As I explained, these moderation actions would only appear for those who had chosen to have their forum client software follow me as a moderator. All your posts would remain fully intact on the blockchain, and any reader could view them if they want to. So in no way would I propose a system wherein I could censor you, yet if I am a popular moderator, I can influence you to structure your discussion to be more concise and to avoid adversarial ad hominem allegations that can't be falsified.
Such a rudimentary system existed in the 1990-ies as I said before: it was called usenet, and had a simple, decentralized protocol: NNTP.
Afaik, NNTP is not decentralized consensus. Rather it is a single news server which is the canonical source and other servers can mirror it.
usenet died because it crumbled under gigabytes of daily spam
Thus it didn't have my moderation feature. And it didn't charge a minuscule microtransaction fee to post, which is the another aspect I'm planning. Steemit already does this, you don't do any activity on the blockchain without paying a fee, but the fee on Steemit is a quota instead of deduction from your token balance (yet your token balance is debased, so same effect as charging a fee). On Bitnet, the fees are burned, so the money supply shrinks and thus your tokens become more valuable.
moderation
So who's to decide ? Of course you could add blacklists. Yes, you could even distribute black lists. But it was a pain.
A poorly designed and programmed system is not a refutation of my plans.
On the other hand, if you want to vent your own opinions, the internet allows you to have your personal blog where you are master.
A blog page with trailing comments, and self-moderated forum thread are essentially the same thing.
However, there are advantages to the economies-of-scale of having a unified GUI and feature set for all threads.
Also I hub of threads, i.e. a forum, yields economies-of-scale in readers and content browsing/searching.
However, attracting attention to your blog is much more work that profiting from the attraction of an existing centralized forum.
The forum canonical source doesn't need to be centralized. Perhaps you mean having the common hub or nexus of a list of threads that can be browsed and searched. Indeed.
I guess that's why you are here - that's why I am here: both of us want the easiness of picking in on the existing success and social gathering of this forum, instead of going through the difficulty of trying to build such a community from scratch, with all chances of it failing.
I am up for the challenge of trying to create a decentralized forum technology that could end up being used by a billion users.
BCT is but a speck of sand at the beach, compared to what I have in mind.
The price to pay to profit from some other entities' popularity, is to accept their power and rules.
There you go with your aliasing error again. You constructed a strawman. I don't need to pay a price. Just create a better mousetrap and watch the world choose to use it, instead of the inferior forum software out there now.
BTW, this is why many decentralized systems are doomed: people, in general, are willing to pay a price of power, to get easiness back from it.
Decentralized forums don't need to suffer any disadvantages and can have many advantages, if they are designed well.
Usenet was a precursor of decentralized discussion.
Not really. Please stop comparing archaic crap to my plans. Usenet is not all similar to what I have in my plans.
Everybody could start his own moderated group. Most people didn't.
Correct most people are followers, not leaders. You have this habit of failing to assimilate what I already wrote upthread (like you have selective reading comprehension):
One hundred expert moderated groups will trounce a one-size-fits-all totalitarianism and socialist least common denominator clusterfuck. The reason Medium is succeeding is because all the important people post there, including for example superstars such as Nicholas Taleb.
Experts refuse to waste their time having discussions where they don't have sufficient moderation control in order to keep the discussion on point of the expert's group focus.