“12 jurors jury system 1 justices are all familiar with, but 1 jurors, 21 judges the jury system should not be seen. EOS governance in the arbitration system seems closer to the latter.”
Editor’s note: This article from the value chain (ID:cc-value). Author: Li paintings, the daily planet unauthorized release.
In November 8th, EOS core ECAF (EOSIO Core Arbitration Arbitration Forum Forum) issued the first EOS governance history to modify account key arbitration order, and in 4 days, that is November 12th 15 (Block Producer) by BP. This means that the order will be executed, called “ha4tamjtguge” account of the private key will be changed.
The private key account should be sacrosanct, which to some extent corresponding to the individual right to life in the real world. In the real world, a person’s death sentence requires strict judicial procedures, and even some countries to abolish this kind of penalty. Then in the EOS community, who will make the arbitration? Who will perform the arbitration? They have the authority to conduct arbitration? Where the power comes from?
With this question, this thesis consults a lot of ECAF related information, and interviews with EOS Cannon and #ECAF00000198 cases of the complainant. In the part of this article as much as possible, accurate, but there are also some “metaphor” and “thinking”, if you bring any misunderstanding and ambiguity, and independent of respondents.
01 EOS arbitration system
DPoS is a chain of governance type block chain, all the rules, voting, choice of encoding (chain) into the hard block chain agreement, for the consensus of EOS mechanism, governance is essential. This paper discusses the arbitration system is EOS governance and community members daily affairs of the most relevant part, like in the real world for maintaining social stability and justice of the judicial system.
EOS arbitration system consists of three basic pillars:
1.: Legislative voting token holder.
2.: judicial arbitrator.
3. law enforcement: BP.
Among them, the arbitrator to the arbitration institution as the basis, according to the Constitution and a dispute resolution rules for ruling on appeal, and the ruling submitted for arbitration. ECAF is a service provider for the EOS arbitration, by Thomas Griggs et al in Cox and Ian network before the line is created, it is an independent autonomous organization, has nothing to do with the Block.One.
The ECAF includes the following three parts:
1.: assignment of arbitrators to the case administrator; Arbitrator of recruitment, training, examination, replacement; contact BP award.
2. Arbitration: Arbitration disputes.
3.: EOS EOS based arbitration constitution; dispute resolution rules (RDR); EOS arbitration handbook.
Therefore, in the EOS arbitration system, is produced by legal token holders, the arbitrator by arbitration institutions as the basis, according to the law ruling on the case, the arbitration ruling to submit to BP implementation.
The ECAF and the arbitration procedure is as follows:
1. when a hacker or fraud, or a dispute with other members of the community, filed a complaint, appeal to the ECAF link: https://eoscorearbitration.io/file-a-claim. As a matter of urgency, can also request emergency protective measures in the complaint filed a complaint through the link.
2. if the complaint is accepted, ECAF will send the notice of arbitration the parties related complaints, including the defendant.
3.ECAF will appeal to appoint an arbitrator. If the complaint including emergency protective measures, a separate emergency arbitrator will be appointed to quickly assess the request, and given the provisional measures, submitted to the BP implementation.
The 4. arbitrator will give the parties the right opportunity to state the case, and ultimately make the arbitration of the case.
5. if the result of the arbitration is not fair, the parties can appeal. The appeals committee will hear the case and make a final decision.
6. arbitration results will be submitted by ECAF to the BP, each BP independent audit evidence, judge whether the arbitration order sufficient evidence, whether accord with the convention.
7.BP in the order of approval after the enforcement of arbitration.
02 “power combination
In the traditional judicial system, the jury system has been widely used. 12 jurors (the jury) to review the case and review the results, 1 justices make a final ruling according to the sentencing and evaluation results, the award will be guaranteed to execute.
But the EOS arbitration system and this is different, it is composed of 1 arbitrators are ruled by 21 judges (BP) to decide whether the force.
This is a “combination of rights. A plane, the arbitrator’s power is too large: “case” is composed of 1 arbitrators to give a verdict, excessive dependence on the individual, has decisive influence the quality and ability of an arbitrator’s ruling on the process and results; another aspect, the arbitrator’s rights is too small: the arbitrator’s ruling should be 21 BP respectively through the audit audit, even if the arbitrator has the right to supervise the timely implementation of BP ruling, this situation will lead to ineffective implementation of the arbitration results.
The #ECAF00000198 complaint case exposed the right combination of this deformity trouble. In this case, the complainant for private key being cheated, in the 6 28 April lost 1281 EOS, the complainant filed a complaint to the ECAF, but the ECAF arbitrator until 10 3 April, after the incident is 3 months, before making an emergency freeze on the arbitrator liar account, delay for the reason is “very busy”. At this time, the original account only 552 EOS.
With the increasing of appeal cases, ECAF for efficiency problems are highlighted, the community wants the ECAF to respond to emergency network events in a timely manner, but not ECAF in the first time to deal with complaints.
Back to the 198 case, it suffered a double trouble right deformity combination brings: in the arbitrators finally issued an emergency arbitration order, node STARTEOSIOBP did not perform ECAF this freeze, that is not the cheater account added to the blacklist, so in November 2nd, the BP is responsible for the production of a liar in the 552 block a EOS account only transferred to the exchange and sell.
The BP of the event’s explanation: “the time difference, the first time we saw after the execution.” The arbitration order is issued in October, EOS moved in November account.
More intriguing than the “time difference” is when the ECAF issued by the complainant to ask why no arbitration is executed, BP replied: “the basic implementation of the.”
03 is looking for the source of rights
Why is the “basic execution”, not “guarantee is executed”? Because unlike many people think that the “ECAF power”, ECAF is actually an autonomous organization does not have any power, it has no right to enforce their arbitration.
ECAF has no power.
BP must accept no delay in the execution of emergency measures or arbitration? No, BP is just being promoted to do so, in order to reduce the loss of community members. BP if no arbitration cause the loss of community members, need to assume responsibility? No need, there is no mandatory measures to make BP responsible for his behavior.
ECAF is more like the proposal, rather than arbitration. On the one hand, the proposal needs to be BP audit, the real decision arbitration whether the force is BP, on the other hand, ECAF also does not have the ability to force BP to execute the arbitration. BP is the only right EOS arbitration system in the owner, it not only has the right decision, also has executive power.
This brought many problems to the EOS arbitration system, or power distribution way is reasonable? It may not be reasonable, but it may be the only correct choice at this stage. Only one reason – BP is Chibidaigou vote out, not ECAF. Vote is EOS community empowerment, is the only source of power in the EOS community.
ECAF arbitration is based on the constitution, the constitution is a vote out; ECAF arbitration is BP, BP is from a vote. But ECAF itself is not cast out, nor is the official, ECAF is autonomous, it does not have any power.
Autonomous also determines the ECAF without a stable income or support from the official staff support, facing the mass appeal and the limited appeal arbitrator, with an arbitrator is corresponding to the choice of economic efficiency, and even more impossible to guarantee the arbitration.
The market seems to be one of the methods to solve this problem, ECAF has begun to appeal to charge a service fee, if there are more people in the occupation or semi occupation joined to ECAF, ECAF should be more rational design of the arbitration process, and improve work efficiency. But even so, ECAF is not restricted in the 198 appeal cases in dereliction of duty excuse.
On the other hand, ECAF is not the only choice, perhaps should expect to see more ECAF types of Arbitration Forum competition, more with services including law, security, etc., so that community members can fully benefit, to better protect their.
04 voting rights
You can accuse the Arbitration Forum of dereliction of duty, can also accused BP of inaction, but in the EOS community, and have a greater right to supervise them, the entity can to command them.
However, this does not mean that the authorities can do whatever they want, because their power is by vote, they can also be deprived of voting power.
Choose and vote is really important governance power of EOS chain.
Not all BP and STARTEOSIOBP. EOS Store also had not timely update the ECAF blacklist to members of the community assets were transferred, after EOS Store on because of his mistakes caused by the loss of compensation made; and in another node due to a missing black list to be turned into the victims of EOS exchange in the case of EOS Cannon for the first time linked to the exchange. To temporarily freeze hacker account, buy time for the handling of the case.
If dissatisfied with the BP, don’t vote for it, or actively vote for responsible BP. You throw BP should represent you the exercise of power in the community, and when you need help and support the day after, it is also a source of your power.
If the Convention of discontent, to discuss and vote. You want to limit the power against the “arbitration can change the private key; think safety is more important, it is easy to support the hacker loophole fragile blacklist freezing method to use eosio.sudo/eosio.ware function method to cancel the account permissions, directly frozen account.
If the mechanism of dissatisfaction, and voted to build. You can go on, for efficiency, should the establishment of a powerful court of arbitration, independent compulsory arbitration and enforcement of Arbitration (BP and how to be given and restrict its power), or the introduction of “contract arbitration”, as long as the respondent submitted sufficient evidence, the contract will automatically receive and judgment (how it’s safe to be guaranteed). You can also go to discuss whether BP should focus on technology security, rather than excessive participation in the legal and social protection, this part of their power, but also the responsibility, whether it should be delivered to it, what organization?
By their votes, to define the power to regulate the power, to give power to supervise the power.
In 400 BC, Pericles in Athens to achieve democracy and freedom, but two thousand years later, we still need to strive for this goal, these precious things will not come easily, and participate in, is the only way. Like Pericles that famous speech at the funeral of the martyred soldiers: “a person is not involved in the city-state life is not only a selfish person, but is a useless person. Our citizens should participate in public affairs to participate in the formulation of our policy debate.”
The significance of governance in the public EOS in the chain is underestimated, governance is the key. When we embrace the question on “private key account can be changed to” seek answers, all the way to see all the problems because of the imperfect governance bring to the community, and even members of the community therefore questioned.
The significance of public vote on EOS in the chain is underestimated. In EOS, the power is allocated to the token holder, whether voting or voting BP, a convention, governance is realized in the voting of the.
Maybe it sounds a slogan, but it may also be the road cast your vote. Some people say that the chain will lead to corruption governance finally the chaebol, if you do not participate, the results may be difficult to avoid, but if you are involved in, all may not be the same.