►
From YouTube: Concurrent Priorities and the Necessity for Taking Action w/ Dan Larimer and Yves La Rose (Part 2)
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.
Part 2 of 3
Part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpIp_EOtcyE
Part 3 - https://youtu.be/48tV9TIaM2Q
Timestamps
00:00:00 - Concurrent Priorities
00:02:48 - Avoiding Single Threaded Mindsets
00:04:30 - Implementing New Ideas
00:05:40 - Standardizing Token Contracts
00:07:00 - EOSIO+ for Protocol Upgrades
00:10:05 - Skin in the Game for Communities
00:13:30 - Shared Liquidity Between Chains
00:16:00 - Taking Action to Avoid Paralysis
00:22:40 - Blockchain is Consensus
00:25:30 - System Contract Changes
00:27:50 - EOSIO Upgrading Itself While Running
00:28:45 - Emulating EVM in WASM
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
I
think
it's
it's
worth
reiterating
again
that,
because
I
I
often
see
and
we've
seen,
why
are
you
even
working
on
names?
Why
are
you
even
working
on
tokens?
Those
are
non-problems
right
now.
Those
are
nobody's
complaining
about
that
this
is.
There
are
bigger
return
on
investment
items
that
you
could
be
working
on.
A
A
A
We
think
why
you
think
x,
we
think
y
there's
competing
and
then
ultimately
the
e
f
or
the
block
producers
ultimately
will
need
to
decide
which
direction
they
go
in
now
at
some
point
like
dan
mentioned
earlier,
if
every
single
time-
and
this
applies
to
down-
but
not
just
to
them
to
others
as
well,
if
every
single
time,
the
block
producers
side
with
in
this
case
there's
only
two
parties
in
this
example,
but
let's
say
the
block
producers
always
side
with
enf,
then
at
some
point
then
will
say
well.
Why
am
I
building
here?
A
He'll
go
elsewhere
at
the
same
time,
if
the
block
producers
all
always
side
with
them,
then
people
are
going
to
say.
Why
am
I
building
here?
I'm
going
to
go,
build
elsewhere,
it's
the
first
time
that
we
have
that
challenge.
It
is
a
challenge,
but
it's
important
to
note
that
these
things
can
happen,
they're
not
mutually
exclusive,
they
can
happen
concurrently
and
they
are
happening
concurrently,
and
that
is
more
powerful.
A
B
Usually,
the
ideas
are
not
mutually
exclusive.
We
can
adopt
my
name
approach
without
impacting
anybody
else,
because
no
one
else
is
thinking
about
names.
It's
not
a
problem
to
them.
Their
only
complaint
is
they
have
some
other
priority.
They
want
done,
and
so
it
turns
into
well.
If
the
block
producers
are
having
their
attention
on
this
name
thing
then
they're
not
having
attention
on
my
thing
right.
B
Despite
not
conflicting,
you
know
if,
if
there
was
a
conflict
like
someone
has
a
different
name
proposal
and
they're
willing
to
champion
it
and
and
it's
more
robust,
we
can
try
to
figure
out.
How
can
they
both
coexist
simultaneously
and
then
it's
who's
going
to
invest
the
money
to
make
it
happen,
and
I
think
one
of
the
beautiful
things
about
what
enf
is
doing
is
it's
funding
both?
Why?
B
Right
until
you
try
to
implement
something,
you
don't
know
how
long
it's
going
to
take
to
implement
it.
So
if
I
have
my
team
build
a
couple,
smart
contracts
and
say
they're
ready
to
go,
all
the
block
producers
have
to
do
is
sign
it.
It's
been
tested
on
a
test
network.
Meanwhile,
other
people's
ideas
are
still
in
the
well.
I
have
this
idea.
I
haven't
flushed
it
out
in
a
blog
post,
I
haven't
even
written
any
code.
B
You
need
people
to
move
forward
to
actually
implement
things
to
even
consider
and
the
things
that
get
adopted
are
going
to
be
the
things
that
people
are
self-funding
building
and
trying
to
get
deployed,
and
every
single
thing
I
do.
I
build
a
contingency
plan
for
what
happens
if
the
network
doesn't
adopt
it,
because
I
need
to
make
sure
that
I've
got
a
roadmap
that
I
can
count
on
for
my
business,
just
like
every
other
business
does.
B
A
Over
this,
then
we're
we're
really
talking
about
eos
right
now,
right
at
the
eos
level,
which
is
one
eos
io
iteration.
Now
how
does
that
fit
in
the
plan
of
all
yasayo
iterations?
That's
why
the
so
the
enf
recognizes
that
again.
This
is
the
first
time
that
we're
in
that
position.
There
was
no
distinction
before
block
one
controlled,
the
eos
iteration,
the
eos
io
iteration.
Basically,
everything
everything
was
funneled
through
that
we're
now
in
a
position
where
all
right,
eos
has
to
make
business
decisions
for
itself
likely.
A
Each
network
seems
to
be
that
the
consensus
so
far,
it's
not
that
it's
formal,
but
that
likely
each
network
will
have
its
own
flavor
of
eos,
and
that
usually
happens
at
the
system
contract
level.
But
then
there
are
certain
things
that
are
going
to
be
common
to
all
of
them
and
certain
features
that
all
eosio
iterations
would
like
to
implement
at
the
protocol
level.
A
But
where
do
we
have
commonalities
and
where
do
we
think
that
it
makes
sense
to
work
together
on
something?
Because
all
of
us
want
this.
So
a
good
example
that
was
brought
up
in
the
last
few
weeks
was
faster.
Finality
seems
to
be
right
now
that
if
there
was
faster
finality
most
of
the
eos
io
iterations,
I
haven't
seen
anybody
that
be
against
it,
but
most
of
them,
if
they
could,
they
would
want
that
feature.
So
then
we
also
need
to
develop
processes
of
all
right
in
our
sandbox.
A
What
are
our
governance
processes,
and
how
do
we
do
this?
This
competition
essentially
have
different
ideas
and
vying
for
attention,
but
also
at
the
larger
sandbox
of
how
do
all
eos
iterations
do
this
concurrently,
one
against
another
and
together
as
well.
It's
the
first
time
again
that
we're
in
that
position
to
do
that
so
and
it's
happening
live.
I
need
to
stress
that
that
the
process
that
you're
seeing
is
happening
right
now
there
is
no
magical
guidebook.
There
is
no
road
map
that
that's
already
predetermined
that
we
are
following.
A
We
are
figuring
it
out
because
we've
never
had
to
do
so.
We're
figuring
it
out
all
together
right
now
and
part
of
what
the
enf
essentially
is
funding
through
dan
as
well,
and
what
we
funded
when
the
enf
funded
the
eden
1.0
process
was
to
figure
out
ways
where
maybe
we
can
scale
that
governance
on-chain
to
be
able
to
come
and
help
those
processes,
but
we
also
recognize
that
whatever
is
the
output
of
that
may
take
a
long
time.
In
the
meantime,
we
still
have
to
innovate.
A
Right
now,
the
way
we're
doing
is
through
the
working
groups
right
now,
the
way
we're
doing
it
is
dan
and
I
getting
on
calls
like
this
dan
and
I
having
calls
me
and
the
working
groups
having
calls
the
working
groups
and
everybody
else.
Having
calls
we're
doing
it
live
it's
really
important
for
people
to
recognize
that
there
is
no
magic
solution,
we're
trying
to
figure
it
out.
That
is
one
of
the
functions.
B
B
But
I
would
highly
encourage
that
we
moderate
our
desire
to
incorporate
opinions
of
of
communities
that
aren't
contributing
anything
other
than
you
know.
They're
either
complaining
that
we're
not
doing
it
how
they
want
it
or
you
know,
put
some
skin
in
the
game
and
then
you
can
have
a
voice.
I
guess
is
my
my
stance,
I'm
building
on
eos
and
you
know
I've
got
lots
of
skin
in
the
game
for
for
eos,
but
it'd
be
nice
to
see
these
other
chains
in
these
working
groups.
B
If
everyone
put
skin
in
the
game,
because
I
think
that
that
is
the
only
way
that
we're
going
to
have
a
successful
cross-chain
collaboration
that
makes
sense,
because
otherwise
all
the
eos
folks
are
all
the
wax
folks
all
the
telescopes
are
like.
You
know
what
I'm
out
here,
just
faster
just
working
my
own
team,
because
there's
not
enough
benefit
from
the
collaboration
to
overcome
the
cost
of
the
collaboration.
A
And
that's
what
the
esio
plus
working
group
is
going
over
right
now.
It's
this
idea
that
by
default
it
will
be
easier
and
it
would
be
easier
to
just
all
go
our
separate
ways.
It
will
be
harder
to
figure
out
a
way
to
work
together,
and
so
that
is
the
challenge
that
the
elsa
working
group
is
trying
to
figure
out.
If
there
was
a
membership,
what
would
that
membership
look
like?
Who
would
be
a
member?
Is
there
a
cause
to
be
a
member?
What
would
be
the
governance
process?
Is
it?
Is
it
an
entity?
A
B
What
do
we
benefit
by
them
having
faster
finality
and
what
do
they
benefit
by
us
having
faster
finality?
What
do
we
benefit
from
the
feature
they
want,
and
vice
versa,
and
if
there's
not
that
mutual
benefit,
then
all
of
a
sudden
the
incentives
are
misaligned
and
it's
altruism
at
a
certain
point
and
altruism
only
goes
so
far,
and
I
think
that
that's
that's
one
of
the
challenges.
B
B
That
type
of
thing
like
we
need
to
identify
the
things
that
we're
funding,
that
all
chains
can
use.
It's
not
just.
Can
they
use
it,
but
if
the
other
chain
has
it
it
benefits
us,
does
it
allow
apps
to
work
on
both
chains?
Are
we
supporting
bridging
or
are
we
building
the
silos
and
all
those
things
have
to
be
considered
as
we're
considering
joint
efforts
that
will
necessarily
slow
down
the
rate
which
ears
can
develop
to
the
extent
that
we
have
to
wait
for
this
larger
group
of
people
to
come
along
right?
A
B
A
All
of
this
is
what
we're
trying
to
figure
out
right
now
and
then
I
would
even
go
further
so
when
dan
mentions
that
there
are
certain
aspects
that
we
need
to
consider
right,
so
we
mentioned
earlier
there's
some
technical
aspects.
There
are
some
there's
some
maintenance
aspects
there.
There
are
things
that
we
need
to
consider
on.
How
do
we
deploy?
When
do
we
deploy?
What
will
happen
next?
Well,
there
are
things
that
are
also
a
little
bit
less
tangible,
like
branding
like
marketing
like
fast
history
like
business
there.
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
And
analysis
is
not
bad.
Failure
means
that
you've
tried
not
trying
is
bad.
Failure
is
not
necessarily
bad.
How
you
deal
with
failure
is
what
we
have
to
now
perfect.
How
do
we
deal
with
when
things
don't
work
out
or
when
there
are
tensions
or
when
there
are
conflicts?
That's
where
now,
a
lot
of
the
focus
is,
but
that's
a
better
problem
to
have.
Then,
let's
not
do
anything
and
let's,
let's
be
scared
of
what
might
happen.
If
we
do
do
something.
B
The
biggest
analogy
I
can
have
here
is
from
the
history
of
eos
right
when
we
originally
released
the
code
and
the
community
launched
it.
There
are
a
lot
of
people
saying
it's
not
tested
enough.
We
can't
go
forward
right,
and
so
their
proposal
was
effectively
test
it
more
until
I
feel
comfortable
that
this
thing's
not
going
to
break,
and
that
could
be
one
month.
It
could
be
six
months.
It
could
be
a
year.
B
There's
always
going
to
be
someone
who
says
I
don't
feel
like
it's
quite
ready
yet,
in
which
case
you
know
they're
worried
like
if
something
breaks
we
might
have
some
downtime
right.
Oh
the
network
hung
up
and
it
took
us
24
hours
to
fix
it.
Okay,
you
still
released
it
a
month
earlier.
If
you
wait
a
month
to
try
to
find
this
bug
that
you
might
never
have
found,
you
have
a
month
of
downtime
effectively
in
order
to
save
a
day
of
downtime.
B
So
we
have
to
understand
that
it's
okay
to
have
some
downtime,
because
the
alternative
is
to
have
downtime
while
you're
waiting
effective
down
time.
It
might
not
be
like
the
whole
network's
down,
but
you
might
not
have
a
new
feature
that
you
want
right.
This
new
feature
is
not
here
for
six
months.
We
have
six
months
of
downtime
for
that
feature,
because
we
are
unwilling
to
release
it
earlier
and
take
some
risk
now.
Obviously,
there's
some
benefits
here.
You
have
to
do
something
else,
like
always.
B
A
But
ultimately,
you
make
a
decision
right.
Ultimately,
decision
paralysis
is
the
problem
and
we
see
that
the
market
values
those
that
experiment
and
those
that
innovate
more
frequently.
So
you
talk
about
downtime
solana
famous
right
now.
I
think
it's
the
third
time
in
a
couple
of
weeks,
they
go
down
the
market
values
that
more
than
not
doing
anything
eos
it's
clear.
The
market
does
not
value
not
doing
anything.
A
So
when
people
talk
about
dan,
why
aren't
you
focusing
on
price?
This
is
in
a
way
focusing
on
price
on
trying
to
innovate.
That
is
what
the
market
is
telling
us.
The
market
is
not
telling
us
that
the
name
is
important
or
the
token
symbol
is
important
or
the
blue
paper
is
important.
The
market
is
telling
us
try
to
do
stuff,
try
to
innovate
test
it
out,
get
it
out
there
you,
if,
like
dan
said,
you
might
think
that
this
is
the
idea.
A
Well,
the
market
might
tell
you
it's
not,
but
if
you
only
tried
one
and
you
spent
six
months
doing
this
thing,
it's
possible,
it
won't
even
work.
It's
possible.
The
market
won't
react,
it
won't
care.
You
just
wasted.
Six
months,
instead
of
in
that
six
month
period,
trying
100
different
things,
one
of
them
sticks
and
that
one
thing
that
sticks
brings
everybody
else
up
and
everybody
benefits
from
that
one
thing.
But
in
the
meantime
yeah
it
was
difficult
because
everybody
was
running
in
parallel
and
everybody's
stepping
on
each
other's
toes.
A
But
the
market
values
that
we
see
that
that's
non-arguable.
We
see
that
eos
has
lost
that
competition
in
big
part
because
it
does
not
try
to
innovate
it
stagnates.
It
doesn't
do
anything.
There's
no
news,
there's
even
the
news
that
some
blockchains
have
gone
down,
actually
increase
its
price
because
it
went
down
because
of
because
of
because
of
you
never
know.
But
the
idea
is
you
never
know
until
you
try
and-
and
we
have
this
paralysis
of-
let's
not
try
because
we're
afraid
to
fail.
A
Let's
not
try
because
it's
difficult,
let's
not
try
because
we're
putting
ourselves
out
there,
because
we're
we're
going
to
be
victim
of
criticisms,
because
people
will
shut
us
down
because
they
have.
They
have
a
better
idea,
a
better
solution.
So,
let's
just
not
try-
and
this
is
where
we're
trying
to
completely
change
the
narrative
of
let's
try.
Let's
try
a
lot
of
different
things
and
let's
fail,
let's
tell
let's
fail
frequently
often
but
controlled.
So
it's
also
important
not
just
go
willy-nilly
and
just
just
you
know,
spend
on
everything
and
basically
not
have
any
processes.
A
There
is
a
balance,
but
it's
definitely
not
the
all
or
nothing
try
without
any
accountability
or
don't
try
anything
at
all.
We're
trying
to
find
where
that
medium
is
and
that's
going
to
change
continuously.
That's
an
ever-changing,
whatever
needle
we're
trying
to
walk
that
fine
line,
and
yes,
it
is
a
fun
line
which
means
that
sometimes
we're
going
to
fall
on
one
side
or
the
other.
That's
okay!
It's
fine.
B
Some
things
can
be
reversed
and
some
things
can't
right.
For
example,
if
you
had
a
bug
that
resulted
in
everyone's
private
keys
and
the
entire
network
being
exposed,
you
can't
recover
from
that,
but
pretty
much
anything
else
you
can
recover
from,
because
all
the
blockchain
is
is
consensus,
and
if
everyone
knows
what
should
have
happened,
then
the
network
might
go
down
for
a
week.
B
While
we
code
things
up,
we
reset
state
go
all
right,
that's
the
kind
of
worst
case
extreme
scenario,
but
it's
all
recoverable
with
you
know
a
minimum
amount
of
downtime
and
by
taking
certain
precautions,
the
ability
to
say
hey
things
are
getting
out
of
control,
just
shut
down
the
network,
okay
figure
things
out
and
then
bring
it
back
up
now
that
might
seem
like
inconceivable
to
a
lot
of
people.
How
can
you
shut
down
the
network?
Well,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
all
you
really
cost.
B
People
is
a
little
bit
of
liquidity
during
the
time
that
they
couldn't
transact
it's
massively
inconvenient,
but
as
a
startup
growing,
you
know
that's
what
that's
what
you're
risking
it's
not
saying
that!
That's
what's
going
to
happen,
I'm
just
saying
worst
case
scenario.
If
that
were
to
happen,
would
that
be
the
end
of
the
world?
No
we've
seen
other
changes
that
have
had
that
same
thing
happen.
B
And
then
the
network
went
on,
and
now
no
one
even
remembers
those
events
anymore,
because
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things
that
one
day
of
downtime
was
not
the
defining
factor,
it
didn't
kill
the
network
and
as
the
network
matures
the
probability
that
happening
decreases
and
you
get
more
and
more
safeguards.
So
we
can
design
these
things
so
they
fail
safe
rather
than
failing
in
an
unsafe
way
and.
A
There
are
also
other
iterations
or
other
considerations
as
well.
Where,
for
one
example,
the
salon
example
solana
right
now
has
a
lot
of
momentum,
so
they
have
a
little
bit
more
leeway
to
fail.
The
threshold
of
what
happens
when
they
failed
is
probably
higher.
The
market
doesn't
react
as
much,
whereas
eos,
maybe
right
now,
doesn't
have
the
luxury
of
failing,
as
often
to
that
extent
the
extent
that
dan
just
mentioned
of
network
shutdown.
So
again
the
balance
is
ever
changing.
A
Maybe
right
now
the
changes
that
we
propose
aren't
changes
that
might
ultimately
lead
at
the
worst
case
scenario
to
breaking
the
chain.
Maybe
we
don't
have
that
luxury
right
now,
other
chains
have
that
luxury.
We
always
we
consistently
or
we
continuously
need
to
look
at
where
we
are
and
what
is
our
environment?
Where
is
our
sphere
of
control?
What
can
we
do?
What
are
the
worst
case
scenarios
and
that
changes
all
the
time?
So
there's
not.
B
B
A
B
B
Our
token
contract
is
the
same
as
every
other
token
contract
out
there,
even
the
election
process,
the
delegated
proof
of
stake
process.
All
of
that
is
done
in
the
smart
contract
itself.
We
could
go
from
the
current
way
of
selecting
block
producers
to
an
entirely
new
way
of
selecting
block
producers
without
changing
any
without
any
hard
forking
changes,
because
it's
all
just
system
contract
stuff,
that's
incredibly
powerful.
A
B
Yeah-
and
it
can
do
so
without
you
know,
if
you
look
at
the
fact
that
we
launched
the
community
and
launched
eos
and
it
didn't
need
any
hard
forks
until
there
was
an
intentional
hard
fork
to
upgrade
something.
There
are
no
hard
forks
to
fix
anything
in
any
of
the
fixes
we
were
able
to
patch
at
the
web
assembly.
B
Smart
contract
deployment
level,
that's
a
huge
testament
to
the
to
the
quality
of
the
code
that
is
serving
as
the
foundation
and
to
the
design
of
of
eos,
and
that's
why
I
want
to
move
more
in
that
direction
so
that
some
of
the
things
that
are
still
done,
like
resource
management
and
accounts
and
whatnot
more
of
that
stuff,
is
moved
into
webassembly
and
and
we
can
emulate
all
of
evm
inside
of
webassembly
right
now
and
and
actually
run
more
ethereum
contracts.
Through
our
platform
on
top
of
the
webassembly,
then
ethereum
can
so.
C
C
You
mentioned
evm,
so
I
think
a
lot
of
the
issues
recently
are
you're
sharing
ideas
on
things
that
other
people,
don't
necessarily
think,
should
be
a
priority,
but
they
do
mention
evm
as
a
priority.
That's
still
happening,
and
we
don't
need
to
talk
about
that,
because
that's
another
working
group,
they're
working
in
parallel.
One
thing
that
you're
working
on
is
something
that
almost
everyone's
agreeable
one
and
that
is
passive
income
opportunities
and
ways
to
earn
for
providing
value
to
the
ecosystem.