPs have stated that they will not follow ECAF decisions. It's complicated because there isn't a good referendum tool for users to vote on articles in the constitution (yet, but there are solutions almost ready to be deployed). So, I can't summarize all the discussion that has happened regarding this topic, but Mr. Grigg's post is not just an academic exercise. To me, there's a significant challenge to the concept of a blockchain constitution that is being debated within EOS right now.
Thank you for the response and happy new year!
Happy new year to you, as well!
Yes, as @jwilliams says - it's an ongoing drama. The actual event is that the BPs have rejected a ruling to return value in a lost key case. The reasons they give are varied, but the outcome is consensus amongst BPs that they are going to raise a challenge to ECAF and try and remove / destroy it. The rejection of the ruling was just one step in the game.
Other steps to come are other rulings and the referenda on various new Constitutions or ratifying the current one.