I read the whole post and did not get that impression. I thought it was a pretty good write-up explaining the concept of a “partition attack” on Bitcoin (and in

I read the whole post and did not get that impression. I thought it was a pretty good write-up explaining the concept of a “partition attack” on Bitcoin (and in distributed systems in general). I had not previously been aware of this form of attack. Sure the author linked to his service, but I believe the intent was to show that if a government could recognize the signature of encrypted traffic and block it, then it would only be easier to block portions of bitcoin transactions. Which ultimately paves the way for a bad actor to block large portions of external transactions, while allowing local transactions, then unblock transactions, which given a sufficiently large control of the network could “undo” other external transactions, in what was described as a partition attack. Thus ultimately result in the loss of trust in Bitcoin.