You fail to make note of how a blockchain is not in fact immutable and that certain consensus schemes allow for the database to be re-written starting from the point in which 'history' of the chain is re-written, a new chain comes into its place and is, by definition of consensus, the correct chain.
RE: Are Blockchains Really Censorship Resistant?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Are Blockchains Really Censorship Resistant?
Immutability is a matter of replication and not a matter of censorship. Once enough people have a copy any change will be known by all. There is decentralized enforcement of immutability after enough confirmations.
It is control over future transactions that is most vulnerable and centralized.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
ahhhhhhhhh.....rrrrrrrreplicationnnnn...... ahhhhhhhhhh
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
BitLicense?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I would include changing transactions or changing the database after the fact (which also includes rolling back transactions) as a form of censorship.
If consensus allows these types of changes to occur, then some may view it as censorship.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
But not absolute immutablity. There is always some uncertainty. It is not that people have copies, but that the witnesses have copies. As a person whom has a copy that is querying against the chain or making a transaction, I will only care about status of my account and the counter-party account. It does bother me somewhat when I hear of a witness not making a profit from witnessing though.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit