The primary censorship tactic used today is to single out one actor, then pile so much cost on them that they buckle. In other words, the mechanism used against ostensibly free speech is to increase the cost of speech.
But this tactic doesn’t work against a sufficiently decentralized blockchain. The cost of censoring or reversing a single transaction now soars into the billions, and is technically hard to boot.
A fickle mob wants only to impose costs, not bear them. They won’t pay to censor.
A fickle mob wants only to impose costs, not bear them. They won’t pay to censor.
This is why moving functionality on-chain changes the game, and why our first priority to protect civil liberties must be technological decentralization.
From the slippery slope to the crypto cliff.
From the slippery slope to the crypto cliff.
We move from the slippery slope to the crypto cliff, from a scenario where an individual's rights can be silently abrogated in isolation to one where the would-be censor must compromise a blockchain — and thus harm hundreds of millions of holders — to censor just one person.
If all you need to censor someone is to “crowdfund” enough downvotes, that’s relatively easy. Angry clicks cost $0.
But if the mob must *spend* something to effect a cancellation, by attacking an offending chain, even $1 per head can be too expensive.
They don’t *really* care.
But if the mob must *spend* something to effect a cancellation, by attacking an offending chain, even $1 per head can be too expensive.
They don’t *really* care.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
