You can't be both anti censorship and pro soft fork
Soft forks *are* censorship
For example, if you soft fork in CTV via modifying the behavior of an OP_SUCCESS opcode (as I'd like to do) you necessarily censor transactions that try to use OP_SUCCESS the old way
Wrong.
Do you think that anti-murder *is* censorship?
No because murder is not text
Censorship is when you stop text (e.g. a transaction) from appearing somewhere (e.g. on your copy of the blockchain)
By your definition, not only #Bitcoin but also all protocols is censorship.
IMO,
A softfork is a consensus. We MUST/CAN have a deep discussion to make a decision. It is not a censorship.
> By your definition, not only #Bitcoin but also all protocols is censorship.
Yes, unironically. If they don't kick out (i.e. censor) those who don't follow the protocol, then they are not a protocol. Protocols imply rules, and rules imply consequences. If you don't follow the protocol's rules, your message is excluded from the people who are listening via those rules.
> A softfork is a consensus. We MUST/CAN have a deep discussion to make a decision. It is not a censorship.
I am glad you did not say "it's never censorship if there's consensus on what to censor." Because sometimes a group attains consensus that it should censor one of its members, and very often that's a bad thing.
I'm not saying majority rules. What I am saying is close to "What is #Bitcoin". For me, #Bitcoin is an invention which is invented by a lot of people. It implies that #Bitcoin has intention/purpose/what should be. We all MUST/CAN contemplate it.
BTW, I often see people treat #Bitcoin as the physical/natural law like gravity or value neutral. So they accept non-financial transactions like ordinals, because they think nobody can counteract the gravity.
However, #Bitcoin is an invention. For me, the public storage or the world computer are what should not be. So, pro-filtering or pro-softfork to make #Bitcoin are not censorship to me.
Soft forks are more dangerous than HFs imo.
I disagree - you could just as easily argue that by NOT soft forking to CTV, you are censoring my CTV transactions that I want to publish.
The difference between soft forking and censoring is similar to plugging your ears in an auditorium vs forcibly silencing the speaker. One is voluntary and peaceful, the other is violent and prevents others from listening.
> you could just as easily argue that by NOT soft forking to CTV, you are censoring my CTV transactions that I want to publish.
I agree and I do make that argument
> One is voluntary and peaceful, the other is violent and prevents others from listening
IMO there is such a thing as peaceful, nonviolent censorship. E.g. when a university disinvites a conservative speaker who planned to say anti-woke things, that's definitely censorship, but it's not necessarily violent.
BIP 119 says it changes OP_NOP4, why modify OP_SUCCESS instead?
I just forgot how it works
It's like changing the meaning of a word in a dictionary. Some might use the old dictionary still, but if the majority are using the newest edition, then they won't understand the meaning of those who are using the word in the old sense. Maybe that's censorship. George Orwell seemed to imply it was.
