there needs to be a mechanism for submitting accounts for ban, along with freezing of funds. we need to have witnesses or some other elected body do this. require a majority or even a super majority or whatever. if this doesnt happen the steem platform is going to die.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The problem with this is that they would be inundated with personal vendettas and it will lead to an authority having ultimate power which is something that should not happen. The democratic process itself is very unsatisfactory in such cases as generally, groups are idiots.
Ok cool so let's just keep letting people cheat the system I guess
Also it's nonsense that no authority should have power. That situation breeds corruption because that's is nothing to stop it.
So, the decentralised blockchain should be governed by a central authority to stop corruption?
Exactly, these are the legit concerns. You can't have it both ways @dhouse, that's why it's a hard problem that hasn't been solved here yet
No, it would be a decentralized authority, much like the witnesses are now. You're overthinking this
I think I get you, just that they should have that power.
I think the point here is that some powers are too much, but you're disagreeing with that. An analogy is to the death penalty, where some people feel it is never appropriate because no one should have that right, and others who feel that in extreme circumstances we should allow authority to decide to remove someone from the community, from all communities, by death.
Fair enough.
Side point but this:
I would dispute this reading. In the spectrum of anarchism you can have anarcho-syndicalism (which is the communist anarchist flavor) and anarcho-capitalism. You can contrast that with state-communism (previously in USSR, China, Cuba, etc.) and state-capitalism (the "West", etc.)
I'm curious what you mean by saying that capitalism will always win?