Gov | If the rules are not observed, what is the meaning of the Constitution?
给 EOS LaoMao 投票，请认准我们的主网节点ID：eoslaomaocom
On November 6th, 9:00 pm Beijing time EOSLaoMao organized the EOS Alliance - Serenity team to discuss the EOScast stolen case. The meeting lasted 90 minutes and different roles in the community commented on such events.
The content of this meeting is mainly divided into four parts:
- Define "open source"
- The views of different roles of the community on the extension of the case
- Previous case discussions
- End of the words
Part 1: Defining "open source"
Lochaiching@EOALaoMao:
We may need to define "what is open source" and "how to define open source". I want to know if there are any developers attending the conference tonight, and in terms of developers, these definitions are different from non-developers.
Developer xin:
Open source is to stick the code out so that everyone can see what the code is. The code on EOS has a place where you can find the hash of the code. If you open source, you can get the hash by compiling the code. Just compare the two to see if the code is open source. Part of it. Just make a tool to judge, this is an objective thing.
Ask:
Want to be clear, are you a developer on EOS?
Developer xin:
Yes, I am doing DApp on EOS.
Ask:
Do you know that developers on EOS need open source?
Developer xin:
This was not known before.
Ask:
Then you know that the developer on EOS will you plan to write a Ricardian Contract? Or have you ever seen a Ricardian Contract before?
Developer xin:
Sorry, I have not been in contact with the Ricardian Contract before.
Zhao Yu@EOALaoMao:
For our developers, open source is not ambiguous. But some people in the community will think that "the compiled file is open means open source." As a developer, "open source is open source code." So I think next, the rules of the community may need to define "what is open source."
Part II: Views on the extension of cases by different roles of the community
Yuan Zhang:
The community needs to have trust in the BPs. For example, if the holder or potential investor feels that “all the BPs are reliable”, this impression should be spread to give the BPs real rights. Some BPs are like referees who participate in both the game and cheating. This is an important reason why traditional funds have never dared to enter the market.
Zhao Yu@EOALaoMao:
These issues concerning the distribution and balance of rights require a long time to advance and may have a better progress. For me, tonight's discussion is, if BP or ECAF is just to implement, and there is no real rule, then what is the significance of discussing the 1.0 or 2.0 or even 3.0 version of the Constitution here every day? The ECAF is a single point. If this single point has a problem, is BP still doing it all as before? In addition, I want to know what is the reason why EOS is not safe outside the community just mentioned.
Yuan Zhang:
Mainly because this community is crazy, stability is also a big problem. At the beginning of EOS, some projects were directly joined by system participants and did evil. This led to the instability of the entire environment, and it seemed that the cost of doing evil was not punishable, and there was no responsibility for the problem. The responsible person cannot be a single point of role for ECAF.
Some remarks are like this now. "Thousands of dollars can be a BP in a month." It is not for potential investors to believe that the BPs is the sedimentary capital, so it is not possible for the BP to do evil or to harvest. A very expensive thing.
There will even be a discussion as to whether "the CPU is exploding all day because the device of the primary BP is not good enough" or "the efficiency of EOS is not as good as the BTS".
If the BP is able to deposit resources in it and ensure that it is not harvested within a short period of time, it is necessary to express sincerity to the community. And I think that BPs should be active internally, rather than waiting for external funds to pull the market up.
Zhao Yu@EOALaoMao:
As one of the BPs, I will respond to these questions first. First of all, now a few thousand pieces a month can not run a node. The current data is that the api node needs at least 1 TB of memory, and the BP node needs at least a few hundred GB to run normally. The cost is constantly increasing. It may not be familiar to me at the beginning. There is no way to deal with the loss of the main node. However, if BP loses the block, we will contact the person in charge of the technology directly. Let the technology solve the problem first.
For the CPU problem, our technical community often discusses "how can we better optimize the network", "how to improve network performance through technical parameters", or "how can users less collateral have more CPU available" Although there is no final conclusion yet, the technical community has been making different attempts in this regard.
Another problem is why relying on heap hardware can't improve performance. If you know, people will know that nodeos is still a single-core application, it is difficult to go horizontally, so no matter how many nuclear machines are added later, the last thing that can be used is the performance of single core.
There is also a mention that POS is more likely to be stolen than POW. This is actually not related to POS. The project is the party that needs to take responsibility. The code written has a vulnerability. The hack on EOS is due to a problem with the person writing the code, not the entire network. It's as if I can do the right thing and the wrong thing on the Internet, but I can't say that doing the wrong thing on it blames the whole Internet is fragile.
Is the community really unwilling to work hard? No, the community has been doing different efforts and wants to make the whole network more stable, secure and transparent. For example, one of the BPs has a plug-in, and the smart contract can check the network configuration of the entire main network. What is the memory.
Yuan Zhang:
I think this information should be passed on. I think you can make a piece of information so that we can let more ordinary audiences pass the information. For example, the current configuration of the BP has reached the level, at least in the community. In the process of depositing funds, arranging equipment, how to work hard to get things done, instead of preparing to harvest leeks anytime, anywhere.
Yvonne@EOALaoMao:
BPs are trying to optimize the main network, and there are indeed standby BPs suddenly jumping up but not configured enough. Recently, there have been community reports such as LINK in East and the West, and the latest situation of the community has been announced, and all are slowly moving forward. The work of the BPs in the early stage is still relatively large, and we are also very willing to talk to the community's communicators about the attitudes and efforts of EOSLaoMao Team.
If we look at it objectively, we can see that the entire community is moving in the right direction.
Lochaiching@EOALaoMao:
Today, whether it is in the perspective of the spit or the observer, it is a new perspective for us to understand more people's ideas. We have issued such a statement before, and we want to explain to the whole community. Why do we want to pay attention to the rules and why we want to stand up and emphasize the whole community.
In fact, in Constitution, many roles in the EOS community are defined and regulated. For example, besides developers, there are also for BP, for arbitrators, for every member of the community. I have some links here, you can read it. For example, Ian Grigg mentioned in an article the relationship between governance and source code:
This raises the stake of development and separates out the developers who are confident they are doing a good job from those who are not. For the first time, perhaps, we have an actionable mark of differentiation that allows the better developers to charge more: "I and my code are ready to stand before the Arbitrator."
This is currently in other blockchains, or other practical application scenarios, there is no way to achieve it. For me personally, this is also a better embodiment of good token to drive out bad token.
Part III: Discussion of previous cases
According to Victor, who was involved in the “Werewolf kill” case, after the project was hacked, the project party issued a notice for the victims to go to ECAF to file an arbitration. The victims first went to the police station to report the case and then applied for arbitration. That is to say, it is necessary to determine that the project party is indeed hacked, the victims has reported the evidence, and then apply to the ECAF to freeze the assets.
Dun Yi@GEOS:
From now on, is ECAF acceptable?
Victor@EMAC:
At the time, we did not take into account the requirements of the Constitution and open source. The situation was more urgent. We implemented it to protect the victim's assets. It seems that it is indeed necessary to take these two preconditions into consideration.
Yvonne@EOSLaoMao:
The problem we are currently seeing is that developers don't pay attention to community rules, or they don't realize it at all. ECAF does not seem to have rules.
Zhao Yu@EOSLaoMao:
Since our community has rules, the current scenario is actually encouraging the community to follow the rules in disguise. We also need to know if there are any rules for ECAF to handle the case. Since EOS claims to be a “Governanced Blockchain”, the parties do not abide by the rules and can be protected when problems arise. What is the significance of the existence of the Constitution (rules)? I personally think that token holders will pay attention to such orders, because they will think that if such events happen in their own future, what will happen, there will be similar ideas.
Dun Yi@GEOS:
So the question now will still wrap around the topic of defending the prestige of the Constitution, just like the EOSLaoMao team. Now only the team stands up to talk about this problem, and other BPs are still silent, which is already different.
Zhao Yu@EOSLaoMao:
Not speaking does not mean that there are differences.
Yuan Zhang:
From this result, I support EOSLaoMao. In the long run, it is an explanation for investors. This action increases the cost of all vested interests and gives investors more confidence. However, this action is performed at a higher cost. And the problem is that there is only one voice now, and for other BPs "competitors", it seems to highlight their own advantages. Node open source is also for its own benefit.
The project side now upgrades the code too freely. In my opinion, these rights should be in the hands of the BPs, but it seems that BP is not all trustworthy.
Zhao Yu@EOSLaoMao:
I don't agree with some of the Yuan Zhang's views. The code can be modified and updated. It is the place where EOS design is different from other chains. This is why developers need to join Ricardian Contract when writing code. Why do you need to propose code in Ricardian Contract? Intent, this will show later whether the modified content has modified the original intent. On EOS, after the code is open source and joined the Ricardian Contract, it will be well defined. In the end, there will be disputes, and the execution level can be implemented. This is definitely an improvement in the efficiency of arbitration disputes.
Part IV: End of the words
Lochaiching@EOALaoMao:
Everyone in the community has been providing a hot topic for such topics recently. In fact, everyone should understand why we are willing to stay on the EOS blockchain for discussion and discuss it as a currency holder. Because we believe, or are, vaguely believe that this is a new era, we are willing to do what we think is worthwhile or valuable contribution to this new, different world, to help it become better.
BP节点账号：eoslaomaocom
CPU&NET 资源租赁：BankofStaked
币乎：EOSLaoMao
Telegram: EOSLaoMao
Twitter：EOSLaoMao
GitHub: EOSLaoMao
Steemit: EOSLaoMao