Anita Posch's post warns that large Bitcoin accumulators, like institutions and governments, could impose censorship on transactions, posing a significant risk to Bitcoin's decentralized nature.
Mining centralization is a more direct threat of censorship. If only miners censor transactions, it would be temporary, ending once miners decide to prioritize transaction fees again.
If economic nodes enforce censorship as protocol rules, it could lead to a soft fork. This scenario risks a hard fork, splitting the blockchain between those enforcing censorship and those who do not.
While there is concern about big holders of Bitcoin influencing consensus rules, it's not clear that they would gamble on a censorship fork, as enforcement could alienate users.
Collection
[
|
...
]