The community seems to be split about this issue. Some people view it as a negative sign that bitcoin is failing in its original promise of being a censorship resistant payment method,
Is bitcoin really not keeping its promise? It's still censorship-resistant. The only reason it's not being used in darknet markets is because it's not completely anonymous, just pseudonymous. There are ways to increase privacy on the blockchain, but they're not as great as having built-in anonymity. Lightning could help bring back some of that business as it grows, but setting up and managing channels is a bit trickier than just sending money to addresses.
Is bitcoin really not keeping its promise? It's still censorship-resistant. The only reason it's not being used in darknet markets is because it's not completely anonymous, just pseudonymous.
Well the question is always two which degree censorship resistance is possible without privacy. It can be possible to a degree, but if e.g. a powerful enough government puts you on a sanction lists it could be quite hard to pay anywhere with your coins.
reply