Quote from: pineapple express on March 16, 2018, 09:18:28 AM

Quote from: Hhugh on March 16, 2018, 12:16:51 AM

Quote from: atlas21 on March 15, 2018, 10:01:15 PM

This is an interesting blogpost from Dan Hughes (the lead developer of Radix) writing about why DAG coins (like Byteball) will not scale.

https://www.radixdlt.com/post/dags-dont-scale-without-centralization

Byteball is named in only one sentence and it concludes that Byteball (and Iota) are not very censorship resistant.

Tonych could you enlighten us about this vulnerability about being censhorship resistance?

#16 in the whitepaper https://byteball.org/Byteball.pdf

I don't think that conclusion is being made with a full understanding of the platform.

16. Censorship...... Only the majority of witnesses can effectively impose forbidden content rules if users choose such witnesses

government is able to put pressure on public witnesses. And they will simply refuse to be witnesses. In this case it will be almost impossible to find a suitable replacement for them

I don't think there is an inherent deficiency after considering the following. While it is desired at this moment in time that witnesses are publicly known persons you'll find by reading the whitepaper this is not a requirement. Nor is it coded into the protocol. New witnesses could hide real world identifies to avoid government pressure. If attacked (politically or otherwise) the function of witnesses can adapt.

Sure... if all the witnesses colluded at once then censorship exists. But I don't think this risk is inherently higher for Byteball than any POW where pools dominate hashing power or POS where the majority of coins are controlled by insiders.