'What kind of dispute?'
Censorship of an onchain dapp - as per the example in the article.
'If a constitution is not a valid multiparty contract, then it's basically just a wishlist of how the users would like everyone to behave.'
Agreed and that's exactly my point. Without actionable rules and consequences it's pointless.
And if BPs can simply ignore ECAF rulings, again, what's the point?
The businesses built on EOS will be dapps, I'm not recommending disputes go unresolved, just move arbitration to the layer of the dapp(s).
They can't simply ignore BP rulings, they can only decline to implement them if they feel that the Community wishes it otherwise. In which case it is in effect referred to the Community. Who vote out the BPs, or agree with the BPs, or conduct a referendum.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How is declining to implement them not the same as ignoring them?
This is all getting very semantical.
How about;
Look at, yet pay no heed to
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
But how exactly they would convince ECAF that censorship must happen?
There must be a dispute over an article of the constitution. Which article that could be? And how it is broken by a dapp so that somebody can demand it to be censored? ECAF doesn't have any jurisdiction on things outside the constitution, so it can't give any rulings on them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If ECAF/EMAC are named as the sole arbitrator on the protocol layer then they provide the access for states to make these kinds of requests.
How would they convince ECAF/EMAC to act? Threats probably.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No matter how many threats they make against ECAF it doesn't have any effect. If the case is not a dispute over certain articles in the constitution, ECAF can't do anything about it. ECAF simply doesn't have the authority to make those rulings.
If ECAF makes a ruling that's clearly outside of its jurisdiction, it will be immediately noticed and ECAF's indepencency will be seen as compromised. Until this has been dealt with, no rulings from ECAF will be taken seriously.
Protocol layer = the constitution. ECAF can't do anything about things outside of the constitution.
Please, write down the whole case like you think it would go. Then you can see it is practically impossible to happen in real life.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit