Things don’t seem to be turning out for EOS over the past one week. It was blamed for having functions as a centralized government body or institution, contrary to the sector’s decentralized ethos and now a proof has emerged of a same if a tweet that was posted on twitter is to be believed (that appeared on Twitter Handle @WhalePool).
A BP who did not update his config got emotionally abused for not “complying with an order” of the almighty ECAF, due to being absent for personal reasons. After multiple apologies and further abuse, he is threatened with a lawsuit. He was also told that he is been paid USD 10000 to be a BP and nothing would have been more important than ECAF orders. The tone of the messages shared are bullying in nature and things look slightly murkier as the conversation is read.
If the screenshot is to be believed, EOS New York did confirm on Reddit that at least one BP’s didn’t have the right config. This also questions the basic validation of this “blacklist”
This was the reply EOS new York gave after a Redditor questioned EOS order for a reversal of the double spent transaction.
All this began as the blockchain protocol raised eyebrows on June 22, 2018, in regard to its rather centralized approach to governance. According to the
“Emergency Measure of Protection Order” released by the EOS Core Arbitration Forum (ECAF), 27 block producers maintaining the protocol were directed to end all transactions with immediate effect. Interestingly, the ECAF did not explain the reason for the order, but stated that the “logic and reasoning for this Order will be posted at a later date.”
The ECAF Interim Emergency Arbitrator, Sam Sapoznick, signed the declaration:
“It is hereby ordered that the EOS Block Producers refuse to process transactions for the following accounts and keys indefinitely. (Until further official notice and instruction from the ECAF.)”
Members of the cryptocurrency industry, enthusiast, and industry observers have largely criticized the dictum. For them, this looks like EOS functions as a centralized government body or institution, contrary to the sector’s decentralized ethos.
(Coingape reports this news from the evidence available on Twitter and does not authenticate or conclude anything from this).
Disclaimer The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions or strategies of CoinGape. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.