BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: monsterer on October 17, 2014, 11:55:08 am
-
Just hypothesising here. What makes a DAC more resilient to being taken down by the government in which the creators reside?
Because, although the government can't control who uses the DAC and the network would stay up, there is nothing to stop them ordering the creators of the DAC to make it unusable in the latest download. Unless the creators are as anonymous as satoshi, this will be quite simple.
Yes, someone could fork it, but this government order would surely cause the value of the asset to drop so much as to make it worthless?
Has there been a precedent for this happening already?
Cheers, paul.
-
It's all about consensus .. if the network decided to not run on the latest (malicious) update than the network won't .. so will noone be able to connect to it with the latest "wrong" version ..
Further, there is not just one country on earth .. so I do not really care about US-jurisdiction but have to follow my local rules ..
I don't see a issue here ... It's like china banning bitcoin ..
-
It's all about consensus .. if the network decided to not run on the latest (malicious) update than the network won't .. so will noone be able to connect to it with the latest "wrong" version ..
Further, there is not just one country on earth .. so I do not really care about US-jurisdiction but have to follow my local rules ..
I don't see a issue here ... It's like china banning bitcoin ..
But that does require a fork, no?
The problem isn't quite like china banning bitcoin.
So, for example Dacsunlimited is registered in hong kong - if the HK government took an unfortunate disliking, they could order that the official client be disabled in the next release?
-
So, for example Dacsunlimited is registered in hong kong - if the HK government took an unfortunate disliking, they could order that the official client be disabled in the next release?
if HK forced DSL out of business .. why should they publish a release anyway?
sure .. forks will be required .. not necessarily a hardfork of the network .. just a fork of the software
-
if HK forced DSL out of business .. why should they publish a release anyway?
sure .. forks will be required .. not necessarily a hardfork of the network .. just a fork of the software
I'm not sure why they would publish a release, but it's possible the government wouldn't go all out like that - they might simply want to prevent a certain user base having access, for example the US, so the client would need to be modified so that it didn't run on a US based IP address.
-
Well people would revert to the latest open source version, figure out the problem and it would be worked around and reverted. Obviously not a straightforward process, but that is what should happen.
-
Well people would revert to the latest open source version, figure out the problem and it would be worked around and reverted. Obviously not a straightforward process, but that is what should happen.
The reason for the question was because I was considering creating a DAC myself. I was trying to weigh the benefits of creating a DAC over creating a centralised service for me as the business owner, but I find myself at somewhat of a loss to justify the massive amount of extra development it would take to create one.
The benefits for the end user are obvious, however.