As the EOS blockchain has begun to rise on to new heights, I’m sure many community members, by now, have noticed the simultaneous rise of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, AKA FUD.
The EOS blockchain has broken new records, set new highs, and is setting new standards for fundraising with its innovative airdrop/airgrab models. Yet, despite all of the success the EOS blockchain has enjoyed in a mere three months of existence, the accusations against it only seem to grow, sometimes even gaining traction despite the clear biases of its accusers. No blockchain is ever perfect of course, but we should never allow perfect to be the enemy of good enough. And the EOS blockchain is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most competitive blockchain running at scale today. But this is not a source of comfort for many in the blockchain industry today, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. And as the EOS blockchain grows, there will be continued accusation thrown its way, not out of any genuine concern for the current issues, but more as a means to discredit and undermine a competing blockchain. This, quite frankly, is the price of success that any top competitor must pay when it is clearly on the rise. But this should not be looked upon as a bad thing, in fact, it’s quite the opposite and here’s why.
First, let’s address some of the accusations. When the EOS blockchain began to flex its arbitration muscles,
it was to the dismay of many outside of the community who looked at what the EOS blockchain was doing as centralized censorship despite the fact that the EOS blockchain had already stated publicly for the world to know that it would be a governance blockchain that would be running on a different set of principles; different from its legacy blockchain counterparts. Well, apparently, many in the blockchain community at the time did not get the memo, because it was not long after the EOS blockchain froze a few accounts on the platform that many and the legacy blockchain community came out against EOS, accusing it of censoring its users through eCAF.
Even though it was the express wishes of said account holders to have their accounts frozen, for the express purpose of having a chance to save their funds from hackers. It seemed that many EOS accusers in the Legacy blockchain community had more sympathy for the actual scammers then they did for the potential victims of the scammers. Which is somewhat insane to me now that I think back on the issue.
This is a problem that still plagues many of their communities today, there are many in the Legacy blockchain communities that are so much in love with the idea of censorship resistance, that they never bother to ask themselves a basic fundamental question; is censorship resistance a good thing when it is protecting Hi tech thievery? I fully understand and accept the original desire for censorship resistance, which was to prevent thievery from central authorities of various sorts. But now, in the new age of blockchain, we have seen with our own eyes that central authorities are not the only thieves the average holder has to worry about. And how do the Legacy blockchain communities address this issue? The answer is they don’t, they are still waiting for some magical Silver Bullet of a perfect technology that has yet to be invented. Meanwhile high-tech theft continues to run rampant, I have stated before in one of my earlier videos that a good chunk of the blockchain industry has become a hacker’s paradise of sorts. And I don’t care how much a person is in love with the concept of censorship resistance, because when you become a victim of theft of your life savings, you, all of a sudden, begin to see the significant downside to this sort of wild west style of censorship resistant blockchain. The original goal was to protect people from theft, now this noble goal has been corrupted from protecting the user, to protecting the practice of censorship resistance regardless of who actually owns the funds in question. The presumption is made that whoever has access/control of said account, owns the funds.
I think we all have to stop and ask ourselves, at this point, if this is the standard we are setting as a new industry, who are we really protecting? Do you really wish to live in a future where any entity or individual that has the ability to temporarily gain access to your funds is automatically given ownership of said funds. I don’t believe that is a world that anyone would want to live in, what would be the point of saving in such a world? If anyone with enough knowledge to exploit the protocol could gain access to your funds illegitimately and de facto become the new owner of the funds, evident by the mere fact that he or she has access to them. All this system manages to do is to make legitimate the practice of Hi Tech plunder, so instead of the average citizen having to worry about the legal plunder of the central authorities, this new system replaces it with the legal plunder of sophisticated hackers. In my opinion, A Rose by Any Other Name is still a rose.
Moving on to the next controversial accusation against the EOS community, which is that the EOS blockchain is not really a blockchain,
so no one should have to pay attention to any new record that the EOS blockchain makes, because it is ultimately just another centralized organization no different from Visa or MasterCard. I’m actually kind of surprised that this accusation has gained so much ground in the past, considering its surface-level stupidity. The interesting thing about the accusation is I don’t recall them making such accusations regarding any delegated proof of stake system before in the past, the EOS blockchain is a delegated proof of stake system, it uses block producers to authenticate and process transactions, instead of crypto miners most notable in blockchains that use proof of work systems. The EOS blockchain separates its block producers in to 21 block producers with a near infinite amount of both paid and unpaid backup block producers ready to step in if voted in by the community. Legacy proof-of-work blockchains use massive crypto mining pools which number far less than 21 block producers. On top of that, the crypto mining industry is dominated by a few big centralized corporate players that produced the overwhelming majority of mining equipment for the industry. So in the final analysis, proof of work legacy blockchains have much more of a problem with centralization issues than any delegated proof of stake system.
So please explain to me how the EOS blockchain is not a decentralized blockchain, after all, the EOS blockchain produces blocks in a decentralized manner, with block producers being located all over the world. Why does the legacy blockchain industry continue to change the rules of what qualifies as a legitimate competitor? Furthermore, why do they get to decide that in the first place. After all, I was under the impression that all of us who are involved in the blockchain community were trying to build a decentralized future for all, but it seems to me that many in the legacy blockchain industry are becoming guilty of trying to censor competing communities, much like the Legacy paper money systems of traditional economies. The legacy blockchain industry cannot have it both ways, if it truly believes in decentralization, then it also has to accept and embrace the decentralization of ideas, even from competing communities, as long as the fundamentals are sound.
And now, I’ll address the last controversial issue, I’m talking about the recent accusations of one of the block producers colluding by alleged vote-buying.
I have often stated in the past that no system, no matter how well designed or intentioned, is ever perfect, and there will always be those that will seek to test the bounds and limits of what they can and cannot get away with. Perhaps it is simply a part of human nature, or the accusations are simply overblown, which would not surprise me. Either way, in the final analysis, this is clearly a matter of arbitration to look into. The truth of the matter is that we have the tools to handle this issue, but many of us are afraid to use them, for whatever reason. So, the EOS community has to decide on what kind of blockchain the EOS blockchain will be in the future.
Witnessing a human being’s ability to think objectively in difficult times can often be frustrating for me. And what I mean by saying that is, I know and I’m fully aware that many people are uncomfortable with arbitration governance because of the possible human corruption it invites. Which is very understandable, furthermore I fully agree that the eCAF system is not the most desirable form for EOS arbitration, which is why I don’t believe that many in the EOS community fully appreciate the possibilities that are made available to us with the EOS operating system. I was recently asked by a colleague to think about offering suggestions of ways to reduce the possibility of collusion.
So, I personally think that we should be focused on integrating a fully, automated arbitration voting DAC, aka, a decentralized autonomous collective, that allows the EOS community to vote on arbitration proposals that the system would automatically carry out with limited human involvement. Such a system is not theoretical, but quite possible when you consider that companies like eBay, in particular, currently use automated dispute resolution systems that are quite sophisticated and handle up to 95% of all disputes on their network. I believe the EOS Community can do much better than this, furthermore, I believe that in the rare cases of the 5% that need to be addressed by a human component, the EOS community should be allowed to weigh-in on the issue through means of their votes, much like a jury of peers, the arbitration voting should not be handled by token voting weight, but instead should be handled by verified unique accounts, just like the kind that block.one is developing in its new iPhone wallet. Any community member should be allowed to make an arbitration proposal by paying a significant fee, either before or after the arbitration has been performed. Afterwards, the fee can either be destroyed, or used as incentivization for voting participants of this system. Furthermore, I would like to see integrated into this DAC, a system function that allows for a quick and easy way for users to freeze their own accounts.
My next proposal is quite simple, EOS community voting must be increased, yes the resource exchange will go a long way to increase the voting participation, but in my opinion, I believe more can be done in this regard, my proposal to the community would be a weekly EOS based free Lottery reward system that automatically rewards a randomly chosen qualified EOS account with 2500 EOS. And to qualify, all participants would need to first have a verified account and would have voted for at least 21 block producers that week. I choose 2500 EOS, because this is not a large enough amount to really tempt any major EOS holder to potentially try and game the system, but it will still be significant enough to stimulate the participation of the average EOS holder. Additionally, the 2500 EOS should be paid for with inflation, which would only add around 130,000 EOS yearly. I believe with both of these methods in place, this would significantly reduce collusion as well as significantly increase voter participation. These are just suggestions, and it will ultimately be up to the community to decide whether any one of these suggestions are valuable.
Either way, these problems will be solved, and the EOS blockchain will continue to grow on into new heights, I am not bothered by the accusations of non-credible competing blockchain founders who are clearly biased against the EOS blockchain. In fact, I see it as a good thing because, when prominent figures begin to attack, that is exactly how you know that you are winning. The crypto community, in one way or another, fears what EOS represents, and that is the metaphorical end of the blockchain arms race. What I mean by this is, when other blockchains talk about mass adoption, they’re often focused on the future, because all of them know ultimately that the overwhelming majority of blockchain technology is not ready for mass adoption. The EOS IO Software stands alone as fully scalable today, not 10 years from now, or 1 year from now, or even next week. The EOS blockchain stands ready to be mass adopted today.
I don’t know what motivations have driven many EOS holders into the EOS blockchain, perhaps it has something to do with financial independence, or quick financial gains. But for me, I am involved in the EOS community, because I believe in this project, it’s more than just the potential for massive profitability, though that is part of it. The EOS blockchain really will change the world as we know it; for the better. It’s hard to see and fully understand this early on in the EOS blockchain development, but if you will, imagine a world with less parasitic third party organizations siphoning off huge amounts of wealth year after year from the economy, imagine a world where voting systems of government are run on top of a blockchain in a fully transparent way, a fully transparent economic world where a lawful citizen no longer has to wonder if their tax money was actually used for the purpose for which it was gathered. These possibilities will be made possible because of fully scalable, decentralized, and expedient blockchain technology, and the EOS blockchain is leading the charge.
I am reminded of the words of a great man that I respect, the founder and former CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs, when I look at times like this, I am reminded of Steve Jobs ‘most iconic add “ The Crazy Ones” which reads.
“Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes, the ones who see things differently, they’re not fond of rules. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things, they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
EOS holders, we are changing the world.Your Remaining Votes (within 24hrs) : 10 of 10