EOS Technical Chief Feels Account Censorship is a Flaw, Wants to Change “Constitution”
Dan Larimer, the chief technical officer of EOS who previously created Bitshares and Steem, has stated the authority of the EOS Core Arbitration Forum (ECAF) over the network and its ability to censor, suspend, and confiscate user funds and accounts should be restricted.
The EOS Controversy
Even in disputes during which account users lose their funds to hackers or in unfortunate situations, Larimer said the EOS ECAF should not have the authority to bail out users or exercise absolute control over the network by suspending user accounts without reasoning.
“My official opinion on disputes regarding stolen keys is no action should be taken. The producers should campaign on using some of their pay for donations to make the victim whole. I am preparing a blog post for my rationale. Bottom line, damage to community from ECAF is greater than funds we hope to restore to users. Anyway, I have learned a lot about human nature by watching the disputes, the witch hunts, the ‘bring everything before ECAF’ mindset.”
Heavy Criticism From Experts
Previously, as BTCManager reported, EOS was condemned by the cryptocurrency community and prominent experts including Ethereum and Cardano creator Charles Hoskinson for its controversial decision of suspending and confiscating 27 user accounts.
The decision of EOS ECAF to censor and suspend 27 accounts without reasoning was already sufficient to trigger the community to outrage but the absurd authoritarian wording of the document released by ECAF further infuriated the community. At the time, ECAF said:
“It is hereby ordered the EOS Block Producers refuse to process transactions for the following accounts and keys indefinitely. (Until further official notice and instruction from the ECAF.)”
In response, Hoskinson firmly stated a central authority within the EOS protocol that dictates the faith of user accounts and funds show EOS, in its current form and governance, is no different to the legacy financial system.
After the initial incident of account suspension, EOS came under fire once again after a private conversation between a member of the ECAF and a block producer. The leaked conversation disclosed several legal threats made by the ECAF against a block producer who did not suspend the above mentioned 27 user accounts. The ECAF told a block producer:
“But to say you didn’t receive the blacklist when everyone else did is frankly a poor excuse. Sounds like you didn’t want to comply with the order? You are paid $10,000 per day to be a block producer. What could have been more important than an ECAF meeting regarding security that you’re compensated to facilitate? Well, if I were you, I’d hire a good attorney because I imagine a lawsuit is the next step.”
EOS Wants to Change its Constitution
In light of recent events and increasing level of centralization and authority imposed by the ECAF, Larimer and the rest of the EOS technical team are willing to change its constitution to reduce the control the ECAF has over the EOS network.
If EOS fails to change its constitution and continues on with providing the ECAF complete authority over the EOS blockchain network, then EOS will not avoid criticism about the centralization in its protocol and code base.