4 ms·
it is not uncensorable in an absolute term, that is true. But can come quite close. Why? For mainly two reasons: 1) Main one: Miners can censor. But miners ar
by nfin 6y ago
it is not uncensorable in an absolute term, that is true.
But can come quite close.
Why? For mainly two reasons:
1) Main one:
Miners can censor. But miners are not elected. As more transactions are censored by a mojority of miners, the sum of transaction fees of these transactions add up and become a honeypot/incentive. A sum which a "brave" miner could additionally include in a block they would mine (that other miners censoring won't), making themselves MORE profitable by including those. And mining being a low margin business, this is relevant. And this gets more and more relevant the more fees people are ready to pay for such transactions. Nothing is really free in life. It would cost, but the more you are ready to pay a fee, the more uncensorable it gets (if you are not the only one, which is not likely in a long term view in a world with so many countries, minorities, use cases,... ).
The condition for this to work, is
a) being able to mine anonymously (or one day you'll get arrested) and
b) a protocol favoring decentralization (meaning you can have temporarily more centralization like these days, but as long as these more centr. miners behave well and follow the rules, it isn't an issue, and when they start behaving bad, things can get better again [1]).
That is why privacy + decentralization-focused bitcoin-software development is so important
2) The second reason is technically correct, but a bit far fetched I have to admit (!), but read to the end:
- You can become a miner. Ok, you would need to buy an ASIC or better a few, but with that you finally might get lucky and mine your block with those transactions.
- But then again communities could get together and mine together. Like a small town (somewhere hypothetically where some plant grows and producing healthy drugs that are forbidden by law but helping some people who want to pay for that) and thus getting connected to a world wide financial infrastructure to participate in world wide commerce. Or countless other communities are imaginable. It just needs imagination, human creativity and time to develop those scenarios.
[1] Example where it has already happened:
- Bitcoin had moments where one miner got or got near 51% POW, and miners did switch mininig-pools to stop that.
- possibly segwit2x (not entirely sure). Although Segwit2x was circumvented by a user activated softfork, an agreement of a big part of miners wanted to change the rules, but couldn't pull it of
edit 1: formatting
edit 2: some clarifications
- zxcmx 6y agoAlso in practical terms how exactly would you censor "sci-hub" if you wanted to? They could generate a new address for each transaction and amounts could vary.
- nfin 6y agoMaybe a government could require law abiding / non anonymous miners to not mine transactions with destination addresses that are on a live-updated list. They could get those addresses the same way you would get that address. If new addresses are not only newly generated after every transaction but are user specific & encrypted, then I guess you would need a decentralized web, or governments could use gag orders to force hosting providers to let them spy into these servers [1] So I guess it is easier for them to get behind addresses of services that service diverse or bigger amount of customers. One solution mentioned by an above commenter are stealth addresses [1] At least since PRISM ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) ) this should not sound totally inconceivable anymore
- zxcmx 6y agoRe: the servers, if you had access to their hosting then I think you wouldn't need to block their payments, you would just take them offline. But I just took a look and it seems like they've been using the same static bitcoin addres since Feb 2020. So yeah. I guess it's not a thing they're hugely worried about.
- nfin 6y agoyes you are right