> analogy is off
That's precisely what I was claiming, not more, not less. In your own home, you get to set the rules, either as the patriarch, or as a family, and guests have to abide by those rules, or get kicked out for trespassing. That attitude doesn't work somewhere that everyone owns and no one is a guest. If a significant and influential group wants to encourage some standards, despite not being able to enforce them, that's one thing; another is if everyone is willing to enforce a new set of rules. But working out whether those things will do any good means looking into the technical details.
The problem isn't confined to a small group being able to veto, it also applies to a large majority being able to veto: if most petiole in the US or Canada don't mind you being debanked for being (legally) involved with drugs, porn, guns, or opposition politics, that shouldn't be enough to prevent you from using bitcoin. Likewise if 59000 node operators decide they dislike you or your activities.
The exact same mechanisms that allow unpopular citizens, activists or revolutionaries to use bitcoin are also deployable by the people you dislike when they want to use bitcoin in ways you dislike.
aj /
npub1ce…ketlq
2025-05-19 08:39:00
in reply to nevent1q…9c2x
Author Public Key
npub1cev2qfuqv5s9jm5a6yvhc8ne8cdl9mh459m5g8zz759s7pw9fayqnketlqSeen on
wss://relay.damus.ioPublished at
2025-05-19 08:39:00Event JSON
{
"id": "9c384d716a18df99e128080e8382118db1286562ff0dbe4748184e296adb3ddc",
"pubkey": "c658a027806520596e9dd1197c1e793e1bf2eef5a177441c42f50b0f05c54f48",
"created_at": 1747643940,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"870fc6cb1cc8300df43e5ae0dd94a46743917a0b09e5a3b1ba69a3d5ac61e67a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"acfb7a6c6c5c4b45324d8fb5dde2afa0486e24df2792339198fddae50d287b09"
],
[
"e",
"8fd4dce6835c2bfb32f71bd5c7df47e7dd411c24ae03c8ab5219da3849de6ca5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7b3f7803750746f455413a221f80965eecb69ef308f2ead1da89cc2c8912e968"
],
[
"p",
"c658a027806520596e9dd1197c1e793e1bf2eef5a177441c42f50b0f05c54f48"
]
],
"content": "\u003e analogy is off\n\nThat's precisely what I was claiming, not more, not less. In your own home, you get to set the rules, either as the patriarch, or as a family, and guests have to abide by those rules, or get kicked out for trespassing. That attitude doesn't work somewhere that everyone owns and no one is a guest. If a significant and influential group wants to encourage some standards, despite not being able to enforce them, that's one thing; another is if everyone is willing to enforce a new set of rules. But working out whether those things will do any good means looking into the technical details.\n\nThe problem isn't confined to a small group being able to veto, it also applies to a large majority being able to veto: if most petiole in the US or Canada don't mind you being debanked for being (legally) involved with drugs, porn, guns, or opposition politics, that shouldn't be enough to prevent you from using bitcoin. Likewise if 59000 node operators decide they dislike you or your activities.\n\nThe exact same mechanisms that allow unpopular citizens, activists or revolutionaries to use bitcoin are also deployable by the people you dislike when they want to use bitcoin in ways you dislike.",
"sig": "1d299a0b761fc82d30f1317e6500845b4080460fc2b1b45c0728e1e68ada587f1225ffd44a47f0c994992297b4b51a5e704833457e630f47402c4286689eb0ca"
}