Permalink
Browse files

Update constitution.md

  • Loading branch information...
bytemaster committed May 30, 2018
1 parent e22c9bd commit ab30b771efa8d5efda3f6746ebe55a2e59085fdf
Showing with 29 additions and 22 deletions.
  1. +29 −22 governance/constitution.md
View
@@ -1,37 +1,44 @@
This constitution is a multi-party contract entered into by the Members by virture of their use of this blockchain.

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

'Virtue' misspelled.

@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

'Virtue' misspelled.

# Article I
No user of this blockchain shall make knowingly false or misleading statements, nor statements that constitute discrimination or harassment, nor profit thereby.
Members shall not initiate violence or the threat of violence against another Member.
# Article I
No Member of this blockchain shall make knowingly make false or misleading attestations nor profit thereby nor thereby cause loss to others.

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

Rewrite first sentence to correct: "make knowingly make false" to 'No Member of this blockchain shall knowingly make false..."

@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

Rewrite first sentence to correct: "make knowingly make false" to 'No Member of this blockchain shall knowingly make false..."

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rangerk

rangerk May 30, 2018

Strongly disagree that this should be an article at all. Everything you want to cover here is covered by the right of private property.

But there is a more serious problem.

This whole idea of non-initiation of force is an error that lives deeply in parts of the libertarian community.

Harm is not a binary. It is a gradient. There are many types of harm that fall short of violence. This idea of non-initiation of force is morally appealing nonsense. It's a prohibition on retaliation against a myriad of lesser offenses.

You cannot have a justice system without the initiation of force.

If someone steals a whole bunch of EOS, and we involve real-world authorities in trying to recover it / prosecute them, we are initiating violence.

How about negative externalities? If a member of the EOS community is about to sell bullets to a warlord who has innocent people kneeling beside a freshly dug ditch -- that's a peaceful, voluntary transaction. Are we prohibited from initiating violence to disrupt it?

I used to be a part of the non-aggression club. I understand it. It took me a long time to find my way out.

I would urge you to ask yourself whether you're doing verbal gymnastics to preserve an appealing ideology: "the non-initiation of force."

It's appealing because it's simple. Unfortunately, it isn't accurate, and you can't build a justice system on top of this idea.

It becomes a prohibition on retaliation.

@rangerk

rangerk May 30, 2018

Strongly disagree that this should be an article at all. Everything you want to cover here is covered by the right of private property.

But there is a more serious problem.

This whole idea of non-initiation of force is an error that lives deeply in parts of the libertarian community.

Harm is not a binary. It is a gradient. There are many types of harm that fall short of violence. This idea of non-initiation of force is morally appealing nonsense. It's a prohibition on retaliation against a myriad of lesser offenses.

You cannot have a justice system without the initiation of force.

If someone steals a whole bunch of EOS, and we involve real-world authorities in trying to recover it / prosecute them, we are initiating violence.

How about negative externalities? If a member of the EOS community is about to sell bullets to a warlord who has innocent people kneeling beside a freshly dug ditch -- that's a peaceful, voluntary transaction. Are we prohibited from initiating violence to disrupt it?

I used to be a part of the non-aggression club. I understand it. It took me a long time to find my way out.

I would urge you to ask yourself whether you're doing verbal gymnastics to preserve an appealing ideology: "the non-initiation of force."

It's appealing because it's simple. Unfortunately, it isn't accurate, and you can't build a justice system on top of this idea.

It becomes a prohibition on retaliation.

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fr3iheit

fr3iheit May 31, 2018

I think that there might be a different view upon the conception of violence.

From my perspective, we may consider violence any behaviour that is driven by the principle that "the end justifies the means".

This kind of violence is always wrong.

While, other action that may look like violence, are not violence if they are just driven by the principle of having the lesser damage for the community.

For example, war is always violence, because is always driven by the principle that "the end justifies the means", while killing a person that is menacing to shoot other people may not be violence.

@fr3iheit

fr3iheit May 31, 2018

I think that there might be a different view upon the conception of violence.

From my perspective, we may consider violence any behaviour that is driven by the principle that "the end justifies the means".

This kind of violence is always wrong.

While, other action that may look like violence, are not violence if they are just driven by the principle of having the lesser damage for the community.

For example, war is always violence, because is always driven by the principle that "the end justifies the means", while killing a person that is menacing to shoot other people may not be violence.

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gitterjim-I

gitterjim-I Jun 15, 2018

rangerk: "You cannot have a justice system without the initiation of force."

Not sure what school of libertarian thought you once subscribed to, but as far as I understand, the most effective justice system, that human's have so far designed, is generally supposed to be a physically defensive force, not an offensive one.

By 'force' is meant physical force, since only a fool would argue he has been victimized by superior force of argument. And so the initiation of (physical)force refers to the the use of non-defensive force. This is the all-important distinction to make, which is never - or rarely - taught or debated in public education institutions i.e. is the physical force offensive or defensive.

The core of the NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) is that it is never okay to use offensive physical force, including the threat of physical force. And it is always okay - even honorable - to use defensive physical force, in proportion to the initiation of physical force.

So 'force' is always physical force, and aggression is the initiation of such force i.e. the offensive, rather than defensive, use of physical force.

The NAP is not a promise to solve human problems. It just promises to put those, who hold it as a core legal value, in a far superior position to solve human problems.

@gitterjim-I

gitterjim-I Jun 15, 2018

rangerk: "You cannot have a justice system without the initiation of force."

Not sure what school of libertarian thought you once subscribed to, but as far as I understand, the most effective justice system, that human's have so far designed, is generally supposed to be a physically defensive force, not an offensive one.

By 'force' is meant physical force, since only a fool would argue he has been victimized by superior force of argument. And so the initiation of (physical)force refers to the the use of non-defensive force. This is the all-important distinction to make, which is never - or rarely - taught or debated in public education institutions i.e. is the physical force offensive or defensive.

The core of the NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) is that it is never okay to use offensive physical force, including the threat of physical force. And it is always okay - even honorable - to use defensive physical force, in proportion to the initiation of physical force.

So 'force' is always physical force, and aggression is the initiation of such force i.e. the offensive, rather than defensive, use of physical force.

The NAP is not a promise to solve human problems. It just promises to put those, who hold it as a core legal value, in a far superior position to solve human problems.

# Article II
The rights of contract and of private property shall be inviolable, therefore no property shall change hands except with the consent of the owner or by a lawful Arbitrator’s order.
The Members grant the right of contract and of private property to each other, therefore no property shall change hands except with the consent of the owner, by a lawful Arbitrator’s order, or community referendum.

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

Suggesting to add the word "BY" in caps: "...by a lawful Arbitrator’s order, or BY community referendum. "

@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

Suggesting to add the word "BY" in caps: "...by a lawful Arbitrator’s order, or BY community referendum. "

# Article III
Each Member agrees to resolve disputes through the blockchain’s default arbitration process, or any other process that the parties to a transaction may mutually agree to in advance.
The Members agree to resolve disputes through the blockchain’s arbitration process, or any other process that the parties to a transaction may mutually agree.
# Article IV
No Member shall offer nor accept anything of value in exchange for a vote of any type, including for Block Producer candidates, Amendments or Worker Proposals, nor shall any Member unduly influence the vote of another.
No Member shall offer nor accept anything of value in exchange for a vote of any type, nor shall any Member unduly influence the vote of another.

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

First sentence: Suggest changing "nor' to 'OR' .

@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

First sentence: Suggest changing "nor' to 'OR' .

# Article V
This EOS Blockchain has no owner, manager or fiduciary. It is governed exclusively under the terms of this Constitution.
# Article VI
No Member nor any Beneficial Interest shall own more than 10% of issued tokens.
No Member nor SYS token holder shall have fiduciary responsability to support the value of the SYS token. The Members do not authorize anyone to hold assets, borrow, nor contract on behalf of SYS token holders collectively. This blockchain has no owners, managers or fiduciaries; therefore, no Member shall have beneficial interest in more than 10% of the SYS token supply.

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

First sentence: Suggest changing "nor' to 'OR'.
First sentence: SP 'responsibility'.
Second Sentence: Suggest changing "nor' to 'OR'

@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

First sentence: Suggest changing "nor' to 'OR'.
First sentence: SP 'responsibility'.
Second Sentence: Suggest changing "nor' to 'OR'

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MartenRauschenberg

MartenRauschenberg Jun 1, 2018

It has to be "more than 10%" because BlockOne holds 10%, right?
10% of the current Market Cap is still 1 Billion USD with a tendency to go even higher. We have to ask ourselves as a community if we really want to allow whales of this size.

@MartenRauschenberg

MartenRauschenberg Jun 1, 2018

It has to be "more than 10%" because BlockOne holds 10%, right?
10% of the current Market Cap is still 1 Billion USD with a tendency to go even higher. We have to ask ourselves as a community if we really want to allow whales of this size.

# Article VII
Each Member agrees that penalties for violations may include, but are not limited to, fines, account freezing, and reversal of transactions.
Each Member agrees that penalties for violations may include, but are not limited to, fines, account freezing, and restitution.
# Article VIII
No Member shall serve as a Block Producer who has not agreed in advance to the Block Producer Agreement provided by the Members of this blockchain.
# Article IX
No Arbitrator shall serve except within an Arbitration Forum.
# Article X
No Member shall serve as an Arbitrator who has not
* Agreed in advance to the Arbitrator Agreement provided by the Members,
* Been nominated by at least two other Members, and
* Completed the course of study of, been certified by, and be in good standing with their Forum.
# Article XI
Each Member who makes available a smart contract on this blockchain shall be a Developer. Each Developer shall offer their smart contracts via a license, and each smart contract shall be documented with a Ricardian Contract stating the intent of all parties and naming the Arbitration Forum that will resolve disputes arising from that contract.
Each Member who makes available a smart contract on this blockchain shall be a Developer. Each Developer shall offer their smart contracts via an free and open source license, and each smart contract shall be documented with a Ricardian Contract stating the intent of all parties and naming the Arbitration Forum that will resolve disputes arising from that contract.

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

Second Sentence: Suggest change of "via an free.." to "via A free..."

@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

Second Sentence: Suggest change of "via an free.." to "via A free..."

# Article XII
Multi-lingual contracts must specify the prevailing language in case of dispute.
# Article XIII
As Developers are able to offer services and provide interaction with the blockchain to non Members via their applications, the Developer assumes all responsibility for guaranteeing that non-Member interaction conforms to this Constitution.
Multi-lingual contracts must specify one prevailing language in case of dispute and the author is liable for losses due to ambiguity of translation.
# Article XIV
This Constitution creates no positive rights for or between any Members.
# Article XV
All disputes arising from this Constitution or its related governing documents shall be resolved using the EOS Core Arbitration Forum.
All disputes arising out of or in connection with this constitution shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules.
# Article XVI
This Constitution and its subordinate documents the Block Producer Agreement and Arbitrator Agreement shall not be amended except by a vote of the Token Holders with no less than 15% vote participation among eligible tokens and no fewer than 10% more Yes than No vote power, sustained for 30 continuous days within a 120 day period.
This Constitution and its subordinate documents shall not be amended except by a vote of the Token Holders with no less than 15% vote participation among tokens and no fewer than 10% more Yes than No votes, sustained for 30 continuous days within a 120 day period.
# Article XVII
Choice of law for disputes shall be, in order of precedence, this Constitution, the Maxims of Equity, and the laws of Malta.
Choice of law for disputes shall be, in order of precedence, this Constitution and the Maxims of Equity.

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

Suggest further clarification of Article XVII.

@InfluenceX

InfluenceX May 30, 2018

Suggest further clarification of Article XVII.

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cryptosufi

cryptosufi Jun 1, 2018

Unsure if laws of Malta should be referenced.

@cryptosufi

cryptosufi Jun 1, 2018

Unsure if laws of Malta should be referenced.

2 comments on commit ab30b77

@fr3iheit

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fr3iheit

fr3iheit May 31, 2018

I agree with this new draft of the constitution, and I believe that a super minimalist constitution would be a mistake.

fr3iheit replied May 31, 2018

I agree with this new draft of the constitution, and I believe that a super minimalist constitution would be a mistake.

@MartenRauschenberg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MartenRauschenberg

MartenRauschenberg Jun 1, 2018

I suggest to add a section with clear definition of the words:

  • Violence
  • Member / Token Holder (the difference between them)

MartenRauschenberg replied Jun 1, 2018

I suggest to add a section with clear definition of the words:

  • Violence
  • Member / Token Holder (the difference between them)
Please sign in to comment.