There does seem to still be a lot of people talking past each other. There’s a big difference between “this is bad and I don’t support it” and “I don’t think the market will support this”. I’ve seen a lot of arguments to the first but relatively few of the second. Ultimately, the view of quite a few people I’ve spoken to (and myself) is “this is bad but it’s not clear that it’s worse than the alternatives and the market will very likely support this”. Of course “this” is not some premature seizure but rather only freezing coins when it’s very obvious to all involved that anything else will result in theft.

Replies (1)

waxwing's avatar
waxwing 4 months ago
I can't see how "the market will decide" can be the right viewpoint here, though I do obviously see why people take that point of view. The reason I can't stop at that is it has a very obvious reductio ad absurdum: every single day, it is rational for 99% of the userbase to form consensus on deleting the other 1%'s coins. And yet, every day, it does not happen. So the argument cannot be about first-order rational economic incentive, it must be both about second-order thinking (how does such a decision affect bitcoin's *future* value) and plausibility (why is it more ok to delete these coins over here and not those over there). From that second-order thinking point of view, holding to censorship resistance (because it's not bitcoin as we define it if it doesn't have that property) is rational.