This is exactly the problem space: behaviour X is ok by you, and behaviour Y "cuts the line." Others have varied opinions. How do we as a community decide what to do, when opinions differ?

And now there is a Chinese Translation of this post: 翻译 | 为什么 EOS 的 BP 应该遵循争议解决的裁决 Many thanks to the EOSLaoMao team of Lochain & Yvonne

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

Yes, as @jwilliams says - it's an ongoing drama. The actual event is that the BPs have rejected a ruling to return value in a lost key case. The reasons they give are varied, but the outcome is consensus

Yes. This is the problem - financial cryptography is polymath, so a small team can't easily do it. The notion that you need to consider governance as an important topic, as important as say cryptography,

A huge amount of the security of EOS rests on DPOS & voting. If there is no voting, that security story fails.

The absence of a secure and user friendly wallet is the killer of mass adoption. It's been that way since day 1 of blockchain. Unfortunately, blockchain - all of them - are technocratically led and thus

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

Thanks to @EOSLaoMao and translators Yvonne and Johnny there is now a Chinese translation of this article: 翻译 | EOS争端解决中的制衡——或是制衡“流氓”仲裁员

Whoop! There is now a Chinese mandarin translation of this post at 翻译 | 自由市场的悖论 ! Here's the Abstract... 有人是否读过卡尔·波普尔的《宽容的悖论》吗?下面是他的原句，摘自维基百科:

In some sense this is the challenge. Once we understand that the rules are fixed and enforcable, the question is, how did we arrive at the rules?

Right - altho here we're finding two meanings for free - free beer and free dom. In the above I was referring to the latter, in some sense or other. Freedom to dispute the rules was excluded, in the sense

Excellent article! "The key mistake of the argument lies in its misconception of property rights, we believe that property rights are absolutely based on goods (or space), and that the total amount

Yes indeed. But no matter how much pressure you put on an Arbitrator for a result, he or she should ignore it. It's hardly a workable system if you can push the Arbitrator to follow your bidding.

They can't simply ignore BP rulings, they can only decline to implement them if they feel that the Community wishes it otherwise. In which case it is in effect referred to the Community. Who vote out the

Granted. It all depends on who your enemy is. If your enemy is the state, you might like Bitcoin better. If however your enemy is the thief, this system works better.

Of course, until a different C is ratified. Meanwhile ECAF will serve the C as it is stated. It's hard to be more honest that the C is written - the powers are written right there in black and white.

A group of people with expertise in this will no doubt emerge regardless of how it is written. But, better a clear, short readable document of principles that the community can understand and get involved

lol... it's always possible to cherry pick one little point and use that to proove the other guy is "false". "Advanced state of readiness" is a subjective thing, not a thing provable

The dispute would be between the State and the Dapp. That would be handled in State courts. A ruling or order from the State court would then be forwarded to ECAF under 5.4 External Courts . Then, see