Quote from: Beepbop on February 21, 2013, 05:36:19 PM

Quote from: memvola on February 21, 2013, 03:56:51 PM

That, you can't do with a decentralized protocol.

Why not? If you break that law, you can send those who break that law to prison or make them sell it, like anti-monopoly laws already do if one person gets too much control. Or the market rejects it. Even if the protocol doesn't know who owns each node, if it's transparent it is a matter of public knowledge and either governments or the free market can see that undesired centralization is going on, and react accordingly. It doesn't matter to the protocol if it's hosted in Soviet Russia or Ayn Rand Planet.

This is a social and political thing that an amoral protocol doesn't care about. The legal and political context will decide whether the protocol is successful though. A perfect technical solution to a non-existent problem will still fail to be accepted. Likewise a bad protocol, even if supported by all the guns in the world, will also fall apart and fail.

I'm sorry, I thought you meant subject to miner votes or something by the word "illegal". You are really talking about using State power to enforce legality? How is it not centralized? How are 10 entities threatened and dictated by one entity different from a single entity?