they'll just need to comply then right? Implement whatever blacklists for whatever authoritative reason. In order to remain compliant. Granted I know we need to discuss alternatives, so would love to see a hybrid solution evolve that minimizes attack surfaces.
Huh? This might already apply for mining in the US. Matthew says it does in CA.
It's not going to be very effective since not all nodes are known. They could ask me to blacklist but unless they get 100% of nodes all they can do is slow down a transaction not permanently ban it(unless bans where part of protocol which won't happen) For the record pow would be the same. Blocking only works if you have 100% of nodes
So then we are into the regulatory concerns and compliance.
Not really. To give an example as part of DigiAssets V3 there is an option to create assets where you can only send those assets with permission from a predefined group. If you try to send the asset without getting permission first they burn. This is enforcable because it is part of the protocol. If I create an asset that does not have this feature enabled(I think all so far) then the government can try to block the asset moving by talking to miners and telling them to not allow transactions to go through but eventually a miner they didn't get an agreement from would mine the tx and it would happen anyways. So blocks or censoring can not be effectively done unless it is part of the protocol and like the DigiAsset feature this is not likely to be added unless it's an opt in for some use case.
Here you can find all the DigiByte Telegram Groups.
Обсуждают сегодня