Immutability Enforcement Proposal (IMP) #894
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ | ||
| ## Preamble | ||
|
|
||
| EIP: 894 | ||
| Title: Immutability Enforcement Proposal (IMP) | ||
| Author: Marius Kjærstad | ||
| Type: Meta | ||
| Status: Draft | ||
| Created: 2018-02-21 | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Simple Summary | ||
| Provide a standardized response against proposals for bailouts on the offical Ethereum repositories. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Abstract | ||
| Proposals that advocate for any state changes to the Ethereum blockchain should not be merged into the official Ethereum repositories. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Does this include dust and state-clearing proposals like #158? There was a problem hiding this comment. It does. So we better make sure that gas prices are on the ball. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
| The issue of bailouts on the Ethereum blockchain is always controversial. This EIP attempts to raise the barriers for bailouts. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. The abstract refers state changes, no you use the term bailouts, please consider adding a short definition paragraph to the proposal to clarify what you are referring to. There was a problem hiding this comment. This is a bad assumption. The controversial-ness of an irregular state change can be measured with many different (imperfect) mechanisms like CarbonVote, miner signalling, etc. It would be a bad decisions to assert that anything is "always" controversial. This EIP doesn't raise the barrier for bailouts, it raises the barrier for discussing what you consider to be "bailouts". If approved as intended, it would be nothing more than frivolous censorship of harmless discussion. Opposition to irregular state changes should be voiced in a fair setting, which this proposal seeks to undermine. There was a problem hiding this comment. It is not censorship since it is not deleted or restricted in any way. It is just not merged. There was a problem hiding this comment. How is refusal to merge on principle not arbitrary restriction? There was a problem hiding this comment. There are no restriction on freedom of speech. There was a problem hiding this comment. I really don't think this EIP or the one it's clearly in response to have anything to do with freedom of speech. There was a problem hiding this comment. Finally something we agree on :) |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Specification | ||
| If a pull request is opened that advocates for bailouts or implements code that can result in state changes on the Ethereum blockchain, it will be closed. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This needs some work, will there be some Github-Webhook-Oracle that triggers the proposals to be closed? In its current state, it reads more like you are trying to improve Github, not Ethereum. There was a problem hiding this comment. We only need a standard process for the maintainers to follow. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### Justification | ||
| Bailouts play favorites with some accounts on the Ethereum blockchain. This is corruption we can not tolerate in the offical Ethereum repositories. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. While I agree with your sentiment, voicing opinions about the protocol isn't an invalid use of the EIP system. Critiquing one's use of EIPs like this, regardless of how we subjectively see them, would undermine more subjectively valid uses. There was a problem hiding this comment. @AtLeastSignificant you are absolutely right. I just believe, that
just anything There was a problem hiding this comment. So following basic ethics is not a justification? There was a problem hiding this comment. What do "basic ethics" have to do with this? What basic ethical argument are you actually making? There was a problem hiding this comment. Personally I have a "basic ethical" principle that redefining words to mean things most people don't understand them to mean in order to push your political agenda is unethical. There was a problem hiding this comment. Bailout is the most fitting word I can think of. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Rationale | ||
| The primary consideration for the approach described above was to reject all bailouts. A secondary consideration was to standardize the response to such pull requests. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I fail to find the actual response in this proposal. There was a problem hiding this comment. The response is to close down such pull requests. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Copyright | ||
| Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it's so good that ethereum is a centralized protocol defined and owned by a single organization
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The official Ethereum repositories are centralized, but the protocol is not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How are the official Ethereum repos centralized?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you look at this repo you will understand why:
https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So DMCA takedowns are the problem? This isn't a centralization problem with Ethereum, it's a problem with with Github. Are you suggesting that we create a development platform on top of the protocol so that it too is decentralized? I don't see how this is relevant to this EIP.
I think what @debris was getting at with their comment is that "standardized response" is something very few people are interested in, and the argument about official Ethereum repos being on Github has practically nothing to do with this. It isn't comparable to popcorn-app IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I said that the protocol is decentralized and that's why people are wasting their time crying for bailouts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As a decentralized protocol run by miners, individuals are perfectly allowed to request that the protocol be changed for whatever reason. If the reason is understood and accepted by the miners, the change will happen. Period. End of discussion. That's literally all there is to it.
If you don't want these things to happen, you need to have a way to voice your objections. In every other platform I can think of (centralized or otherwise), there are standards to how the conversation is conducted. This is what the ERP EIP tried to create (and failed partially due to poor implementation), and what your EIP here seeks to undermine or eliminate. It's literally counter-productive to your own goal.