 Nice to meet you all. Good morning for some of you, I guess. I hope you had a good night yesterday and a good party. So we're going to start slowly with the workshop. First, we're going to have a very quick presentation about how it's going to go down and what are the topics that we're going to discuss and what the forts are. Although we want to open as many questions as possible so that we are then forming groups of people, teams sort of, and then addressing the four topics and opening up as many questions and learning as much as possible from all of us. I think that this is quite a diverse group, so we all have different types of knowledges. And if we may need a big disciplinary, I think this is going to be quite great for us. So yeah, my name is Anya, Anya Byte. I'm a lawyer. I am actually focused on the International Law and Space Law, but more or less I'm working in a blockchain space as well. So we're trying to open up an unlock company. This is my partner. She's going to talk about herself by herself. So I'm not going to be talking about her for help. So yeah, we're actually kind of finding what the property and entity for dollars might be. This is what we work on in unlock. Finding what the right jurisdiction might be and what are the legal obstacles on our way to create dollars and to create a good environment here. Also talking to some regulators and finding out a lot about people. Hi, my name is Manin. I'm very happy to see you all here. I'm very, a lot of familiar faces. So we are also happy to have two facilitators with us that are experienced facilitators. Max from DGOP and Felipe from ASDAQ. So we are also part of DGOP, especially Anya. She's a funding member of DGOP. And we learned a lot from this community, which is actually organizing events and working on a strategy for governance for different projects. Maybe you can also say a word about DGOP. You're right. I think I'll connect a lot of 500 researchers now from political science to technology trying to assign cross-functional people together to move these complex issues forward. I mean, we have been seeing a lot of different presentations and panels and I heard when there were questions, really tough questions asked. They say, it depends on the governance we're going to adopt. So every time we're talking about governance, but we don't know what this is actually. And this is also the idea of our workshop. So we would like, we were thinking, okay, what would we like to discuss? And if we think about governance, forking is the extreme event that could happen, actually. And then we were asking, how much do we know about forks? Who is talking about forks? Who is preparing plans for the readiness for forks? This was actually an additional idea. So as we said, we have a really short presentation and then we're going to work in groups. After that, also the groups are going to have a presentation about their work. So the methods, we were thinking of having a method where you might be used to, for example, different types of competitions. One of those is woodcourt. Anya can tell more about this. Yeah, so I don't know how many of you have provided the description of the workshop. Firstly, it was a vision more or less like a woodcourt. It's a legal thing. You go on a competition and you present the argument for both of the parties in order to convince the judges. And what I like about it so much is that the judges are usually the real judges. So it's not an imaginary case. It's actually the real law that we use and the real judges are in front of you. So whatever the case is, they are actually getting the knowledge on how a case in the future might be solved using the laws that we have. And right now we are actually, we might be imagining a case for a fort, but what we have is real. So whatever scenario we're going to have, whoever we're going to speak to, it might actually be used somewhere in the future. And what is really important about woodcourt is the argumentation. So if we're taking, like, a step, we're saying, okay, we want to do that, but this is the argument why we need to do that and why this is important and we really like to work on that in the groups. So we're not really going to go with a woodcourt because this is a smaller group and we're not really having a case in front of us. So we don't usually have a couple of months of not comparison, but preparation. So we only have two hours to build from that idea and we're just going to form groups of people and have discussion like we're used to. But still using the argumentation. And having a presentation maybe challenging each other with questions. So the issue is the fork. What are forks, when are they happening, how are we reacting to it, who are the stakeholders in this fork ecosystem. So we can tell you a little bit about the history, Anya. Yeah, so what forks are basically just the speed of the protocols. We've had different types of forks, but we want you actually to think about new types of forks. So you might not really be just stocked forks and hard forks. It actually might be more relevant to think about what are the reasons for forks. And then create new types of forks based on those reasons that we are having the issues. So the history of forks probably everyone here is familiar with the dial forks, which was pretty much the bug. And when you go through a history of all forks you see that there is different reasons and the bug is one of the reasons. So the bug actually functions like a clock. In order to actually solve that fork we are kind of in the whole community creating a defense mechanism. So we are communicating how we're getting to the fork so that we prevent the hacking, so that we prevent the malicious abuse of the code. But all the forks are not going to be necessarily based on something that's maliciously conducted on the fork, on the code. It might as well be just an upgrade on the code. And these are the hard forks that we're now seeing in the disaster and the upgrade of the code in this area. So yeah, these cities actually what types we were thinking of, you might have a plan, because of the point where the fact, and then you have spin-offs, which is just the output. So somebody copy-pays the code and this is all the source. So there's questions like for lawyers whether this should be patented or are there any bridges of the, I feel like, stuff like that. So we are talking here about governance. We don't want to go into technical theaters but we, everybody, or at least it's really easy to copy-paste the code. But we would like to think about the governance. So if we're doing, for example, a spin-off of a coin, what governance is included here? Are we talking to the community? How are we communicating with the community? Also, the opening of DEF CON, we were hearing about Byzantineium and they were also saying, we need to focus on communication to our stakeholders. So exchanges, different other organizations. This is like a plan for the next years for our blockchains. So how are we communicating that internally and also externally to the whole community? Okay, so this is something that NATO came up with or the political science in the international field of law. Writing this action plan is pretty much the plans that governments are having when the sheet goes down. So when there is, for example, a threat or an impact on the nation-state, the NATO and all the international communities are actually having a threat in these plans. So how they're going to react on that threat. And what is happening with course, if it's not going to be a community thing, if it's not going to be just an upgrade, then we have to be ready as much as possible. So DEF CON as a B, America has DEF CON with DEF and they have different stages and according to how by the threat, that actually creates the stage and that creates the reaction plan for them. They actually have all the ready and action plans prepared ahead so that people know how to react appropriately and as fast as possible and be as efficient as possible. So on the next slide, we actually have what it should be all about to have as possible a sweep and firmly responses that we can agree and then that we have a proper deterrence and defense approach to the defense. So before that to happen, we actually first need to discuss what types of course we have, what are the issues that we are addressing, what are the obstacles, is it actually good to fork or not, this is something that's not proposed. And we also formed a couple of other questions that we might want to address and we have four different types of groups that we want to create, but I think there's not so many of us, we can also go into two types of groups. So if we go to, yeah. Yeah, okay, so this is just a picture that presents that we want to collaborate in teams and have a discussion, right? So we're going to have two facilitators that form two groups and then let's discuss all these topics. Maybe we can even merge two of the groups together. So we have four of them. One is faculty to work, motivation for works, whether to work or not to work. And then we have four communication which is pretty much relevant for the governance and the communication of the community and then the work technicalities. So if anyone feels ready to talk about the code and the technical aspects of the work, that makes it pretty much the work to go with. So we see that here in the group we know some people, but we don't know all of you. We were also thinking of having different groups and also ideas interacting with each other from the legal point of view, communication point of view or technical point of view. You can also form groups if you would like to just talk to lawyers or just to tech people, developers. We are very flexible in how to form those groups, but those are some suggestions from our side. So we also discussed with Vlad and he was urging us to ask a very important question. Okay, so... Yeah, I can read it out loud. I think it's better if we just form two groups. So one would be types of the groups and motivations of the groups. I think these two are very connected to each other. Regarding the motivation of a work, that might actually create an axonomy. So we're just going to merge those and we have two hours, so don't worry about time. I think we have enough time to actually go through all these questions. And then we can merge the four communications with the current technicalities. You find some technicalities that might actually direct on how we communicate and which tools we use and who are the stakeholders that are actually communicating the work. So if you feel okay with that, let's just make two post-its, two groups, and then we split into two groups. We have two facilitators. They're going to take care of the timings. Also, they're going to have all the questions presented in front of them. So we might have you guys to ask some questions. And then at the end of it, somebody, if we have a phone here, can just link those. And then we have a discussion and we go later on, especially by what we think are the others. This is more, we can also discuss in one group. And it really depends on what you're interested in and what would you like to discuss. I mean, do you have an idea? Have you been asking yourself about those questions? That's not really, I mean... Not a lot of questions, actually. I mean, that's because the communication is not quite standardized. Yeah. There's a lot of questions about what's actually happening and how it works today. This is just... Obviously, it's a good process to just say, yeah, we need to do this. We'll operate. And that is actually important. It doesn't really feature anything. Okay. Do you think about just forming a circle? I'm going to let you answer all the questions together. I mean, what we're discussing is do you feel that you have enough information about works and what's actually happening? Part of the space we're talking about. So I had no statement. For me, it happened, like, before I bought Ethereum. I was like, you know, I was like... I was signing up for, like, a crack in account. A few weeks prior, I was like, get some Ethereum. And I just didn't go through the entire KYC process yet. And then, like, the Dow hack happened. I was, like, texting my friend and I was like, crack him. I'm like, how do I accelerate this? I wanted to buy eighth after. I don't know. That's an interesting response. I just went down a bunch. Yeah. I was like... I was like, this doesn't matter about, like, the future right there. But I was like... It just made me, like... It just reminded me of Ethereum again. It's, like, me being lazy about the KYC process. Ethereum isn't my mind anymore. So the hack actually broke. When we had those forks during the, sort of, the period of exuberance, the same was true both of the BTC and the ETH fork and the ETH fork. But in both those cases, you ended up creating something that was more than... That's right. With ETH, you bought in a bunch of people who haven't been into that, that Ethereum before. But, you know, the fellow ETH did look interesting to them. And then with BTC, BTH, certainly the market price of the combined thing was greater than the previous one. At least in that era. And then we had this era when BCH and BSV split off and that had the opposite effect. It just, I guess, kind of valued the community. And to implement that innovation with that, I totally even don't know about that. And that there is this different perspective on the force of what we do to the community and to the promise of the community of smart contracts and so on that has nothing to do with the resulting market prices. But it's almost just like, okay, it's a PR element that is divorced though from the value of the currency on the chain. But it's just like, okay, in the actual promise, there were a lot of people on the fence that were not local. That felt like, well, maybe the folks should not have that. Speaking specifically about Ethereum now. Yeah, the first problem Bitcoin is always more local. Yeah. Because you've got kind of two decision points as a user, when there's a change to the system you're using. Firstly, there's the question of if the chain goes ahead or not. But then, if the chain goes ahead and happens, the question is then, do you then support it to the extent of supporting a minority branch? And do you actually think that it's worth actually having that vision over it? And how do you decide? Well, right. So part of it, I guess, is just whether it's something that's fundamental to you as part of the value of the thing. So for the ETC guys, if you've got something that can be tampered with by some social process, then for them, there's just no point in even being part of that. That's just not something that's interesting. And the same, I think, was true with the BTC VCH fork, that as far as the VCH guys were concerned, the whole thing they were trying to do was build cash reverently. And if you said, then say, okay, we're not going to scale this, the scaling is not very important to us. I know that the argument's about, we're going to scale in a different way, but at least in the short term, people, you know, it was a community that wasn't really interested in using this as money for everybody, then as far as most of the VCH guys are concerned, that's just not even something that they're interested in doing. So even though they lose this huge network effect, they lose the ground, they lose all the stuff that Bitcoin has, but for them, it's just not worth while being in Bitcoin. They rather have their own thing, but in general, since what I'm hearing is that at the heart of a fork, be it a technical issue or not, or a bug or a hack, in the end, the main reason for the fork is a disagreement or a divergence on principles and values. At least until the BSV one, I think the BSV one's more a beautiful person. And if you're doing, and what we're doing when we have a scheme like this that's basically coming into politics, and once you're doing politics, then obviously as well as values you have personalities and factions. I would like to disagree with that because I think in the end it was always just about money and nothing else. It was mining interests, like miners, being a bit behind the scenes in Bitcoin and in theory it was just the core community having invested in the DAW. It would not have been them the fork would not have. What about the herd? Well, it's just not enough of the core community involved because it's just a couple of people that lost their money. ETC had proven that that was very costly to do this because that was not expected at all. Everybody thought everyone was going to go over but still, you have vested interests like somebody lost money or someone's losing power or someone's losing power in Bitcoin. And I think actually the people who are interested in the principle usually are pretty silent and don't really meddle in the battles. Principles are not driving the force and I would say that probably on a chain that doesn't have money as a token on the chain, you wouldn't have this kind of debate in politics about folks. So it's more in your point there's more pure game theory? No, no. Can you tell me something wonderful? How was the how was the ETC ETH board driven by the money here? It was a lot about the power of minors, right? Depending on how you see that history it was a lot about people who had scenes putting strings, making sure the stuff goes through because it's better for the established caching power. So and that's not necessarily when it comes up first but I think it's little people tell them. So in the case of Bitcoin it's very reduced that the value of the network is money and I mean it's like the community and people working together to generate it but like it's like for example in some network where like value would be just work force or something like that I expected this would be the heart of all the debates and stuff and I think that more than money it's like where value accrues and I don't know like because in the end it just takes that is there like no stakes at all on anything obviously like I'm not going to the government to decide and and here in this precise case like the other days other stakes are I don't know I don't know maybe money I would say value more than money yeah but there are three different things the one is like Bitcoin has a payment tool the other is people having Bitcoin and then there's people making bitcoins by mining and I'm not sure what we pretended is being what was actually always why the fork was put forward so that was a big political game but I don't think it would ever be so politically charged so now it was just about technology so would you say that we kind of need a new taxonomy since I mean we are already talking about the reasons for the fork there might be money incentives, value incentives there might be reasons like bugs and just upgrades I wouldn't necessarily say that the forks are happening for the money presents but it's just about the upgrade about the code the people that are deciding the forks at the end of the day are the miners so and they're driven by money they invest all this capital and the mining equipment but the developers their reasoning is different like it could be about this for upgrades but it's ultimately like the miners and with who is you know, more correct they're like this chain isn't going to be more valuable so we're going to go with that but ultimately they have to base their decision based on value because of the capital investment that they've already made but that's also only this half of the picture yes and it would be more true without money actually it was a chain without the money value it would just be the miners deciding whether that change the developers still need to merge the code the exchanges the exchange became possible because based out of two years otherwise nobody would have cared I mean in the case of the BTC BCH basically the miners were defeated the miners certainly the majority of the miners wanted a block size upgrade and you know, if you don't hear what's said we're dead and they couldn't get in it was the ultimate outcome yeah it's like a chain it's like the miners do it based on profit based on if exchanges like adopted so it's like they're taking a risk that this is going to bring them more profit but it's like a gambling game so you have to like figure out which path should we go so I'm hearing two things one is who are the stakeholders so my various developers exchanges who are it has a it's like path it's like first it's the developers and it's the miners it changes the user it's like the flow I don't think it's the flow it's probably just like it's one of the things that you have to change together if the developers see this thing it's highly like developers slash twitter developers slash twitter it's like there's sentiment of chaos everybody thinks it's a bad thing but we know it might be technically a good thing just because it's technically a good thing it doesn't mean that everybody will adopt it yeah when it is adopted then when it is adopted then which also depends on the exchanges and like what other people say I don't think there's as far as like taxonomy I think the ones like hardcore software I think that it's like a technical taxonomy just like the right technical dimension of what is actually happening in the code and then there's also like the social network does the community actually split so people without the community can actually do things like that yeah I mean what's hardcore and software almost not worth using in this discussion I mean there are kind of a technical detail of how much grade is done but I think what we're mainly talking about here we're talking about when the community splits or the currency splits so normally I would put back an economic fork when you end up with effectively two separate currencies but then within economic forks there are I guess different motivations different ways that you pay out something is that you can deliver software well you can do an economic fork or so with a software because if you don't accept the software and you lose the hash rate majority then sorry if you don't accept the software and you gain a hash rate majority then you need an economic fork and if you have a hard fork you'll say but would you have two separate chains? so a soft fork that results in two chains is kind of a failure soft fork so a soft fork that doesn't get a hash rate majority in that situation I think this is right you'll get two chains assuming that some people continue with trying to do the upgrade even though it didn't get the mining majority with a hard fork you necessarily get two chains so is it something that was happening at the beginning like we haven't seen this economic forks in the last I don't know few months here do you see something like this coming up in Syria in like Bitcoin or in any other I think the most interesting case is like with like Rybox for example or Nado or whatever then the developers have been sued because they did not fork like there's a class action also going on because an exchange of hands and the developers decided to not fork and basically save these funds there's sort of the I would say like an economic not fork for sure since I think that's for me one of the very interesting cases where governments and like who's actually responsible for making like deciding what are the exceptions that you can actually decide on I think that's the sort of thing where kids are interested because all of a sudden because they don't have the government system where you have clear like the situation of okay who's responsible for this and this and how to make a decision make a process they just have like the developers themselves and like the class action also there's a few other hands but they did not fork so that's one of the questions when we are having the network effort so say that we actually have one community that besides that we are able to at least partially identify stakeholders that are going to provide us with those answers so that we won't have those actions involved and if we lower the amount of barriers for quirks I think they call it zero barrier or zero fork that means that there is plenty of options to create a lot of works and split the community and all of a sudden we have more and more communities but less and less stakeholders that are actually governing the whole system but at the same time I mean that might actually be good because it brings a lot of diversity into the system who says that it's only good to have one community that is going to decide and all of a sudden I don't think it's good it's good to have a particular process of like a stake place where you can say okay this is how we handle things this is how we decide on exceptions and things like that so a higher threshold of certainty is better than to not really know who are the stakeholders and to just go with the flow we used to have a process in place making it for elections for example it could be very simple elections saying okay we'd elect 21 let's just say 21 for fun who decides oh basically the colors government etc and then if there was like lots of that means 21 people who are facing the people who have to deal with like people commenting on saying okay we think what we did was wrong based on that we can what we can do for us that's another way of saying that we're creating this is the problem with creating a process and this is why ultimately you kind of have to have forking as the ultimate for that is that if you create a process then that gives you a point of attack so for crypto people when we think of the government of a court field you need to do something we can think of that as an attack generally but you could also think of it could be something kidnap those guys or rape those guys and any formalized process that you have brings in some some kind of possibility of attacking it so I guess if you think about it compared to normal through forms of government you can kind of think of the sort of the economic forks like a coup d'etat as opposed to having a constitution right so when you change a constitution you can have a kind of formalized I don't know if that makes sense but you can have a formalized method of changing that constitution that gives you this one change and if everybody believes in that process then you only ever get one clear center of power but in some situations that's right that's right or it's built in in some situations where that gets subverted like it always we say I'm not going to at least I'm not going to obey you but that's as soon as there is a constitution yes so yeah like what comes out of this government in some places it's like a non detective choice that's why like it is nice for something I think it's also like you have a government that doesn't exist maybe just this or something like Bitcoin something more formalized or something like I don't know like a couple I don't know yeah to move like quicker or to have more clarity in certain your process it doesn't move a lot sometimes I add from 100% I don't have that many decisions day to day and so in some cases it's okay yeah one question that I have for example is do we want to create this process in our lives or maximize work readiness to facilitate and help works to happen or do we want to avoid for example because I feel that an economic work is always a traumatic experience it has a risk because the power of an economy is directly related to the amount of people in medical medical but there is a sheer absolute waste of value in the economy that gives it resilience a smaller economy is more manipulable it's you can really a smaller actor can have a heavy audience it's easier to move the market so actually scale in my point of view is now stepping out of the theater of being a participant and having an opinion scale is a good thing scale is a thing like what is it and they just got 51% in a few months ago and nobody gave at least in our community there was not much like is there anything left I think it didn't affect it financially that much not at all actually yeah I would support that I would be asking so do we want more what is the target of that process or is there protection of what developers as you brought up against class actions or coin holders or miners or exchanges they all have their investments and who are we going to protect with this procedure or maybe not because that can be teched and I don't agree with the basic premise you just said about the traumatic experience to the income and that it has to be as big as possible so I think there's probably a lot of unexpected potential in the technology that right now might be held back by the solicitude that's being enforced by the economic interest that's the that's the polarity that has to be negotiated and so that's why the upgrade for it the ideal do we want to be conservative or do we want to move forward and I think what I'm trying to get I'm starting to see is that there is an invisible fork line embedded in the community where if we approach that line the incentive for the split starts to grow and if anything what we should do is create mechanisms to make this fork line invisible and make sense make around the fork line so predictable well just get people to talk about it like what is the moment where this is why I brought up interests of Myers that we're not quite up to with ETC is Bitcoin Maximus attacking Ethereum that is probably part of the picture so why do forks even happen at all and also this other fact that I feel lots of technicians actually stay on the fence they go be the way you're not even too vocal they don't have this kind of opinion but forks that and so on right what's better the driving backwards behind forks should probably be on the table and maybe then the whole thing becomes a very simple story that's what I thought is being clear in Ethereum because I thought that proof of stake is always going to be on the table so what the miners knew what they were coming into from the beginning it's not coming because of the miners as it was here it was not built out to please the miners it was taken back because technologically it's up there what is Ethereum doing right now to get ready for the fork how are they communicating to the miners to the community what's the plan do they have a plan 020 is that ready no no no the presentations that we were listening to was like how do we if there is going to be a new idea of a suggestion for the upgrade of the software what is going to be the governance what are the rules how to discuss within the community can actually make a suggestion when the decision is made on forking I think it's going to be a huge power play right there's a lot less guys with most power win and that's why I'm bringing up exchanges that's what some of the marketers are thinking about I think there's kind of a change that we're going to see increasingly with Ethereum as we interact more with the rest of the world because with Bitcoin you've got a currency which is just a mean life basically it's just a number and if there are two of them it kind of doesn't matter except they accept it and you've got this if you sort of care about but what we say in the Ethereum is that now we've got dye and dye is supposed to be one dollar right so dye will not clean before probably if you've got a dye which is supposed to be pegged to one or the other using ether on that chain if you then fork that chain then one of three things can happen one is that only one chain will have dye that's still worth a dollar so that's just kind of blown up your whole forking governance backstop system because the minority even if they're correct no longer have a functioning stablecoin which has just exploded huge swathes of other contracts at this point so that's bad maybe weirdly if it's exactly balanced you could end up with one dollar being two dollars one dollar each chain so that would be kind of great unless you're a collateral holder in which case it's kind of terrible or potentially they might both go to zero so firstly those are all kind of bad outcomes so once we've got dye we can't just split the community in the way that we could at the time of the ETHTC fork it's going to recall kinds of havoc but then the second problem is who actually has the power to decide where dye goes were probably the guys who were publishing the make of oracle and that's a fairly small number of people and they now have all this power but effectively whichever side the make of oracle goes that side is going to win so now we do have a process we do have a room for people we do have the people you sue the people who control the make of oracle basically control this chain which is very genuine so we can all go up this is a really good point yeah the make of oracle is basically about people signing sort of exchanges or they can pass it over to the ETHTC I can't be sure if it's exchanges or if it's kind of custom parties but then there's going to be one of them there on and the other one can check yeah but you're basically needing the assigned pricing so again you have this panel on the outside can you exchange this for the case the oracle feeling in the outside value carrying the take yeah and then going forward the next thing that happens is that we're trying to we're trying to change the world we're not trying to make beans right so if we're trying to change the world then you want to say okay I want to insure my house I want to control the needs of who owns my house on a blockchain when it was Bitcoin and when it was Ether you'd have two Ether well one Ether on one ETC or two Bitcoin two kinds of Bitcoin but I've only got one physical house so when we split the chain we can't split my house so where we were able to kind of equivocate the world now has to decide on one and that then means that there are all these external actors often potentially regulated actors as well who now have control over the world when I say I own this house, you don't own this house and I get the call to enforce the fact that I can live in the house and you can't live in the house then you've got next to the court which is the way we're hearing this was also the thing with the like there wasn't a process in place so basically the outside force had to decide okay what is like what was the other what was the separation and the other thing that just dropped which applies to Bitcoin as well is that the IRS finally announced their view of how you pay taxes on forked coins and what the IRS said which I think is technically correct but has all kinds of nasty impact is that when you get a new currency appears you have to pay on that asset that you just acquired so now the IRS is going to decide which is the pre-existing chain and which is the new forked chain and they're going to make you pay taxes on the new forked chain I think we have the same situation actually in our case the argument against flexing the new chain was that you get the points and you don't even know that you got them sometimes they would be even just delivered to your address we made an argument because we know some of the people that work for tax authorities and they do have addresses we're just saying hey we're going to pump a lot of tokens into your account and then you tax yourself if you're into it so much but yeah they are going to be the most deciding image so it is going to remain a possible way to bribe people to make a contract or so we tax them but okay so this kind of sounds like we are already having third parties that are deciding on our behalf so we are kind of having a mediation process in place or like just adopting the court systems well because there's no other process but at the end we might not care what we decide I mean how it might be actually much easier to just go with an existing court system and say okay you'll be the ones deciding but there's plenty of different court systems in the world so we don't really just have courts that need jurisdictions and international courts for specific legal issues we also have different organizations like WTO and health organizations and they all have their own dispute mechanisms so we if we want to become much more independent it seems to me as if we want that we will need to establish our own dispute mechanisms so that we are the ones deciding which chain is the correct one and which one and actually addressing those issues because those are the debates we had with like a workshop yesterday on the legal and ethereum also what Vitalik was saying sorry what Vlad was saying so like if we are not going to take care of our own rules of some other organizations or institutions are going to come in and say okay this is the right thing yeah but then who decides who is going to be the legal institution I mean we are not talking about the American one and also who decides how good the stakeholders are what do you mean by we we need to decide exactly that's a really good question like who is the community who are the players who are the stakeholders again like is it ethereum musicians is it like the I don't know the foundation sorry no I think in terms of stakeholders again maybe the foundation like like so there are entire stakeholders there are no words in general and instead I heard this part I think to include like the same thing that we are trying to do I don't know like when you know it's about including the river or getting a ride to a river to have some voice into some organization and stuff I think in the blockchain space we have like these organizations a group of stakeholders specific to it for example like because of miners and users and developers many miners and users actually it is like without developers the protocol can do from now from the moment it's implemented it's not a referral but miners and users are the contributors stakeholders the two groups that are like without users the value goes to zero the value goes to zero and so you have this first group of stakeholders that really has the power I mean yeah developers are also very important without developers too it's not scalable it can go to zero without users it will give like to absolute zero you can still have some use you have too many users and no developers on that kind of thing I mean if you have like a community of miners securing the network it's very secure and you have users like using Ethereum as a store of value it's still a value to use I mean once you go up and the developers go away maybe some other network will scale but maybe this network won't scale I'm doing this just like people will be able to use it so if you can't use it if you don't have a problem with paying a transaction like $100 to have buy like a 20k Bitcoin because it's very secure I mean are you saying that if the number of transactions in Ethereum today was like 1,000 times and no one is like touching any of the code like is it still going to work like are people still going to use it because of how powerful it is I was talking about like practical more like an abstract way of distinction between where the stakeholders are giving value to the network and profiting from the network directly it's not the case of like developers of an interest into the network or people considering somewhere like the holders of the coin or so then like they provide development work to the network and they have a stake in the network but actually like yeah I see this like very close relationship with only within miners and users who really have this I give value and I take value from the network and there's an obvious relationship when developers could be created but I think that's I see and I cannot say that I don't agree but it's good you're pointing to this these groups because I think on the one hand the miners are kind of non-enacted metaphorically on the other hand the developers are actually to a very strong degree the ones who still call themselves and they're also kind of not there's no representation in the sense but they still take the whole technology stack in the direction that they find important just to be blunt I think a lot of the thing that's technical is also happening in the blockchain space and also developers are addressing the problems they are interested in not so much long development work things so that's very strong even when there's no fork or even when there's not an economic fork but there's a hard fork that adds new features but that chats other doors that this feature is not going to keep open so I think developers are such an important group here but I agree with the that it's kind of like saying like Aragon would be fine without like block teams or teasers or the network I mean I think for anything to have value that's like technology there's always going to have to be the people that are improving and upgrading I definitely agree with you like what you were saying at the very important book today but like if you were to take so say like no other protocol in the history of the knowing society would be created from now and developers disappear to tomorrow and all we have to do is like to be a protocol in the current state will we never use it now like it can still work it will still have value but if users disappear it will have value but if developers disappear I agree that in market where you can create a bigger protocol whether it takes all that's an interesting extreme like if all the protocol is decided there are no long improvements out of the code a lot of users would just switch in the case of an open market where you would have some other protocol that would take the value this is really a great discussion what about transparency so we kind of know where and how the core developers are discussing we can listen to their calls but what about miners do we know anything about miners do we know this community it's a culture to identify that we just here as signals we try to gather a sentiment of difference and take orders in the viewing community to kind of see which EAPs are supported by which groups and one of the proposals was to change the protocol in a way that miners would kind of somehow switch somewhere and indicate that they're in favor of this EAP or not that's the only way we totally know that this amount of power is for this EAP or not but this wasn't implemented it wasn't planned to be implemented and otherwise they asked when they discussed the fee reduction they asked like three miners to the call one major one medium and one small they tried to talk doing this like one hour and a half or two hours but then they didn't invite them for the further calls they kind of just got their opinion but it wasn't continued over time to develop these solutions together so it's still a challenge okay what about mining pools there were some attempts also to tax or to tax mining pools I think especially in China Gleba Vera was talking about it in her book when we were talking about how independent or how autonomous a blockchain is and if we can actually stop it or not and I think having an access to miners from mining pools is very poison I can also say it's dangerous for those miners is that identifying them that could undermine the whole idea of miners being anonymous you know but I mean we know that mining pools are a reality like how decentralized it actually is we know how centralized it actually is yeah I mean it's sort of like the cyberspace stream where all of a sudden like everybody said the internet is going to be so great and it's going to be attached from all like on their own land exactly everybody's going to run out of internet but the reality is in the end you're still in our national power grids and things like that if somebody wants to tax you trying to decide to tax it's minus and there's nothing they be able to do it and they might move somewhere else but that's exactly the thing if we don't provide mechanisms to make the space sort of legible for a state then a state is just going to come and say okay this is what we need to make the space legible for us it might be taxes, it might be regulation, whatever so do we need to have a conversation with directly for any more certainty I don't see how we would know it almost seems like we always go with the dream that goes into the extreme we mentioned the internet we wanted to dream of having a completely decentralized internet but it didn't really end up being completely centralized and the same happened with the blockchain but when you compare it to what was historically the previous thing that we had it's much more decentralized than what we had before so with the internet for example we had well okay yeah you might argue against the idea that I would love to hear the argument for example the internet we had video and television and newspapers and there were just a certain amount of people that was providing the information and with the internet we got so much more of the people that are now capable of providing that information same goes for the blockchain you only had banks and now all of a sudden you have different cryptocurrencies you have different bullets, you have different entry points and yes of course there are barriers but at least we have an alternative so it might still become a bit more decentralized I mean I think like I said if a state decides to intervene then there's not much you'd be able to do so that's why I think the most important thing is to sort of make this thing legible for a state so that they can understand sort of like and if they want to tax us then give them the tools to well it's interesting about the state and the taxes is that the state itself is actually a decentralized mechanism and it is more decentralized than the hints were previously so if you read the history of how the states and the nation states were actually created it's pretty much the decentralization of whatever the power dynamics were before that so I mean I wouldn't say it's decentralized more I think it's states are much more well I just read seeing like a state it's a great book on legibility like how did the nation go from like kings to states and it's like okay you as a king want to understand who is actually living in the white domain so you start going out counting people to see what they do with things like that it's like making the thing legible making a subject legible for a state and I mean you can raise more taxes things like that it's always about taxes I mean in the end it may work around at least for the future I would say we do have some institutions like checks and balances like the differentiation of different powers in the states that would be kind of an idea of decentralization that Ania was telling about before but yeah at the end it's like going back to the topic governance like I totally agree with I'm just saying that the states whatever the state is will make this blockchain thing legible for the state whatever that might mean might mean okay in China or in Europe you might have said okay you have to register as a miner if you want to like operate as a miner might also just mean you can just continue as a miner nobody gives you shit because the state just doesn't see enough to spend its resources on like dealing with this because it's so important but I think if we ourselves don't deal with like exactly this sort of like governance problems it might mean it's like this process understandable that somebody else would come and make them come from the outside and say okay we need to understand this because you develop those did not save the money of like 20 people which is like 200 million dollars why and then they will make legislation and to support it upon the end you can decide it's better to sort of say we as a community sort of try to figure out these processes or we can wait for somebody else from the outside and just kind of look at it and say this is how it's going to work but also can you notice that one of the sponsors is that you're in the city they were almost dead last year when they published the tweet that they're out of funds and they can't develop it further but then Afri is now working with them and they got like two investors and they now are seeing the cooperation between a human one and a human classic because they can develop the same software tool to win and I think in the future we might might prepare for the complexity and like DefCon 12 have seven different Ethereum versions and still community coming and some like for example will be unsuccessful version of Ethereum but still trade it or exchange it can I say something to that because actually what Ethereum tries to do is try to rejoin it they want to be the watch carriers and Ethereum 1x when the main code comes to 2-0 if x unhappy or not but it's interesting that there's also this courage obviously to regroup so wherever that comes from so why why do you think this is so like because it sounds very human human right human motivations just like in the for ideally for I don't know something actually reminds me of this is the Ares fork which was one of the first forks where somebody now that that's moved so a long time ago they forked Ethereum and said so we're going to create the economic version or the business version of Ethereum and then they actually started to alter stuff and then they took it all back because they couldn't keep up with the pay start Ethereum itself developing so they made themselves compatible again until they basically rejoined the main stream so that's also interesting so there's obviously a force that brings you back to the table we actually talked about it last night I'm not sure are you familiar with the word but okay can anybody explain it because I mean we have one version of it because we come from the back so it might not be the right rest of the world thinks it's a bad thing that you're not independent I don't know what else can it be so in a way but that means that it's a fragmentation of a big mistake so it was a federation before and then all of a sudden there was a notion that all states gained independence and became sovereign which I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing although we do hear our parents and our grandparents talk about how if you were sovereign it was so much better and that's a I think it's very strange a fragmentation is more of a need for the structuring of the greater whole also when I'm being it's a loaded word why is it loaded and we have to overcome that first it doesn't make sense to use that load that brings with it that is critical of becoming independent as a unit that might make much more sense I guess we coined that term presumably when it was fracturing and resulting in huge war which to us quite a confusing war with areas from countries through you don't even know how many it was before that was prison on nations that's how the Austrian Empire was called what's funny about it is that we were sovereign and independent for a couple of years and then we joined the European Union so we never really were a sovereign and independent state as in not being connected to a greater whole okay let me explain so this is why I think that what we were discussing before the fragmentation and all the force and then all of them uniting and coming back together I think that's a very natural process have you ever stopped at this question we're kind of comparing this to like building your own company or building your own new state when you're forking maybe if you think about forking a dow I can copy paste dow and make it I don't know the idea would be kind of different actually I think when was it I think it was in March there were some colleagues saying oh we should fork make it out so that would be interesting that is actually going forward is it? that's it can you update somebody is interested is that a software for isn't it? well this intermediates the mechanism of maker for example has something been done about the key attack that everyone performed last few months or are we still I think they just took care of it like internally I think you just won and the thing is after you explained the importance of dow which I actually don't have enough let's look into that everything seems to be heading everything seems to be heading every act wants to have a stable coin and the winning stable coin is done so everything is going to be done I think it's very important so can you educate us on the attack I don't know so basically it was a multi-sig of seven people and he basically physically and psychologically forced his partners to give him the keys and how he holds all the keys it's a document it's a real life attack it's online pages and pages of leaked memos from inside it was a process that was happening about six months ago now he can do what? he has all the billions of funds maker at his command he can make him keys though he is the CEO of his company but specifically he can control the price he uses all he has he controls the entire multi-sig so he can withdraw the funds he can throw off his money he should be able to live what was the system before so there were different people there was something it's not that much of a difference do you know how it works in interior they influence themselves so much that they are actually having physical attacks it's not that much of a difference as long as the seven people agree constantly exactly, I mean for him it's easier when the seven people agree constantly I've never seen for the same purpose if the room is on fire we could agree to a draw so the key word there is constantly the question is is the access to funds or is the access I'm not prepared to answer the question but I will run a big research it's not all about the lack of time maybe it's in the emergency hall that's also what I have in mind that's very good the money the company has the money that's in the contract about 14 maybe I can join each part of this maybe you can join us here I'm chunky to get there there is this theory that we can evolve things so here they get perfect but there is the doubt we're using so a lot of people for our project some will survive and some will mutate and some will eventually evolve by birth and death so these are true conflicting philosophies and we don't have a say which is better but the arguments are from the right side so basically we are forks to each other so this might be a good thing for software so pretty long process though yeah you can do it fast you can say that you have generations of software why definitely there's a version name I think this is a kind of I guess the way I feel it's evolved about this is that originally when I was looking at when I was using Bitcoin looking into my contacts I thought we were making a machine I thought the model was a mechanical model where what you're trying to do that's kind of the idea that you have this machine that you're going to put something in that's going to follow these determined steps and if you're on a machine in theory you can just run forever but then when I started looking at things like prediction markets if you have a prediction market system that's reliant on having a certain number of token orders too many users of this system then it becomes insecure and there's this problem that occurs all over the place where I started to think that these unchanging mechanical systems are actually not sustainable and that you have something that's more like a biological system where you've got a bunch of actors that are continually evolving and if they don't continue to evolve then they're going to die so if you have an animal that allows it to be parasitized are you technical? yes you are think of the basic structure of how DNA works you can change that you can change a lot of what's programmed in the DNA but if you want to change that basic structure underneath your brain can't be seen so I think that's where the brain went becoming too complex because the original vision makes a lot of sense then you have to create something that's super simple that you don't have to change anymore and then you have the layer on top of that where you can have this biological development and then maybe every 10 years you'll also say change that layer underneath but it's going to be less comfortable we have that all merged into one which way I think if you've got a lot more complex than planned even Bitcoin it's going to be much more simple and through that safer so I think maybe it's just it happened that way and maybe that's also a good aspect when we talk about forking is there maybe a proposition to be made that maybe stuff should be separated into layers so we have a different discussion about what a fork means and when it is necessary and how it might be very clear that a certain fork is really just about the economic aspects and another fork that was part of the controversy of the die form I guess was that you had the EVM underneath and the assumption was that most people would probably have agreed that if there was a bug in the EVM and that it was possible to first you have to fix that bug but also if it was then possible to take some recovery actions or the contract that had suffered from that bug in the EVM then that's something that people want to do and the analogy has happened in Bitcoin on other occasions where for example there was an overflow in the Bitcoins that shouldn't have been issued and nobody said well the Bitcoins have got to remain after there was an interval everybody said okay we'll fix it and we'll put it back to where it should have been but the controversy with the down rescue was that the the bug was in a contract built on top of the EVM the EVM functioned correctly however it was built on contract on top of the EVM but also all our documentation was wrong so if you were coding if you've read ethereum.org and you're using the EVM in the kind of the commonly accepted way you may still have hit that bug but it seems like from the point of view of a user it's almost instinctively out of difference that the EVM is working correctly but from my point of view if I do what I'm supposed to do to make the EVM function I still get hit so that's I think part of where that controversy went that some people said no the EVM is correct so leave it alone and other people said look from the user point of view it may as well have been wrong but I guess the question is then is there are the kind of sustainable layers about what you're going to say isn't going to change and what is going to change and then I definitely think that's a good conversation so the practical example is that we discovered fairly early on that gas prices change and to me it's always been an assumption as a developer that gas prices will change but apparently a lot of people didn't get that now so now it looks like we need to change the gas prices to allow us to scale the theory because it turns out that writing data to the chain is too cheap now and also reading data from the chain is too cheap but then computational operations for example are too expensive in comparison so can it help from what you just said would it help to have a clarification for all the users whomever the stakeholder is what are the possible changes that can be made and then having them all listed and then next to that how hard it is to change one of them what it takes because to me it almost seems like we also have these constitutions and the governmental I mean all the states are running based on laws but not all laws can be changed in a simple way and you have the constitution which has a higher threshold because it should be changed as little as possible and as less frequency as possible and then you have the bylaws and it can be changed very severely based on what the interest of the administration is and here it's pretty much the same I mean the gas is going to change just like the administration bylaws while the EV the Ethereum virtual machine is not going to change very fast and we don't really want it to be changed often because it's the layer zero so the more layers we build it almost seems like we're creating this hierarchy upon these layers it's probably going to be what we're operating day by day and can be changed according to what we need on a daily basis that doesn't quite fit the gas example because the gas prices are in EVM detail so it may be that it doesn't actually quite correspond to the protocol layers but I do think that there's kind of an implicit understanding about certain things that are kind of guaranteed to be built and other things that kind of aren't quite guaranteed and that information I think is very highly shared and then on a practical level there are a bunch of things that are going to change in Ethereum 2 and the Ethereum 2 protocol developers kind of implicitly generally know that but everybody else doesn't know that and there's definitely a concrete communication failure there about firstly what is the implicit understanding that we try not to change the gas prices doesn't count but the fact that you can store something does count and secondly in practice what is going to change in future that information obviously wants to circulate in the share as soon as possible you wanted to ask something you were speaking about clarifying the information right this is a good if I agree but I've seen a lot of places where people know what is a constant know what is a variable but when a variable changes ever two years, five years or changes just small amount people don't even feel it even knowing the difference between a variable and a constant they treat a variable like constant like you don't mind the late movements when you are flying from the United States to Europe the distance is changing every year but you treat it as a constant there's no problem in that but how do you get specific that it remains like constant for a lot of time it changes if it's possible to do this movement gradually more constant probably you don't even need to clarify that people will know that this is a variable and you will with no change treat it as a constant just without knowing for a communication but do you expect that this will lead to a fork possibly possibly not very probable it is a major change it's going to bring contracts that work out and still I think the expectation is it's going to be understood as a technical necessary security change there's no economic interest riding on it so it's probably not going to it looks like it probably won't happen the way it was intended but there was a plan for state rent which would have broken a lot of contracts and really broken kind of reasoning between behind those contracts and I think that if the core developer team had tried to work that out I think there would have been a new economic fork I don't think it first should happen but imagine a very badly riding quartered with like a high decoded amount of gas that will simply stop working after the UPDate and you don't have a proxy the only way to run that code would be on an older version or if you do some work around so it's possible the default payment cost is going to break because it's just going to be above the specialty a lot of stuff is going to break and it's possible that people that like this stuff doesn't want to break should keep on our versions or just work around I'm just saying that it's possible my point is that because the money you're riding today is not like the Dow people want to get their money it's a lot less dangerous and I think that's important but if you've got money in actual contracts and those contracts have broken then it's definitely about money but it doesn't sound like it otherwise you would hear more about themselves I think that at least the current gas pricing will probably not although it's a state record although it's a severe hurting and change but I think because and I think that's important because this traumatic events I think only happen that there's money in somebody is set to regain or have their assets frozen depending on the fork happening or not I think that should inform the whole idea about what are we discussing about that I don't take mine from the PC H4 or the ESP4 really for that I don't think it's only money either it's like let's say it was money to be had blockchain games take off big time and then all of a sudden it's important my favorite blockchain game was always it's not supported by the company I don't care about the money I just want to play my game yeah but aren't we aware that this could actually happen that you can lose a part of your whatever you're doing activities because of a fork no it's not so much part of the activity but say okay you as a company shows this one fork I might personally for whatever reason choose the other fork and then it's really a discrepancy just because it all works and all doesn't work anymore and there's no longer involvement just they might then again be acceptable if there's not interest in both forks and the company must have very support for whatever it is so we've copy-pasted the systems that we are having currently because there's a lot of people that would simply delete Facebook but they never do because we have groups of people and we have messenger and it's simply not another app exists that we that would allow me to migrate everything that I have on Facebook to that app that would function better and would not sell me data and would treat my data better and would not breach my privacy and stuff like that so what I thought is possible with blockchain and having the permission-less systems is that we are creating a system where these migrations are going to be much more possible and possible and now what you're saying is that because of the fork, we are actually back in the... Yes, you might still be able to play your game on the old fork but if the company decides to just adopt the other fork and there are some changes then they just might not be able for you to play the new game there's a new item and you won't be able your friend will be able to do it but talking about Facebook it's cold but it's also the network effect so is it more like in the future are there forks more likely to happen or less likely to happen in comparison to the past because the network is going to be bigger, we are kind of used to how Ethereum works we are using it there more and more Yeah Sorry No, no You guys know more than me about Ethereum and the specific types Yeah like Cosper Labs isn't like the work of Ethereum can we say that? I see like tens of works of Ethereum in your protocol everybody is working on the scalability and so on so they basically take even Libra have taken part of the Ethereum protocol right, so it's already happening I think there will be more and more It's not really hard for us right, it's our community No, no, nothing like that it's just using the code base It's a software So in a way that's like having a branch of a company having like a branch of a company just using the Yeah, okay I think the more interesting thing is technically right it's a technical developer term and what it means is you hard ways that's the community or so but you start to develop code that's not the same anymore like what's here and then you use the synergy you might have and you stay closer together In that sense it's more in the protocol like not so much in the software it might be completely different so it doesn't matter Yeah I mean for example you have a property but they were not a fork right? they're a completely different software but they still speak the same language but I was talking about like GitHub fork fork it and you might actually on GitHub it might mean you don't need to change anything it just means you make a copy of this thing and then it's ready to develop in a different direction for some reason often for merging it back right? the technical term just means that so when you talk of theorem forks that means not necessarily they change much or they change a lot or whatever but they usually have reason and they don't necessarily take away the community of a theorem right? because they start something new technically it's still a fork because they use the code base of a theorem as a starting point but for us is it like would you consider like for example PTEB that's and basically a fork is important I would consider that pretty different from like for example Libra you'd be using part of the code base to do something completely different and like not forking the brush I think I mean that's you forking the repo if you want like and using some components but like here we're like it's basically a divergent state yeah okay so we're going to wrap it out unless you have any other questions or comments that was we have a lot of questions should we summarize them? yeah we can so we had a lot of questions and I actually think that we managed to got the answers to some of them of them but all together we might as well give it to me I can keep so my understanding is much better now we got it first and yeah I think I would actually love to go with a table that has fork products and just find out whether we can formulate the autonomy of the forks and write it do you do a circle? anybody? go for it well I think we should have had paper in Venice and be more actionable in the last paper part I took I think I think we would have done better if we had more questions I never thought about one problem before to be honest I kind of felt that for example with you and with you in foundation it's kind of responsible for maintaining the brand and the new you know the chain so I know that when the DAWPork was there they did some communication they worked with the marketing and so I think they have at least some level of understanding how to react and these improves over time and I'm not sure are users like you said we need to be responsible for what's happening and I'm not sure users would care enough to participate in that wouldn't they can join their field for the patient team or something like we have the therapy we can't follow everything so we just would find ourselves in some time again the situation having to change just selecting what we will find legitimate but I found the conversation and there's a first for me and the start of this DAWP listening to some of your exchanges partly like also like glimpses of like technical discussions because I mean we'll talk about work from our own perspectives and stuff I think they're more like higher social system level but like one thing I understood also like because we haven't even chatted about like you know governance models where there are rough instances where the reasons these good aspects, bad aspects where it can work how maybe it can more formalize models can so I'm trying to understand why like people in Ethereum people like tend to say that formal governance process is very hard to implement because there are these new points of attacks and stuff and because like basically we're mentioning that we have to consider a national electricity grid into the way mapping different stakeholders that maybe have to be taken into account in the influence that they have and how in the governance model you have to take all the influences that stakeholders have in the network and it's super, super hard to do so yeah I'm trying to it's like for like a million people I can't fix it up we're just there yeah I feel a lot thanks a lot I guess I feel for the next iteration of this it would be I would be coming back to the initial questions I had like who do we think for who do we want to provide for I have my ideas but that is a group thing I think there was a lot of stuff on earth that would be great to someone who could track it to me it was very interesting and especially the part of the stakeholders so who do we need to address how are the power play between those different organizations or non-organizations and if we have a feeling that this is something that is actually thought to or it's just happening or it's just something that it's like a combination of different things like some person that is very charismatic or convincing a group of a community which community how this interacts together so just like opening up all the questions