EOSFORCE

EOS side chain

home link https://eosforce.io/index.html

reference material

Community

Exchanges that listed the coin
-
Symbol
EOSC
Dapp
To be released
Project introduction

Executives and partners
There is no executive team information at this time
Please leave a message of support for the team

DUSHU FOUNDATION

Bit Forex

Latest News

There is no news posted at the moment
Please leave a message of support for the team

go to leave a message

Medium

EOS.IO will implement the m...

What does the popularity of hard forks mean?Author: Cyborg of EOSForceForewordEOS.IO development team Block.one released the EOSIO version of 1.8.0-rc2 on May 15, 2019. It is the most important releases of EOSIO since it became open source. This release will set the tone for EOSIO to rapidly iterate through hard fork upgrades in the future, and will allow the entire blockchain industry to revisit the importance of hard fork upgrades. Meanwhile, all users, wallets, exchanges and DAPP will be affected.In early 2019, some of the media started reporting a drop in the number of EOSIO code submissions, and we EOSForce team publicly responded that EOSIO has multiple developers submitting code every day in different branches, and needs to be tested before being merged into the main branch. 1.8.0-rc 2 is such a case, which has been under development since early 2019 or even earlier and its released on May 15, 2019.Next we will explain in details why this update is so important.Version: 1.8.0Github: https://github.com/EOSIO/eos/releases/tag/v1.8.0-rc21. The key improvements of 1.8.0-rc21.1 Scalability enhancement and code refactoring:In this release we see a large number of commits focusing on code refactoring and thread security.First, for code refactoring, many people often don’t care about these code changes that neither adding features nor improving performance, but from a development perspective, these actually constitutes an important foundation for the follow-up development. We can see that since the beginning of the year, the core developers of Block.one have been improving EOSIO ‘s code structure and gradually building an abstraction layer from the design level. The most obvious is the improvement of EOSIO.cdt, which makes up the framework of EOSIO. Unlike many teams that start with a large architecture, the EOSIO was developed with a pragmatic, bottom-up approach by the Block.one development team.In version 1.8.0, developers at Block.one split a lot of huge classes, stripping away some of the complex logic scattered around, such as the ’pending_block_state’ related state management has being stripped out from ‘block_header_state’. And the ‘transaction traces’ is also reorganized this time.Another aspect is about multi-thread, In the recent period, there are a lot of commits about thread security, in preparation for the next step of multi-thread related development, Block.One team attaches great importance to multi-threading in the development of 2019. This refactoring will make the multi-threading described in the EOSIO white paper even better, taking TPS to the next level.As is known to all, multi-thread development in medium or large scale C++ software has always been a “ tar pit “. In order to ensure the stability of EOSIO while introducing parallel computing, Block.one team is not eager to develop new features related to multi-threading. Instead, patiently troubleshoot thread-security issues in your code and improve infrastructure support. At the same time, the corresponding multi-threaded implementation is introduced in a specific independent module suitable for concurrency, such as chain API and P2P module.1.2 Improve chain securityIn this version, the Block.one team fixed some of the resource computation issues left over from the previous section. There are many resource-related logics in EOSIO, and they are extremely scattered. In order to improve chain performance and avoid unnecessary computation by nodes, a lot of resource-related specialization logic has been added to EOSIO. This also caused the ambiguity of user resource computation in many specific scenarios. For the EOSIO chain, this brings a lot of potential security issues. The blocking transaction problem exposed by the delayed transaction in the previous stage is largely the problem of incomplete resource inspection.In addition, the problem of resource computation in some scenarios will also lead to the loss of users’ rights and interests, so it is imperative to modify this aspect.1.3 Smart contract securityThe EOSIO community has been plagued by smart contract security for a long time. DAPP developers have found a number of issues in practice in the past year. The Block.one team has absorbed these issues and made significant improvements. This update is more friendly to smart contract developers.For DAPP developers, for example, the good news is the long-awaited ` GET_SENDER ` API is finally coming to EOSIO, DAPP developers can use this API to determine whether the current Action is triggered by the inline action, thus can avoid a lot of attacks that triggered by inline action from attacker’s contracts. This update can partially solve the problem of random numbers that have been plaguing the community for a long time. It should be noted that even though this API can block many CURRENT attack means and the attack cost will be greatly increased, it does not mean that DAPP developers can rest easy. For developers, security issues should always be noted, there is no silver bullet that is once and for all.1.4 Hard fork upgrade mechanismUpdates in this area can make future hard fork upgrades more efficient while making a hard fork upgrade process not affect the user experience.Recently, Block.one added a lot of new features, including the ones mentioned above. None of them have appeared in the past updates. A main reason is that developers must guarantee the compatibility of EOSIO. The node can choose not to upgrade the node version. Obviously this will greatly hinder the development of EOSIO. The biggest difference between this version of 1.8.0 and the previous one is that this version is not compatible with the previous version. Also known as the “hard fork”, before this version, EOSIO did not have a mechanism to deal with hard forks. The hard fork process can have a big impact on the user’s use. In order to make future updates not have the same impact as this one, a series of hard fork upgrade mechanisms have been added to this update. In the future, the hard fork update can be smoother and more secure.In the past updates of EOSForce, the EOSForce team also encountered the same problem. So the chain configuration function was introduced. By this mechanism, the features of opening block height and chain maintenance state were added to the chain to solve the transition problem in the hard fork. Block.one’s countermeasures are similar. By introducing the protocol feature to solve this problem, unlike the EOSForce’s simple and universal solutions, Block.one’s design hopes to solve the feature’s compatibility problem more specifically. The design can be found in #6831.Here you can judge that there will be more hard forks in the development process of Block.one than before. The progress of EOSIO in the future will be significantly faster than in the past.2. Effects of EOSIO hard forkEOSIO first used hard fork to upgrade, so the impact is huge.2.1 Node: Most nodes should not have experienced a hard fork upgrade. If you strictly follow the hard fork requirements, all nodes need to replay the block. According to the current node configuration, most nodes need at least several days. Of course, there is a lazy way to directly use of snapshots provided by other organizations, but the downside is that if too many core nodes especially BPs update in this way, it will affect the security of the entire blockchain.2.2 Users: All P2P nodes such as exchanges, wallets, block explorers, DAPPs, etc. will be suspended over a period of time, all other external access will be interrupted and user perception is very obvious.Of course, the blockchain itself does not suspend, just for the security reason to suspend the interaction between the external and the chain.2.3 DAPP developers: In theory, the hard fork of the chain does not affect the operation of the contract. But considering that many DAPPs have adopted a semi-centralized architecture and there is a lot of logic running outside the chain and interacting with the chain. So a hard fork will inevitably bring certain risks.3 Benefits and risks of hard fork3.1 Benefits:In the Internet age, product iterations are commonplace. Developers release new versions almost every week, and users are used to updating to enjoy more features and services.Previously, the hard fork upgrade was almost very rare in the blockchain industry, because most of the blockchain consisted of decentralized free developers, so the development progress was slow and the nodes were extremely scattered, and the hard fork upgrade was more troublesome. For example, an overflow vulnerability in 2010 led to the creation of a 184 billion BTC out of thin air. Satoshi Nakamoto first released a new version of the hard fork upgrade to avoid the Bitcoin crisis. Later, after Satoshi Nakamoto left the community, Bitcoin is taken over by the community, and it is difficult to reach a consensus on hard fork upgrades, so the hard fork upgrade is rarely used.The Block.one team is a professional development organization, and the development progress has been exponentially improved compared to the previous blockchain project, so the rapid iteration to adapt to user needs has become the mainstream. In view of the current technical architecture of most public chains, if a large-scale functional upgrade is to be implemented, the hard fork upgrade is inevitable.3.2 RiskIf the block producers have bad intentions during the fork, the fork process becomes very dangerous.If some nodes join together to reject the upgrade, then there are two EOSs with a high probability.Block.one did some precautions: Although Block.one had a lot of development in the first half of 2019, there were a lot of new features, but this update only includes some necessary features and security issues to fix. After the feature is online, the hard fork will get smoother.4. Note for this hard forkThis is the first hard fork update of EOSIO, and it is not performed under an effective upgrade mechanism, requiring more effort from nodes and community.The EOSForce team has conducted several large-scale hard fork upgrades since the mainnet launched to iterate new features. Here we share some of the experiences in the hard fork upgrade:First, the more you prepare, the smoother the update. Before the update, the node must do a backup job. The current EOSIO node data is very large. When backing up a node, the efficiency of restoring the backup data must be considered. The backup data and the node must be in the same intranet. Don’t rely on someone else’s backup. Otherwise, it will take a long time to transfer backup data when there is a problem. The best way is to directly create a backup node for the node.Secondly, you need to pay attention to control the interaction of the nodes. During the update process, the entire EOSIO network will be in a semi-compatible state for nodes. At this point, if someone submits a transaction that triggers incompatible logic to a BP that has already been updated, it will cause the updated BP to immediately fork. Although the hard-fork function itself is based on the feature to manage whether it is effective, and the transaction that performs the logic error is generally not transmitted in the p2p network. But it is difficult to sure all actions cannot cause fork from nodes. Therefore, nodes, especially block producers, should pay attention to control interaction during the update process. The first is to control the opening of http API. Several RPC nodes can be opened properly, but there must be no direct p2p connection between RPC nodes and block producer nodes, nor direct p2p connection between nodes and other external nodes. so that key nodes can be guaranteed to run when hard forks occur.Finally, the update order needs to be controlled. If nodes can orderly update, even if there is a hard fork, most nodes will not be affected. The nodes in EOSIO are often divided into data nodes, block producer nodes, RPC nodes and synchronization nodes. It is easy to establish a “green zone” for the block producer nodes by controlling the interaction of the nodes, shielding the external influence on the core block producer nodes. At this point, the block node can be upgraded. After this, gradually update the block producer node and the external synchronization nodes. At the same time, an update window period should be reserved for data nodes and other read-only nodes in the community. The nodes of the community and the developer can be similarly, first establish a green zone by establishing a shielded synchronization node, update the internal node, and finally update the synchronization node. Finally update the RPC nodes after most nodes and all core nodes are updated. Then complete the update of the entire network.In fact, the means and deployment specifications mentioned above have long been a commonplace, but the maintainers of many nodes do not strictly plan the deployment of nodes according to the specifications. It is foreseeable that if the node maintainers are still not perfect node deployment, then it will be a concentrated outbreak of many problems in this update.In general, the more preparation, the better. Many problems are unpredictable, so it should be do one or more walkthroughs of your EOSIO upgrade before you officially update it.5. What is the meaning of hard forksHard forks should be a common technical term, but hard forks for different purposes can produce different results, so the community has a very different understanding of the hard fork concept.From a technical point of view, hard forks can cause new rules to be incompatible with previous rules, and if you get the support of the community owner, the high probability will have no effect.From a community perspective, if there are different consensus and technical routes when hard forks, the high probability community will split into two public chains, each supporting different routes.In 2016, the EAO crisis occurred in Ethereum (ETH). The founder Vitalik decided to roll back the transactions. Some people in the community did not agree to roll back the transactions. They believed that the blockchain ledger could not be tampered with and refused to roll back. Therefore, ETC was born (Ethereum Classic).In 2017, the congestion of Bitcoin (BTC) made the big-block supporters eager to improve Bitcoin, but there were different opinions in the community, so Bitcoin cash (BCH) was born.In 2018, when the EOS mainnet was launched, the EOSForce team proposed different governance routes, and then the EOSForce (EOSC) was born.We can see that the Block.one team has done a lot of preparation.6. The importance of this hard forkThis hard fork is the most important version since the birth of EOSIO. All public chains based on EOSIO such as EOS, EOSC, ENU, Telos, BOS, Worbli, etc. need to be upgraded through hard forks.As one of the highest level development organizations in the industry, Block.one is very bold in its development. This time, the hard fork mechanism has been added, which means that there will be at least two or three hard forks in the second half of the year.In the past, blockchains were very afraid of hard forks. Only the BCH community maintained a hard-forward upgrade for half a year. EOSForce also carried out several hard fork upgrades. With the development of node and community awareness, ‘hard forks’ will no longer be a scary word, but it will become a way of making progress in the blockchain, even if there is a new branch.This hard fork upgrade will bring more functions and better user experience to EOSIO. It can be expected that if you want to adapt the public chain to the development of the times, the upgrade method of hard fork will become the mainstream in the future.7. Recent community rumors about BM’s leavingRumors that BM has developed new projects have triggered panic in the EOSIO community.From the perspective of EOSIO, Block.one has made great efforts on EOSIO after the mainnet was launched. Continuous and efficient development has made EOSIO the most powerful decentralized application software platform. At the same time, there are teams like EOSForce, EOS Canada, BOS Core that have been deeply involved in the development of the public chain. Even if BM leaves the community, it will not affect the development of EOSIO.EOSForce team tracked the development progress of most of the world’s mainstream public chains, whether the development speed or code quality, Block.one has better performance in EOSIO development than other mainstream public chain development teams. There are a lot of branches that are as important as 1.8.0-rc2, and we are waiting to see.

EOSFORCE

19. 05. 22

Inflation, Centralization, ...

Inflation, Centralization, And DPoSBy GREYMASS about EOS on Altcoin MagazineIn this post, we’d like to outline concerns around EOS inflation that we believe haven’t been addressed in-depth. Our goal with this post is to demonstrate that there may be tangible benefits to EOS inflation that does not flow directly to validators (consensus participants), and tangible downsides to inflation that flows only to these participants. We hope that this contributes to the community conversation around these issues, and we look forward to hearing voter feedback and discussing these issues further.Centralization Effects of CryptocurrenciesCryptocurrencies are simple to analyze, mathematical structures of mini-economies with differing properties, often pre-defined and deterministic. Bitcoin, for example, will issue only 21 Million “units” before ceasing all inflation. This makes analysis quite unique — we can analyze these closed-body economic systems exactly and with high fidelity, observing properties such as money velocity and distribution on a total scale as all information is public. In this post, we will seek to analyze the property of centralization over time.There are many contributing factors in which a cryptocurrency system can have centralization forces — beyond the ones we think of commonly, such as accumulation of wealth. In Bitcoin, for example, we already observe miner centralization to select, large pools. In Proof of Stake (and the delegated variant) we see similar phenomena; with a small, technically capable pool of potential consensus participants, the ability to decentralize is constrained by the number of capable parties. This debate continues to be on-going with Bitcoin. Proponents of “small blocks” argue that large blocks will forever burden newcomers with too much data, while proponents of “large blocks” argue that technology is advancing and the “forever burden” decreases with time and technological progress. In reality, the correct trade-off is likely somewhere in-between. Startup costs and long-term costs certainly can increase the centralization of the system, as newcomers are unable to afford to validate the system and the pool of potential consensus participants shrinks. Yet finding a correct balance between a technological cost that does not burden newcomers, and a system usable enough that it doesn’t drive newcomers away in the first place is a fine line to walk.In Proof of Work systems, present rewards do not affect future rewards, as the ability to achieve a PoW is an external factor. This is what makes PoW systems “permissionless” — their consensus mechanism is not a closed-body system, and external input (in the form of electricity and ‘work’) is required. With DPoS systems, we have an interesting reward structure that is quite different compared to Proof of Work. In many DPoS systems, the supply is not fixed but rather inflationary. This means that present rewards can actually affect future rewards. If we award those responsible for consensus with rewards that give more influence over consensus, then the system’s decentralization can be affected in the long-run.Inflationary RewardsTo understand this problem, we need to take a step back and refresh our understanding of how exactly a property like inflation works in a closed-body system. As an example, suppose we have two people, Alice, and Bob, each of whom has 100 units of currency. If Alice and Bob are both given 100 more units each, and each now has 200 units, has anything changed? In a closed body system, we have done absolutely nothing — Alice had 100/200 units (50% of the currency) and now has 200/400 units (still 50% of the currency). Inflation that is uniform has no effect other than accounting of units. In the “percentage of currency supply” reference domain, inflation can only move the percentages. If instead we give 100 units to Alice but do not give Bob any more, then Bob still has his original 100, but Alice has 200. We’ve “inflated away” Bob’s value — he has gone from owning 1/2 of the supply to owning just 1/3rd, and Alice has gone from owning 1/2 to owning 2/3rds.Of course, the unit count (the number itself) also has psychological effects — perhaps too complex to discuss simply here, and a topic for another time. The important takeaway here is that we must think about inflation as changing the percentage of ownership of the total supply. With inflation, for each win, there must be equal but opposite loss.So how does this actually affect blockchain systems? In DPoS, control of consensus is determined by votes from the supply. In a simplistic form, those with the most supply of the currency will de-facto control consensus. And yet we reward consensus participants with rewards that inflate away those not in control of consensus. Imagine that Alice, Bob, and Charlie each own 1 unit of currency, for a total supply of 3. If they elect Alice and she inflates the supply by 1 and awards that to herself, she now has two votes (compared to 1 each for Bob and Charlie). Alice voting for herself is now impossible to overrule. When consensus is controlled in a closed-body way, eventually the present control of system snowballs into future increased control.We can call this a form of “asymptotic convergence”, whereby the supply collected by a specific entity, as a percentage of total outstanding supply, increases asymptotically in a closed-body system (i.e., it slowly gets closer and closer). While we have only used inflation as an example, this effect would also occur with fixed or variable fees, as well as with variable inflation, though the math would change slightly.Asymptotic Consensus ConvergenceWhen the supply of tokens is responsible for consensus, and the inflation is given to those presently in charge of consensus, then inflation can lead to centralization in the system over time. This is this asymptotic consensus convergence, whereby the control of consensus itself asymptotically converges.Of course, real-world systems are far more complex than the simple examples we have given. The consensus rewards are not always hoarded in full. To understand the effect, let’s make an analogy to physics. Suppose we have a box in the middle of a warehouse. If a constant force is applied to a box in a single direction, the box will move in that direction. If the force is opposed, the box will not move. In this analogy, the asymptotic consensus convergence is a fixed force applied in the direction of centralization towards the current elected set of consensus participants. This force can be opposed, but it would need to be voluntary. If the consensus participants always sell all their rewards (externalizing their value), the force is opposed in full.However, if any of the consensus participants collect any of the rewards, the box moves — just a little bit. The more that do, the more the box moves. The force can be defined in terms of the reward:As an example, this would yield a curve that looks like the following, if we suppose a reward (via inflation) of 1% per year:https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1.01%5Ey+-1)%2F(1.01%5Ey)+for+y%3D0+to+100In the above, we see the percentage of control in the system (that is to say, the control of the newly generated supply compared to the new total supply) go from zero to just under 10% in 10 years, and about 60% after 100 years. What this means is that, in that amount of time, the maximum rate the box could move in our analogy is at worst that amount (just by this force). We use the analogy of a force for a very important reason: opposing the force as an impulse only delays the immediate outcome, and does not prevent future effects — in our example, consider opposing someone pushing a box constantly with a single kick: while it may delay them temporarily, it does not oppose their constant pushing.While this doesn’t sound like a problem today, the numbers should be concerning. In EOS, the top producer is presently elected by only about 12% of the supply. However, there is a multiplicative factor of 30 for votes in EOS: should a group of 30 agree, they can collectively amplify their votes (by vote trading) by that factor. In this case, a collective could achieve this dominance in, at worst, 5 months, entrenching themselves in a position only solvable by getting more of the supply to vote for a different group (and hoping that new group is more altruistic in their voluntary efforts of opposing the centralization force). This is not a ticking time-bomb with a sudden explosion; rather, this is a slow and painful drowning, struggling to breathe while the air slowly escapes.In reality, the math gets complex quite fast when taking into account competing groups vying for a single dominating control of consensus. However, with some effort, it can be proven that the largest collective (specifically, the set receiving the most votes from the current dominant set) eventually will win. This leads to a bit of a prisoner’s dilemma for those not within the largest collective — if you elect to join the dominating group, you may get ‘rewarded.” If you refuse, and they are able to form with others, you will get nothing.Counterbalancing the Centralization ForceIf you’re concerned about centralized participants forming an entrenched position due to inflation, then this argument has succeeded. Yet, we should consider not just how this problem exists, but how it could be solvable.There are a few drastic measures that one could take. One example would be removing inflation to consensus participants altogether. This would indeed solve the problem, but it would remove the incentive for node operators to work for the network in the first place. As another attempt to solve the problem, a separation of token properties could be made: tokens that are voting capable (of fixed supply), and tokens that are utility tokens (of inflationary supply). In theory, the consensus participants are only paid out in minted utility tokens, and thus do not collect voting influence over time. However, this doesn’t actually work! We’ve just moved the problem to a different domain, so long as they can swap these tokens on the market.Removing the inflation of voting rights completely is not the only solution, however. In fact, if a secondary source of inflation were added that went to a different source — a force in an equal but opposite direction — the centralization force could be balanced (or even result in net decentralization)!In our equation above, the reward refers to the amount of the supply the consensus participants are receiving relative to the total supply. If we increase the total supply in another way that is specifically not going to the consensus participants, then their dominance over the system would not increase. Let’s go back to our previous example with Alice, Bob, and Charlie: Suppose each had 1 unit and Alice gained her extra unit just as before. But now, suppose Charlie also received 1 extra unit as well for a different reason — Alice would have her extra vote checked and balanced. This would be in the form of additional inflation, for a different purpose. As with all inflation, there are winners and losers: in this case, Bob is the loser by being “inflated away” — but perhaps he was also the least engaged or otherwise not participating in the system itself.Figuring out good reasons for a secondary, balancing force of inflation is, however, a hard problem. As we recall with the original problem of inflation — in which, if we consider only the percentage of ownership rather than arbitrary unit counts — inflation is simply a tool to move the percentage in the direction of one entity at the expense of another. Thus, we need to pick a winner (a new reward to some who are specifically not part of the consensus participants), and we need to pick new losers. You might think of an obvious solution — we could just choose the winners to be everyone who is not a BP! But this would be an exact counterbalance and would be equivalent to not rewarding the BPs in the first place.If you’ve been following the logic, then you know exactly where this is going next: worker proposals. Indeed, a clear solution to this problem is a secondary source of inflation that is guided by token holders into the hands of non-block producing entities that increase the value of the ecosystem. This could include funding to apps and services, grants and scholarships, and other expenses that could be made in the goal of improving the value of the network as a whole. It would be important to strongly encourage that block producers do not double dip into this fund, for if they do, the point becomes moot. With this secondary source of inflation, the centralization force would be countered, and could, in fact, become a force for decentralization. If the inflation to the community is greater than the inflation towards only the consensus participants, then, while the consensus participants may still be well paid for their efforts, their position is no longer the most attractive source of revenue.There are many ways in which a worker proposal system could work but consider a very simplistic approach: duplicate the block producer structure, but only assign pay by weight (vpay) and no pay for blocks (bpay). This secondary set of organizations would be elected separate from BPs, are not part of determining consensus, and gain their own inflation — voted in place by the token holders. This would fit well for organizations that do not have technical or governance expertise, and could then spend all their time focusing on what they are good at; be it community outreach, marketing, scholarships, or other EOS business ventures. In fact, with this structure (or one like it), the consensus participants become further beholden to the community decisions, as more voting power is transferred into the hands of the community over time.SummaryIn this post, we’ve highlighted three important points that need to be considered when using inflation in a closed-body consensus system (like DPOS).Inflation itself is simply a tool to generate winners and losers in terms of ownership of total supply.If we award those responsible for consensus with rewards that give more influence over consensus, we end up entrenching those presently in power with more power.Thinking about solutions that prevent power consolidation is important, and one of the best ways to avoid it is with a counterbalance — ensuring that a single party or group is not the sole recipient of network rewards.As the EOS community continues to debate the pros and cons of different configurations of EOS inflation, it’s important to remember the long-term and second-order effects that change to this system can have. While direct decreases to the amount of inflation can seem like a positive outcome for token value, they should only be done in a way that ensures that the long-term health of the network remains sound. We believe that short term actions can create market movements in price, but long-term thinking drives true value creation. In order to achieve that, we must carefully consider how changes to critical parameters can affect the network’s centralization.We look forward to engaging in further community debate around these topics in order to work together to diagnose and solve the hardest problems facing EOS.Clarification UpdateSince the first release of our post, there has been a lot of generated discussion and feedback, which we think is great! However, there are a few repeated comments on our post that often misunderstand either the terminology or the math. This brief update seeks to help clarify some of this.First, there is some confusion on the use of the term “closed body”, with many arguing that “EOS is not a closed body”. To be fair, those with this position would be correct if we used the term “isolated system”, however, “closed body” has important distinctions. In physics, in an isolated system, neither matter nor energy can escape or enter the system. However, in a closed body system, only matter is preserved (and extraneous energy is often only modeled). To make this analogous with our EOS system, the EOS tokens are like matter: tokens do not escape or enter the system from a non-observed point; we can track with perfect fidelity the location of tokens. However, the wealth of the system functions like energy, with external factors at play. As much as we all wish we could use simple levers to control wealth, the only tools we have are for controlling tokens. Thus, our investigation looks at the token distribution, not wealth or economic activity — which are external variables. To further clarify why inflation is still a centralization force regardless of wealth, perhaps consider the following: even if no one sold tokens to consensus participants, they could still eventually control the supply. This is why closed-body analysis is still useful; it can be done independently of external factors.From this misunderstanding, the argument typically drawn is that the consensus participants will sell some fraction of their tokens rather than keep them all. This position (despite being unrelated to the use of closed body analysis) does hold merit in regards to affecting the rate of centralization over time. Yet, as we have not seen anyone discuss the math yet, lets do just that. The equation for this effect would look as follows:With rp being the individual participants’ (of size P) reward, and ep being how much of that is expenses (and not withheld). As we can see, this confirms our previous statement that, if rp == ep ∀ p ∈ P, then the system is stable. However, when ep is less than rp, the effect remains: the asymptotic convergence approaches the ratio of (rp — ep)/rp rather than rpitself, like a damping factor. As an example, if all participants have a ratio of 1/2, the curve would instead look like this, with an asymptotic convergence towards 50% of the supply rather than 100%.Finally, the breakdown into individual participants is important here: although the asymptotic convergence ratio is towards the sum of all participants, the participants could eventually greedily choose individual/new participants that increase control. For example, suppose half the participants had a ratio of 1/2, but the other half had a ratio of 1 (holding everything). This example has a convergence ratio of 3/4 in total, but interestingly, the set that held more can eventually replace the set that held less. This is because the set that withholds more of the inflation can eventually outvote the set that held less. To summarize: consensus participants not withholding their rewards only delay the process, and further, hand control over to those willing to withhold more.Finally, there are some questions about how initial distribution can affect the results. Once again, let's expand our formula to include initial distribution as a factor (don’t worry, this change is simple):Here, we’ve introduced a constant term ip, a participants’ individual initial ownership (for the purpose of the formula, this would be represented as a fraction of the initial total supply). As can be immediately noted, this summed factor can only end positive, and can only work to accelerate the timeline of asymptotic convergence. Indeed, this matches our intuition; taking into account initial distribution can only worsen the situation, it does not make things better.Article from:https://blog.greymass.com/eos/@greymass/inflation-centralization-and-dposAltcoin Magazine (@Alt__Magazine) | Twitterhttps://medium.com/media/4b37fd61c8660dc2cbfe8232dfa683e2/hrefInflation, Centralization, and DPoS was originally published in ALTCOIN MAGAZINE on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

EOSFORCE

19. 05. 10

Latest FAQ | EOSForce Commu...

1 EOSForce Mainnet Introduction1.1 EOSForce IntroductionEOSForce is committed to exploring a more open crypto economy infrastructure in practice. Through the continuous development of multi-chain architecture blockchain protocol, it meets the diversified consensus requirements of the crypto economy and promotes the application of blockchain technology in various fields.EOSForce.io, the most active parallel mainnet in EOSIO ecosystem, has been completed and launched, providing more user-friendly resource model, richer underlying support for developers and fairer governance mechanism for the community. The EOSForce.io mainnet asset can be activated by offline signing with the mapped EOSIO private key.1.2 What is EOSC? Is EOSC an airdrop token?EOSC is the token of an EOS mainnet launched by EOSForce community. It represents the assets on the EOSForce main chain and can be used for voting rewards, block generating, transferring and trading on exchanges.EOSC is not an airdrop token. Users can activate the EOSC account assets by offline signing with the EOSIO private key mapped before June 3, 2018 Beijing time.1.3 The difference between EOSC and EOSEOSC is the token of the EOS mainnet launched by EOSForce. EOS is the token of the EOS mainnet launched by EMLG. These two assets are different. Currently, AKdex.io Exchange has listed the EOS and EOSC trading pairs.1.4 Total amount of EOSC (Including the lock-up plan, and allocation of the rest part)The initial circulation of EOSC is 1 billion, and 94.6 million EOSC are issued annually to reward 23 BPs. The BlockOne team will be awarded a prize of 100 million EOSC unlocked every 10 years. And it will continue to do so without interruption.According to the proposal of EOSForce mainnet unactivated genesis account lockup plan, on December 20, the unactivated EOSIO genesis account will be locked with 80% of EOSC tokens, and replaced for the same amount of lock tokens. The remaining 20% can be freely used. Token increased annually will be adjusted appropriately according to the existing total amount of EOSC tokens in the mainnet.At present, the number of EOSC locked is 672,390,243, and the remaining is 327,609,757.1.5 Difference between EOSForce mainnet and EMLG mainnetThere is more than one EOS mainnet. Currently, the EOS community has launched several mainnets. The mainnet launched by EOSForce community is called EOSForce mainnet and is parallel to the mainnet launched by EMLG.When debugging EOS software, we found many unstable factors and there are certain asset security risks. Since EOS itself is a set of open source software, the official does not guarantee security and reliability of the blockchain launched by EOS software. This requires dedicated team for targeted development and testing to maintain the entire blockchain. Therefore, our team carried out strict tests on each function of EOSIO, upgraded and optimized the official codes, prioritized the security and reliability of the whole blockchain, and officially launched the EOSForce mainnet on June 22, 2018.EOSForce mainnet added the innovation of voting rewards incentive mechanism, improved the decentralization of one-token-one-vote, charged transaction fees to prevent DDOS attack, optimized the community governance of 23 BPs and introduced the new resource models.1.6 Why does EOSForce mainnet change 1-token-30-votes to 1-token-1-vote?1-token-30-votes will cause the block producers to form alliances and vote each other, which will seriously affect the decentralization of the blockchain. Such monopoly will bring great harm to the EOS community, while 1-token-1-vote of the EOSForce mainnet can effectively avoid this situation and prevent the mainnet from falling into the centralized governance of the Qatar alliance.Block One CEO Brendan Blumer also suggested that EOSIO changes to one-token-one-vote in a telegram group on January 2019.1.7 Is this EOSC EOSClassic?The full name of EOSC is EOS COIN, which is short for the mainnet token of EOSForce, not EOSClassic.2 EOSForce accounts creating and transaction making2.1 How to create an EOSForce account?2.1.1 EOS Genesis users: using the following wallets by importing the EOS private key of mapping can get the EOSForce account.EOSForce official wallet (PC version) — EOSForce.ioInternational well-known wallet — ScatterInternational well-known wallet — Math WalletFamous wallet in EOS ecosystem — Awake Wallet2.1.2 EOS non-genesis users: can create an EOSForce account in the following walletEOSForce official wallet (PC version) — EOSForce.ioInternational well-known wallet — Math WalletFamous wallet in EOS ecosystem — Awake Wallet2.2 Which wallets support EOSC?Tutorial for activating EOSC using Scatter wallet:https://bbs.eosforce.io/?thread-329.htmScatter wallet download address:https://get-scatter.com/EOSForce Wallet tutorial:https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/jbRRAmhoCKgHlga2V7xsDwEOSForce Wallet download address:https://www.eosforce.io/Math Wallet tutorial:https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/QV0gQYfWV6xVIXpmtxpDOgMath Wallet download address:http://www.mathwallet.orgAwake Wallet tutorial:https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/VC4uwNO99Cttj3k_5lEOggAwake Wallet download address:https://www.eosawake.io/EOSOU Wallet download address:https://bbs.eosforce.io/?thread-333.htm2.3 Which exchanges support EOSC?Centralized Exchange: Bitforex https://bitforex.comDecentralized Exchange: Akdex https://akdex.io (Math wallet and Awake wallet have built-in Akdex Exchange)OTC Exchange: EOSOU Wallet https://bbs.eosforce.io/?thread-333.htm3 About voting rewards sharing3.1 How to get voting rewards?https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/6fdXZNGc2_CgdPpWj5GHwA3.2 How do the coins of the voting rewards sharing come out?The EOSForce mainnet generates one block every 3s, each block produces 3 EOSC, and it produces about 31.53 million EOSC every year. 70% of the total output goes into the nodes rewards pool based on the voting weights. The nodes distribute the rewards to users according to the rewards ratio they set and the users’ voting weight.For example, the rewards ratio set by node mathwalletbp is 99.99%, which means that mathwalletbp pays 99.99% of its rewards pool to the users as voting rewards sharing, and the remaining 0.01% enters its node account.Voting annualized returns = (profitable node annual rewards *70% * Percentage of votes * dividend ratio) / number of total votes of the node * 100%3.3 How to participate in voting to obtain rewards and get votes redeemed?Click “vote” on the right side of the tab of nodes to participate in voting and get rewards. Click “redemption” to modify and withdraw the votes.Each time you vote and redeem, you need to pay 0.05EOSC as a handling fee. There is a 3-days lock-up period for redemption, and shall be unlocked and claimed manually 3 days later.Click “Dividends to be claimed” on the tab of “My Votes” to receive rewards. Each time you claim the rewards, you need to pay a fee of 0.03 EOSC. A sufficient balance must be set aside as a handling charge before voting.4 About nodes4.1 How to become an EOSForce Block Producer?EOSForce mainnet block producer deployment tutorialCN : https://eosforce.github.io/Documentation/#/en/eosforce_bpEN: https://eosforce.github.io/Documentation/#/en-us/eosforce_bp4.2 How many block producers in EOSForce community?There are more than 100 nodes in EOSForce community, among which the top 23 nodes with votes generate blocks and are called block producers. A node that receives more than 0.5% of the total votes of the current network is a profitable node.4.3 The income source of the block producers?The initial circulation of EOSC is 1 billionOne block generated per 3s and 3 EOSC in one block.Daily rewards of profitable node = 3 * 20 * 60 * 24 = 86,400 EOSCAnnual rewards of profitable node = BP daily rewards * 365 = 31,536,000 EOSCThe reward distribution is as follows:The nodes whose votes obtained are more than 0.5% of the total votes of current network are profitable nodes. Among these profitable nodes, there are BPs and BP candidates. The first 23 are BPs and the rest are BP candidates.For the BPs, 15% of the income will be credited to its account as basic salary, and 15% of the income will be credited to its account as block-generating reward. And the remaining 70% of the income will go into its account and rewards pool according to the allocation proportion set by the node.For the BP candidates, 15% of the income will be credited to its account as basic salary, and 15% of the income will be credited to EOSForce Foundation account Devfund (This account belongs to the community and is used to support the developers. The transaction requires a multi-sign of more than two-thirds nodes) .The remaining 70% of the income will go into its account and rewards pool according to the allocation proportion set by the node.4.4 Is voting rewards the same for different nodes?Vote for nodes with different annualized interest rates, the voting rewards will be different.Users can vote for different nodes according to the annual interest rate and the contribution made by the node.5. Lockup plan5.1 Why is there less EOSC in the account than at the time of mapping?According to the proposal of EOSForce mainnet unactivated genesis account locking plan, on December 20, the unactivated EOSIO genesis accounts are locked with 80% of EOSC tokens, and replaced for the same amount of lock tokens. The remaining 20% can be freely used.5.2 Why lock up 80% EOSC of the account?Early builders of EOSForce community believe that a large number of unactivated EOSC are not conducive to the future development and construction of the EOSForce mainnet. If these unactivated EOSC are activated after the EOSForce mainnet matures, it is unfair to community builders who have invested time and effort early. In response to this topic, there was a long and repeated discussion in the community, and on November 29, 2018, voted by the block producers and finally approved by 20 votes, 2 votes against, 1 abstention, passed the lock-up proposal jointly proposed by Awake, jiqix, eosou.io and walianwang. On December 20, 2018, EOSForce officially executed the unactivated account EOSC token lock-up contract.5.3 Is it possible to unfreeze the locked EOSC in the future?There is no suitable solution in the community for how to deal with locked EOSC currently. Members of the community can present their opinions and suggestions to the community and nodes.6 The EOSForce DAPP ecosystem6.1 Are there any DAPP on EOSForce mainnet currently?At present, there are Millionaire, Finger Guess, EOSForce Pixel, Super Card, Big Color Quiz, Smoke and Ashes and Waiting for you. It involves DAPP of public benefit, art, social and finance. In the future, we will develop more DAPPs and build a complete EOS ecological community.6.2 How can I participate in DAPP?At present, you can participate in voting rewards sharing and various DAPP projects of the EOSForce mainnet via Math Wallet or Awake Wallet.7 EOSForce resource model7.1 The Difference of resource model between EOSFORCE and EOS EMLGCPU and NET resources are allocated based on fees, and RAM resources are allocated based on leases7.2 Why does the transfer charge a fee? What resources are you paying for?In EOSForce mainnet, each operation needs to consume certain network resources. Because the total network resources are limited, in order to allocate resources fairly and reasonably, and avoid excessive abuse, the EOSForce mainnet has innovatively established a set of model for allocating CPU and NET resources based on handling fee. Under this model, users need to pay a certain fee for each operation to obtain CPU and NET resources. For example, the following operations:Transferring: 0.01EOSCUser Creation: 0.1EOSCVoting: 0.05EOSCRedemption: 0.05EOSCMemory renting: 0.05EOSCRewards Claiming: 0.03EOSC7.3 What is the RAM resources of EOSForce mainnet used for? How to obtain RAM resources of EOSForce mainnet? Can RAM resources be bought and sold?RAM resources provide users and developers with a memory space for nodes to store data for contract’s reading and writing. The RAM resources in EOSForce mainnet can only be obtained by means of leasing. The upper limit of the RAM can be used by the account is set according to the rent paid by the account. It can only be rented and cannot be bought or sold. In order to facilitate the user’s operation, the EOSForce mainnet set an 8kb rent-free quota for each account at this stage, so most ordinary users do not need to care about RAM. Usually, developers need to pay rent for the RAM used by their DApp, including the RAM occupied by the contract and the RAM data generated in the execution.7.4 What to do with the handling fee and RAM resources rent?Handling fee: The handling fee currently incurred for each transaction will be destroyed.Rent: EOSForce mainnet has implemented the function of paying rent for RAM resources by voting rewards. The user votes with a certain amount of EOSC to get the corresponding amount of RAM resources, and pays the rent of the RAM resources with the voting rewards. Currently 1KB RAM resources can be obtained by voting with 10EOSC. The rent will be returned to the rewards pool of the block producers in proportion to the dividend, and will finally return to the voting users.

EOSFORCE

19. 03. 25

1 EOSForce Mainnet Introduc...

Latest FAQ | EOSForce Community Q&A1 EOSForce Mainnet Introduction1 EOSForce IntroductionEOSForce is committed to exploring a more open crypto economy infrastructure in practice. Through the continuous development of multi-chain architecture blockchain protocol, it meets the diversified consensus requirements of the crypto economy and promotes the application of blockchain technology in various fields.EOSForce.io, the most active parallel mainnet in EOSIO ecosystem, has been completed and launched, providing more user-friendly resource model, richer underlying support for developers and fairer governance mechanism for the community. The EOSForce.io mainnet asset can be activated by offline signing with the mapped EOSIO private key.1.2 What is EOSC? Is EOSC an airdrop token?EOSC is the token of an EOS mainnet launched by EOSForce community. It represents the assets on the EOSForce main chain and can be used for voting rewards, block generating, transferring and trading on exchanges.EOSC is not an airdrop token. Users can activate the EOSC account assets by offline signing with the EOSIO private key mapped before June 3, 2018 Beijing time.1.3 The difference between EOSC and EOSEOSC is the token of the EOS mainnet launched by EOSForce. EOS is the token of the EOS mainnet launched by EMLG. These two assets are different. Currently, AKdex.io Exchange has listed the EOS and EOSC trading pairs.1.4 Total amount of EOSC (Including the lock-up plan, and allocation of the rest part)The initial circulation of EOSC is 1 billion, and 94.6 million EOSC are issued annually to reward 23 BPs. The BlockOne team will be awarded a prize of 100 million EOSC unlocked every 10 years. And it will continue to do so without interruption.According to the proposal of EOSForce mainnet unactivated genesis account lockup plan, on December 20, the unactivated EOSIO genesis account will be locked with 80% of EOSC tokens, and replaced for the same amount of lock tokens. The remaining 20% can be freely used. Token increased annually will be adjusted appropriately according to the existing total amount of EOSC tokens in the mainnet.At present, the number of EOSC locked is 672,390,243, and the remaining is 327,609,757.1.5 Difference between EOSForce mainnet and EMLG mainnetThere is more than one EOS mainnet. Currently, the EOS community has launched several mainnets. The mainnet launched by EOSForce community is called EOSForce mainnet and is parallel to the mainnet launched by EMLG.When debugging EOS software, we found many unstable factors and there are certain asset security risks. Since EOS itself is a set of open source software, the official does not guarantee security and reliability of the blockchain launched by EOS software. This requires dedicated team for targeted development and testing to maintain the entire blockchain. Therefore, our team carried out strict tests on each function of EOSIO, upgraded and optimized the official codes, prioritized the security and reliability of the whole blockchain, and officially launched the EOSForce mainnet on June 22, 2018.EOSForce mainnet added the innovation of voting rewards incentive mechanism, improved the decentralization of one-token-one-vote, charged transaction fees to prevent DDOS attack, optimized the community governance of 23 BPs and introduced the new resource models.1.6 Why does EOSForce mainnet change 1-token-30-votes to 1-token-1-vote?1-token-30-votes will cause the block producers to form alliances and vote each other, which will seriously affect the decentralization of the blockchain. Such monopoly will bring great harm to the EOS community, while 1-token-1-vote of the EOSForce mainnet can effectively avoid this situation and prevent the mainnet from falling into the centralized governance of the Qatar alliance.Block One CEO Brendan Blumer also suggested that EOSIO changes to one-token-one-vote in a telegram group on January 2019.1.7 Is this EOSC EOSClassic?The full name of EOSC is EOS COIN, which is short for the mainnet token of EOSForce, not EOSClassic.2 EOSForce accounts creating and transaction making2.1 How to create an EOSForce account?2.1.1 EOS Genesis users: using the following wallets by importing the EOS private key of mapping can get the EOSForce account.EOSForce official wallet (PC version) — EOSForce.ioInternational well-known wallet — ScatterInternational well-known wallet — Math WalletFamous wallet in EOS ecosystem — Awake Wallet2.1.2 EOS non-genesis users: can create an EOSForce account in the following walletEOSForce official wallet (PC version) — EOSForce.ioInternational well-known wallet — Math WalletFamous wallet in EOS ecosystem — Awake Wallet2.2 Which wallets support EOSC?Tutorial for activating EOSC using Scatter wallet:https://bbs.eosforce.io/?thread-329.htmScatter wallet download address:https://get-scatter.com/EOSForce Wallet tutorial:https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/jbRRAmhoCKgHlga2V7xsDwEOSForce Wallet download address:https://www.eosforce.io/Math Wallet tutorial:https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/QV0gQYfWV6xVIXpmtxpDOgMath Wallet download address:http://www.mathwallet.orgAwake Wallet tutorial:https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/VC4uwNO99Cttj3k_5lEOggAwake Wallet download address:https://www.eosawake.io/EOSOU Wallet download address:https://bbs.eosforce.io/?thread-333.htm2.3 Which exchanges support EOSC?Centralized Exchange: Bitforex https://bitforex.comDecentralized Exchange: Akdex https://akdex.io (Math wallet and Awake wallet have built-in Akdex Exchange)OTC Exchange: EOSOU Wallet https://bbs.eosforce.io/?thread-333.htm3 About voting rewards sharing3.1 How to get voting rewards?https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/6fdXZNGc2_CgdPpWj5GHwA3.2 How do the coins of the voting rewards sharing come out?The EOSForce mainnet generates one block every 3s, each block produces 3 EOSC, and it produces about 31.53 million EOSC every year. 70% of the total output goes into the nodes rewards pool based on the voting weights. The nodes distribute the rewards to users according to the rewards ratio they set and the users’ voting weight.For example, the rewards ratio set by node mathwalletbp is 99.99%, which means that mathwalletbp pays 99.99% of its rewards pool to the users as voting rewards sharing, and the remaining 0.01% enters its node account.Voting annualized returns = (profitable node annual rewards *70% * Percentage of votes * dividend ratio) / number of total votes of the node * 100%3.3 How to participate in voting to obtain rewards and get votes redeemed?Click “vote” on the right side of the tab of nodes to participate in voting and get rewards. Click “redemption” to modify and withdraw the votes.Each time you vote and redeem, you need to pay 0.05EOSC as a handling fee. There is a 3-days lock-up period for redemption, and shall be unlocked and claimed manually 3 days later.Click “Dividends to be claimed” on the tab of “My Votes” to receive rewards. Each time you claim the rewards, you need to pay a fee of 0.03 EOSC. A sufficient balance must be set aside as a handling charge before voting.4 About nodes4.1 How to become an EOSForce Block Producer?EOSForce mainnet block producer deployment tutorialCN : https://eosforce.github.io/Documentation/#/en/eosforce_bpEN: https://eosforce.github.io/Documentation/#/en-us/eosforce_bp4.2 How many block producers in EOSForce community?There are more than 100 nodes in EOSForce community, among which the top 23 nodes with votes generate blocks and are called block producers. A node that receives more than 0.5% of the total votes of the current network is a profitable node.4.3 The income source of the block producers?The initial circulation of EOSC is 1 billionOne block generated per 3s and 3 EOSC in one block.Daily rewards of profitable node = 3 * 20 * 60 * 24 = 86,400 EOSCAnnual rewards of profitable node = BP daily rewards * 365 = 31,536,000 EOSCThe reward distribution is as follows:The nodes whose votes obtained are more than 0.5% of the total votes of current network are profitable nodes. Among these profitable nodes, there are BPs and BP candidates. The first 23 are BPs and the rest are BP candidates.For the BPs, 15% of the income will be credited to its account as basic salary, and 15% of the income will be credited to its account as block-generating reward. And the remaining 70% of the income will go into its account and rewards pool according to the allocation proportion set by the node.For the BP candidates, 15% of the income will be credited to its account as basic salary, and 15% of the income will be credited to EOSForce Foundation account Devfund (This account belongs to the community and is used to support the developers. The transaction requires a multi-sign of more than two-thirds nodes) .The remaining 70% of the income will go into its account and rewards pool according to the allocation proportion set by the node.4.4 Is voting rewards the same for different nodes?Vote for nodes with different annualized interest rates, the voting rewards will be different.Users can vote for different nodes according to the annual interest rate and the contribution made by the node.5. Lockup plan5.1 Why is there less EOSC in the account than at the time of mapping?According to the proposal of EOSForce mainnet unactivated genesis account locking plan, on December 20, the unactivated EOSIO genesis accounts are locked with 80% of EOSC tokens, and replaced for the same amount of lock tokens. The remaining 20% can be freely used.5.2 Why lock up 80% EOSC of the account?Early builders of EOSForce community believe that a large number of unactivated EOSC are not conducive to the future development and construction of the EOSForce mainnet. If these unactivated EOSC are activated after the EOSForce mainnet matures, it is unfair to community builders who have invested time and effort early. In response to this topic, there was a long and repeated discussion in the community, and on November 29, 2018, voted by the block producers and finally approved by 20 votes, 2 votes against, 1 abstention, passed the lock-up proposal jointly proposed by Awake, jiqix, eosou.io and walianwang. On December 20, 2018, EOSForce officially executed the unactivated account EOSC token lock-up contract.5.3 Is it possible to unfreeze the locked EOSC in the future?There is no suitable solution in the community for how to deal with locked EOSC currently. Members of the community can present their opinions and suggestions to the community and nodes.6 The EOSForce DAPP ecosystem6.1 Are there any DAPP on EOSForce mainnet currently?At present, there are Millionaire, Finger Guess, EOSForce Pixel, Super Card, Big Color Quiz, Smoke and Ashes and Waiting for you. It involves DAPP of public benefit, art, social and finance. In the future, we will develop more DAPPs and build a complete EOS ecological community.6.2 How can I participate in DAPP?At present, you can participate in voting rewards sharing and various DAPP projects of the EOSForce mainnet via Math Wallet or Awake Wallet.7 EOSForce resource model7.1 The Difference of resource model between EOSFORCE and EOS EMLGCPU and NET resources are allocated based on fees, and RAM resources are allocated based on leases7.2 Why does the transfer charge a fee? What resources are you paying for?In EOSForce mainnet, each operation needs to consume certain network resources. Because the total network resources are limited, in order to allocate resources fairly and reasonably, and avoid excessive abuse, the EOSForce mainnet has innovatively established a set of model for allocating CPU and NET resources based on handling fee. Under this model, users need to pay a certain fee for each operation to obtain CPU and NET resources. For example, the following operations:Transferring: 0.01EOSCUser Creation: 0.1EOSCVoting: 0.05EOSCRedemption: 0.05EOSCMemory renting: 0.05EOSCRewards Claiming: 0.03EOSC7.3 What is the RAM resources of EOSForce mainnet used for? How to obtain RAM resources of EOSForce mainnet? Can RAM resources be bought and sold?RAM resources provide users and developers with a memory space for nodes to store data for contract’s reading and writing. The RAM resources in EOSForce mainnet can only be obtained by means of leasing. The upper limit of the RAM can be used by the account is set according to the rent paid by the account. It can only be rented and cannot be bought or sold. In order to facilitate the user’s operation, the EOSForce mainnet set an 8kb rent-free quota for each account at this stage, so most ordinary users do not need to care about RAM. Usually, developers need to pay rent for the RAM used by their DApp, including the RAM occupied by the contract and the RAM data generated in the execution.7.4 What to do with the handling fee and RAM resources rent?Handling fee: The handling fee currently incurred for each transaction will be destroyed.Rent: EOSForce mainnet has implemented the function of paying rent for RAM resources by voting rewards. The user votes with a certain amount of EOSC to get the corresponding amount of RAM resources, and pays the rent of the RAM resources with the voting rewards. Currently 1KB RAM resources can be obtained by voting with 10EOSC. The rent will be returned to the rewards pool of the block producers in proportion to the dividend, and will finally return to the voting users.

EOSFORCE

19. 03. 25

EOSForce Mar 2019 Week 2 De...

Work completed1. EOSForce mainnet update completed with the community2. FORCEIO Checker node relay function completed3. FORCEIO IBC solution improved transaciton contracts based on requirements4. EOSForce merged the latest ELMG EOS updates5. FORCEIO IBC solution economic model improved6. FORCEIO ported CDT development toolset7. FORCEIO golang library improved8. FORCEIO client command line tools supported transaciton contracts9. EOSForce client adds the function of switching voting with no freezing periodNext week’s plan1. FORCEIO relay chain economic model implementation design2. Improve FORCEIO Checker node implementation3. Implement FORCEIO IBC solution sidechain relay contract4. FORCEIO Checker node improves support for Docker5. Develope FORCEIO relay chain client wallet한국어이번 주1. 커뮤니티와 협력하여 EOSForce 메인넷 업그레이드 완료2. FORCEIO 검사 노드 릴레이 기능 완성3. FORCEIO IBC 솔루션 수요에 따라 거래 컨트랙트 개선4. EOSForce의 ELMG EOS 최근 업데이트 버전 합병5. FORCEIO IBC 솔루션 이코노믹 모댈 개선6. FORCEIO cdt 개발 도구 모음 이식7. FORCEIO golang 라이브러리 보완8. FORCEIO 클라이언트 명령행 도구 거래 컨트랙트 지원9. EOSForce 클라이언트 언스테이킹 없이 투표 변경 기능 추가다음 주 계획1. FORCEIO 릴레이 체인 이코노믹 모델 실현 방안 설계2. FORCEIO 검사 노드 실현 개선3. FORCEIO IBC 솔루션 사이드 체인 릴레이 컨트랙트 실현4. FORCEIO 검사 노드 개선 및 Docker 지원 개선5. FORCEIO 릴레이 체인 클라이언트 지갑 개발

EOSFORCE

19. 03. 25

EOSForce BP Open-House Meeting

EOSForce BP Open-House Meeting | 02.25.2019Topic: EOSForce Community Governance Meeting (10th)Time: Feb 28, 2018, 20:00–21:30 UTC+8Location: Zoom@ https://zoom.us/j/725946471Host: Wang Wei (BP: Walianwang)Proceedings:1. Super Node Community Secretary rotation2nd Community Secretary work reportElection of the 3rd Community Secretary member2. Community Secretary proposal voting3. Non-delay vote token redemption proposal votingProposalsCommunity Secretary Compensation ProposalTo improve community governance efficiency and to attract more network BPs to community governance, it is proposed:Each member of the Community Secretary receives 10,000 EOSC as salary compensation each monthImplementation starts at the election of the 3rd Community SecretaryThe token compensation comes from the Developer Fund accountNotes:According to “EOSForce Mainnet Super Node Meeting Rules”, Community Secretary consists of 1 Chief Secretary, 2 Deputy Secretaries, and 1 Host in rotation.Compensations are calculated based off the token. Low price encourages the staff effectiveness and high price attracts more people to apply for the positionNon-Delay Vote Token Redemption Proposal VotingTo improve community governance efficiency and to attract more network BPs to community governance, it is proposed:The votes in the vote pool in mainnet voting will have no time delay when switched to vote for other BP nodesRedemption from the vote pool will still have the 3-day delay when redeemed for balance.Notes:Voting age will start from 0 when vote is cast for another candidate.The proposal aims to increase inter-BP competition and voter participation, as well as encouraging new BPs entering the competition.Notes:1. The meeting is open to all members and nodes of the EOSForce ecosystem.2. The Super Node secretary welcomes all community members to build the ecosystem together.Secretary Office of EOSForce Super Nodes2019.2.25 (CN) 2019.2.25 (EN)

EOSFORCE

19. 02. 25

EOSForce BP Open-House Meeting

EOSForce BP Open-House Meeting | 02.25.2019Topic: EOSForce Community Governance Meeting (10th)Time: Feb 28, 2018, 20:00–21:30 UTC+8Location: Zoom@ https://zoom.us/j/725946471Host: Wang Wei (BP: Walianwang)Proceedings:1. Super Node Community Secretary rotation2nd Community Secretary work reportElection of the 3rd Community Secretary member2. Community Secretary proposal voting3. Non-delay vote token redemption proposal votingProposalsCommunity Secretary Compensation ProposalTo improve community governance efficiency and to attract more network BPs to community governance, it is proposed:Each member of the Community Secretary receives 10,000 EOSC as salary compensation each monthImplementation starts at the election of the 3rd Community SecretaryThe token compensation comes from the Developer Fund accountNotes:According to “EOSForce Mainnet Super Node Meeting Rules”, Community Secretary consists of 1 Chief Secretary, 2 Deputy Secretaries, and 1 Host in rotation.Compensations are calculated based off the token. Low price encourages the staff effectiveness and high price attracts more people to apply for the positionNon-Delay Vote Token Redemption Proposal VotingTo improve community governance efficiency and to attract more network BPs to community governance, it is proposed:The votes in the vote pool in mainnet voting will have no time delay when switched to vote for other BP nodesRedemption from the vote pool will still have the 3-day delay when redeemed for balance.Notes:Voting age will start from 0 when vote is cast for another candidate.The proposal aims to increase inter-BP competition and voter participation, as well as encouraging new BPs entering the competition.Notes:1. The meeting is open to all members and nodes of the EOSForce ecosystem.2. The Super Node secretary welcomes all community members to build the ecosystem together.Secretary Office of EOSForce Super Nodes2019.2.25 (CN) 2019.2.25 (EN)

EOSFORCE

19. 02. 25

EOSForce Community Governan...

ForewordThe Mandate to Govern in CommunityIn public blockchains, community governance makes up a large part of the integrity and the growth of the network. Traditional open-source projects only involve the developer community, but in public blockchains, network changes involve nodes, stake holders and users. Through economic incentive, public blockchains improve by involving more than one group of participants.Daniel Larimer took decentralized governance a step further with the design of Delegated-Proof-of-Stake (DPOS). Features including the on-going Block Producer election and the Referendum system add to the innovation and effectiveness of blockchain governance.The EOSForce governance community adds to the field of blockchain governance with their 1-Token-1-Vote and the Voter-Dividend model. Through economic incentives, EOSForce has been able to achieve voter turnouts as high as 90%. The high community participation continues to add new features to the network to adapt to new needs.Nodes, stake-holders and users can participate in community governance by directly drafting proposals or voting for Block Producers. The EOSForce Mainnet has 23 active Block Producer Super Nodes. Proposals which receive votes from more than 2/3 of the Super Nodes pass and get to be executed by the governance body and the EOSForce Core Team.It is also to be noted that this is a guide manual proposed by EOSForce Core Team and any EOSForce community member or Block Producer has the right to suggest changes.How to Participate in Community GovernanceVoting and Block Producer ElectionVoting is the most direct way for EOSC holders to participate in the EOSForce Mainnet governance. EOSForce (EOSC), born out of EOSIO, is the world’s first DPOS network with 1-Token-1-Vote. This model effectively eliminates governance manipulation of institutional investors and block producer alliance. It also encourages voters to vote for those Block Producers that serve in the interest of the community.Super Node Responsibilities to the CommunityAfter a node is successfully elected, it is required to fulfill the duties of packaging network transactions, blockchain generation, mainnet upgrades and so on. It is also required to vote on the proposals from the EOSForce communities on behalf of its electorates. Super Nodes must express its stance on each proposal clearly and interact with the community and each proposal voting will be clearly documented and presented to the EOSForce voter community.How to VoteThrough community wallets such as the MathWallet and EOSForce Desktop Wallet, any EOSC holder can vote and elect. EOSForce Core Team is developing a democratic voting infrastructure with better liquidity based on community proposals.Start Your Block Producer CampaignAny organization or individual can become a Block Producer through on-going EOSForce Mainnet elections.Initiating a governance proposal is the primary way in which EOSC holders can become deeply involved in community governance. As a unique feature of blockchain governance, EOSC token holders can present their opinions and solutions to problems and development of the EOSForce Mainnet through several ways. Several major decisions in the history of EOSForce have been made through rigorous community discussions, including:Voting dividend midificationInactive Token LockupInflation ReductionSpecific steps to initiate a proposal are as followed:Submit proposalEOSForce GithubBP proposal submission email: BPproposal@eosforce.ioEOSForce Global Community ForumInitiate proposal through BP support (list of BPs available at: explore.eosforce.io)2. Community Secretary organizes the community to initiate discussions and improve the proposal.Community Secretary is an open DAC composed of community and developement team, whose main responsibilities are to collect community proposals, initiate and host discussion meetings, record meeting contents, publish meeting contetns and so on. The Community Secretary rotates on a 3-month basis and is additionally compensated.Community Secretary regularly collects proposals and suggestions from the community on a weekly basis, organizes discussion of proposals by nodes and communities, and records views and opinions expressed by the community during the discussion.After the proposal has been fully discussed by the EOSForce community, the initiator needs to integrate the community opinions and further improve the proposal, then communicate with the EOSForce Core Team on the feasibility and priority of the update.3. Community Secretary organizes Block Producer meeting to voteAfter the proposal is completed, the Super Nodes and Block Producers will hold a meeting to vote on the proposal. If more than two-thirds of the block producers vote yes, the proposal is passed. If the proposal does not receive two-thirds of the votes, the proposal does not pass the vote. The proposal can be revised and submitted again. After the vote is completed, the Community Secretary will release detailed information about the meeting process and voting to the community.4. EOSForce Core Team execution & BPs test the code updateIf the proposal passes the Super Node vote, EOSForce Core Team will provide the corresponding technical support and technical solutions as well as the development cycle according to the requirements of the proposal, and then the nodes will jointly perform the test.5. Community Initiates Multi-Signed Contract & BP Implements Multi-SignatureIf the proposal passes the acceptance test, the community will initiate a multi-sign contract, and the block producer will execute the multi-sign proposal.After more than 2/3 of the block producers have signed, the new rules come into effect on the EOSC network. Any user can query through the public interface of EOSC (Chain ID :bd61ae3a031e8ef2f97ee3b0e62776d6d30d4833c8f7c1645c657b149151004b). The secretariat will also count the results of the execution and publish them in the public channels of EOSC.By now, the process of initiating, discussion, voting and executing has completed.Like government in the real world, no governance model is perfect. The EOSForce governance model is one of the more efficient models that have gone through an evolutionary process that leads to the current form. There are imperfections and the community is still exploring in practie. The community often conducts governance discussions on various public channels. Join these public channels and discuss a better solution with other community members.EOSForce is a multichain network built on EOSIO, enabling IBC and one-click blockchain launch for mass adoption, with an innovative governance modelWebsiteTwitterEnglish TelegramRedditGithubKorean TelegramMathWalletDesktop Wallet

EOSFORCE

19. 02. 25

EOSForce Community Governan...

ForewordThe Mandate to Govern in CommunityIn public blockchains, community governance makes up a large part of the integrity and the growth of the network. Traditional open-source projects only involve the developer community, but in public blockchains, network changes involve nodes, stake holders and users. Through economic incentive, public blockchains improve by involving more than one group of participants.Daniel Larimer took decentralized governance a step further with the design of Delegated-Proof-of-Stake (DPOS). Features including the on-going Block Producer election and the Referendum system add to the innovation and effectiveness of blockchain governance.The EOSForce governance community adds to the field of blockchain governance with their 1-Token-1-Vote and the Voter-Dividend model. Through economic incentives, EOSForce has been able to achieve voter turnouts as high as 90%. The high community participation continues to add new features to the network to adapt to new needs.Nodes, stake-holders and users can participate in community governance by directly drafting proposals or voting for Block Producers. The EOSForce Mainnet has 23 active Block Producer Super Nodes. Proposals which receive votes from more than 2/3 of the Super Nodes pass and get to be executed by the governance body and the EOSForce Core Team.It is also to be noted that this is a guide manual proposed by EOSForce Core Team and any EOSForce community member or Block Producer has the right to suggest changes.How to Participate in Community GovernanceVoting and Block Producer ElectionVoting is the most direct way for EOSC holders to participate in the EOSForce Mainnet governance. EOSForce (EOSC), born out of EOSIO, is the world’s first DPOS network with 1-Token-1-Vote. This model effectively eliminates governance manipulation of institutional investors and block producer alliance. It also encourages voters to vote for those Block Producers that serve in the interest of the community.Super Node Responsibilities to the CommunityAfter a node is successfully elected, it is required to fulfill the duties of packaging network transactions, blockchain generation, mainnet upgrades and so on. It is also required to vote on the proposals from the EOSForce communities on behalf of its electorates. Super Nodes must express its stance on each proposal clearly and interact with the community and each proposal voting will be clearly documented and presented to the EOSForce voter community.How to VoteThrough community wallets such as the MathWallet and EOSForce Desktop Wallet, any EOSC holder can vote and elect. EOSForce Core Team is developing a democratic voting infrastructure with better liquidity based on community proposals.Start Your Block Producer CampaignAny organization or individual can become a Block Producer through on-going EOSForce Mainnet elections.Initiating a governance proposal is the primary way in which EOSC holders can become deeply involved in community governance. As a unique feature of blockchain governance, EOSC token holders can present their opinions and solutions to problems and development of the EOSForce Mainnet through several ways. Several major decisions in the history of EOSForce have been made through rigorous community discussions, including:Voting dividend midificationInactive Token LockupInflation ReductionSpecific steps to initiate a proposal are as followed:Submit proposalEOSForce GithubBP proposal submission email: BPproposal@eosforce.ioEOSForce Global Community ForumInitiate proposal through BP support (list of BPs available at: explore.eosforce.io)2. Community Secretary organizes the community to initiate discussions and improve the proposal.Community Secretary is an open DAC composed of community and developement team, whose main responsibilities are to collect community proposals, initiate and host discussion meetings, record meeting contents, publish meeting contetns and so on. The Community Secretary rotates on a 3-month basis and is additionally compensated.Community Secretary regularly collects proposals and suggestions from the community on a weekly basis, organizes discussion of proposals by nodes and communities, and records views and opinions expressed by the community during the discussion.After the proposal has been fully discussed by the EOSForce community, the initiator needs to integrate the community opinions and further improve the proposal, then communicate with the EOSForce Core Team on the feasibility and priority of the update.3. Community Secretary organizes Block Producer meeting to voteAfter the proposal is completed, the Super Nodes and Block Producers will hold a meeting to vote on the proposal. If more than two-thirds of the block producers vote yes, the proposal is passed. If the proposal does not receive two-thirds of the votes, the proposal does not pass the vote. The proposal can be revised and submitted again. After the vote is completed, the Community Secretary will release detailed information about the meeting process and voting to the community.4. EOSForce Core Team execution & BPs test the code updateIf the proposal passes the Super Node vote, EOSForce Core Team will provide the corresponding technical support and technical solutions as well as the development cycle according to the requirements of the proposal, and then the nodes will jointly perform the test.5. Community Initiates Multi-Signed Contract & BP Implements Multi-SignatureIf the proposal passes the acceptance test, the community will initiate a multi-sign contract, and the block producer will execute the multi-sign proposal.After more than 2/3 of the block producers have signed, the new rules come into effect on the EOSC network. Any user can query through the public interface of EOSC (Chain ID :bd61ae3a031e8ef2f97ee3b0e62776d6d30d4833c8f7c1645c657b149151004b). The secretariat will also count the results of the execution and publish them in the public channels of EOSC.By now, the process of initiating, discussion, voting and executing has completed.Like government in the real world, no governance model is perfect. The EOSForce governance model is one of the more efficient models that have gone through an evolutionary process that leads to the current form. There are imperfections and the community is still exploring in practie. The community often conducts governance discussions on various public channels. Join these public channels and discuss a better solution with other community members.EOSForce is a multichain network built on EOSIO, enabling IBC and one-click blockchain launch for mass adoption, with an innovative governance modelWebsiteTwitterEnglish TelegramRedditGithubKorean TelegramMathWalletDesktop Wallet

EOSFORCE

19. 02. 25

EOSForce Community Q&A | Cy...

ForewordWhat are some of the hottest topics emerging in the crazy world of EOSIO in Jan 2019? BOS, market fluctuation, EOSForce 1-click blockchain, developer issues, resource/governance models? Surely there’s simply too much going on with EOSIO to keep up! No worries. EOSForce founder Cyborg has recently answered all of the above questions with a Q&A in the EOSForce community! If you are one of those who missed the community Q&A, you’re in the right place! In this article, we have organized his thoughts on all of the above topics! Let’s take a look.Note: credit of the original compilationgoes to eosou.io volunteer Boming Su.Translation provided by EOSForce Core Team JC ZhangStraight Words on BOSBOScore is supposedly led by a top Chinese-based top exchange. It has an interest group on the EOS Mainnet blockchain. So they launched this sidechain together. Some of the ideas of BOS are actually not bad, the Guaranteed Minimum Provision feature is actually a very good idea.However, the biggest risk of BOS is that it does away with the EOSIO’s concensus mechanism, in order to reduce the confirmation time to the Last Irreversible Block. EOS EMLG and EOSForce could both do this. The reason why we have not done so [at EOSForce] is that the visit traffic between nodes will climb up immediately and cause the cost of nodes to rise. So BOS’ concensus mechanism would actually cause the cost of nodes on their network to increase, even higher than EOS EMLG.At the same time, the issues of 1-token-30-vote model that plague the EOS community and the zero-voter incentive model carry huge risks for BOS as well. The codes of BOS give off an impression that they were in a rush, and many EOSIO codes were just copied and pasted line by line.As for their token distribution/ICO model, I personally agree with the arguments presented by the founder of EOS Laomao, Laomao himself, in his personal Wechat official account (for platform restrictions we are not posting its link directly in this article).Right now Brendan Bloomer is pushing 1-token-1-vote and voter incentive models, but the gaining support among communities is difficult. The current Block Producers have 3 categories: 1. exchanges that use idle tokens to vote for themselves; 2. BPs that are voted by the exchanges; 3. the last category is those that are elected purely through community voters. However, the 3rd category forms a very weak voice in the ecosystem. Without consent from one of these groups, Brendan Blumer would have a hard time pushing a change in the constitution. Moreover, I have talked with BPs from EOS, and they’ve told me that the current issue is not necessarily on the 1-token-30-vote or the voter dividend, but on the resource model.Where’s EOSIO Tech in the Overall Market?Many designs of EOSIO are laid out for the future development for multichain and crosschain. EOS development teams without long-term experience would have a hard time telling it, and every time we make changes we take a lot of caution.When it comes to 3rd generation blockchains, EOSIO is still better than other blockchains. But the 1-token-30-vote has spoiled the good vibe of the ecosystem and turned it into exchange BPs and whale BPs playground, and the resource models on EOSIO have been problematic too.Take REX and the Byzantine fault tolerance update for example. These updates go beyond the ability of regular teams. For EOSForce, they’d still take us a big chunk of a year to make such updates. So except for the Block.One team and our team, many developers now might resort to TRX. But actually experienced developers know that TRX’s resource model is even more unfriendly to develoepers, certainly worse than EOS. Seeing this challenge on the developer side, if the EOS DAPP development stories told on social media are true, EOS token price would have gone to the moon long ago. So that’s why we say that the current gambling and small game dapps on EOS are not solutions to the problem. Solutions exist outside the box.Once Again about Resource ModelsTheir (EOS) resource model needs to be changed, or many BPs will not be able to make it, mainly also if a lot of DAPP developers go away. EOSForce uses transaction fee and dividend rental to solve the issues of RAM and transactions. Still, from what public blockchain’s current performance, the future will definitely be multichain + crosschain. One single chain cannot possibly run that many dapps.The deterioarating state of gambling dappsThose gambling dapps actually need not be on EOSForce. As you can see, most of them merely have a life cycle of 2 weeks and have brought negative influence to the ecosystem. Many users have lost a lot of their assets they have earned just on gambling dapps. Probabilistically speaking, in the long run, you would always lose. When the winners liquidate their assets, the EOS token price is negatively affected as well.But actually, TRON’s resource model is the same as EOS. It’s in fact similar to EOS overall except for the virtual machine. But its resource model is inferior to EOS, and developer cost is high than on EOS. Its sole advantage is its intermittent price increases with whale pumping the price. This has led to rise of gambling dapp on TRON. The delusion this creates is that people think the ecosystem of TRON has gone up, and so TRX price has gone up. These two are actually not correlated.One more point on this, the platform loyalty of developers on TRON is actually very low. Developers on EOS for example, when the liquidity of their EOS DAPPs drops, they move to TRON. This kind of incentive is unsustainable. Developer teams themselves are not that wealthy, so after a pump and dump, they can only resort to high-liquidity areas. Ontology for example does exactly that — moving from chain to chain for short-term liquidity. For real application developers, if your blockchain does not have good experience, everything would not go long-term. Just like earlier RAM speculations. Do people still do speculation on RAM prices?Our view on building developer communityStatus quo of blockchain developersFull-time blockchain application developers are very small in numbers. The existing developers usually have a lacking understanding on blockchains.However, International developers from non-Chinese regions do not care about political correctness. They come for solving problems. The reason why our international communities have grown is that many users, developers, and BPs have noticed and join the EOSForce ecosystem.Our focus on the international communityFrom the perspective of EOSForce, our main focus now is to grow our international developer community. The Chinese gambling dapps developer teams only harm the ecosystem. If you have received mining dividend from dapps on EMLG Mainnet before, you know that the survivability of these dapps is usually 2 weeks. The process is usually early investors exploiting late-comers. They don’t have a mechanism to attract new users.A good quality of international developers is that they want to solve problems. They put long-term problem solving before short-term profitability. That’s why our main focus in on the international community. Just now I said that the Minimum Guarantee Provision of BOS is actually a good feature. I’m not sure if they have finished the coding, but we also have an equivalent provision on EOSForce. We give 8kb of RAM to each account. We see many of the advanced features that more and more mainnets on EOS have the same fundamental logic. Our advantage is we have finished coding this.In addition, Chinese EOS DAPP developer communities are no long that aggressive in many aspects. This is typical of Chinese-based groups even though the Chinese-based blockchain projects themselves are still leading in the industry. That’s why our international focus has brought activity to our global presence.About 1-Click Blockchain LaunchForceIO is launching very soon!In the weekly reports we published earlier, we have announced the development of ForceIO, and we have announced our multi crosschain network. Soon we will put forward that any DAPP developer team will be able to use the ForceIO program to launch a blockchain. It can be a public blockchain similar to EOSForce or EMLG, or an enterprise blockchain. The program is catered for all resource models and governance models.So from now on it will be easy to launch a blockchain for average users. Launching a public blockchains like BOS will no longer be an inhibiting threshold. People can launch a blockchian just like they launch an ERC-20 contract on Ethereum. Only when launching blockchains becomes accessible for developers will we see the significant applications being developed on blockchain.The logic behind this is: when launching public blockchains is 1 click away for everybody, speculations on public blockchains should go away, so what people do next is settle down and build useful applications. The future of the blockchain industry will be packed with new public blockchains.Early this year we said that we will support BCH. The reason we planned it was that some services work better with Proof-of-Work. So with our resources, we will aim for 1-click POW network launch service in Q2 or Q3 2019 too.Which blockchains does 1-Click Launch support?The 1-Click Blockchain Launch program supports EOSForce, with very fast transaction speed for homogeneous crosschains and sidechains. We will also support EOS EMLG, as well as public blockchains like Ethereum and Bitcoin.Interblockchain communications have several popular solutions. We have two stages of development. The first one is EOSForce-homogeneous blockchains. That is, the nodes in these blockchains install the same plugin and establish trust and security between them. This is suitable for homogeneous blockchains, but the disadvantage is installing the same plugin could encounter resistance.A Million Dollar SolutionThe other solution is to completely decentralize sidechains and crosschains. This is a cutting edge technical challenge in the industry at the moment. A lot of international teams have not made the breakthroughs on this. We are looking at 1 to 2 breakthoughts in Q1 and Q2 in 2019. That’s why we are looking at supporting heterogeneous blockchains as well.The simplest example application is when you play a dapp game, if you are playing an EOSForce mainnet game on EOS EMLG, you need to sell your EOS and buy EOSC and then play the game. You might make a lot of EOSC on the game, but if the EOSC price plummets, the EOS you exchange back might not cover what you made in the game. If we play the game through an interblockchain network with powered with crosschains, you stake your EOS on the relaychain to EOSC — this is equivalent to effect of staking it on EOS mainnet — you get the equivalent of 10 EOSC to play on the dapp. It uses the EOS you staked. When you exit the game, you can unstake your EOS and retrieve the EOS you earned in the game.Great User ExperienceThe advantage of this is that you only need to complete settlements on EOS while your contracts are run on the EOSC chain. For the users, the front-end interface has absolutely no signs of that. On the other hand, if you conduct transaction settlement on EOS chain as well computation of contracts, it gets congested.Relaychain 100% Community Mining — No 1:1 AirdropThe relaychains in the interblockchain network will have nodes i.e. BPs as well. The token distribution of these relaychains will be 100% community mining, rewarding only those who contribute to the network. No premine distribution will be reserved for the team either.Tokeneconomics in the IBC NetworkThe mechanism that incentives the EOSForce core team is: 1–5% of the mining reward each day goes to the core team account. One part of this will be paid as the salaries for the core team, and the other part will be for EOSForce mainnet airdrops for the community. This is under development and the distribution model is in design. However, it will be implemented through mining/blockc producing and no premine will be allowed.Why 1:1 airdrop premine is bad1:1 airdrop is flawed in its logic. Anyone without any proof of work can receive tokens in this model. The airdrop we call in the EOSForce community is from the 5% of what the core team makes and we give it to the community. But our bottom line is that you cannot get 1:1 for doing nothing. EOSForce Mainnet users have historically received that premined rewards. That actually has no more significance. Many launching mainnets nowawayds have 1:1 airdrops, but we see more and more so that do not.Where EOSForce Stands in the IBC Field?In the ForceIO multichain network, the latest technologies will be deployed on EOSForce Mainnet. Average developers will choose the EOSForce Mainnet for definite reasons. And they will launch a sidechain on EOSForce as EOSForce grows.Earlier I explained the token mapping process. It is launched on EOSForce Mainnet and settled on the sidechain. The EOSForce Mainnet blockchain is where the settlement takes place although developers can choose to run transaction settlements elsewhere. The rationale is to only run computation and smart contracts on the sidechain due to resource limits. The relaychain is the bridge between sidechains and the EOSForce Mainnet blockchain.The Historic Burden of EOSForceA lot of the prominent figures in the EOS ecosystem are good friends with me, but due to some arguments we had earlier, they have yet publicly supported EOSForce. But this is not the important point. What really makes a token valuable? Demand. The reason why EOSC and otehr cryptocurrency prices increase slowly is because of the low demand. That is, demand from the developers. Unlike older blockchains, EOSForce has been around for less than 1 year. EOS has been in existance for 2 years, Ethereum 3 years, Bitcoin a whole decade. So their community is really large. It is normal for these long-standing ecosystems to have large dynamics.The opposition to the EOSForce Mainnet early on was that people thought we would divert value from the EOS. Similar to ETC, even though they have done close to nothing, their price would rise. It’s diverted value from Ethereum and from Bitcoin. However, EOSForce started at a negative score, so all we are doing right now is to bring up the negative score.BOS vs EOSForceThe brand impression BOS goes for is different. By definition, they are a fork, but they claim to be a sidechain. They do not suffer much community resistance other than its ICO because they have a large group of communities around it. But what we need to remember is what makes a blockchain good is its developer experience. In this respect, EOSForce is better than other blockchains. EOSForce’s TPS is higher than any other blockchain with fast transaction speed. That’s why we are now focusing on developer experience.So we continue to upgrade. That’s why we do not spend as much resources on publicity. Publicity is for the useless gambing dapps. We want to focus on developer experience. We do not aim to attract enterprise dapp developer teams. We start with global medium-to-small developer communities.Next up we are focusing on developer tutorials in English and Chinese. Developers do not care much about meetups and publicity conferences. They develop much more interesting stuff on their own than the gambling dapps given the right resources. We will provide those resources.Comments on other developer teamsWith respect to development strength, some of the best teams in the world include Bitcoin core. They are relatively conservative in terms of development, and the overall community is rather conservative too. They do not want to make Bitcoin into a peer-to-peer digital cash but a digital gold. Another team with similar traits is the Copernicus team of BCH. They have in-depth research in POW and DPOS, but have not released their findings due to political reasons.Another team that’s very strong is BSC, the team behind Craig Wright. Their proposals are good and their development capability is find, and they ave POW miners support. Others include Cardano and Polkadot. They are strong in terms of development, but they are very slow. The rate at which they update their codes is inadequte to the amount of money they raised if this comparison makes sense.Demand for Enterprise BlockchainsAnother growing demand is enterprise blockchain. Transparency in assets in Business-to-Business needs enterprise blockchains to verify. This demand has huge potential with obvious advantages. I think if it uses stable coin to as a solution, the asset can solve the transparency issue completely in the contract.On Token PriceMany teams control the token price in consortium with whales, but everyone knows this is no long term solution. Although the EOSForce team did not do an ICO and is not that wealthy compared to others, but we can still pull that off based on the current EOSC price. But we understand the unsustainability of that deeply.From another perspective, the reason why people believe in Bitcoin is its decentralized nature. Even if the core team shuts down, the blockchain will still run. On the other hand, centralization would result in direct obliviation of the blockchain if the core team goes bankrupt.Decentralization on EOSForceFrom the 80% genesis lockup to the adjustment on the inflation rate, the decision-making is completely driven by the community on EOSForce Mainnet. The EOSForce core team has dedicated very minimal expenses on the governance level and the community takes full control. On the other hand, community of other blockchains have no say in the matter and can never make proposals.I think what our focus should be next is learning from the communties whose developer atmosphere is epecially great and what kind of applications they want to do and how we can attract these develoeprs. Then we make improvement on our blockchain. Even though EOSForce development force is in good shape, but issues on governance cannot be solved on our own. We need community effort.Blockchain growth & market conditionMany blockchains rely on speculative indicators for growth. They will artificially hype up the indicators that rating agencies use. If they look at the account number, they create accounts on their own. If they look at the transaction number, they spam transaction counts. I think the growth on EOSForce is actually the normal one. Our international community grows at a 10% rate weekly.Many speculators came in EOSForce at the times of market hype and bought the token at a very high price. I don’t think this is what a rational investor should do. With the current market condition, as more speculators leave, the community is starting to discuss things from an economic viewpoint and not for pure self interest.The current issues of the blockchain indsutry are not faced by EOSForce alone. BPs on EOS EMLG do not make a profit these days from the reward nor from developing dapps. The same goes for BCH. Good applications should not have to rely on token price to prosper. They rely on the performance and accessibility of the blockchain.For example, a question is if Bitcoin does not have 3Mb in its blockchain, could it grow? Is it still depending on the 3M/block? If it were not for the revolutionary fundamentals in the whitepaper, it would not have grown until today. Blockchains with centralized token price manipulation have died in masses. EOSForce will not repeat the same mistake. The current token price warm up is totally due to the community. If we were controlling the price, I would not be chatting with you guys here.What can EOSForce ecosystem members do?I think what all people should do in EOSForce ecosystem is to participate in the discussion of governance, not just as a token holder. Without discussions on governance and applications, blockchains die.Blockchain has not just been in existence for 1 or 2 years. It will be influential to industries for decades or even centuries to come. Currently if we only care about self-interest, we only hurt the existing users. We have a shortage of new users right now. Even the top three exchanges only have a fraction of the users they did. We must get rid of the short-term token holder speculative mindset.EOSForce, as the first fork or sidechain on EOS, price estimates would definitely be more promising than others. We will continuously iterate responding to new demands. We will also cooperate with the commuity and international BPs. We also thank our partner MathWallet and our Korean communities.I think that’s enough for today. Our plans for 2019 are way more dense and ambitious than the previous year. If you have any question, contact with us or with BPs, in Kaokao Talk or Telegram.Contact EOSForceTwitter | English Telegram | Reddit | Github |Korean TelegramEOSForce blockchain explorer: https://explorer.eosforce.io/#/enWalletshttps://github.com/eosforce/wallet-desktopEOSC token is distributed in accordance with the EOS genesis mapping. You can activate your EOSForce genesis account here.Scatter 10 has minor compatibility issues with EOSForce blockchain. Join the Telegram Channel here: https://t.me/Scatter. Visit the Scatter website at: https://get-scatter.com/ExchangesBitforex | Akdex.io

EOSFORCE

19. 02. 18

EOSForce Community Q&A | Cy...

ForewordWhat are some of the hottest topics emerging in the crazy world of EOSIO in Jan 2019? BOS, market fluctuation, EOSForce 1-click blockchain, developer issues, resource/governance models? Surely there’s simply too much going on with EOSIO to keep up! No worries. EOSForce founder Cyborg has recently answered all of the above questions with a Q&A in the EOSForce community! If you are one of those who missed the community Q&A, you’re in the right place! In this article, we have organized his thoughts on all of the above topics! Let’s take a look.Note: credit of the original compilationgoes to eosou.io volunteer Boming Su.Translation provided by EOSForce Core Team JC ZhangStraight Words on BOSBOScore is supposedly led by a top Chinese-based top exchange. It has an interest group on the EOS Mainnet blockchain. So they launched this sidechain together. Some of the ideas of BOS are actually not bad, the Guaranteed Minimum Provision feature is actually a very good idea.However, the biggest risk of BOS is that it does away with the EOSIO’s concensus mechanism, in order to reduce the confirmation time to the Last Irreversible Block. EOS EMLG and EOSForce could both do this. The reason why we have not done so [at EOSForce] is that the visit traffic between nodes will climb up immediately and cause the cost of nodes to rise. So BOS’ concensus mechanism would actually cause the cost of nodes on their network to increase, even higher than EOS EMLG.At the same time, the issues of 1-token-30-vote model that plague the EOS community and the zero-voter incentive model carry huge risks for BOS as well. The codes of BOS give off an impression that they were in a rush, and many EOSIO codes were just copied and pasted line by line.As for their token distribution/ICO model, I personally agree with the arguments presented by the founder of EOS Laomao, Laomao himself, in his personal Wechat official account (for platform restrictions we are not posting its link directly in this article).Right now Brendan Bloomer is pushing 1-token-1-vote and voter incentive models, but the gaining support among communities is difficult. The current Block Producers have 3 categories: 1. exchanges that use idle tokens to vote for themselves; 2. BPs that are voted by the exchanges; 3. the last category is those that are elected purely through community voters. However, the 3rd category forms a very weak voice in the ecosystem. Without consent from one of these groups, Brendan Blumer would have a hard time pushing a change in the constitution. Moreover, I have talked with BPs from EOS, and they’ve told me that the current issue is not necessarily on the 1-token-30-vote or the voter dividend, but on the resource model.Where’s EOSIO Tech in the Overall Market?Many designs of EOSIO are laid out for the future development for multichain and crosschain. EOS development teams without long-term experience would have a hard time telling it, and every time we make changes we take a lot of caution.When it comes to 3rd generation blockchains, EOSIO is still better than other blockchains. But the 1-token-30-vote has spoiled the good vibe of the ecosystem and turned it into exchange BPs and whale BPs playground, and the resource models on EOSIO have been problematic too.Take REX and the Byzantine fault tolerance update for example. These updates go beyond the ability of regular teams. For EOSForce, they’d still take us a big chunk of a year to make such updates. So except for the Block.One team and our team, many developers now might resort to TRX. But actually experienced developers know that TRX’s resource model is even more unfriendly to develoepers, certainly worse than EOS. Seeing this challenge on the developer side, if the EOS DAPP development stories told on social media are true, EOS token price would have gone to the moon long ago. So that’s why we say that the current gambling and small game dapps on EOS are not solutions to the problem. Solutions exist outside the box.Once Again about Resource ModelsTheir (EOS) resource model needs to be changed, or many BPs will not be able to make it, mainly also if a lot of DAPP developers go away. EOSForce uses transaction fee and dividend rental to solve the issues of RAM and transactions. Still, from what public blockchain’s current performance, the future will definitely be multichain + crosschain. One single chain cannot possibly run that many dapps.The deterioarating state of gambling dappsThose gambling dapps actually need not be on EOSForce. As you can see, most of them merely have a life cycle of 2 weeks and have brought negative influence to the ecosystem. Many users have lost a lot of their assets they have earned just on gambling dapps. Probabilistically speaking, in the long run, you would always lose. When the winners liquidate their assets, the EOS token price is negatively affected as well.But actually, TRON’s resource model is the same as EOS. It’s in fact similar to EOS overall except for the virtual machine. But its resource model is inferior to EOS, and developer cost is high than on EOS. Its sole advantage is its intermittent price increases with whale pumping the price. This has led to rise of gambling dapp on TRON. The delusion this creates is that people think the ecosystem of TRON has gone up, and so TRX price has gone up. These two are actually not correlated.One more point on this, the platform loyalty of developers on TRON is actually very low. Developers on EOS for example, when the liquidity of their EOS DAPPs drops, they move to TRON. This kind of incentive is unsustainable. Developer teams themselves are not that wealthy, so after a pump and dump, they can only resort to high-liquidity areas. Ontology for example does exactly that — moving from chain to chain for short-term liquidity. For real application developers, if your blockchain does not have good experience, everything would not go long-term. Just like earlier RAM speculations. Do people still do speculation on RAM prices?Our view on building developer communityStatus quo of blockchain developersFull-time blockchain application developers are very small in numbers. The existing developers usually have a lacking understanding on blockchains.However, International developers from non-Chinese regions do not care about political correctness. They come for solving problems. The reason why our international communities have grown is that many users, developers, and BPs have noticed and join the EOSForce ecosystem.Our focus on the international communityFrom the perspective of EOSForce, our main focus now is to grow our international developer community. The Chinese gambling dapps developer teams only harm the ecosystem. If you have received mining dividend from dapps on EMLG Mainnet before, you know that the survivability of these dapps is usually 2 weeks. The process is usually early investors exploiting late-comers. They don’t have a mechanism to attract new users.A good quality of international developers is that they want to solve problems. They put long-term problem solving before short-term profitability. That’s why our main focus in on the international community. Just now I said that the Minimum Guarantee Provision of BOS is actually a good feature. I’m not sure if they have finished the coding, but we also have an equivalent provision on EOSForce. We give 8kb of RAM to each account. We see many of the advanced features that more and more mainnets on EOS have the same fundamental logic. Our advantage is we have finished coding this.In addition, Chinese EOS DAPP developer communities are no long that aggressive in many aspects. This is typical of Chinese-based groups even though the Chinese-based blockchain projects themselves are still leading in the industry. That’s why our international focus has brought activity to our global presence.About 1-Click Blockchain LaunchForceIO is launching very soon!In the weekly reports we published earlier, we have announced the development of ForceIO, and we have announced our multi crosschain network. Soon we will put forward that any DAPP developer team will be able to use the ForceIO program to launch a blockchain. It can be a public blockchain similar to EOSForce or EMLG, or an enterprise blockchain. The program is catered for all resource models and governance models.So from now on it will be easy to launch a blockchain for average users. Launching a public blockchains like BOS will no longer be an inhibiting threshold. People can launch a blockchian just like they launch an ERC-20 contract on Ethereum. Only when launching blockchains becomes accessible for developers will we see the significant applications being developed on blockchain.The logic behind this is: when launching public blockchains is 1 click away for everybody, speculations on public blockchains should go away, so what people do next is settle down and build useful applications. The future of the blockchain industry will be packed with new public blockchains.Early this year we said that we will support BCH. The reason we planned it was that some services work better with Proof-of-Work. So with our resources, we will aim for 1-click POW network launch service in Q2 or Q3 2019 too.Which blockchains does 1-Click Launch support?The 1-Click Blockchain Launch program supports EOSForce, with very fast transaction speed for homogeneous crosschains and sidechains. We will also support EOS EMLG, as well as public blockchains like Ethereum and Bitcoin.Interblockchain communications have several popular solutions. We have two stages of development. The first one is EOSForce-homogeneous blockchains. That is, the nodes in these blockchains install the same plugin and establish trust and security between them. This is suitable for homogeneous blockchains, but the disadvantage is installing the same plugin could encounter resistance.A Million Dollar SolutionThe other solution is to completely decentralize sidechains and crosschains. This is a cutting edge technical challenge in the industry at the moment. A lot of international teams have not made the breakthroughs on this. We are looking at 1 to 2 breakthoughts in Q1 and Q2 in 2019. That’s why we are looking at supporting heterogeneous blockchains as well.The simplest example application is when you play a dapp game, if you are playing an EOSForce mainnet game on EOS EMLG, you need to sell your EOS and buy EOSC and then play the game. You might make a lot of EOSC on the game, but if the EOSC price plummets, the EOS you exchange back might not cover what you made in the game. If we play the game through an interblockchain network with powered with crosschains, you stake your EOS on the relaychain to EOSC — this is equivalent to effect of staking it on EOS mainnet — you get the equivalent of 10 EOSC to play on the dapp. It uses the EOS you staked. When you exit the game, you can unstake your EOS and retrieve the EOS you earned in the game.Great User ExperienceThe advantage of this is that you only need to complete settlements on EOS while your contracts are run on the EOSC chain. For the users, the front-end interface has absolutely no signs of that. On the other hand, if you conduct transaction settlement on EOS chain as well computation of contracts, it gets congested.Relaychain 100% Community Mining — No 1:1 AirdropThe relaychains in the interblockchain network will have nodes i.e. BPs as well. The token distribution of these relaychains will be 100% community mining, rewarding only those who contribute to the network. No premine distribution will be reserved for the team either.Tokeneconomics in the IBC NetworkThe mechanism that incentives the EOSForce core team is: 1–5% of the mining reward each day goes to the core team account. One part of this will be paid as the salaries for the core team, and the other part will be for EOSForce mainnet airdrops for the community. This is under development and the distribution model is in design. However, it will be implemented through mining/blockc producing and no premine will be allowed.Why 1:1 airdrop premine is bad1:1 airdrop is flawed in its logic. Anyone without any proof of work can receive tokens in this model. The airdrop we call in the EOSForce community is from the 5% of what the core team makes and we give it to the community. But our bottom line is that you cannot get 1:1 for doing nothing. EOSForce Mainnet users have historically received that premined rewards. That actually has no more significance. Many launching mainnets nowawayds have 1:1 airdrops, but we see more and more so that do not.Where EOSForce Stands in the IBC Field?In the ForceIO multichain network, the latest technologies will be deployed on EOSForce Mainnet. Average developers will choose the EOSForce Mainnet for definite reasons. And they will launch a sidechain on EOSForce as EOSForce grows.Earlier I explained the token mapping process. It is launched on EOSForce Mainnet and settled on the sidechain. The EOSForce Mainnet blockchain is where the settlement takes place although developers can choose to run transaction settlements elsewhere. The rationale is to only run computation and smart contracts on the sidechain due to resource limits. The relaychain is the bridge between sidechains and the EOSForce Mainnet blockchain.The Historic Burden of EOSForceA lot of the prominent figures in the EOS ecosystem are good friends with me, but due to some arguments we had earlier, they have yet publicly supported EOSForce. But this is not the important point. What really makes a token valuable? Demand. The reason why EOSC and otehr cryptocurrency prices increase slowly is because of the low demand. That is, demand from the developers. Unlike older blockchains, EOSForce has been around for less than 1 year. EOS has been in existance for 2 years, Ethereum 3 years, Bitcoin a whole decade. So their community is really large. It is normal for these long-standing ecosystems to have large dynamics.The opposition to the EOSForce Mainnet early on was that people thought we would divert value from the EOS. Similar to ETC, even though they have done close to nothing, their price would rise. It’s diverted value from Ethereum and from Bitcoin. However, EOSForce started at a negative score, so all we are doing right now is to bring up the negative score.BOS vs EOSForceThe brand impression BOS goes for is different. By definition, they are a fork, but they claim to be a sidechain. They do not suffer much community resistance other than its ICO because they have a large group of communities around it. But what we need to remember is what makes a blockchain good is its developer experience. In this respect, EOSForce is better than other blockchains. EOSForce’s TPS is higher than any other blockchain with fast transaction speed. That’s why we are now focusing on developer experience.So we continue to upgrade. That’s why we do not spend as much resources on publicity. Publicity is for the useless gambing dapps. We want to focus on developer experience. We do not aim to attract enterprise dapp developer teams. We start with global medium-to-small developer communities.Next up we are focusing on developer tutorials in English and Chinese. Developers do not care much about meetups and publicity conferences. They develop much more interesting stuff on their own than the gambling dapps given the right resources. We will provide those resources.Comments on other developer teamsWith respect to development strength, some of the best teams in the world include Bitcoin core. They are relatively conservative in terms of development, and the overall community is rather conservative too. They do not want to make Bitcoin into a peer-to-peer digital cash but a digital gold. Another team with similar traits is the Copernicus team of BCH. They have in-depth research in POW and DPOS, but have not released their findings due to political reasons.Another team that’s very strong is BSC, the team behind Craig Wright. Their proposals are good and their development capability is find, and they ave POW miners support. Others include Cardano and Polkadot. They are strong in terms of development, but they are very slow. The rate at which they update their codes is inadequte to the amount of money they raised if this comparison makes sense.Demand for Enterprise BlockchainsAnother growing demand is enterprise blockchain. Transparency in assets in Business-to-Business needs enterprise blockchains to verify. This demand has huge potential with obvious advantages. I think if it uses stable coin to as a solution, the asset can solve the transparency issue completely in the contract.On Token PriceMany teams control the token price in consortium with whales, but everyone knows this is no long term solution. Although the EOSForce team did not do an ICO and is not that wealthy compared to others, but we can still pull that off based on the current EOSC price. But we understand the unsustainability of that deeply.From another perspective, the reason why people believe in Bitcoin is its decentralized nature. Even if the core team shuts down, the blockchain will still run. On the other hand, centralization would result in direct obliviation of the blockchain if the core team goes bankrupt.Decentralization on EOSForceFrom the 80% genesis lockup to the adjustment on the inflation rate, the decision-making is completely driven by the community on EOSForce Mainnet. The EOSForce core team has dedicated very minimal expenses on the governance level and the community takes full control. On the other hand, community of other blockchains have no say in the matter and can never make proposals.I think what our focus should be next is learning from the communties whose developer atmosphere is epecially great and what kind of applications they want to do and how we can attract these develoeprs. Then we make improvement on our blockchain. Even though EOSForce development force is in good shape, but issues on governance cannot be solved on our own. We need community effort.Blockchain growth & market conditionMany blockchains rely on speculative indicators for growth. They will artificially hype up the indicators that rating agencies use. If they look at the account number, they create accounts on their own. If they look at the transaction number, they spam transaction counts. I think the growth on EOSForce is actually the normal one. Our international community grows at a 10% rate weekly.Many speculators came in EOSForce at the times of market hype and bought the token at a very high price. I don’t think this is what a rational investor should do. With the current market condition, as more speculators leave, the community is starting to discuss things from an economic viewpoint and not for pure self interest.The current issues of the blockchain indsutry are not faced by EOSForce alone. BPs on EOS EMLG do not make a profit these days from the reward nor from developing dapps. The same goes for BCH. Good applications should not have to rely on token price to prosper. They rely on the performance and accessibility of the blockchain.For example, a question is if Bitcoin does not have 3Mb in its blockchain, could it grow? Is it still depending on the 3M/block? If it were not for the revolutionary fundamentals in the whitepaper, it would not have grown until today. Blockchains with centralized token price manipulation have died in masses. EOSForce will not repeat the same mistake. The current token price warm up is totally due to the community. If we were controlling the price, I would not be chatting with you guys here.What can EOSForce ecosystem members do?I think what all people should do in EOSForce ecosystem is to participate in the discussion of governance, not just as a token holder. Without discussions on governance and applications, blockchains die.Blockchain has not just been in existence for 1 or 2 years. It will be influential to industries for decades or even centuries to come. Currently if we only care about self-interest, we only hurt the existing users. We have a shortage of new users right now. Even the top three exchanges only have a fraction of the users they did. We must get rid of the short-term token holder speculative mindset.EOSForce, as the first fork or sidechain on EOS, price estimates would definitely be more promising than others. We will continuously iterate responding to new demands. We will also cooperate with the commuity and international BPs. We also thank our partner MathWallet and our Korean communities.I think that’s enough for today. Our plans for 2019 are way more dense and ambitious than the previous year. If you have any question, contact with us or with BPs, in Kaokao Talk or Telegram.Contact EOSForceTwitter | English Telegram | Reddit | Github |Korean TelegramEOSForce blockchain explorer: https://explorer.eosforce.io/#/enWalletshttps://github.com/eosforce/wallet-desktopEOSC token is distributed in accordance with the EOS genesis mapping. You can activate your EOSForce genesis account here.Scatter 10 has minor compatibility issues with EOSForce blockchain. Join the Telegram Channel here: https://t.me/Scatter. Visit the Scatter website at: https://get-scatter.com/ExchangesBitforex | Akdex.io

EOSFORCE

19. 02. 18

Meeting Minutes — 80% Genes...

Meeting Minutes — 80% Genesis Lockup Proposal DiscussionMeeting GeneralsTopic: EOSForce governance discussions — 80% genesis lockupMeeting time: 2019.01.25 13:00–14:30 UTCFormat: open-house ZOOM meetingHost: Wang Wei from WalianwangAttendees: EOSForce community members, super nodes and candidate nodes, EOSForce core team.ProceedingsLockup plan background introBP representative introduce lockup plan backgroundCommunity discussion on 3 unlock plans (discussion does not result in direct proposal passage)Open discussion on governance issuesAgendaAgenda 1 — Lockup Proposal Background IntroIntro by proposed BPsExchange of views on the proposalAgenda 2 — BP representative introduces lockup plan backgroundAwake introduces the passed lockup proposalAwake BP once proposed that portion of assets above 40,000 tokens of the unactivated accounts be deleted for the following reasons:There should not be an unlimited activation time.Whales do not participate in the community and treat EOSForce as airdrop candies, causing dumping pressure to the community.EOSForce did not have an ICO and has no strict obligation to the genesis accounts.Keep the accounts with less than 40,000 tokens can minimize the total number of affected accounts.2. Jiqix introduces lockup planJiqix proposes a lockup plan out of the concern to minimize the error probability of locking up and shares its views:Fairness is divided into procedural fairness and consequence fairness. In consequence, lockup is unfair to late-comers, but is procedurally fair. With no issue, any decision should be materilized by the current community.Lockup aims to protect EOSForce its own. If the EOSForce token price is unstable, no dapp will be willing to develop on EOSForce. If EOSForce then shuts down its services, the 20% of unactivated accounts is no different from 200% or 1000%. Existence is paramount in front ofthe pursuit of absolute fairness.Lockup is not the fairest nor the best solution, but is the best for the time being and is better than outright deletion. Lockup first and then other solutions minize the risk of errors. Whether or not unfreeze later, how to unfreez or total delete, it depends on community opinion. But that is not for now.New proposals about deleting portions above 40,000 tokens is not fair. Disagrees. Any other proposal concerning such should take into account the spirit of contract.Agenda 3 — Community discussion on 3 unlock plans (discussion does not result in direct proposal passage)The community reaches the concensus that a proposal should be listened to regarding changing the in-effect lockup plan. However, due to the absence of the community members who proposed the suggestions and disagreements among BPs, furhter discussions are not held.Agend 4 — Open Discussions on GovernanceCyborg:A lockup is helpful in preventing malicious whale exchange eactivities and EOSForce from being hijacked by them.Goal of EOSForce is to leave to the genesis investor a clean land of seeds for a different future.Anyone can submit proposals to be up for voting. Anyone should be able to know which BP supports their proposal and which does not, and which titles of the proposal needs amendment.Later proposals should shorten the voting time to channel the visions of the voters better.Swedencornet:Telos example could be borrowed to limit the token amount of an account to diversify EOSForce from EOS EMLG.A upper limit of 5000–40000 of token could replace the 80% genesis lockup plan.Upper limit can also ensure price stability and relieve market pressure.Everyone should have the problem-solving attitude of the community.EOSphere:The Chinese BPs are getting too stuck in the lockup issue. We should not forget the global picture in stimulating the EOSForce community.Overseas BPs did not join previous because they were not aware of its existence.During the passage of the 80% lockup plan, overseas users were not adequately informed.We should maintain a global picture and understand the international community users.We should have more ways to encourage participation from the EOSForce community since the existing measures are not enough.Nobody wants the token price to drop. But there are ways to encourage community participation while stabilizing the price. Some measure such as staking the tokens in some ecosystem activity could be a solution.ENDBP Proposals accepted: BPproposal@eosforce.io

EOSFORCE

19. 01. 29

Meeting Minutes — 80% Genes...

Meeting Minutes — 80% Genesis Lockup Proposal DiscussionMeeting GeneralsTopic: EOSForce governance discussions — 80% genesis lockupMeeting time: 2019.01.25 13:00–14:30 UTCFormat: open-house ZOOM meetingHost: Wang Wei from WalianwangAttendees: EOSForce community members, super nodes and candidate nodes, EOSForce core team.ProceedingsLockup plan background introBP representative introduce lockup plan backgroundCommunity discussion on 3 unlock plans (discussion does not result in direct proposal passage)Open discussion on governance issuesAgendaAgenda 1 — Lockup Proposal Background IntroIntro by proposed BPsExchange of views on the proposalAgenda 2 — BP representative introduces lockup plan backgroundAwake introduces the passed lockup proposalAwake BP once proposed that portion of assets above 40,000 tokens of the unactivated accounts be deleted for the following reasons:There should not be an unlimited activation time.Whales do not participate in the community and treat EOSForce as airdrop candies, causing dumping pressure to the community.EOSForce did not have an ICO and has no strict obligation to the genesis accounts.Keep the accounts with less than 40,000 tokens can minimize the total number of affected accounts.2. Jiqix introduces lockup planJiqix proposes a lockup plan out of the concern to minimize the error probability of locking up and shares its views:Fairness is divided into procedural fairness and consequence fairness. In consequence, lockup is unfair to late-comers, but is procedurally fair. With no issue, any decision should be materilized by the current community.Lockup aims to protect EOSForce its own. If the EOSForce token price is unstable, no dapp will be willing to develop on EOSForce. If EOSForce then shuts down its services, the 20% of unactivated accounts is no different from 200% or 1000%. Existence is paramount in front ofthe pursuit of absolute fairness.Lockup is not the fairest nor the best solution, but is the best for the time being and is better than outright deletion. Lockup first and then other solutions minize the risk of errors. Whether or not unfreeze later, how to unfreez or total delete, it depends on community opinion. But that is not for now.New proposals about deleting portions above 40,000 tokens is not fair. Disagrees. Any other proposal concerning such should take into account the spirit of contract.Agenda 3 — Community discussion on 3 unlock plans (discussion does not result in direct proposal passage)The community reaches the concensus that a proposal should be listened to regarding changing the in-effect lockup plan. However, due to the absence of the community members who proposed the suggestions and disagreements among BPs, furhter discussions are not held.Agend 4 — Open Discussions on GovernanceCyborg:A lockup is helpful in preventing malicious whale exchange eactivities and EOSForce from being hijacked by them.Goal of EOSForce is to leave to the genesis investor a clean land of seeds for a different future.Anyone can submit proposals to be up for voting. Anyone should be able to know which BP supports their proposal and which does not, and which titles of the proposal needs amendment.Later proposals should shorten the voting time to channel the visions of the voters better.Swedencornet:Telos example could be borrowed to limit the token amount of an account to diversify EOSForce from EOS EMLG.A upper limit of 5000–40000 of token could replace the 80% genesis lockup plan.Upper limit can also ensure price stability and relieve market pressure.Everyone should have the problem-solving attitude of the community.EOSphere:The Chinese BPs are getting too stuck in the lockup issue. We should not forget the global picture in stimulating the EOSForce community.Overseas BPs did not join previous because they were not aware of its existence.During the passage of the 80% lockup plan, overseas users were not adequately informed.We should maintain a global picture and understand the international community users.We should have more ways to encourage participation from the EOSForce community since the existing measures are not enough.Nobody wants the token price to drop. But there are ways to encourage community participation while stabilizing the price. Some measure such as staking the tokens in some ecosystem activity could be a solution.ENDBP Proposals accepted: BPproposal@eosforce.io

EOSFORCE

19. 01. 29

Updated Guide to Activate E...

Special thanks to James from Scatter for his assistance on this update.Step ONE:Visit Scatter official website (https://get-scatter.com/) & download Scatter.Step TWO:Enter the Scatter application interfaceAfter you complete the wallet password and initial setup, you will be on the page below. Click “Add Keys”.Click “Create Keys”.Click on “Back” on the top left corner to get back to the Scatter main page.Step THREE: Set up the EOSForce Mainnet networkClick the settings icon on the top right corner.Click “Networks”. Enter the network setup after password verification.On the “Known Network” menu, drop down menue and chooseEOSForce Mainnet, and click Add to add it to your network.On the notification of “Network Saved”, new network setup is successful.Step FOUR: import EOSForce Mainnet private keyHead back to Scatter main page and click “Add keys”.Click “Import Key”.Click “Text”.Enter EOSForce Mainnet private key (unactivated account can enter the EOS genesis private key).The above page means that you have successfully set up EOSForce Mainnet on Scatter and you can access EOSForce through Scatter on the EOSC/EOSForce supported sites.Contact EOSForceTwitter | English Telegram | Reddit | Github |Korean TelegramEOSForce blockchain explorer: https://explorer.eosforce.io/#/enWalletshttps://github.com/eosforce/wallet-desktopEOSC token is distributed in accordance with the EOS genesis mapping. You can activate your EOSForce genesis account here.Scatter 10 has minor compatibility issues with EOSForce blockchain. Join the Telegram Channel here: https://t.me/Scatter. Visit the Scatter website at: https://get-scatter.com/ExchangesBitforex | Akdex.io

EOSFORCE

19. 01. 24

Updated Guide to Activate E...

Special thanks to James from Scatter for his assistance on this update.Step ONE:Visit Scatter official website (https://get-scatter.com/) & download Scatter.Step TWO:Enter the Scatter application interfaceAfter you complete the wallet password and initial setup, you will be on the page below. Click “Add Keys”.Click “Create Keys”.Click on “Back” on the top left corner to get back to the Scatter main page.Step THREE: Set up the EOSForce Mainnet networkClick the settings icon on the top right corner.Click “Networks”. Enter the network setup after password verification.On the “Known Network” menu, drop down menue and chooseEOSForce Mainnet, and click Add to add it to your network.On the notification of “Network Saved”, new network setup is successful.Step FOUR: import EOSForce Mainnet private keyHead back to Scatter main page and click “Add keys”.Click “Import Key”.Click “Text”.Enter EOSForce Mainnet private key (unactivated account can enter the EOS genesis private key).The above page means that you have successfully set up EOSForce Mainnet on Scatter and you can access EOSForce through Scatter on the EOSC/EOSForce supported sites.Contact EOSForceTwitter | English Telegram | Reddit | Github |Korean TelegramEOSForce blockchain explorer: https://explorer.eosforce.io/#/enWalletshttps://github.com/eosforce/wallet-desktopEOSC token is distributed in accordance with the EOS genesis mapping. You can activate your EOSForce genesis account here.Scatter 10 has minor compatibility issues with EOSForce blockchain. Join the Telegram Channel here: https://t.me/Scatter. Visit the Scatter website at: https://get-scatter.com/ExchangesBitforex | Akdex.io

EOSFORCE

19. 01. 24

EOSForce Mainnet Weekly Upd...

Total Mainnet Transaction Count: 1,562,302 txMainnt Account Count: 578,194Mainnet Vote Count: 153,890,215 EOSC (93.8% of the total activated EOSC)Total Activated Genesis EOSC: 162,269,851 EOSCActivated Genesis Account Count: 3564EOSForce Jan 2019 Week 3 Development ReportThis weekFORCEIO supports custom resource model and voting model through compile options.FORCEIO supports one-token-multiple-votes voting models.FORCEIO supports onchain blacklist.FORCEIO supports custom system contract account through compiling parameters.Published FORCEIO highly constimizable blockchain version 0.1.0.Collaborated with community updating EOSForce Mainnet to version 1.4.1.Perfected EOSForce English support documentation.Integrated EOSForce with EOSIO 1.5.4 update.Next weekFORCE IBC solution relaychain BP model relay contract development.FORCEIO supports sync plugin development.FORCE IBC solution relaychain Token contract mapping realization.FORCE IBC solution relaychain design to corresponding resource models.EOSPhere Joins EOSForce MainnetEOSForce will be attending EOS Israel mainnets meetup in FebEOSIO.Sweden Joins EOSForce MainnetEOSForce Genesis Lockup BP Meeting Scheduled Jan 241-Token-1-Vote DiscussionsEOSForce founder Cyborg published an article offering his takes on the rise of 1-token-1-vote discussions in recent weeks. From Brendan Blumber to media channels, why is everyone studying EOSForce models? See here: https://medium.com/@eosforce/are-1-token-1-vote-and-voting-dividends-necessary-for-a-public-dpos-blockchain-d139e5333b43Contact EOSForceTwitter | English Telegram | Reddit | Github |Korean TelegramEOSForce blockchain explorer: https://explorer.eosforce.io/#/enWalletshttps://github.com/eosforce/wallet-desktopEOSC token is distributed in accordance with the EOS genesis mapping. You can activate your EOSForce genesis account here.Scatter 10 has minor compatibility issues with EOSForce blockchain. Join the Telegram Channel here: https://t.me/Scatter. Visit the Scatter website at: https://get-scatter.com/ExchangesBitforex | Akdex.io

EOSFORCE

19. 01. 19

EOSForce Mainnet Weekly Upd...

Total Mainnet Transaction Count: 1,562,302 txMainnt Account Count: 578,194Mainnet Vote Count: 153,890,215 EOSC (93.8% of the total activated EOSC)Total Activated Genesis EOSC: 162,269,851 EOSCActivated Genesis Account Count: 3564EOSForce Jan 2019 Week 3 Development ReportThis weekFORCEIO supports custom resource model and voting model through compile options.FORCEIO supports one-token-multiple-votes voting models.FORCEIO supports onchain blacklist.FORCEIO supports custom system contract account through compiling parameters.Published FORCEIO highly constimizable blockchain version 0.1.0.Collaborated with community updating EOSForce Mainnet to version 1.4.1.Perfected EOSForce English support documentation.Integrated EOSForce with EOSIO 1.5.4 update.Next weekFORCE IBC solution relaychain BP model relay contract development.FORCEIO supports sync plugin development.FORCE IBC solution relaychain Token contract mapping realization.FORCE IBC solution relaychain design to corresponding resource models.EOSPhere Joins EOSForce MainnetEOSForce will be attending EOS Israel mainnets meetup in FebEOSIO.Sweden Joins EOSForce MainnetEOSForce Genesis Lockup BP Meeting Scheduled Jan 241-Token-1-Vote DiscussionsEOSForce founder Cyborg published an article offering his takes on the rise of 1-token-1-vote discussions in recent weeks. From Brendan Blumber to media channels, why is everyone studying EOSForce models? See here: https://medium.com/@eosforce/are-1-token-1-vote-and-voting-dividends-necessary-for-a-public-dpos-blockchain-d139e5333b43Contact EOSForceTwitter | English Telegram | Reddit | Github |Korean TelegramEOSForce blockchain explorer: https://explorer.eosforce.io/#/enWalletshttps://github.com/eosforce/wallet-desktopEOSC token is distributed in accordance with the EOS genesis mapping. You can activate your EOSForce genesis account here.Scatter 10 has minor compatibility issues with EOSForce blockchain. Join the Telegram Channel here: https://t.me/Scatter. Visit the Scatter website at: https://get-scatter.com/ExchangesBitforex | Akdex.io

EOSFORCE

19. 01. 19

Are 1-Token-1-Vote and Voti...

Community governance is the fundamental of the fundamentals.Table of contents:Foreword1. Why is voting-rewards-sharing a must for DPOS?2. Is one-token-one-vote a must?3. Thoughts on design of voting-rewards-sharing and one-token-one-vote mechanisms.4. What can Block One learn from the EOSForce’s resource models?5. What problems have been encountered in the development of blockchain applications?6. What is the bottleneck of the single-chain resource model?7. What is launching the public blockchain with just one click?8. What is the vision of EOSForce team?ForewordIn a rare series of history-breaking tweets and messages, CEO of Block.One, Brendan Blumer, has been making comments on voting-rewards-sharing and one-token-one-vote mechanisms in a variety of public channels, and even proposed to charge transfer fees.Experienced users of EOS community will find there are many similarities between BB’s new scheme and the one has been adopted by the running EOSForce mainnet. EOSForce mainnet has been running for more than six months with the one-token-one-vote, voting-rewards-sharing and charging-transfer-fee features. We’ve been suggesting that Block.One adopt the same economic model, and many blockchain media such as EOS Weekly also strongly advocate the community to refer to the economic model of EOSForce for improvements.So are one-token-one-vote and voting-rewards-sharing features necessary for a public DPOS blockchain? Can the resource model of charging transaction fee solve the congestion problem of current network? This paper mainly introduces the EOSForce community’s thoughts on the evolution of these three mechanisms since the EOSForce mainnet launched.1. Why is Voting Reward Sharing mechanism necessary for DPOS?1.1 Preventing double-spendingDouble-spending has not been taken seriously for a long time, until ETC suffered the double-spending attack recently.In DPOS consensus model, higher voter turnouts make the network more secure and the benefit of attacking networks lower. Voting-rewards-sharing mechanism can motivate more users to participate in community governance via voting, increase voter turnout, and reduce the benefit of attacking networks. Long-term observation results show that voting rewards and voter turnout are positively correlated. The turnout of EOSForce mainnet remains at 90% due to its voting-rewards-sharing feature. While the turnout of EMLG is around 40% because of the lack of rewards.1.2 Fighting inflation of the blockchainFor DPOS, the mainnet launches after the tokens have been issued (premine), so the incentive for nodes and BPs relies on the annual inflation rate. The EOSForce mainnet users can get rewards by voting, therefore, no matter how high the annual inflation rate is, the increase is returned to the voting users in the same proportion. The users who suffer losses are those who do not vote to participate in community governance.The increase part from EOSEMLG’s annual inflation of 5% are all given to the Block Producers (or BPs), the benefit users can get from the inflation is fee-free. But 90% of users will not pay more than 5% of their total tokens in a year. So if EOS does not adopt voting-rewards-sharing mechanism, the user assets will quickly depreciate.2. Is 1-Token-1-Vote a Must?One-token-30-votes needs to be corrected.There is a key point of one-token-one-vote is the super privilege.For a DPOS blockchain, whether there is a super privilege or not, two thirds of the nodes have the final say. So with the 1-token-30-votes and the super privilege, the chain directly changes from a public blockchain to a private blockchain controlled by the an interest alliance or “BP cartel”.How powerful is the super privilege? In a public test on May 17, the private key of the super-privilege account was accidentally acquired by someone who issued over 100 billion tokens and voted to his own node, which led to our emergency shutdown of the testnet. So we removed the super privilege in genesis block for the subsequent launch of mainnet. But later in the process of updating, we found that super privilege could make updating system contracts very efficient. And given that we have a one-token-one-vote mechanism, there is no possibility of conspiracy for BPs since the mainnet was launched, so we recovered the super-privilege feature, but it takes effect only when more than 2/3 BPs make multi-signing, not controlled by a single node.Monopoly brought by one-token-30-votes mechanism is the biggest harm to EOS community. The Chinese community such as EOS Cannon, EOS Gravity and HelloEOS, made a significant contribution to the community. Some centralized exchanges use users’ tokens to vote without authorization. In the logic of 1e-token-30-votes, the power of evil is magnified, so that nodes and BPs that have made great contributions to the community can be restrained by others to make their voices heard. The truth is very simple, becoming a BP requires the votes of the exchanges, if there is disagreement with the exchange, there is a risk that there will be no opportunity to participate in community governance. Of course, the only benefit of one-token-30-votes may be that it brought the community together to get mainnet launching and collectively repelled the EOSForce at that stage.3. Thoughts on Design of Voting-Rewards-Sharing and 1-Token-1-Vote MechanismsEOSForce also took a lot of detours on the design of voting-rewards-sharing at the beginning, but the good thing is that one-token-one-vote mechanism played a role.The first problem: At the beginning, we adopted another extreme which 100% opened the permission of BPs to pay rewards to voting users, resulting in competition between nodes becoming a competition of rewards. The community did not know how to exercise its rights, but only cared about which nodes pay higher voting rewards.The second problem: the 23 nodes split the block-generating rewards equally, so the node with the highest number of votes made more contributions, but its income and the voting users’ income are even less.The third problem: we wrongly underestimated the role of BP candidate. At the beginning, we thought that if more professional BPs could be offline after a DDOS attack, BP candidates might also be offline. So there was no need for BP candidates to get rewards. As a result, once a node falls out of the BPs sequence, all its votes will be revoked immediately. And the BPs will lose the competitive pressure from the BP candidates, leading to the stable ranking of the BPs within a period of time, and some BP candidates will then withdraw from the community.Taken together, these three problems turn the reward what should have been used as an incentive into an electoral bribery. After making so many stupid mistakes, the one-token-one-vote and voting-rewards-sharing played a role. And after a series of discussions and votes, eventually a proposal condense the crystallization of the wisdom of the community. It solved the three problems at once, adjust the reward back into a proper incentive. This proposal includes the BP candidates can get rewards, rewards shared according to the weight of votes, 30% of the rewards will be paid to the BPs’ account at once, the rest 70% of the rewards will pay to the community users and BPs themselves with an allocation scheme made by the BPs.The advantage is that the nodes have a fixed percentage of income, and they get rewards according to the proportion of votes obtained in the total votes. The more votes obtained, the higher rewards get. As for the voting users, they can vote for the nodes they support without worrying about the income loss due to nodes’ ranking out of the BPs list. As for BP candidates, they don’t need to worry about users withdrawing tickets due to low ranking, and can make contributions to the community reassuringly. However, it will strive to be a BP who is responsible for accounting of block generating, because the BP has 15% more reward than the BP candidate. The specific proposal was approved by more than 2/3 BPs’ votes, and the mainnet was upgraded according to it and keeps these features up to now:(1) The nodes whose votes obtained are more than 0.5% of the total votes of current network are profitable nodes. Among these profitable nodes, there are BPs and BP candidates. The first 23 are BPs and the rest are BP candidates.(2) All profitable nodes can obtain certain income, and all incomes are distributed according to the voting weight: (weight of each vote = the number of total votes of profitable nodes /the number of total votes of the whole network)1. The profitable nodes will get their income when each block is generated.2. Each profitable node gains income according to the voting weight (i.e. the proportion of votes obtained in the total votes of the current network).3. 70% of the income of each node will go into its reward pool, and the node can freely adjust the reward-sharing ratio to voters.4. For the BPs, 15% of the income will be credited to its account as basic salary, and 15% of the income will be credited to its account as block-generating reward.5. For the BP candidates, 15% of the income will be credited to its account as basic salary, and 15% of the income will be credited to EOSForce Foundation account.6. The part less than 0.0001 EOSC is omitted from all single income. In particular, if the total amount of a single income is less than 0.0001 EOSC, it will not be issued. When the block-generating reward is calculated, if the sum of this part is greater than 0.0001 EOSC, it will be credited to EOSForce Foundation account.Note: For voters, only voting for the profitable node can get rewards.4. What Can Block.One Learn from EOSForce’s Resource model?4.1 Two serious problems that EOS EMLG’s current resource model encounters:- Network congestionThe free charge of mortgage has brought a large number of “econnoisseur” (i.e. click farming), which has brought a lot of junk transactions to the chain, resulting in a sharp rise in node costs and the network becomes extremely congested.- User operation threshold is too highThe few steps of a mortgage blocked 99 % of the beginners, which seriously affected the popularity of EOSIO.4.2 How does EOSForce’s resource model solve the above problems?In EOSForce, each transaction execution needs to be run in nodes of EOSForce network, which means it needs to be computed by the actual physical machine. The computing resources required are classified into three categories: CPU, NET and RAM. CPU is settled in terms of the time it takes the node to execute the transaction. NET is settled by the size of the transaction message. And RAM, meaning memory, is settled by the size of the data generated by the transaction. This data needs to be stored in the memory of the node for other contracts to read and write. Because the physical machine of the node has limited computing power and storage capacity, the resources available to users throughout the EOSForce network are also limited. In order to enable all users to use resources for transactions and prevent some users from abusing computing resources, a series of resource allocation rules need to be established, which is the resource model of EOSForce.4.2.1: Pay fees to use of CPU and NET resourcesIn EOSForce, we require users to pay a fee for each action they trigger, in a similar way to Ethereum. It will provide a CPU and NET resources limit for the action. For system native action such as transfer, creating users and privilege updating, it is fixed fee and resource restrictions mechanism, which is easy to use. For the user-customized action, the conversion rate is set by BP through multi-signing. By default, each transaction of 0.01 EOSC, the action will be given a CPU usage limitation of 200 us and NET usage limitation of 500 bytes. For user convenience, developers need to set the handling fee amount for the action in the contract submitted by themselves, so that users do not need to set it. At the same time, developers are encouraged to optimize the use efficiency of contract resources and provide users with a better experience.4.2.2 Each account has an 8kb free amount of RAM, and the voting rewards can be used to rent RAMUnlike CPU and NET, RAM uses the lease method and it set the upper limit of the RAM that can be used by the account according to the rent paid by the account. The rent is charged according to the time. In order to facilitate the user’s operation, we have set a rent free amount of 8kb for each account at this stage, so for most ordinary users they do not need to care about RAM. Usually, developers need to pay rent for the RAM used by their DAPP, including the RAM occupied by the contract and the RAM data generated during the execution.At present, we realize the function of paying the rent by voting rewards and the users can get rewards by voting in EOSForce, which forms a Token flow. And the RAM is also charged according to the time and amount of the rental. Paying rent through rewards, on the one hand, is convenient for users to operate and users do not need to pay rent and deposit frequently. On the other hand, it can improve the voter turnout and promote the healthy development of the blockchain ecosystem.EOSBet team, the super DAPP on EOS, has proposed three solutions in the community. The first solution is to recommend the use of EOSForce and Telos.5. What Problems Have Been Encountered in the Development of Blockchain Applications?Even if the above problems are solved and better underlying infrastructure is provided, the problems encountered by developers of blockchain applications are still unprecedented:First, developers still need to figure out what problem to solve. There is no living space if it cannot solve any problem, that is why the DAPP BETDICE is so short-lived and not helpful to EOS price. It’s hard to imagine an application scenario by sitting in an office, developers still need to know more about the historical solution of the problem to be solved. Is it necessary to use the blockchain technology?Second, developers should be familiar with the public chain and blockchain technology. In other words, they should be familiar with the powerful tool of blockchain. Simply writing a smart contract doesn’t make for a great application like bitcoin. Developers have insufficient understanding of the public chain, resulting in no way to maximize the role of blockchain.Moreover, many people regard decentralization as an end. But our goal is not decentralization. Decentralization is just our means. Through more or less decentralization to guarantee the fairness, security and cost reduction of the issues we have to solve. Decentralization is a means rather than an end.What also needs to be improved is the developer’s understanding of the economic model. If you look at the whole economic model of bitcoin, it’s really great and elaborate, and it’s very ambitious, but today a lot of developers just use the feature of token rewards.When we are developing blockchain applications today, there is a misconception that we follow the logic of the early rise of the Internet. We may think that the development of blockchain is the same as the Internet, from text to pictures to video, or from gambling and drugs. But what’s missing is that those are the problems that the centralized Internet is good at solving, not the problems that blockchain is good at solving. In the early days of the Internet, it did not prove much more efficient than traditional businesses. If Alibaba had challenged new retail directly in the first place, it would like throwing straws against the wind. Similarly, before the blockchain challenges the social and e-commerce business dominated by the Internet interest alliance, it should at least prove the security and trust-cost-reduction advantages brought by the blockchain in the field it is good at.6. What is the Bottleneck of the Single-Chain Resource Model?At present, there is no good parallel processing scheme in the entire blockchain field, and the average performance of the public chain depends on the performance of block-generating server with the lowest configuration. Limited by the physical characteristics of silicon, the computing power of a single server will not continue to increase as rapidly as it has in the past decade for a long time in the future (5–10 years). The current Internet computing is to expand the number of centralized servers to solve the problem of performance limitations.For blockchain, it is difficult to solve performance problems at an acceptable cost if only the computing and services of multiple applications are stacked on a single server.For EOSIO, there are three performance bottlenecks, CPU, NET and RAM. Even if the CPU can achieve dozens of performance improvements in parallel in the future, RAM will still be limited by a single server for a long time. The recent public-chain practices of Ethereum and EOSIO have shown that it is almost impossible to rely on a public chain to achieve high performance and high concurrency under the premise of guaranteeing decentralization in the short term.Although we can foresee a decade later, thanks to the continued breakthrough of technology and algorithm optimization of the chain, the bottleneck of single-chain will be solved. But in the recent 5–10 years, we will hardly see this breakthrough. In the future, we must propose an effective solution on the eve of the blockchain application outbreak.Based on the judgment of technology evolution in 5–10 years, a business scenario needs to be hosted by a single public chain, and even a business scenario needs to be solved by a multi-chain architecture. Our EOSForce multi-chain and cross-chain protocol is developed for these reasons.In the case of the ENU community, the ENU network was launched to achieve UBI. A decentralized organization promotes the basic income of the whole people. Launching the public chain network alone can minimize the resource cost and flexibly utilize the various characteristics of the public chain. And our continuous iterative DPOS protocol will have very good underlying support for ENU network, allowing the entire community to focus on UBI application development and popularization.7. What is Launching the Public Blockchain with Just One Click?Based on this judgment, we plan to provide developers with a one-click launching public blockchain service in Q1 2019. Based on the EOSForce multi-chain and cross-chain protocol, we can not only meet the needs of developers with multiple consensus models, but also meet the need for data structure differentiation and functional diversification on other chains.Two new resource models are supported in the latest version of the EOSForce multi-chain Protocol. One is EOSIO’s mortgage and leasing resource model and the other is a free resource model. When launching a public blockchain based on the EOSForce multi-chain protocol, developers can choose one from three models, the EOSForce fee model, the EMLG mortgage leasing model and a free resource model similar to the consortium blockchain. Many people of public blockchain community look down on the consortium blockchain, but the consortium blockchain is the fastest one to embrace the block chain technology, and also the fastest one to produce practical applications.Ethereum makes issuing tokens a kind of inclusive right, and the EOSForce will make it easier to launch a public blockchain of diversified consensus, while making it convenient for multiple chains to interoperate.8. What is the VISION of EOSForce Team?The vision of EOSForce development team is to explore a more open crypto economy infrastructure in practice. We continue to develop multi-chain and cross-chain protocols based on EOSForce.io to promote the application of blockchain in various industries.This means that whether it is POW or DPOS, or multiple resource model requirements in DPOS, we need to explore and develop. So we made a series of initiatives:Launched EOSForce, an EOS parallel mainnet, and assumed responsibility for network upgrade and iterationPublicly support the “competitor” ENUEOS EMLG is also supported in the smart contracts tutorialSupport BCH to develop a peer-to-peer electronic cash systemProvide the service of one-click to launch public blockchainFollow us on GitHub: https://github.com/eosforceContact EOSForceTwitter | English Telegram | Reddit | Github |Korean TelegramEOSForce blockchain explorer: https://explorer.eosforce.io/#/enWalletshttps://github.com/eosforce/wallet-desktopEOSC token is distributed in accordance with the EOS genesis mapping. You can activate your EOSForce genesis account here.Scatter 10 has minor compatibility issues with EOSForce blockchain. Join the Telegram Channel here: https://t.me/Scatter. Visit the Scatter website at: https://get-scatter.com/ExchangesBitforex | Akdex.io

EOSFORCE

19. 01. 15

Are 1-Token-1-Vote and Voti...

Community governance is the fundamental of the fundamentals.Table of contents:Foreword1. Why is voting-rewards-sharing a must for DPOS?2. Is one-token-one-vote a must?3. Thoughts on design of voting-rewards-sharing and one-token-one-vote mechanisms.4. What can Block One learn from the EOSForce’s resource models?5. What problems have been encountered in the development of blockchain applications?6. What is the bottleneck of the single-chain resource model?7. What is launching the public blockchain with just one click?8. What is the vision of EOSForce team?ForewordIn a rare series of history-breaking tweets and messages, CEO of Block.One, Brendan Blumer, has been making comments on voting-rewards-sharing and one-token-one-vote mechanisms in a variety of public channels, and even proposed to charge transfer fees.Experienced users of EOS community will find there are many similarities between BB’s new scheme and the one has been adopted by the running EOSForce mainnet. EOSForce mainnet has been running for more than six months with the one-token-one-vote, voting-rewards-sharing and charging-transfer-fee features. We’ve been suggesting that Block.One adopt the same economic model, and many blockchain media such as EOS Weekly also strongly advocate the community to refer to the economic model of EOSForce for improvements.So are one-token-one-vote and voting-rewards-sharing features necessary for a public DPOS blockchain? Can the resource model of charging transaction fee solve the congestion problem of current network? This paper mainly introduces the EOSForce community’s thoughts on the evolution of these three mechanisms since the EOSForce mainnet launched.1. Why is Voting Reward Sharing mechanism necessary for DPOS?1.1 Preventing double-spendingDouble-spending has not been taken seriously for a long time, until ETC suffered the double-spending attack recently.In DPOS consensus model, higher voter turnouts make the network more secure and the benefit of attacking networks lower. Voting-rewards-sharing mechanism can motivate more users to participate in community governance via voting, increase voter turnout, and reduce the benefit of attacking networks. Long-term observation results show that voting rewards and voter turnout are positively correlated. The turnout of EOSForce mainnet remains at 90% due to its voting-rewards-sharing feature. While the turnout of EMLG is around 40% because of the lack of rewards.1.2 Fighting inflation of the blockchainFor DPOS, the mainnet launches after the tokens have been issued (premine), so the incentive for nodes and BPs relies on the annual inflation rate. The EOSForce mainnet users can get rewards by voting, therefore, no matter how high the annual inflation rate is, the increase is returned to the voting users in the same proportion. The users who suffer losses are those who do not vote to participate in community governance.The increase part from EOSEMLG’s annual inflation of 5% are all given to the Block Producers (or BPs), the benefit users can get from the inflation is fee-free. But 90% of users will not pay more than 5% of their total tokens in a year. So if EOS does not adopt voting-rewards-sharing mechanism, the user assets will quickly depreciate.2. Is 1-Token-1-Vote a Must?One-token-30-votes needs to be corrected.There is a key point of one-token-one-vote is the super privilege.For a DPOS blockchain, whether there is a super privilege or not, two thirds of the nodes have the final say. So with the 1-token-30-votes and the super privilege, the chain directly changes from a public blockchain to a private blockchain controlled by the an interest alliance or “BP cartel”.How powerful is the super privilege? In a public test on May 17, the private key of the super-privilege account was accidentally acquired by someone who issued over 100 billion tokens and voted to his own node, which led to our emergency shutdown of the testnet. So we removed the super privilege in genesis block for the subsequent launch of mainnet. But later in the process of updating, we found that super privilege could make updating system contracts very efficient. And given that we have a one-token-one-vote mechanism, there is no possibility of conspiracy for BPs since the mainnet was launched, so we recovered the super-privilege feature, but it takes effect only when more than 2/3 BPs make multi-signing, not controlled by a single node.Monopoly brought by one-token-30-votes mechanism is the biggest harm to EOS community. The Chinese community such as EOS Cannon, EOS Gravity and HelloEOS, made a significant contribution to the community. Some centralized exchanges use users’ tokens to vote without authorization. In the logic of 1e-token-30-votes, the power of evil is magnified, so that nodes and BPs that have made great contributions to the community can be restrained by others to make their voices heard. The truth is very simple, becoming a BP requires the votes of the exchanges, if there is disagreement with the exchange, there is a risk that there will be no opportunity to participate in community governance. Of course, the only benefit of one-token-30-votes may be that it brought the community together to get mainnet launching and collectively repelled the EOSForce at that stage.3. Thoughts on Design of Voting-Rewards-Sharing and 1-Token-1-Vote MechanismsEOSForce also took a lot of detours on the design of voting-rewards-sharing at the beginning, but the good thing is that one-token-one-vote mechanism played a role.The first problem: At the beginning, we adopted another extreme which 100% opened the permission of BPs to pay rewards to voting users, resulting in competition between nodes becoming a competition of rewards. The community did not know how to exercise its rights, but only cared about which nodes pay higher voting rewards.The second problem: the 23 nodes split the block-generating rewards equally, so the node with the highest number of votes made more contributions, but its income and the voting users’ income are even less.The third problem: we wrongly underestimated the role of BP candidate. At the beginning, we thought that if more professional BPs could be offline after a DDOS attack, BP candidates might also be offline. So there was no need for BP candidates to get rewards. As a result, once a node falls out of the BPs sequence, all its votes will be revoked immediately. And the BPs will lose the competitive pressure from the BP candidates, leading to the stable ranking of the BPs within a period of time, and some BP candidates will then withdraw from the community.Taken together, these three problems turn the reward what should have been used as an incentive into an electoral bribery. After making so many stupid mistakes, the one-token-one-vote and voting-rewards-sharing played a role. And after a series of discussions and votes, eventually a proposal condense the crystallization of the wisdom of the community. It solved the three problems at once, adjust the reward back into a proper incentive. This proposal includes the BP candidates can get rewards, rewards shared according to the weight of votes, 30% of the rewards will be paid to the BPs’ account at once, the rest 70% of the rewards will pay to the community users and BPs themselves with an allocation scheme made by the BPs.The advantage is that the nodes have a fixed percentage of income, and they get rewards according to the proportion of votes obtained in the total votes. The more votes obtained, the higher rewards get. As for the voting users, they can vote for the nodes they support without worrying about the income loss due to nodes’ ranking out of the BPs list. As for BP candidates, they don’t need to worry about users withdrawing tickets due to low ranking, and can make contributions to the community reassuringly. However, it will strive to be a BP who is responsible for accounting of block generating, because the BP has 15% more reward than the BP candidate. The specific proposal was approved by more than 2/3 BPs’ votes, and the mainnet was upgraded according to it and keeps these features up to now:(1) The nodes whose votes obtained are more than 0.5% of the total votes of current network are profitable nodes. Among these profitable nodes, there are BPs and BP candidates. The first 23 are BPs and the rest are BP candidates.(2) All profitable nodes can obtain certain income, and all incomes are distributed according to the voting weight: (weight of each vote = the number of total votes of profitable nodes /the number of total votes of the whole network)1. The profitable nodes will get their income when each block is generated.2. Each profitable node gains income according to the voting weight (i.e. the proportion of votes obtained in the total votes of the current network).3. 70% of the income of each node will go into its reward pool, and the node can freely adjust the reward-sharing ratio to voters.4. For the BPs, 15% of the income will be credited to its account as basic salary, and 15% of the income will be credited to its account as block-generating reward.5. For the BP candidates, 15% of the income will be credited to its account as basic salary, and 15% of the income will be credited to EOSForce Foundation account.6. The part less than 0.0001 EOSC is omitted from all single income. In particular, if the total amount of a single income is less than 0.0001 EOSC, it will not be issued. When the block-generating reward is calculated, if the sum of this part is greater than 0.0001 EOSC, it will be credited to EOSForce Foundation account.Note: For voters, only voting for the profitable node can get rewards.4. What Can Block.One Learn from EOSForce’s Resource model?4.1 Two serious problems that EOS EMLG’s current resource model encounters:- Network congestionThe free charge of mortgage has brought a large number of “econnoisseur” (i.e. click farming), which has brought a lot of junk transactions to the chain, resulting in a sharp rise in node costs and the network becomes extremely congested.- User operation threshold is too highThe few steps of a mortgage blocked 99 % of the beginners, which seriously affected the popularity of EOSIO.4.2 How does EOSForce’s resource model solve the above problems?In EOSForce, each transaction execution needs to be run in nodes of EOSForce network, which means it needs to be computed by the actual physical machine. The computing resources required are classified into three categories: CPU, NET and RAM. CPU is settled in terms of the time it takes the node to execute the transaction. NET is settled by the size of the transaction message. And RAM, meaning memory, is settled by the size of the data generated by the transaction. This data needs to be stored in the memory of the node for other contracts to read and write. Because the physical machine of the node has limited computing power and storage capacity, the resources available to users throughout the EOSForce network are also limited. In order to enable all users to use resources for transactions and prevent some users from abusing computing resources, a series of resource allocation rules need to be established, which is the resource model of EOSForce.4.2.1: Pay fees to use of CPU and NET resourcesIn EOSForce, we require users to pay a fee for each action they trigger, in a similar way to Ethereum. It will provide a CPU and NET resources limit for the action. For system native action such as transfer, creating users and privilege updating, it is fixed fee and resource restrictions mechanism, which is easy to use. For the user-customized action, the conversion rate is set by BP through multi-signing. By default, each transaction of 0.01 EOSC, the action will be given a CPU usage limitation of 200 us and NET usage limitation of 500 bytes. For user convenience, developers need to set the handling fee amount for the action in the contract submitted by themselves, so that users do not need to set it. At the same time, developers are encouraged to optimize the use efficiency of contract resources and provide users with a better experience.4.2.2 Each account has an 8kb free amount of RAM, and the voting rewards can be used to rent RAMUnlike CPU and NET, RAM uses the lease method and it set the upper limit of the RAM that can be used by the account according to the rent paid by the account. The rent is charged according to the time. In order to facilitate the user’s operation, we have set a rent free amount of 8kb for each account at this stage, so for most ordinary users they do not need to care about RAM. Usually, developers need to pay rent for the RAM used by their DAPP, including the RAM occupied by the contract and the RAM data generated during the execution.At present, we realize the function of paying the rent by voting rewards and the users can get rewards by voting in EOSForce, which forms a Token flow. And the RAM is also charged according to the time and amount of the rental. Paying rent through rewards, on the one hand, is convenient for users to operate and users do not need to pay rent and deposit frequently. On the other hand, it can improve the voter turnout and promote the healthy development of the blockchain ecosystem.EOSBet team, the super DAPP on EOS, has proposed three solutions in the community. The first solution is to recommend the use of EOSForce and Telos.5. What Problems Have Been Encountered in the Development of Blockchain Applications?Even if the above problems are solved and better underlying infrastructure is provided, the problems encountered by developers of blockchain applications are still unprecedented:First, developers still need to figure out what problem to solve. There is no living space if it cannot solve any problem, that is why the DAPP BETDICE is so short-lived and not helpful to EOS price. It’s hard to imagine an application scenario by sitting in an office, developers still need to know more about the historical solution of the problem to be solved. Is it necessary to use the blockchain technology?Second, developers should be familiar with the public chain and blockchain technology. In other words, they should be familiar with the powerful tool of blockchain. Simply writing a smart contract doesn’t make for a great application like bitcoin. Developers have insufficient understanding of the public chain, resulting in no way to maximize the role of blockchain.Moreover, many people regard decentralization as an end. But our goal is not decentralization. Decentralization is just our means. Through more or less decentralization to guarantee the fairness, security and cost reduction of the issues we have to solve. Decentralization is a means rather than an end.What also needs to be improved is the developer’s understanding of the economic model. If you look at the whole economic model of bitcoin, it’s really great and elaborate, and it’s very ambitious, but today a lot of developers just use the feature of token rewards.When we are developing blockchain applications today, there is a misconception that we follow the logic of the early rise of the Internet. We may think that the development of blockchain is the same as the Internet, from text to pictures to video, or from gambling and drugs. But what’s missing is that those are the problems that the centralized Internet is good at solving, not the problems that blockchain is good at solving. In the early days of the Internet, it did not prove much more efficient than traditional businesses. If Alibaba had challenged new retail directly in the first place, it would like throwing straws against the wind. Similarly, before the blockchain challenges the social and e-commerce business dominated by the Internet interest alliance, it should at least prove the security and trust-cost-reduction advantages brought by the blockchain in the field it is good at.6. What is the Bottleneck of the Single-Chain Resource Model?At present, there is no good parallel processing scheme in the entire blockchain field, and the average performance of the public chain depends on the performance of block-generating server with the lowest configuration. Limited by the physical characteristics of silicon, the computing power of a single server will not continue to increase as rapidly as it has in the past decade for a long time in the future (5–10 years). The current Internet computing is to expand the number of centralized servers to solve the problem of performance limitations.For blockchain, it is difficult to solve performance problems at an acceptable cost if only the computing and services of multiple applications are stacked on a single server.For EOSIO, there are three performance bottlenecks, CPU, NET and RAM. Even if the CPU can achieve dozens of performance improvements in parallel in the future, RAM will still be limited by a single server for a long time. The recent public-chain practices of Ethereum and EOSIO have shown that it is almost impossible to rely on a public chain to achieve high performance and high concurrency under the premise of guaranteeing decentralization in the short term.Although we can foresee a decade later, thanks to the continued breakthrough of technology and algorithm optimization of the chain, the bottleneck of single-chain will be solved. But in the recent 5–10 years, we will hardly see this breakthrough. In the future, we must propose an effective solution on the eve of the blockchain application outbreak.Based on the judgment of technology evolution in 5–10 years, a business scenario needs to be hosted by a single public chain, and even a business scenario needs to be solved by a multi-chain architecture. Our EOSForce multi-chain and cross-chain protocol is developed for these reasons.In the case of the ENU community, the ENU network was launched to achieve UBI. A decentralized organization promotes the basic income of the whole people. Launching the public chain network alone can minimize the resource cost and flexibly utilize the various characteristics of the public chain. And our continuous iterative DPOS protocol will have very good underlying support for ENU network, allowing the entire community to focus on UBI application development and popularization.7. What is Launching the Public Blockchain with Just One Click?Based on this judgment, we plan to provide developers with a one-click launching public blockchain service in Q1 2019. Based on the EOSForce multi-chain and cross-chain protocol, we can not only meet the needs of developers with multiple consensus models, but also meet the need for data structure differentiation and functional diversification on other chains.Two new resource models are supported in the latest version of the EOSForce multi-chain Protocol. One is EOSIO’s mortgage and leasing resource model and the other is a free resource model. When launching a public blockchain based on the EOSForce multi-chain protocol, developers can choose one from three models, the EOSForce fee model, the EMLG mortgage leasing model and a free resource model similar to the consortium blockchain. Many people of public blockchain community look down on the consortium blockchain, but the consortium blockchain is the fastest one to embrace the block chain technology, and also the fastest one to produce practical applications.Ethereum makes issuing tokens a kind of inclusive right, and the EOSForce will make it easier to launch a public blockchain of diversified consensus, while making it convenient for multiple chains to interoperate.8. What is the VISION of EOSForce Team?The vision of EOSForce development team is to explore a more open crypto economy infrastructure in practice. We continue to develop multi-chain and cross-chain protocols based on EOSForce.io to promote the application of blockchain in various industries.This means that whether it is POW or DPOS, or multiple resource model requirements in DPOS, we need to explore and develop. So we made a series of initiatives:Launched EOSForce, an EOS parallel mainnet, and assumed responsibility for network upgrade and iterationPublicly support the “competitor” ENUEOS EMLG is also supported in the smart contracts tutorialSupport BCH to develop a peer-to-peer electronic cash systemProvide the service of one-click to launch public blockchainFollow us on GitHub: https://github.com/eosforceContact EOSForceTwitter | English Telegram | Reddit | Github |Korean TelegramEOSForce blockchain explorer: https://explorer.eosforce.io/#/enWalletshttps://github.com/eosforce/wallet-desktopEOSC token is distributed in accordance with the EOS genesis mapping. You can activate your EOSForce genesis account here.Scatter 10 has minor compatibility issues with EOSForce blockchain. Join the Telegram Channel here: https://t.me/Scatter. Visit the Scatter website at: https://get-scatter.com/ExchangesBitforex | Akdex.io

EOSFORCE

19. 01. 15

The Rise of EOS Sisterchain...

The development of blockchain technology as an industry necessarily experiences the ups and downs of any rising industry. And any rise and fall of an industry resembles to that of a company, nation, individual, and any other entity that runs its course in history. When the power-center entity is weak, its subsidiary rises up. When the power-center dissatisfies, the vassel states demand changes. When the power-center does not suffice, developers fork the chain. This is JC from EOSForce Global Operations, and today, we will take a look at the innovation that has swept through the EOSIO ecosystem from EOS Sisterchains & EOSForce.EOSIO is the software developed by the Block.one company that raised 4 billion dollars from its ICOs. In June 2018, a group of international EOS enthusiast communities, which in my opinion are still the most participatory blockchain community there is, gathered together and launched their EOS mainnet. This group is called EOS Mainnet Launch Group, and hence their mainnet is sometimes referred to as EOS EMLG. They were firm believers in the EOSIO software and EOS governance system proposed by Block.one, and they launched the mainnet without making fundamental changes.In the months leading up to the launch of EOS software, a Chinese team called EOSForce, part of the EMLG group, saw some potential flaws in the EOS blockchain and potential changes that could be made. However, making changes on the fundamental level of blockchain codes required highly skilled engineering brainpower, so the team leader Cyborg founded a team of blockchain engineers and started to examine the code and see where how they could make the blockchain better. After 3 months of studying, the EOSForce team saw the changes they could make and decided to launch their own version of the software mainnet. This was not well-received by the EMLG community and the EOSForce chain was given cold faces by the prominent BP members of the EMLG group.The first fork chain of EOSIO software did not go well. Or was it?One open-minded feature of blockchain softwares is they are open-sourced. People can make changes and variation for a version of their own. The EOSIO software developed by Block.one was open to all interested members of the community. Still, the EOSForce Mainnet started off with bullets passing its shoulders.At the same time, the community development of EOSForce stood in the awkward position of domestic exclusion, where there is an already capped community growth in China, while international expansion efforts had barely taken off.The popularity of Telos and Worbli changed minds. When more sisterchains popped up in the EOSIO ecosystem, people’s minds started to shift — maybe actually there should be other mainnets too. However, the value these mainnets bring to the EOSIO blockchain advancement remained unclear.3 months after the launch of EOSIO by EMLG, the “Huobi BP vote collusion/buying” scandal took off in the EOS community. A series of document detailing the exact vote exchanges between the EOS BP Huobipool and numerous other top BPs on the EOS Mainnet was release into the EOS public. The news blast through the EOS community and voters from the West called for boycotting against Huobipoolbp, and some event suggested to remove Huobipoolbp as an EOS BP. Vote-buying and BP collusion, although always existing, had been brought under the spotlight in the EOSIO ecosystem.At the same time, the EOS referendum system was under development by a group of EOS BPs (thankfully these BPs did not appear in Huobi’s vote collusion document). The system aimed at addressing the constant conflicts between ECAF and the BPs, and also the lack of channels for voters to voice their opinions. The referendum system required a bare minimum of 15% votes to pass. This is a problem.If you recall, near the launch date of EOS EMLG, the group struggled to gagner the 15% bare minimum votes required to launch. The launch date was forced to be delayed. It was not after the help from the Chinese crypto billionaire Li Xiaolai that the EMLG had enough token votes to launch the EOSIO software. Standing in the shadow of the “launch delayed due to lack of voters” incident, the EOS referendum system took off.During this period, people were looking for governance solutions that could fundamentally improve the EOS Mainnet governance system. Calls for community actions were made, but mostly to no avail. Effective voter communication channels were still underdeveloped.EOSForce, while seeing all of this happened, with its updated governance features — 1-token-1-vote, voter dividend for high voter participation, and a new network resource model — started to ramp up its international community building efforts, with a clear conviction that new governance and communication model should be brought under spotlight right now if we ever want to make blockchain use popular.“Life clears out the old to make way for the new.”One of the most unique aspect of decentralized governance community that many fail to appreciate is the fantastic community initiate that happens all the time. While EOSForce kept pushing out contents and articles for discussion and education, these contents got noticed by a group of independent blockchain/EOS media, the likes of EOS Weekly, Everything EOS, Colin Talks Crypto, MaxDapp, CryptoTim and many others we should not ever overlook the importance of.When people saw the governance gridlock and the slow change process on EOS EMLG, they turned to other alternative solutions. Now many more people are discussing the important subjects of voter incentive. With Brendan Blumber’s Twitter bringing this subject under spotlight, the EOS community’s discussion sentiment is at its historic height.It is exactly the rise from EOSForce and sisterchains that propelled the community forward to discussing these important issues.By offering innovative and more organic community building and governance measures, EOSForce now has openned people’s minds to rethink exactly the relationship between the EOSIO software and individual chains built on it. By fundamentally shifting the framework of how people think, changes outside the box could then happen. In the past, people only take examples from EOS Mainnet, and now people see that other mainnets may offer better solutions than what’s available on the original luanch group. This is progress.Eventually, we must understand we are all striving for a common goal here — mass adoption for the blockchain technology. We are not striving for the individual interests of token holders, of developers, of whales/exchanges, or with investors. By putting the common goal first and thinking from this larger picture, the blockchain technology grows, and the hard work of token hodlers, developers, and investors will be paid off. Only putting one group’s interest first benefits no-one.Contact EOSForceTwitter | English Telegram | Reddit | Github |Korean TelegramEOSForce blockchain explorer: https://explorer.eosforce.io/#/enWalletshttps://github.com/eosforce/wallet-desktopEOSC token is distributed in accordance with the EOS genesis mapping. You can activate your EOSForce genesis account here.Scatter 10 has minor compatibility issues with EOSForce blockchain. Join the Telegram Channel here: https://t.me/Scatter. Visit the Scatter website at: https://get-scatter.com/ExchangesBitforex | Akdex.io

EOSFORCE

19. 01. 13

Transaction History

Preparing to be listed on cryptocurrency exchanges
Please leave a message of support for the team

go to leave a message

Security verification

There is security verification of the project
Why security verification is necessary?

Read more

comment

* Written questions can not be edited.

* The questions will be answered directly by the token team.

  • ch**** Jan 03. 2019

    제네시스스냅샷이 머에요?

  • dn**** Dec 17. 2018

    이것도 eos 보유시 받는거죠??
    일정은 아직 미정인가요

    EOSFORCE Person in charge Dec 17. 2018

    본 에어드랍은,
    기존에 제네시스 스냅샷을 토큰뱅크에서 참여하신 회원에 한하여 지급받을 수 있습니다.

  • so**** Dec 17. 2018

    카톡방있나요?

  • na**** Dec 12. 2018

    제네시스 스냅샷도 토큰뱅크에 보유하는 것만으로 에어드랍 받을 수 있는건가요?

    EOSFORCE Person in charge Dec 12. 2018

    제네시스 스냅샷의 경우 ,
    기존에 제네시스 스냅샷을 토큰뱅크에서 참여하신 회원에 한하여 지급받을 수 있습니다.

  • ry**** Dec 10. 2018

    헛 제네시스 스냅샷ㅋㅋㅋㅋ이거 사이드체인 아닌가요?

    EOSFORCE Person in charge Dec 10. 2018

    안녕하세요. 수퍼긍정님 사이드체인 에어드랍 또한 지원합니다.
    제네시스 스냅샷 기준으로 지급될 예정입니다.

Information
Platform EOSC
Accepting
Hard cap -
Audit -
Stage -
Location -