This is the reason why bitcoin is built around proof of energy.
It enables the market to compete with the censor by mobilizing hashpower with fees.
Discussion
It’s a great video, but it has certain assumptions that take too many shortcuts. If it's with the assumption that thanks to ordinals and their high fees, it prevents gov’ts, well that’s only because high fees prevent easy market entry points, which prevents users - and if no users, no gov’ts. Another assumption was that people are in power to decide whether to receive it or not, and if they chose not to receive it, then the other parties have to do better - which is great theoretically. But in reality, this led to creators building tokens and shitcoins out of bitcoins as a representation of bitcoin to reduce the fees from the aftermath of the previous problems and became their own small little banks defying the overall bankless goal. The moment we start complicating the simple things, it gets messy and it compounds.
It's an explanation of Bitcoin's fundamental security model from first principles.
There's nothing in there about ordinals (it's from nearly 5 years ago).
you can replace ordinals with any terms, cause and effect that induces the rise of fees and its the same thing - it makes market entry points for the people difficult
Sure, the only way to get a transaction into a block today is to pay more than the censor. When central banks attack bitcoin the fees will be multiple orders of magnitude higher than when it's the money jpeg crew.
It's tough when the state and elites both leeches off people. I think the goal of bitcoin is to spread the operation far and wide to overcome a single point of attack, instead of pursuing who has bigger balls to jack up the fees - ego wars never benefited mankind.
But I appreciate you and and I appreciate your perspective and thoughts, it's always a pleasure speaking to people who widen my perspectives. I think the more we can speak about the challenges in the real world, the closer we would get to finding solutions.
On a diff note, you might enjoy the exchanges Martti had with Satoshi, I think it's on his note here. For some reason, Satoshi was under the assumption Moore’s Law would kick in at full force to overcome the hash power needs. You and I probably built on the micro and millimeter range, but nanotech has been around for over 30 years so it's really great that Block picked it up in building the mining machines based on it. I don’t know how much it can decentralize the mining operation but that’s one solution to look forward to.
I think if we spread the operations and user adoption far and wide in terms of Bitcoin as money, and speed up entry points for the people before the gov’t catches up, we would derisk a lot of problems. But I might also be on the hopeful end of things.
The risk of running a node is spread across all users of the network as you describe, this how networks like gnutella etc operate, which was the inspiration for Bitcoin's p2p data dissemination model.
That layer does *not* (and cannot) provide any mitigation against denial of service attacks against the mechanism that solves the double spending problem (transaction ordering).
That's the problem that proof of work (and the fees to mobilize it) solves. This isn't new information that I'm making up, it's been discussed since 2008.