RE: Why EOS BPs should follow rulings from dispute resolution
Hi J,
You are correct that this is a big challenge. The BPs are moving to renege on the Constitution. It is the case that it hasn't been put to the referendum, but actually, that's not a problem as far as the BPs are concerned: the Constitution is the document they agreed to, and it remains in force until replaced.
The fact that the BPs are withdrawing from an agreement they agreed to - unilaterally, or as a group without consent of the community - should tell us most of what we need to know.
Clearly, if their rebellion works - if the BPs are able to remove the Constitution from EOS, then the victors will declare the Constitutional governance idea of EOS a failed idea. But make no mistake. This won't be a failure - this will be a rebellion, a coup, a removal of governance.
The question is why. So far ECAF has done no ruling that hurts any BP. Why do they want it gone? Couple that with all the other things going on in EOS and it is somewhat clear that the BPs are acting as humans. They want no other power but their own. BPs want to rule EOS.
But, is that a good thing?
Thank you very much for the reply. I had trouble understanding the motivation behind BPs who are disregarding the ECAF's decisions and the Constitution, which everyone agrees to with every transaction. "BPs want to rule EOS": that's a very interesting observation, and I hadn't quite connected those dots (the possible 'why' behind these refusals to follow ECAF decisions). The BPs want power, which is a very human behavior.
I strongly believe that EOS needs a Constitution: the blockchain is a system for humans, by humans... the dream of code, alone, as a perfect law that governs the blockchain without human intervention, will eventually fail. The human hand should be clear to all, via the Constitution, rather than hiding behind "code" and the pursuit of power. I am still thinking these issues through, and I really appreciate your reply!
I think it is normal and human to bridle at control. BPs are mostly staffed by technical blockchain people who have subscribed to the concept of code as law. They are unused to community.
These people are perceiving the control of ECAF as threatening to them. What they don't see is that the control is a mutual agreement that we all give up, in order to govern our community better against serious attacks.
The BPs fall into 3 groups: those who do see the wider picture, those who bridle at individual control and prefer Bitcoin-style anarchy, and those who are actually breaching the Constitution because it is making them money.
The question before the community is who you want running the blockchain? Do you want BPs that are part of the Community, respect its Constitution in whatever form, and accept the responsibilities that come with it? Or do you want something else?