ECAF has not been elected by stakeholders = decisions are null and void.
BPs have no, and I mean it, absolutely no right to meddle with the blockchain state without stakeholder consensus.
This is a very sad day in the young history of EOS, where 21 people decided to overrule an immutable chain state without majority consent.
Edit: which BPs were hesitant to change this? they will get my vote. removing everyone else.
Dear @Ash, thank you for expressing your strong opinion. All block producers were hesitant, as everybody understood this will create a precedent. Please remember that this case is very specific and extraordinary, in the formation of our governed chain.
Only after a 5-hour discussion, the temporarily coordinated blacklisting, using a config file setting, has been implemented by the top block producers. Until we have governance in place to handle this scenario.
The consensus around block producers was the following, we are running a governed chain. No action would be non-governing and would lead to the destruction of property. This is not why many token-holders signed up for $EOS.
In this specific case, in this specific time, the block producers who were voting, and after careful deliberation and discussion, the decision was made to implement this temporary freeze of these 6 accounts of the 100. The rest will be monitored.
Hope this will give some nuance to the events as they occurred.
Regards Boy Maas
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am doing the same. I feel sorry for the spoofed but this is not the way to go. What's the next decission they will make without majority consent?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit