(Summary from 12:00 October 31st till 12:00 November 1st)

NOTICE: WE ALSO POST OUR SUMMARIES ON: https://eosamsterdam.net/eos-telegram-summaries/

Constitution & Arbitration

User Sun Tzu says that if you allow any external rights into the blockchain, rights that are favoured by one powerful country, then you open the door for other powerful countries to demand their favoured rights too. User Emma says that when she talk about rights, she is not talking about senseless constructs, but about basic things that are not questioned, like rights that are shared across chains. Right to public and private keys, right to a secured account, right to an anonymous existence, right to transfer your tokens. User Sun Tzu says that Emma is assuming that her list of rights is unquestioned. E.g., right to public and private keys is not upheld by countries as you cross borders. Nor is it upbeld by UK at any time as police can request your private key and you have to comply. Right to a secured account - this is a statement that lacks meaning - what is security? Are you assuming PKI security as per Luka, or are you assuming something higher? Who pays for your security? Etc etc.
User Emma says that considering V2 does not mention ECAF, a governed blockchain does not need an ECAF to meet its governance requirements. User Enrique says that this is true. But EOS mainnet does until we change C. The question is: do we want another Forum, a few alternative Forums or not Forums at all? User Emma replies by saying that more appropriately the decision ought to be if we will have a "standard" which various dispute resolution forums adhere to. The interim constitution did not establish ECAF as conceived today. It identified the "Rules of Dispute Resolution of the EOS Core Arbitration Forum" which is a standard. User Enrique says that the Rules of ECAF refer to ECAF as "the Forum"; for example art. 4.2, which states that The Forum selects the Arbitrator. User Sun Tzu says that when that clause was written, there was nowhere on the roadmap a sense that we needed more than one forum. However soon after a new forum started up in China called EMAC - because ECAF was not serving the needs of the Chinese market guess. But EMAC had no authority under C as you rightly point out. So some quick discussions were done, and the EMAC arbitrators were incorporated under ECAF as if they were in ECAF, and EMAC agreed to the Rules. As you suggest this is a "forced interpretation" but there are good reasons to do this, so we'll stand up and defend it. Also in the future there is pretty clear community consensus that we'll move to many forums so we might as well follow that path.
User Enrique does not realistically see other Forums accept ECAF Rules as a standard. They are designed by ECAF and for ECAF taking into account its own characteristics as a organization. What could be possible is adding some other forums in the future; as alternative ones with their own Rules (appointing arbitrators, selecting default languages, etc.). User Sun Tzu replies that that indeed is a difficulty - the Rules were written only for the one forum, ECAF. So a future work task is to rewrite the rules to cope with multiple forums. Sun Tzu says that he would like to see one common set of rules. So that EOS users the world over know that there is a standard way in which disputes are resolved. If there are regional variations, then Sun Tzu suggests it is better to include them into the single set of rules, rather than proliferate the rules.

Other

User Jun says that each contract should be made with another counterparty who mutually agree and that would lead to many bilateral agreements, but they all don't have to be the same. User Eva replies that it should be part of every transaction. But that is a software request. User Samupaha says that that would be ideal. But what user Samupaha is after is something that proves conscious acts – that the user intentionally signed the contract. User Eva says that it could be done at account creation. But should be done with every transaction. User Sun Tzu says the following on the matter:
“Can't be done at the tech level. This is why public key cryptography digital signatures never really took off - people can't do RSA mathematics in their heads so they have to use computers to do the maths for them. Which means that the computers are the ones signing. Who knows what the computer is doing? Not the person. They can only rely on the various middle parties to "do the right thing" and that turns out to be too hard.
Hence, successful "electronic signing" systems fell back to using a plastic pen on a touch sensitive window which would capture your manuscript signature on it, and record that as an image. It works for all the reasons that ordinary ink pen signatures work - you can see it is yours.”
User Samupaha says that he was thinking of a feature that adds all accounts to blacklist. Only transaction that they can make is signing the constitution. When they sign it, they gain the right to use the account normally. This should be done after the first referendum, so we don't have any unclarity if the constitution is in effect or not.

EOS 요약 포털 메인 페이지: https://eosamsterdam.net/ko/eos-telegram-summaries/

Constitution & Arbitration

Sun Tzu는 외부 권한, 또는 강국이 선호하는 권리를 블록체인에 허용하면 다른 강력한 국가들이 그들이 선호하는 권리를 더 쉽게 요구할 수 있게끔 합니다. Emma는 권리에 대해 이야기 할 때, 무의미한 구조에 대해 이야기하는 것이 아니라 체인을 통해 공유되는 권리와 같이 질문되지 않은 기본적인 것들에 관해 이야기하고 있다고 말합니다. 예를 들어 공개 및 비공개 키에 대한 권리, 보안 계정에 대한 권리, 익명의 존재에 대한 권리, 토큰을 전송 할 수 있는 권한. Sun Tzu는 Emma가 그녀의 권리는 의심의 여지가 없다고 추측하고 있다고 답합니다. 예를 들어 국경을 넘을 때 국가에서 공개 키와 비공개 키에 대한 권리를 시행하지 않습니다. 경찰이 당신의 개인 키를 요청할 수 있으며 당신은 이것에 준수해야합니다. 보안 계정에 대한 권리 - 이것은 의미가 부족하고 그리고 이 상황에서 보안은 무엇입니까? Luka와 같이 PKI 보안을 추측하고 있습니까? 아니면 더 높은 것으로 가정하고 있습니까? 당신의 안전을 위해 누가 돈을 지불합니까?
Emma는 V2가 ECAF를 언급하지 않는다는 것을 고려하면 거버넌스 블록체인은 ECAF가 관리 요구 사항을 충족시킬 필요가 없다고 말합니다. Enrique는 이것이 사실이라고 말합니다. 그러나 EOS mainnet은 우리가 C를 바꿀 때까지 요구 사항을 충족시킬 필요가 있습니다. 질문은 우리는 다른 포럼, 대안 포럼 아니면 전혀 포럼이 필요하지 않습니까? Emma는 다양한 분쟁 해결 포럼이 고수하는 "표준"을 갖게 될 것인지 결정하는 것이 더 적절하다고 대답합니다. 임시 헌법은 오늘날의 ECAF를 수립하지 않았습니다. EOS Core Arbitration Forum의 "분쟁 해결 규칙"이 표준으로 확인되었습니다. Enrique는 ECAF 규칙을 따르면 ECAF가 "포럼"이라고 말합니다. 예를 들어 절 4.2에서는 포럼이 중재인을 선정한다고 명시하고 있습니다. Sun Tzu는 그 절이 쓰여졌을 때 로드맵에서 하나 이상의 포럼이 필요하다는 인식이 전혀 없었다고 말합니다. ECAF가 중국 시장 추측의 필요성을 충족시키지 않았기 때문에 곧 EMAC라고 불리는 새로운 포럼이 중국에서 시작되었습니다. 그러나 EMAC는 당신이 올바르게 지적한 바에 따라 헌법에서 권한을 가지고 있지 않았습니다. 그래서 몇 가지 빠른 토론이 이루어졌고 EMAC 중재인은 ECAF에 속해있는 것처럼 ECAF에 통합되었으며 EMAC은 이 규칙에 동의했습니다. 당신은 이것이 "강제적인 해석"이라고 제안했으나 이것을 하기에 충분한 이유가 있으므로 우리는 일어서서 그것을 보호 할 것입니다. 앞으로도 우리는 많은 포럼으로 이동하여 그 길을 따라갈 수 있을 것이라는 분명한 커뮤니티 의견이 있습니다.
Enrique는 다른 포럼이 ECAF 규정을 표준으로 채택하는 것이 현실적이지 아니라고 생각합니다. 미래에 다른 포럼을 추가하는 것은 가능할 수 있습니다 (중재자 선임, 기본 언어 선택 등). Sun Tzu는 그게 실제로 어렵다고 대답합니다. 이 규칙은 ECAF 포럼에 대해서만 작성되었습니다. 따라서 미래의 작업은 여러 포럼에 대응하기 위해 규칙을 다시 작성하는 것입니다. Sun Tzu는 하나의 일반적인 규칙을보고 싶다고 말합니다. 그러면 EOS 사용자는 분쟁을 해결할 수 있는 표준 방법이 있음을 알고 있습니다. 지역적 변형이있는 경우, Sun Tzu는 규칙을 확산시키기보다는 단일 규칙에 포함시키는 것이 더 낫다고 제안합니다.