RE: Arbitration Order #2018-06-22-AO-002
I like the idea of you guys trying this out and adding new options to the world of technology. Policies and paper trails or not, if you guys have the ability to stop or move funds which you don't have the private keys to, then it also means that the US government, NATO, or United Nations can also move funds for which they don't have private keys to. Perhaps Bill Gates or Marilyn Monroe could move EOS funds in a strange way. Most of the times intentions are good and you guys are developing great centralized tools for them to use through you indirectly. Perhaps it's better this way compared to a mindless robot who only knows private keys. But who will want to use this? Maybe you want a system by design that criminals don't want to use. That's kind of neat. Let them use Bitcoin and forgo all the new features. I still want to use EOS in hopes of fast transactions and dApps.
As soon as we get those working, I think someone should fork EOS to EOSRobot with 0 ability to transfer funds without a private key, similar to how BTC and ETH are today. Sure it's technically possible to move funds without private keys even in BTC, but people generally trust that no one would, even if the US or UN wanted them to.
I'm a big fan of EOS, but if it were ever forked to a robot version, I'd favor that over this nerfed version. If there were two EOSs like that, I would HODL both by market cap ratio and enjoy both just like I do ETC, BCH, XLM, and LTC today. I love um all and keep up the great work.
How? If they controlled 2/3+1 of the EOS block producers, would anyone take EOS seriously? They would fork the code and create a new chain without government interference.
Not unless they controlled 2/3+1 of the block producers and used that power to modify system contracts or token contracts which would be completely visible and transparent to everyone using EOS which would destroy investor confidence in EOS and cause people to move elsewhere.
What centralized tools?
Yes, that is the intention. Protect life, liberty, property, and justice.
But isn't that how ETC and BCC were created? Immutability isn't as simple as what the code allows today. Code (and chains) can be forked.
You say "nerfed" version, but this is by design. This is what EOS has always been. It was created with trust put into the hands of the elected Block Producers by stake-weighted vote. A "robot version" would create forks, just like we've already seen with BTC/BCC and ETH/ETC. Not only that, there would be shadow governments controlling the robots, namely those with commit access to the reference implementation Github repository.
Good points. 2/3+1 would happen if the UN asked it. The UN would get its own trusted consensus in its own way first. Compared to that UN process, getting 2/3+1 in EOS would be easy. I think it's all good intentions and in the end these are all human coins. None are true robot coins.
I liked your point about robots creating forks and EOS solving that.
I will continue investing by market cap and as long as EOS is in the top 300 and traded on Binance, Bittrex, or a similar quality exchange, then I will keep holding and using it.
I love using cleos and like the tech of EOS wat more than the politics. Maybe some day I will like the politics. Like if they send me back 170 EOS somehow that I never generated working private keys for :(. That would be a neat new crypto party trick if I ever got those back somehow. I'm not expecting it though. I'm happy if EOS stays immutable.