4 ms·

There are lots of perfectly legal things that get censored all the time, by both the government and private companies. Adult content is one area that comes to

by stale2002 8y ago

There are lots of perfectly legal things that get censored all the time, by both the government and private companies. Adult content is one area that comes to mind. If you run a business in this area, on the internet, which is perfectly legal, you will quickly find that every major financial institution refuses to do business with you.

arcticbull 8y ago
There are payment processors that cater to that market. They charge large fees (up to 20%) for card transactions, though that's actually due to the crazy-high chargeback risk. People's spouses tend to discover their subscriptions, then they declare it wasn't them, their card was stolen, and a chargeback follows.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Indeed, that's my point. If you do business in one of these controversial areas, then you will quickly find that you are being charged extremely high costs and/or kicked off of their network.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    They're not extremely high, they're the cost of doing business.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      And the world would be a much better place if it was harder to impose higher costs of doing business on controversial, but legal businesses. Which is why I support solutions that undermine attempts by a couple monopolies to impose larger costs on legal, but controversial businesses.
      - arcticbull 8y ago
        Fair, though this isn't the technology that'll solve that. You've just centralized the decision making to the PRC which controls more than 51% of hash power. All it takes is a strongly-worded memo from Beijing and they can censor payments and rewrite the blockchain. That said, with $1.26 transaction fees + 1-2% to buy BTC vs. even 20% for a credit card in this high-risk MCC, the breakeven is ~$7, and while I'm not sure what adult content costs on a monthly basis, I'd imagine the fee difference isn't a whole lot. It's also not an imposition, nobody is required to use credit cards. Adult content is largely and lucratively ad-supported. Some businesses choose to offer content on a subscription model like the NYT paywall, and some choose not to. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the status quo. The cost of doing business is being passed down. They accept credit cards because even at a 20% fee, it's in their interests to do so. If it wasn't they'd stop. Either way, they're recovering their fees from customers.
        stale2002 8y ago
        I mean, buying a bunch of miners in order to 51% attack a network is significantly more difficult than making a phone call to a Visa or MasterCard executive. It is also not enough to censor a singular Blockchain. You'd have to get the hardware to attack all the chains, because then people would just move to the other ones. This is still not impossible. That's why I used the words "censorship resistant". But it is certainly much more difficult than a phone call to 2 or 3 executives who control the major financial companies. This is proven by the fact that censorship just isn't happening on most Blockchains. The actual state of the network proves that it is difficult, because it isn't happening. You can talk all you want about theoretical attacks, but those attacks aren't happening, so it works. Whereas there are many examples of the "phone call to Visa" that are happening right now.
        arcticbull 8y ago
        My understanding is 2 or 3 miners in the PRC have all that 51%, and in China, when Beijing says jump you say how high or you may end up escorted from your penthouse at the four seasons in Hong Kong to seek medical treatment on the mainland and never be heard from again (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/asia/xiao-jianhua-china-hong-kong-billionaire.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/worl...)

arcticbull 8y ago

There are payment processors that cater to that market. They charge large fees (up to 20%) for card transactions, though that's actually due to the crazy-high chargeback risk. People's spouses tend to discover their subscriptions, then they declare it wasn't them, their card was stolen, and a chargeback follows.

stale2002 8y ago
Indeed, that's my point. If you do business in one of these controversial areas, then you will quickly find that you are being charged extremely high costs and/or kicked off of their network.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  They're not extremely high, they're the cost of doing business.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    And the world would be a much better place if it was harder to impose higher costs of doing business on controversial, but legal businesses. Which is why I support solutions that undermine attempts by a couple monopolies to impose larger costs on legal, but controversial businesses.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      Fair, though this isn't the technology that'll solve that. You've just centralized the decision making to the PRC which controls more than 51% of hash power. All it takes is a strongly-worded memo from Beijing and they can censor payments and rewrite the blockchain. That said, with $1.26 transaction fees + 1-2% to buy BTC vs. even 20% for a credit card in this high-risk MCC, the breakeven is ~$7, and while I'm not sure what adult content costs on a monthly basis, I'd imagine the fee difference isn't a whole lot. It's also not an imposition, nobody is required to use credit cards. Adult content is largely and lucratively ad-supported. Some businesses choose to offer content on a subscription model like the NYT paywall, and some choose not to. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the status quo. The cost of doing business is being passed down. They accept credit cards because even at a 20% fee, it's in their interests to do so. If it wasn't they'd stop. Either way, they're recovering their fees from customers.
      - stale2002 8y ago
        I mean, buying a bunch of miners in order to 51% attack a network is significantly more difficult than making a phone call to a Visa or MasterCard executive. It is also not enough to censor a singular Blockchain. You'd have to get the hardware to attack all the chains, because then people would just move to the other ones. This is still not impossible. That's why I used the words "censorship resistant". But it is certainly much more difficult than a phone call to 2 or 3 executives who control the major financial companies. This is proven by the fact that censorship just isn't happening on most Blockchains. The actual state of the network proves that it is difficult, because it isn't happening. You can talk all you want about theoretical attacks, but those attacks aren't happening, so it works. Whereas there are many examples of the "phone call to Visa" that are happening right now.
        arcticbull 8y ago
        My understanding is 2 or 3 miners in the PRC have all that 51%, and in China, when Beijing says jump you say how high or you may end up escorted from your penthouse at the four seasons in Hong Kong to seek medical treatment on the mainland and never be heard from again (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/asia/xiao-jianhua-china-hong-kong-billionaire.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/worl...)