All of this is still being determined in real time. We don't even have an agreement on the constitution as a contract right now. When it comes to buying stolen property (if that's what this turns out to be) is that a buyer beware situation? Ideally, the criminals are the ones who should make a victim whole, but those who buy their merchandise play a role in enabling them to get away with it, right?
There are no good lords here. Just people working to try and improve the world through better governance and better technology. Lots of people are working really hard and this chain is brand new with a lot of things which weren't quite done when it was handed off to the block producer candidates. We're doing the best we can with what we have. I'm excited that we even have a chance to work towards fixing things like this. That's more than most blockchains can say.
How can you call this better governance with a straight face? The centralized governance model demonstrated by EOS BPs is not an innovation. Centralized governance is the world standard, and it's what blockchain ecosystems should be moving away from. EOS pulled this decision straight out the Ethereum DAO fork playbook. If you think EOS freezing user accounts is any different than hard forking to return stolen funds, then please explain.
EOS didn't have a hard deadline that it had to launch the mainnet by. If EOS launched before it's governance was completely implemented, that sounds like negligence.
I am completely appalled at the way this was handled. And at the arrogance you personally demonstrate by questioning @anahita from a moral high ground. No BP that voted to approve this freeze deserves to keep their position.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit