(Summary from 12:00 November 28th till 12:00 November 29th)

WIDER RANGE OF SUMMARIES PUBLISHED DAILY ON: https://eosamsterdam.net/eos-telegram-summaries/

General

The channel discusses the messages that Dan Larimer posted regarding a new consensus mechanism. User Tanish asks if he is he still working on URI since he hasn't seen him commenting on the URI channel lately.
User Sharif states that he would love it if Dan Larimer talked more to the community. User Khosi says the following: “Why should they. We are screwing up their work!”. User Sharif replies that while he does not disagree, collectively we are not delivering. They need to be part of the conversation. You can't just have 10% of network resources staked and expect everyone else to "figure it out" for you. It is unfair on every other token holder, says Sharif. User Ivan Mitko says the following on the matter: “Maybe re-read EOS token purchase agreement? Block One doesn’t owe anyone anything. Literally. There are obvious reasons why B1 is trying to distance themselves as far as possible from the EOS network.”
User HeadiEddie says the following: “What can EOS community do regarding SEC? Worst case scenario, would they be looking to rectify the situation? Give money back? Could the community just restructure?” User Paul Atreides says that this is likely entirely unnecessary. Block.one has no affiliation with the public EOS blockchain and any actions taken against block.one have no ramifications for the functional operation of the chain. However, says user Paul Atreides, if legal action were to be taken against Block.one, it would certainly have practical implications for the future of the EOS blockchain vis-a-vis Block.one's ability to contribute to the ecosystem.
User Douglas Horn says that the standard that the SEC would probably be looking at is whether people look to B1 as capable of affecting the chain in a unilateral way that could affect the token price. For example, if B1 could make some decision or announcement that would have a material effect on the token price, then the chain is not sufficiently decentralized to be deemed not a security the way the SEC has now twice signaled that Ethereum is "sufficiently decentralized to no longer be considered a security."

Arbitration & ECAF

User Moti T from ECAF makes an announcement regarding the change of leadership in ECAF, you can read it here: https://steemit.com/ecaf/@ecaf/ecaf-change-of-leadership-announcement
User Sharif asks Moti T if he is staying on as a Case Manager. User Moti T replies and says that he will.

Other

User Sharif posts a Medium article on the channel that is applauded by several users, you can read it here: https://medium.com/@eosdublin/what-if-eos-f7b2e7d55a02
User Nero asks how the community constitution efforts are going. User Kevin Rose replies that there are a couple good options. Constructive debate. A small group has taken it upon themselves to coordinate drafting the actual referenda language.
User Douglas Horn says the following: “Has B1 actually delivered eosio software as described though? Wasn't there supposed to be a form of worker proposal system, a method to ratify and amend the governance, and, frankly governance? My perception is that these elements at least were always a part of the eosio vision that was sold. Who is responsible for delivering this? Was it clear to token buyers that these functions would always be on the people who launched the chains? Or was B1 supposed to follow through on this, in which case, they cannot claim to have delivered a complete product yet.” User rektkid says that it is still in development.

---

EOS 요약 포털 메인 페이지: https://eosamsterdam.net/ko/eos-telegram-summaries/

General

채널은 Dan Larimer가 새로운 합의 메커니즘에 관해 게시 한 메시지를 논의합니다. Tanish는 요즘 URI 채널에 대해 언급 한 것을 보지 못했기 때문에 URI 작업을하고 있는지 묻습니다.
Sharif는 Dan Larimer가 커뮤니티와 더 대화하면 더 좋을 것이라고 말합니다. Khosi는 다음과 같이 말합니다: “우리는 그들의 일을 망쳐 놓고 있습니다!" Sharif는 동의하지는 않지만 공동으로 잘하고 있지 않다고 대답합니다. 그들은 대화의 일부가되어야합니다. 네트워크 리소스 중 10% 를 스테이킹 할 수없고 다른 모든 사람들이 당신을 위해 알아낼 수 있기를 기대할 수 없습니다. Sharif는 다른 모든 토큰 소지자에게 불공평하다고 말합니다. Ivan Mitko는이 문제에 대해 다음과 같이 말합니다. "EOS 토큰 구매 계약을 다시 읽어보세요. Block.one 은 아무에게도 빚이 없습니다. Block.one이 EOS 네트워크에서 가능하면 멀리 떨어져 하는 이유는 분명합니다. "
HeadiEddie는 다음과 같이 말합니다: "EOS 커뮤니티는 SEC에 대해 무엇을 할 수 있습니까? 최악의 시나리오, 상황을 바로 잡으려고 할 것입니까? 돈 돌려줄 것입니까? 커뮤니티가 재구성 만 하면 될까요?" Paul Atreides는 이것이 완전히 불필요한 것 같다고 말합니다. Block.one은 공용 EOS 블록체인과 아무런 관계가 없으며 block.one이 수행하는 모든 작업은 체인의 기능적 작동에 영향을 미치지 않습니다. 그러나 Paul Atreides는 Block.one에 대해 법적 조치가 취해지면 생태계에 기여할 수있는 능력에 의해 EOS 블록체인의 미래에 대한 실질적인 영향을 확실히 갖게 될 것이라고 말했습니다.
Douglas Horn은 SEC가 아마 따르고 있는 표준은 사람들이 B1에 토큰 가격에 영향을 미칠 수있는 일방적인 방식으로 체인에 영향을 줄 수 있는지 여부를 판단하는 것입니다. 예를 들어, B1이 토큰 가격에 중대한 영향을 미칠 수 있는 결정을 발표를 할 수 있다면, SEC가 Ethereum이 "충분히 분권화되어있다"는 주장을 낸 경우와 비슷합니다. 이것은 충분히 분권화되지 않은 것으로 간주됩니다."

Arbitration & ECAF

ECAF의 Moti T는 ECAF의 리더십 변화에 관한 발표를 합니다. https://steemit.com/ecaf/@ecaf/ecaf-change-of-leadership-announcement에서 읽을 수 있습니다.
Sharif가 Moti T에게 사례 관리자로 계속 머무를 것인지 묻습니다. Moti T가 그렇다고 말합니다.