You are either completely misunderstanding how EOS works, or you are willfully trying to deceive people.

Neither is true. We understand how EOS works via DPoS as it has from the beginning. No one is trying to deceive anyone.

Both options are really bad from a BP which has been with EOS since the beginning.

It is our engagement from the very beginning before the mainnet launch that informs our perspective on this issue regarding ECAF's exact scope and role at this time. Many features promised by Block One were not available at launch (such as account recovery) which further informs our perspective.

You can't just call on somebody to stop obeying the constitution.

No where does this document suggest this, even though you keep bringing it up in Telegram. ECAF is empowered by Article IX to deal with "disputes arising out of or in connection with this Constitution." Just as Block One requested, this document asks (not demands) ECAF not make rulings which the community may believe extend beyond a direct dispute about the nature of the constitution (such as changing a private key).

If there is something that you disagree with, you need to ask the community to amend the constitution.

This is exactly what we asked for here:

It is also imperative that we, as a community, institute the required referendum as soon as possible and allow EOS mainnet token holders to decide on the governance they want for the chain.

You really can't try to pressure parties of the ecosystem to disobey constitution if you don't like certain rules.

Again, we have not asked anyone to disobey the Constitution. Please explain why you think this as it's a pretty serious accusation. No where does this post even mentioned the Constitution.

How the hell you can expect that the stability of the chain will be preserved if people should act against he constitution?

Who is acting against the Constitution? As to the stability of the chain, that is currently maintained via DPoS, as it has been since the beginning.

If one part of the constitution is completely ignored, then all the other parts can be also ignored.

Not according to Article XIV.

This will lead to the situation where everyone can try to do whatever they want, as long as they think won't cause them too much problems.

I disagree. As evidence, the second ruling by ECAF was not approved. The chain is still functioning just as it was before. BPs are held accountable by the token holders, just as before according to DPoS.

It was the constitution which does all this. ECAF is just there to make the decision over disputes arising from the constitution.

Is there any limitation at all in how you view "disputes arising from the constitution"? Based on my conversations with ECAF, it seems nothing which in any way relates to the EOS blockchain is offlimits which would mean any and all orders from ECAF have to be approved by BPs without question. This would not longer be a DPoS system. It would be one where ECAF has the final say. Are you willing to entertain the idea that ECAF may have promised far more than it can actually deliver?

The constitution is a multiparty contract and everything that's in the constitution defines the scope of arbitration. The community has its own ruleset and it uses arbitration to get a judgement if a rule has been broken. There really shouldn't be any lack of clarity about it at this point.

I have personal views (not eosDAC views) on whether or not the current interim constitution is a valid contract (you can read why I think it's not here and how we could fix it). Why I don't understand is how ECAF rulings deal with broken rules or disputes. So far, it seems they are dealing with modifying a blockchain which is something that concerns many people.

ECAF will look at all cases that the community asks it to look at. Just because multiparty contract similar to EOS's constitution is not common, it doesn't mean it's somehow invalid. If you want to move certain kind of disputes out of ECAF's jurisdiction, then you need to ask the community to amend the constitution. ECAF doesn't have any power over the ruleset, it just does what the community asks it to do. It was created to serve the community.

Can you clarify what constitutes a dispute? It seems anything and everything related to EOS could be considered a dispute and the EOS community will have to trust ECAF's judgement without seeing evidence or being concerned with any fees ECAF collected.

Yeah, but how well the normal procedures have been working with blockchains? Really badly, I'd say. That's why I like how EOS has taken the initiative to create something better. If the existing justice systems are really inefficient at protecting private property on the blockchain, then it makes sense for the community to protect themselves. This is achieved by including disputes about property rights under the jurisdiction of EOS base-layer arbitration.

Evidence has shown this is not an effective way to protect property. Rulings can not move as fast as decentralized exchanges. Multisignature contracts and built-in permissions with time delays are a much more effective way to protect property.

Even though this is something new, I don't think that existing judicial systems will look at it as something illegal. On the contrary, my guess is that they will more likely say something like "wow, that's a great innovation!" and support it.

I hope a ratified constitution via referendum will clarify what EOS token holders want and what role arbitration will play within this blockchain.

As always, I'm expressing my personal views in this comment and not the views of the DAC which can't be fully expressed by any individual.