RE: Soliciting feedback on pre-emptive methods to protect Hive against a malicious court order ...

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Soliciting feedback on pre-emptive methods to protect Hive against a malicious court order ...

View the full context

trostparadox in LeoFinance • 7 months ago (edited)

Comment thread for a ‘Whack-A-Mole Switch’ as proposed by @trostparadox

Reply to this comment to make comments about the need for and/or ways to implement a ‘Whack-A-Mole Switch’ for Hive.

The main idea is to implement a quick and reliable way for any witness who is targeted by a malicious court order to shift all incoming witness votes to an alternative trusted account -- to provide a very quick method for a witness to shield their account from being forced to act against the community's wishes.

Here are some of the 'requirements' I envisioned for the 'Whack-A-Mole Switch':

Must be very easy to deploy.
Allows a witness to delegate 100% of their incoming witness votes to an alternative account. (Must be 0% or 100%; allowing partial delegation could potentially be gamed.)
Any duplicate witness votes should be ignored or expunged.
Should be irrevocable.
Should immediately notify each of the voting accounts that their vote has been delegated, and to whom.
Should probably be announced via the 'Emergency Broadcast System'.

7 months ago in LeoFinance by trostparadox

0.00 STEM

1 vote

Sort:

Trending

[-]

mineopoly 7 months ago

As usual your proposals are reasonable, but this time you also come up with the perfect name "Whack-A-Mole" switch. The delegating 100% makes this more than a "Catch me if you Can". It's a whole new witness.

0.00 STEM

1 vote

[-]

trostparadox 7 months ago

The delegating 100% makes this more than a "Catch me if you Can". It's a whole new witness.

That’s correct. However, the witness could (if they wanted to) delegate to one of their own alt accounts and merely buy time while the courts investigate who owner of the new account is. Legally, that would probably be a risky move, though, as that could be construed as obstruction rather than contempt. As long as it’s done before any official decree is made, though, it would be roughly equivalent of closing a bank account and opening a new one somewhere else. The burden would be on the courts to determine / prove ownership.

0.00 STEM

1 vote