I've been a fan of Obyte for over 3 years now, and it surely is one of the most interesting projects out there.
However, I still have doubts about its resilience. It should be government-resistant.
What would happen if a government would sent 12 agents to take care of the 12 Order Providers simulaneously? Could it bring down the network and maybe rewrite the history of the DAG?
I hope not, but I'd need to hear a convincing answer on why not. It's a question that deserves an answer.
Obyte is tyrannic government resistant, which means that unless all governments suddenly agree on something, there is no danger. The breaking point is actually 6-7 Order Providers, not 12 because if you take 6 out then there is no longer majority. If they take out 7 then they have the majority.
Getting all the governments suddenly co-operate with each other and agree on something like that is quite far fetched, especially when there is nothing illegal in what the full nodes are doing. Today, we no longer have majority of Order Proviers in one jurisdiction, so Obyte doesn't have a single-point failure
https://stats.obyte.org/witnesses.phpIf 6 governments indeed get simultaneously agents to knock on doors of 6 Order Providers then which judges are going to sign that? These 6 people should all have to be breaking some law for the agents to break in. So, Obyte is not in danger if one of the governments loses it's mind or one of the Order Providers is accused in something criminal. Running a full node is not criminal, posting transactions on cryptocurrency platform is not criminal either. Order Providers don't decide whose transaction is valid or not, the whole network does. Bitcoin is protected against same thing - multiple governments going mad, but Bitcoin miners actually decide whose transactions get confirmed, Obyte Order Providers doesn't.
https://medium.com/obyte/from-blockchain-to-dag-getting-rid-of-middlemen-28afa7563545In terms of what will happen if government seizes the machines, if it's even located in the same place as the Order Provider himself - the worst thing they can do is shut the machines down because if there is no majority of Order Providers posting anymore, no new transactions will get stable (confirmed). People could still post new transactions, but the part of the DAG with unstable transactions will not become stable. They could also modify the code and post transactions out of order, but that would just signal everyone that Order Provider is acting bad. They can't change the history, that's blockchain feature, not Obyte's.
If they somehow would get hands on majority of Order Providers (7) and make those post transactions out of order then that would just break the whole network and the community would need to hard-fork.
There is more about exact this thing on Obyte blog
https://medium.com/obyte/dag-vs-blockchain-6d2d99f10bd9I'm late in answering because I was away from the forum - sorry for that.
You mention judges and governments agreeing among them - come on, this is not the real world. Should Obyte succeed in the extremely unlikely task of becoming the new N.1 because "it's better than Bitcoin" and should it somehow endanger the fiat banking system it would take just seven hitmen for the banksters to get the job done in one single day and if the community forks the project it only means the hitmen would have to be hired for another day or two (according to how many times the community will insist to fork). We're not discussing the "why" should they want to do that - of course as long as Obyte is a little project nobody will care. But if you are planning a platform which has to be better than Bitcoin, it must also possess at least the same resilience. Pushing the problem under the rug is not a solution. It's the only technical (big) flaw I see in an otherwise excellent and still deeply undervalued project.
BTW look at the John McAfee case, he has been imprisoned in Spain for the "crime" of not having filed for taxes... in the USA - LoL, that tell you everything on how what's only matters on earth is power, not rules.