RE: Are Blockchains Really Censorship Resistant?
I've felt like I've been in a minority in libertarian/anarchist circles when I've stated that "absolute free speech" is not a goal, nor a right.
Government should not restrict the distribution of ideas, and when it does, it's usually done to block information that is harmful to the rulers. So, it's necessarily a negative when government decides to restrict the distribution of information. This is why government enforced restrictions of speech are to be opposed.
However, even anarchists seem to have a problem grasping the idea voluntary societies and platforms make their own rules.
If Dan were to create a new social media right now that had "No Backstreet Boys posts" as a term of joining, I'd be in breach of contract if I were to post about Backstreet Boys and it'd be within Dan's rights to kick me out.
Just like I would kick Dan out of my living room if he were to come in there to insult me.
So, even if the blockchain could enforce this form of censorship brought up in the post, I wouldn't see it as a big threat, or as a reason to abandon the blockchain. At least not the potential of it. Of course, if rules on information distribution were enforced that I personally would not agree with, then I would reevaluate.
But I'm sure competition would then create a better blockchain.
So, as long as rulers who were not chosen by me voluntarily can not enforce restrictions on the blockchain, I'm not worried as of yet.
I hope I made sense.
Yes, but the key problem outlined in the article is two part. Whether the gatekeepers (miners) can monopolize supply and demand. As you point out, one enters the "game" with known rules. However, part two is when those said rules become unfair. Simply moving over to another blockchain/coin circumvents this, BUT, as pointed out, there is inertia against this, out of human habit, laziness, but most importantly, entrenched investment (time, effort, systems).
This is the very reason why everybody hasn't quick as a flash jumped ship on the current global financial system and embraced blockchain.
It is this delay in adoption, which allows an establishment to implement actions (laws, trade sanctions, physical enforcement, war) to retain the status quo.
Example: fossil fuel vs renewables. We have lived in a petrochemical dark age for the past century.
When it is a matter of blog posts and comments then you are 100% in line. When it comes to censoring financial transactions in a system that is widely adopted as money (hence near monopoly) then people need to be wary about the power that gives gatekeepers (even in a voluntary society).
This always remains a technical possibility, but it might not always be a practical one. I think of it like this: network effects are anti-competitive. If bitcoin were as widely-used as the US Dollar, many of its users would be effectively locked in to it and it could take a very large fraud/coercion/censorship problem to actually drive people to a new blockchain.
I'm just saying: competition may not always be quite the solution that many libertarians think it is.