PaymentsJournal
SUBSCRIBE
  • Analysts Coverage
  • Truth In Data
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Industry Opinions
  • News
  • Resources
No Result
View All Result
PaymentsJournal
  • Analysts Coverage
  • Truth In Data
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Industry Opinions
  • News
  • Resources
No Result
View All Result
PaymentsJournal
No Result
View All Result

Who Could Have Predicted Blockchains Would Melt Down Based on Operational Issues?

Tim Sloane by Tim Sloane
June 27, 2018
in Analysts Coverage
0

word blockchain Fintech technology and Blockchain network concept , Distributed ledger technology, Distributed connection atom with binary digits and currency symbols and text with blue background 3d rendering

1
SHARES
0
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

The article “The EOS Arbitrator Problem: A Crypto Governance Breakdown Explained” in Coindesk highlights the importance of having a well-managed and organized governing body in charge of development and operations of any blockchain that will be used by businesses. The Blockchains that Mercator expects have the highest chance of success all have their operational aspects locked down, including Ripple and Sovrin as we described years ago here.

The management team which establishes rules and software deployment priorities must all be participants in the network and must all share common goals. Blockchains deployed without such an organizational structure or that fail to tie the software implementation to a specific use case will find it extremely difficult to address those issues that are unique to a specific use case.

In the case of EOS the decision making process associated with vetting who can operate network nodes fell apart:

“”They have to figure their own shit out.”

Those were the harsh words of one of EOS’ top “block producers” – the network participants in charge of maintaining the blockchain – on Monday as the world’s fifth largest cryptocurrency attracted public ridicule for its current state of confusion.

As told to CoinDesk by Kevin Rose, co-founder and head of strategy at EOS New York, the statement could reflect the broader snags the software has faced since release, but this comment was focused specifically on the EOS Core Arbitration Forum (ECAF).

So far, it seems many both inside and outside the EOS community aren’t clear what ECAF, the main body tasked with resolving disputes between token holders on the network, is and what control it has over transactions.

That’s largely because ECAF’s role and duties were discussed back and forth over months of forum discussions, but clear methods and processes don’t seem to have been decided on. It’s become apparent over the past few days that this mess of information now needs to be organized and clearly communicated to the community.

Stepping back, all this turbulence began on June 17, just three days after the network’s launch, when the network’s top block producers unanimously intervened to stop seven addresses from making transactions. That decision was retroactively endorsed by an ECAF order (the arbitrator had initially refused to rule on the issue).

Then on June 22, an order made the rounds that ECAF wanted to freeze 27 more accounts, to which “the logic and reasoning … will be posted at a later date.” On June 24, another order was seemingly issued, demanding that tokens be revoked from some addresses.

That order, however, turned out to be a fake.

With all the mayhem, EOS New York made a big decision. Until it can be reasonably certain about their authenticity, the block producer wrote on Sunday, it will ignore ECAF decisions – or decisions that appear to be ECAF decisions.

“We cannot with confidence execute any statement claiming to be an ECAF opinion,” the organization said, adding:

“We will resume normal processing once communications can be established on-chain such that they can be audited by both EOS New York and the community.”

Adding to that, Rose pointed to what he called a “rampant misunderstanding about what arbitration is” on the EOS network. According to him, ECAF needs improved processes, more transparency and ultimately, competition.

Roshan Abraham of EOS Authority, another top block producer, agreed that ECAF’s processes are flawed. Meanwhile, EOS Telegram chats are abuzz with complaints, speculation and unanswered questions about the arbitrator.”

The issues of this EOS case also raise awareness regarding the challenges associated with matching an appropriate consensus algorithm (that vets blocks and maintains trust) with the administrational decision of which entities are allowed to operate nodes in a Permissioned Public or Permissioned Private blockchain. The less trust there is in a block producer (trust is a bedeviling attribute to gauge) the more stringent the consensus algorithm must be. The more stringent the consensus protocol, generally the slower the network operates. This challenge of selecting an appropriate consensus protocol is made more difficult because there are a slew of consensus protocols available but no validation methodology to determine how well any of these work based on varying configurations and trust requirements.

Overview by Tim Sloane, VP, Payments Innovation at Mercator Advisory Group

Tags: Blockchain
1
SHARES
0
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

    Analyst Coverage, Payments Data, and News Delivered Daily

    Sign up for the PaymentsJournal Newsletter to get exclusive insight and data from Javelin Strategy & Research analysts and industry professionals.

    Must Reads

    Google Wallet Expands Features

    Google Wallet Continues to Bet on Digital with Expanded Features

    June 2, 2023
    digital value

    How Embracing Digital Value Can Help Solve the B2C Payments Conundrum

    June 1, 2023
    instant payments, real-time payments, RTP

    Banks Developing Instant Payments Products in the U.S. Should Focus on Billers to Generate New Revenue Streams  

    May 31, 2023
    Digital Wallet Use Delivers on Convenience and Security

    Digital Wallet Use Delivers on Convenience and Security

    May 30, 2023
    5 Ways to Protect Your Financial Institution from a Cyberattack

    5 Ways to Protect Your Financial Institution from a Cyberattack

    May 26, 2023
    traditional banks

    How Traditional Banks Can Modernize Without Risk

    May 25, 2023
    identity fraud

    Javelin’s Identity Fraud Study Highlights the Changing Nature of Fraud

    May 24, 2023
    SASE, security-as-a-service

    Security-as-a-Service Secures
    Distributed IT Models

    May 23, 2023

    Linkedin-in Twitter

    Advertise With Us | About Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Subscribe
    ©2023 PaymentsJournal.com

    • Analysts Coverage
    • Truth In Data
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    Menu
    • Analysts Coverage
    • Truth In Data
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Industry Opinions
    • Recent News
    • Resources
    Menu
    • Industry Opinions
    • Recent News
    • Resources
    • Analysts Coverage
    • Truth In Data
    • Podcasts
    • Industry Opinions
    • Faster Payments
    • News
    • Jobs
    • Events
    No Result
    View All Result

      Register to download this complimentary report from CSG Forte: