They didn't replace ECAF with another system, they removed base-layer arbitration completely and created the official way to use app-level arbitration. These are two completely different things. Base-layer

Adding more employees to a centralized organization = more decentralization... Hmm... I'm not sure I agree with the logic there. More chance for inconsistency of judgements... Certainly.

Thank you for reading it.

If ECAF/EMAC are named as the sole arbitrator on the protocol layer then they provide the access for states to make these kinds of requests. How would they convince ECAF/EMAC to act? Threats probably.

...and so we loop back to the issues I raised in the above article.

It's doubtful ECAF could gather all the necessary evidence together and rule in time to stop a thief. If ECAF employed a practice of freezing accounts prior to making a ruling then that opens up a whole

How is declining to implement them not the same as ignoring them? This is all getting very semantical. How about; Look at, yet pay no heed to

This is semantics. My fault for not explaining fully in the above reply. If an ECAF arbiter incorrectly rules on a case and orders the reappropriation of funds to another party, then it effectively interferes

Ian, I respect you greatly, but I feel you are not recalling recent history correctly. Please read the article below written by a very dismayed and very respected block producer:

This is something the community will need to be educated on; don’t use a dapp that doesn’t have a Recardian contract or names a list of arbitration forums that one can choose from in the event of a dispute.

The fact that a state court has a single entity in which to engage with weakens the whole decentralized structure we aimed to build. We can talk about the few checks and balances (such as BPs ignoring

You said ECAF was in an advanced state of readiness with a list of arbiters and administrative processes all in place. I disagreed and said this wasn't true and nothing you have said has changed my opinion

You are assuming Facebook will remain the winner. If you believe in some type of centralized global governance structure for EOS then I think we've reached a point whereby we differ politically. We could

'What kind of dispute?' Censorship of an onchain dapp - as per the example in the article. 'If a constitution is not a valid multiparty contract, then it's basically just a wishlist of how the users would

Let's not get carried away with Judge Judy hyperbole. Ruling on a few of the simple cases would go along way to showcasing your usefulness. Waiting to be paid $160 per hour per arbiter before taking any

'The Constitution places all parties under arbitration. As a contract, this is binding.' Until a new C is ratified. Unless ECAF is honest about the powers it wishes to grant itself, then there is going

In theory, ECAF could effect the immutability of the blockchain.

'Your implied criticism of the Constitution that there aren't the stated actions of enforcement e.g., Article I. That's exactly how it should be.' Yes, I took this to mean vague. I guess by making them

And so there will be a Steemit 2.0 Dan has hinted that he's already building it.

Before Facebook there was Friends Reunited, Bebo, MySpace, Friendster. Facebook is the latest incarnation of Social Media. Blockchain Social Media will work differently than traditional platforms such