“a transparent mechanism for achieving consensus and/or a judicial process for the dispute resolution.” I believe Dan is working on such a process, alas, we are a day late and a dollar short in this particular situation, so this is in negotiations by a stake weighed DPOS court of sorts, mediated by an esteemed member of the community, that’s what we have.
I’m sorry to say, I don’t think anyone here has a seat at the current negotiating table. So, you can all argue this until you’re blue in the face, and will still have to live with, and even get behind, whatever agreement is reached, because, to echo Yves, we need to put this all behind us and move forward.
More importantly, why don’t we contemplate a bit more about what allowed this to occur in the first place, and how to never let it happen again?
How many of you have read the chapter entitled “Smart Contracts” from More Equal Animals. Because it’s pretty much a field manual for how to avoid this very situation.
Alas, hindsight is always 20/20. If only these insights had been available when we launched the network! But, we now have the opportunity to learn from a poorly defined, and only clumsily enforceable at best, promise, or so called social contract, that was included at genesis between B1 and the EOS community. THAT is the true source of this trouble we’ve been in.
“The consequence of enforcing promises, as opposed to conditional title transfers, is to encourage people to build their economic house on a foundation of sand. It enables fraud by transmuting something that should have no value into something that is presumed to have value.” MEA Ch. 13 “Smart Contracts”
Let’s stop thinking that trying to enforce promises is a good idea. Let’s learn how to never let this sort of situation emerge again, as a community, or as individuals.
I don’t know what the conclusion of all this will be. It turns out that blockchain has a really hard school of hard knocks, and we’re in it.
So, lets not take the hard knocks and not learn the lesson. There is a massive learning opportunity here, if we will take it.
These are words to also keep in mind for everyone debating this subject. The question at the end though is, should we take the loss for any ambiguity here, or should B1 who wrote the contract and have acted arguably in bad faith throughout the last 3.5 years?
Обсуждают сегодня