2 ms·
The thing is that it wasn't a comprehensive answer. It was a wall of text that attempted to appear like it was giving an answer while not actually clarifying an
by zchrykng 4y ago
The thing is that it wasn't a comprehensive answer. It was a wall of text that attempted to appear like it was giving an answer while not actually clarifying anything.
As a CA, even a hint of malfeasance should require in depth transparent answers. Not this legal BS peddling.
- ethbr0 4y agoSo you think other CAs would field these questions better? Because from what I read, I could see a decent chunk of them getting tossed out at the end of the star chamber as well. And then we'd be left with a more centralized system with a few large players. If corporate structure, ownership, and governance is important (it is!), then there should be standard processes, not ad hoc lines of interrogation whenever a CA happens to be noticed.
- Nullabillity 4y ago> And then we'd be left with a more centralized system with a few large players. The CA system is already designed like a centralized system where the operators (CAs) have full privileges. Adding another CA just means adding another potentially malicious or vulnerable single point of failure that could bring down the whole system.