Blockstream CEO Adam Beck: Bitcoin Cannot Be Censored

The cryptocurrency community has been abuzz with discussions about the nature of Bitcoin's censorship resistance following a comment from Blockstream co-founder Adam Back. The tweet was prompted by the fact that some Bitcoin transactions are difficult to stop. Beck emphasized that this property of the technology has both obvious advantages and disadvantages.

According to him, BTC’s resistance to censorship, seizure and freezing of transactions is a key achievement. He also noted the downside: the same mechanisms do not allow to fight “JPEG spam” and other types of unwanted transactions. Beck added that the system is saved by the block size limit and dynamic commission, which maintain balance and decentralization.

The expert's statement caused a storm of reactions in the community. User MiMo noted that the only radical solution to the spam problem could be privacy coins, and any other approaches would only be temporary measures. Another commentator drew attention to the conflict of interests between miners interested in maximum commissions and node operators seeking to limit the costs of storing the blockchain.

Some participants emphasized that simply increasing the block size is not an option. They said that doing so would risk centralization by allowing influence over the network's rules and censorship of transactions. Others noted that Bitcoin's very neutrality and lack of control was its greatest value, even if it came at a cost.

There have been some criticisms of Beck's position, with some commentators arguing that spam transactions and storing non-financial data on the blockchain actually weaken decentralization. They argue that overloading blocks with such content is detrimental to the network, and that it is wrong to view it as a natural part of the ecosystem.

Source: cryptonews.net