►
From YouTube: A Collaborative Vision Forward for EOS with Dan Larimer and Yves La Rose (Part 1 of 3)
Description
A new era of EOS is upon us with a wide constellation of contributors across the ENF, Clarionos, sponsored working groups, and others within the EOS community. This roundtable discussion features the ENF's own Yves La Rose and Zack Gall are joined by Dan Larimer, the architect of EOSIO and CEO of ClarionOS. In part 1 of this 3 part series, they discuss many pressing topics within the EOS ecosystem including the relationship between Dan and the ENF as well as some of the challenges faced when developing on a decentralized protocol.
Part 2: https://youtu.be/1L-zm6rAFWc
Part 3: https://youtu.be/48tV9TIaM2Q
Timestamps
00:00:00 - Intro
00:00:45 - Relationship between ENF and Dan
00:07:40 - Development Priorities
00:9:00 - Working in Parallel
00:12:50 - Challenges for Decentralized Protocols
00:15:00 - Reaching Consensus
00:19:30 - Protocol Upgrades vs System Contracts
00:22:00 - Taking Action
00:23:30 - Feedback Process
00:27:00 - Listening to the Community
Everything EOS is the official media channel of the EOS Network Foundation (ENF). The EOS Network Foundation coordinates financial and non-financial support to encourage the growth and development of the EOS Network. We’re harnessing the power of decentralization to chart a coordinated future for the EOS Network as a force for positive global change.
Join the EOS Discord - https://discord.gg/eos-network
Follow Us on Twitter - https://twitter.com/EosNFoundation
A
Welcome
everybody
to
the
first
video
on
the
everything
eos
channel
since
becoming
the
enf's
official
youtube
channel,
I'm
here
with
two
people
that
need
no
introduction:
eve,
larose,
the
chief
of
the
eos
network
foundation,
dan
larimer,
the
architect
of
eos
io,
the
ceo
and
founder
of
clarionos.
There's
so
much.
We
want
to
talk
about
dan's
been
publishing
a
couple
of
blogs.
We
got
the
working
groups
on
the
enf
side
about
to
publish
their
blue
papers.
We'll
give
you
some
insight
into
that.
I
just
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
clear
up
some
of
the
misunderstandings.
A
I've
been
seeing
throughout
the
telegram
and
discord
channels,
and
I
think
this
format's
the
perfect
opportunity
to
do
so
to
allow
both
the
enf
and
clariano
to
speak
on
how
they
envision
eos
moving
forward
and
us
io.
So
first
question:
what
is
the
relationship
between
the
enf
and
what
dan's
working
on
with
clarianos
and
eden,
2.0
and
mandel?
A
B
Now
the
stakeholders
for
both
parties
are,
they
do
have
overlap,
but
they're
also
different,
so
the
enf
works
for
the
token
holders
the
enf
represents
all
of
the
token
holders
dan
happens
to
be
one
of
those
token
holders
dan
happens
to
be
one
of
those
stakeholders
and
he's
working
on
his
ideas
and
on
his
application
and
what
he
wants
to
work
on.
Basically,
both
are
happening
happening
at
the
same
time,
but
we
see
with
the
enf
that
we're
working
on
chain
wide
or
chain
chain
wide
initiatives,
whereas
dan
is
working
on
his
initiative.
B
It's
the
first
time
that
we're
in
that
position
and
prior
to
this,
everything
was
being
filtered
through
block
one.
We
now
have
essentially
dan-
and
I
were
talking
and
the
opportunity
in
a
way
to
fund
multiple
startups
at
the
same
time
and
having
them
all
work
on
different
competing
ideas,
either
overarching
or
competing
ideas
and
seeing
which
ones
will
ultimately
win
and
which
one
will
bring
everybody
else
up.
Prior
to
this,
prior
to
the
enf
or
even
dan,
being
back
into
the
community.
C
Yeah,
I
think
that's
a
pretty
good
summary.
I
think
it
would
probably
be
helpful
to
understand
what
it
is.
I'm
all
about.
Why
I'm
on
the
eos
platform
for
building
on
my
applications,
I
have
long
had
the
mission
of
creating
free
market
solutions
for
securing
life,
liberty,
property
and
justice
for
all.
You've
probably
heard
me
say
that
a
million
times
over
the
past
decade
and
that's
still
what
I'm
up
to
and
you
know
I
wrote
my
book
more
equal
animals,
where
I
really
dive
in
deep
to
the
hard
problems
with
decentralized
governance.
C
A
C
Incumbent
api
nodes
right,
you
know,
there's
a
article
I
read
recently
on
the
structure
of
the
ethereum
network
and
how
almost
all
api
queries
are
going
through.
Two
or
three
companies
and
nfts
are
disappearing
from
people's
wallets
because
one
of
the
companies
providing
api
services
blacklisted
it
it's
still
on
the
blockchain,
but
you
can't
see
it
and
that
type
of
centralization
solving
those
governance
problems
solving
the
coordination
problem.
C
How
do
you
get
thousands
of
people
to
contribute
to
public
goods
to
recognize
everyone's
contributions
and
to
do
so
in
a
way
that
supports
viral
growth
of
community?
So
that's
a
really
big
vision.
A
lot
of
it
has
to
do
with
social
engineering,
kind
of
things,
game
theory
and
the
like,
and
so
that's
sort
of
the
area
I'm
specializing
in
and
it's
not
it's
an
area.
C
So
I'm
working
with
the
enf
and
eve
to
identify
the
the
rough
points
on
the
eos
network
that
are
preventing
me
from
delivering
that
seamless
user
experience,
and
my
belief
is
that
it's
also
preventing
a
lot
of
other
applications
from
delivering
the
same
seamless
experience.
So
there's
alignment
to
make
sure
that
the
core
protocol,
both
the
node
es
software,
that's
actually
running
the
network
and
the
system
contract,
which
is
the
smart
contract
driven.
C
One
of
the
things
my
team
here
at
clearons
has
is
most
of
the
core
developers
who
built
eosio
on
the
team,
and
one
of
the
things
we
are
doing
is
you
know.
Creating
mandel
mandel
is
the
future
of
eosio
and
it's
being
funded
by
u.s
network
foundation
and
we're
building
and
releasing
that
for
you
know
for
the
community,
so
my
company
has
kind
of
like
a
dual
do-rolls.
C
We
do
contracting
to
deliver
specific
future
requests
provided
by
the
enf
and
broader
community
that
are
funded
and
we're
doing
our
own
business,
where
we're
trying
to
you
know
create
a
viral
online
social
platform
that
people
can
participate
in.
So
you
know,
that's
there's
a
lot
of
overlap,
a
lot
of
synergy,
but
clearly
two
different
objectives,
and
so
that's
why
we're
working
together.
B
C
By
a
single
thread
I
mean
there's
only
one
thing:
the
whole
community
can
only
work
on
one
thing
at
a
time
and
there's
debate
over.
Should
it
be
evm,
should
it
be
account
name,
should
it
be
tokens
symbols?
Should
it
be
d5?
Should
it
be
whatever
the
hot
topic
of
the
day
is
and
then
be
like?
Well,
if
you
just
did
this
one
thing
that
would
solve
everything.
C
The
correct
answer
is:
we
need
all
these
things
done
at
maximum
velocity
possible
and
that
the
person
best
suited
for
doing
some
of
these
things
is
the
person
most
passionate
about
whatever
it
is.
That's
being
done,
I
happen
to
be
passionate
about
decentralized
governance
and
incentive
models
and
solving
that
hard
problem.
That's
a
very
hard
problem
that
no
other
blockchain
has
solved,
and
if
we
solve
it
and
make
it
viral,
I
think
it
can
have
huge
impacts
on
the
network.
We're.
B
Feeling
the
growing
pains
right
now
right,
I'm
not
sure
if
people
realize
that
the
growing
pains
of
the
current
process
of
now
being
able
to
essentially
govern
and
or
create
processes
for
the
chain
itself
right
now,
alongside
other
yasayo
iterations,
are
feeling
the
exact
growing
pains
that
you're
likely
wanting
to
work
on
right
that
that
what
you're
trying
to
do
may
come
and
help
what
we're
currently
feeling
right.
Now
it
doesn't
take
away
from
that.
A
Forever,
so
I
saw
that
dan
posted
one
of
his
blogs.
He
posted
two
last
week
and
there's
all
this
feedback
coming
out
immediately
and
there
were
people.
Why
aren't
you
working
on
evm
everybody
evms
being
worked
on
right
now,
eos
argentina
they're
contracted
to
build
it
it'll
be
released
sometime
before
summer.
Most
likely
like
this
is
all
still
happening.
What
dan
does
is
what
dan's
doing
that's
not
dan
is
not
eos.
There
is
a
lot
of
other
work
being
done
in
parallel
with
dan,
and
some
of
it
may
compete
with
each
other.
A
Some
of
it
might
not,
but
the
conversation's
happening
now.
Nobody
that
nobody
liked,
when,
when
block
one,
would
work
in
in
a
silo
and
it
just
be
quiet
and
the
community
didn't
know
what
was
going
on
for
the
first
time
ever
this
opportunity
of
innovating
out
in
the
open,
sharing
ideas,
taking
the
feedback,
learning
from
that
feedback
and
growing
from
that
feedback.
This
is
the
first
time
it's
ever
happened
before
it's.
B
Happening
in
real
time,
it's
happening
right
now.
That
is
the
process
they're
going
to
be
growing
pains
because
we've
never
been
here.
So
what
we
need
to
figure
out
is
how
do
we
have
multiple
teams
working
on
multiple
things
at
the
same
time
competing
for
attention
competing
for
essentially
being
able
to
either
merge
their
proposals
into
the
the
core
code
and
or
competing
for
resources
and
yeah?
Some
people
have
more
gravitas
than
others.
Damn
when
you
write
something
people
read
people
listen
surprise.
B
Why
is
that
a
surprise
to
people?
Yes
and
the
working
groups
are
being
given
a
platform
to
be
able
to
do
the
same
dan
doesn't
need
the
platform.
He
is
the
platform
to
be
able
to
do
that,
and
so
we've
got
all
these
things
working
concurrently.
That
will
be
competing
for
attention
for
resources.
Ultimately,
it
is
messier
is
much
harder
to
do
this
in
parallel,
because
there
will
be
tensions.
There
will
be
people
stepping
on
each
other's
toes.
There
will
be
people
working
on
similar
things
proposing
competing
ideas.
B
The
alternative
is
just
waiting
for
somebody
else
to
pick
up
the
slack
and
only
one
entity
doing
everything.
We've
been
there
with
block
one,
it
does
not
work,
it
operates
too
slowly,
we've
got
we
could
go
on
on.
Why
does
that
that
that
doesn't
work,
but
it's
much
simpler,
it's
much
more
efficient,
there's,
no,
there's!
No
tensions.
Basically
just
wait
around.
B
This
is
what
we
choose
to
do,
though,
in
order
to
be
able
to
accelerate
the
innovation,
so
that
multiple
people
can
try
and
attempt
to
solve
concerns
or
to
try
and
innovate
and
try
to
move
us
forward
more
rapidly
than
what
we
were
in
before.
But
yes
with
that
that
speed,
also,
we
kind
of
lose
efficiency
in
our
way
we
build.
We
create
tensions
between
different
different
peoples,
different
teams.
C
C
C
Then
the
result
is
going
to
be
stagnation,
which
puts
people
like
eve
with
the
network
foundation
and
myself
in
a
precarious
situation,
because
we
want
to
advance
the
protocol
and
in
doing
so
some
toes
will
be
stepped
on
and
the
alternative
is
to
not
do
anything
but
that
steps
on
other
toes
right.
If
we
don't
do
anything,
then
other
chains
eat
our
lunch.
People
leave
for
new
chains
that
will
implement
the
things
that
are
needed
and
take
those
bold
steps.
C
A
C
One
of
the
things
I've
been
looking
at
when
I've
been
studying
community
governance.
If
you
have
a
dictator,
you
can
reach
consensus
very
quickly.
You
can
go
left,
go
right,
make
decisions!
You
have
two
people
all
right.
Well,
now
you've
got
to
get
them
on
a
call.
They
have
to
talk
things
out.
Maybe
you
can
reach
consensus
in
in
an
hour
as
you
go
to
10
people
to
20
people
to
100
people
the
amount
of
time
it
takes
to
reach
consensus
and
move
forward
securely
increases
exponentially.
B
I
think
that's
one
of
the
challenges
of
the
enf
really
dan
will
be
presenting
ideas.
Then
we'll
be
presenting
proposals
for
code
changes.
The
network
may
decide
to
adopt
or
not
adopt
some
of
the
things
that
dan
you
present,
because
there
are
other
computing
ideas
that
will
be
competing
with
what
you
are
presenting.
What
will
you
do
if
the
network
doesn't
adopt
your
ideas
or
what
happens
if
the
network
does
choose
to
that?
B
The
best
decision
or
the
the
the
outcome
that
the
network
is
looking
for
through
the
enf
through
the
blog
producers,
ultimately
they're,
the
ones
who
decide
they
decide
to
adopt
your
code?
So
can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
both
scenarios?
One
is
you
propose
something
because
you
need
it
for
your
application.
You
think
it's
worthwhile.
You
present
it
as
a.
I
believe
this
is
value
add,
but
it
doesn't
get
merged
in
or
approved
and
the
other
one
where
great
it
does
get
approved.
C
C
Killer
application
for
the
market
that
solves
real
world
problems
and
uses
the
eos
network
as
the
best
tool
for
doing
the
job.
If
the
eos
network
is
no
longer
the
best
tool
because
it's
stagnating
or
it's
not
doing
any
upgrades,
then
I
have
to
consider
whether
it's
best
for
the
business
to
accomplish
the
ultimate
business
goals
and
I'm
not
the
only
business,
that's
having
to
make
these
choices
right.
C
So
if
eos
is
unable
to
move
in
a
direction
that
allows
for
easier
user
signup,
it
allows
for
easier
token
management
that
allows
for
easier
name
allocation
that
you
know
all
these
subtle
things
that
make
huge
differences
on
the
final
user
experience.
If
eos
can't
do
that,
and
some
other
eosio
derivative
can
then
you're
going
to
see
people
moving
to
wax
moving
into
cellos
moving
to
whole
new
chains
in
order
to
adopt
the
vision.
C
So
the
way
I
see
things
needing
to
evolve
is
we
need
to
have
lots
of
ideas,
find
it
simultaneously
and
see.
You
know
where
people
follow.
You
people
adopt
ideas.
Oh
yeah,
that's
popular
great!
You!
It's
a!
If,
as
a
vc
firm,
you
don't
try
to
pick
well,
which
of
these
hundred
startups
is
going
to
be
success
and
invest
in
just
that
one,
you
invest
in
them
all
and
you
see
which
one
gets
product
market
fit
right.
C
It's
entirely
possible
that
my
new
designs
are
more
clunky
or
hard
to
use
or
in
some
way
that
I
haven't
considered
or
that
they
don't
play
well
with
other
people's
designs,
and
other
people
might
have
better
ideas
than
me.
If
there's
another
community
standard,
that's
getting
traction
that
works,
I'm
happy
to
adopt
it.
I
don't
want
to
have
to
reinvent
everything:
that's
not
a
good
use
of
time,
but
I
also
can't
wait
around
for
two
years
for
a
community
of
people
to
reach
consensus,
to
deploy
something.
That's
just
not
sustainable
for
for
business
growth.
A
But
really
a
lot
of
what
you've
been
presenting
recently
would
be
eo
specifically,
and
it's
kind
of
separate
from
what
you're
proposing
in
mandel,
whereas
what
you
propose
at
mandel,
most
of
the
other
eosi
chains
are
pretty
on
on
board.
It
seems
like
initially
to
to
implementing
that,
but
the
the
token
registry
and
and
the
name
auction
changes
you
suggested
recently
there's
been
feedback,
but
I
don't
think
everyone
quite
understands
that
some
of
this,
like
mandel,
was
protocol
level.
That
would
benefit
all
the
ocean
chains.
A
But
then
there's
other
things
like
what
you've
suggested
recently
and
those
are
more
system.
Contract
changes
and
the
other
chains.
Don't
have
to
adopt
it,
that's
like
the
flavor
of
the
chain,
so
the
committee
is
essentially
a
lot
smaller
for
some
of
your
suggestions
than
others,
and
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that.
C
So,
let's
identify
the
difference
here.
Protocol
level
changes
require
all
full
nodes
to
upgrade.
Every
exchange
needs
to
upgrade.
Every
api
needs
to
upgrade.
That's
major.
It's
like
trying
to
hard
fork
bitcoin
and
we
want
to
minimize
those,
and
we
want
to
keep
those
changes
as
small
as
possible
system
contract
level
changes
they're,
just
a
smart
contract
that
has
a
couple
extra
privileges,
and
not
some
of
these
don't
even
have
extra
privileges
other
than
being
managed
by
the
block
producers.
C
So
those
contracts
can
be
upgraded
without
any
nodes
having
to
change
a
thing.
It's
just
the
rock
producers
sign
a
multisig
and
and
now
there's
new
features
on
the
network
and
a
lot
of
the
things
I'm
proposing
are
just
new
features.
They
don't
really
break
anything,
that's
already
existing.
They
just
create
new
possibilities.
C
C
So
we
have
to
be
willing
to
take
the
best
step
forward
that
we
can
take
today.
Given
the
information
we
have,
knowing
that
we
can
pivot
these
things
in
the
future,
if
necessary,
I
think
there's
a
real
fear
that
well
it's
so
hard
to
change
anything.
If
we
adopt
something
new
now
we
might
never
change
it.
C
But
those
things
aren't
going
to
magically
get
done
just
because
I'm
not
doing
this
thing
that
you
don't
want
me
doing,
but
you
don't
want
enough
doing
it's
not
like
we
stopped
working
on
what
we
wanted
to
do
and
all
of
a
sudden
we're
going
to
work
on
what
you
want
us
to
do.
That's
a
mindset
that
I
think
a
lot
of
people
have,
if
you're
doing
that,
that
means
you're
not
working
on
what
I
want
and
yeah.
C
B
B
Can
we
talk
about
a
little
about
that
feedback
process
and
how
essentially
we're
doing
it
live
and
how
we
that
is
likely
going
to
be
one
of
the
bigger
challenges
that
we
have
in
this
new
model
of
having
multiple
teams
compete
for
attention
compete
for
resources,
working
on
different
things
all
at
the
same
time,
the
bigger
challenge
is
going
to
be.
How
do
we
that
feedback
loop
process
and
when
do
we
start
that
feedback
process?
B
So
I
know
for
us
with
the
enf,
with
the
working
groups
we're
going
to
be
publishing
blue
papers,
two
of
them
have
been,
or
two
of
them
are
being
sent
to
translation,
either
today
or
tomorrow,
they're
in
line
to
be
released
the
week
of
the
24th.
Now
that's
the
format
that
we
chose
to
then.
So
within
those
working
groups
there
are
people
those
people
were
chosen
so
their
privilege.
Yes,
those
people
were
privileged
to
work
on
something.
Those
people,
though,
went
out
and
did
feedback
in
their
own
methods.
B
Then
the
public
grandiose
feedback
process
will
occur
when
those
blue
papers
are
essentially
released.
That's
when
the
the
let's
say
the
complete
public
feedback
portion
of
things
happen
in
your
case.
You've
been
talking
about
a
white
paper,
for
example,
but
you've
been
releasing
articles
here
and
there
gathering
feedback
while
that's
happening.
Can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
that?
Because
yeah?
That's,
I
think,
where
our
challenge
is
going
to
be
is
how
do
we
improve
the
process
of
gathering
feedback,
because
we've
never
been
in
that
position
before
we've
never
had
this
before.
C
The
way
I
gather
feedback
is
first,
I
talk
to
my
team
and
that's
why
I
bounce
ideas
back
and
forth.
It's
a
closed
circle.
There's
lots
of
freedom
to
express
crazy
ideas
that
they
can
get
shot
down
without
them
worrying
about
backlash
or
judgment,
because
they
know
that
this
is
just
how
innovation
occurs.
You
have
to
be
willing
to
present
crazy,
half-baked
ideas
and
see
where
it
goes.
C
I
start
with
my
small
team
if
I
start
to
like
get
some
traction
or
consensus
with
my
team,
I
reach
out
to
a
couple
other
community
members
just
to
see
what
they
think
and
then
I
write
a
blog
post.
Writing
the
blog
post
is
usually
me
thinking
through
the
idea
for
myself
and
trying
to
articulate
it
for
almost
the
very
first
time
after
I
release
the
blog
post.
C
I
go
and
I
I
follow
every
twitter
comment.
I
go
to
the
telegram
chats
and
I
read
what
everyone
has
to
say
there.
I
look
at
the
comment
sections
on
the
post
and
then
I
engage
with
the
community
and
sometimes
even
before
blog
posts,
I
throw
random
ideas
out
on
telegram
or
on
twitter.
Just
to
see
what
people
think
about
some
idea,
even
even
out
of
the
context
of
the
bigger
picture
of
what
I'm
doing,
but
either
way
I
take
all
this
feedback
in
and
then
sometimes
I
have
a
follow-up
blog
post.
C
This
is
all
right.
This
is
what
I've
learned
here
is
here's
an
enhancement,
and
I
can
give
an
example
of
how
I've
listened
to
the
community.
I
mean
I
came
up
with
the
token
symbol
name:
auction
process
based
on
the
name
auction.
It
seemed
like
a
lot
of
people
were
really
really
frustrated
with
how
the
name
auction
works.
It
could
take
too
long,
it's
not
predictable,
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
I'm
sympathetic
to
that,
I
recognize
there's
problems
with
that,
and
so
I've
been
well.
C
I've
got
these
other
problems
that
people
also
complain
about,
name,
squatting
and
and
the
like,
and
I'm
trying
to
solve
the
two
things
together
to
create
the
best
overall
experience.
So
I
took
all
that
feedback
in
and
I
came
up
with
a
new
proposal.
This
new
proposal
is,
you
know,
eliminates
the
auction
altogether
and
it
implements
a
a
bitcoin
style,
proof-of-work
price
adjustment,
where
every
so
often
the
price
changes
based
upon
how
frequently
people
are
registering
names.
C
This
means,
if
you
want
a
name,
you
can
just
go
out
there
and
buy
the
name.
Lots
of
names
can
be
cheap.
You
can
get
them
right
now
and
high
quality
names.
You
know
shorter
names
whatnot
might
be
slightly
more
expensive,
but
the
process
is
simple
and
we're
still
fighting
the
name,
squatters
and
and
so
forth.
That
type
of
design
evolution
is
based
on
community
feedback
about
some
of
the
shortcomings
of
the
current
premium
name
auction
system,
and
so
I
can.
C
I
can
see
a
lot
of
these
things
and,
what's
I
find
to
be
the
biggest
challenge,
is
any
proposal
I
put
out
there
there's
all
this
background
context
that
I
have
that
most
readers
don't
have
they're
looking
at
it
through
a
narrow
straw,
and
I've
got
my
own
like
narrow
perspective,
that
you
know
I
need
to
factor
in
as
well,
but
I'm
trying
to
balance
a
whole
lot
of
factors
but
to
balance
security
considerations.
I
have
to
balance
technical
implementation
approaches.
Some
people
would
suggest
things
like
hey.
C
Let's
increase
the
size
of
us
account
names
at
the
protocol
level
at
a
hard
forking
level.
It
goes
throughout
all
the
code.
That's
such
a
huge
undertaking
that
it
never
actually
happened.
It'd
be
like
trying
to
swap
out
all
of
eos
for
cardano
or
something
it's
it's
that
big
of
a
fundamental
change,
but
I
can
hear
the
need
for
longer
prettier
account
names
in
general
and
I
can
propose
a
system
contract
level,
something
that
can
be
deployed
without
having
to
hard
fork
everyone
something
that's
backwards,
compatible
with.
C
What's
out
there
that
you
know
those
are
the
types
of
things
that
are
factored
into
some
of
the
proposals.
They
might
not
be
ideal
in
some
kind
of
purest
sense,
but
they
are
reachable
from
where
we
are
in
a
cost:
efficient,
developer,
efficient,
low
risk
approach
and
trying
to
balance
all
of
those
things.
So
it's
not
just
a
matter
of
oh
what
feature
would
we
like
today?