Two follow up questions for you (one related, one not):
Did you participate in helping write the EOS constitution, and / or are there any aspects of it that you might like to see changed / tweaked?
I had previously been dabbling around with the idea of setting up a Steem witness -- mostly out of technical interest mixed with a little bit of wanting to host a node and help support the community.
I'm curious about setting up an EOS block-producer, and am wondering if it's generally the same system. (I.e -- there are 21 "top" block producers, but there is room for a hundered or so back-up BP's). Are you able to share if that's indeed the case, and if it may be worth it (say from maybe a "yeah you'll sign a few blocks here and there", or a "nah, you'll likely never sign a block, so I probably wouldn't bother" kind of perspective) to set up an EOS BP?
There were many conversations spanning many weeks and months and though I followed it, I wasn't actively involved. I don't have any real concerns with anything there at the moment, though some people freak out about the 3 year thing. @dan discusses that here and makes a good argument for it. I kind of think it was a a mistake to change "Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce" to "Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce" here, but I understand the reasons for it. If it was left as the ICC, then maybe there'd be more demand to get a free market arbitration system running so that things don't fall back to the default mentioned in the constitution. That, I think, would be ideal where every transaction involves pre-agreed arbitration.
EOS is different in that the stand by BPs don't sign any blocks. It's only the top 21. They do this to cut down on the switching and scheduling costs which would make 0.5 second block times too difficult. The standby BPs are supposed to be ready to sign though. That said, if you get voted high enough, you can still earn rewards, but the chances of that are slim given the existing competition, as you can see here: https://eostracker.io/producers
Thanks for the informative response. I hadn't really dug into the '3 year' rule for maintaining rights to property -- but I definitely like @dan's logic behind putting the onus on the property owner to put in the minimal effort to maintain their rights, rather than resting it on the community. I'd chalk that one up as a big win for the community at large, not because of whatever 'treasures' may get scored, but precisely because it's removing risk off of the communities shoulders, and placing it on individual property owners who must exercise due diligence.
As far as the naming / wording of the ICC / "EOS Core Arbitration Forum" stuff goes -- I've never been on to read too much in to names and the like -- but I deal pretty extensively with standardized construction contracts. One of the most appreciable parts of them is the "default" dispute resolution steps that must be followed if anything starts to go sideways -- so I think I can appreciate the intent of the system there.
As far as setting up a BP for EOS -- I don't see myself jumping in any time soon. The competition looks pretty vicious, hahaha.
But maybe if I start seeing some compelling dApps and the like, I might be interested in setting up a node of some kind.
Two follow up questions for you (one related, one not):
I'm curious about setting up an EOS block-producer, and am wondering if it's generally the same system. (I.e -- there are 21 "top" block producers, but there is room for a hundered or so back-up BP's). Are you able to share if that's indeed the case, and if it may be worth it (say from maybe a "yeah you'll sign a few blocks here and there", or a "nah, you'll likely never sign a block, so I probably wouldn't bother" kind of perspective) to set up an EOS BP?
Thanks for the informative response. I hadn't really dug into the '3 year' rule for maintaining rights to property -- but I definitely like @dan's logic behind putting the onus on the property owner to put in the minimal effort to maintain their rights, rather than resting it on the community. I'd chalk that one up as a big win for the community at large, not because of whatever 'treasures' may get scored, but precisely because it's removing risk off of the communities shoulders, and placing it on individual property owners who must exercise due diligence.
As far as the naming / wording of the ICC / "EOS Core Arbitration Forum" stuff goes -- I've never been on to read too much in to names and the like -- but I deal pretty extensively with standardized construction contracts. One of the most appreciable parts of them is the "default" dispute resolution steps that must be followed if anything starts to go sideways -- so I think I can appreciate the intent of the system there.
As far as setting up a BP for EOS -- I don't see myself jumping in any time soon. The competition looks pretty vicious, hahaha.
But maybe if I start seeing some compelling dApps and the like, I might be interested in setting up a node of some kind.
Thanks again for the info!
You're welcome!