It'd probably be more accurate to say permission minimized in any case.
The difference between the words that I feel is mostly a matter which part of the information lifecycle is being discussed. Permission minimization feels more relevant when information is broadcast or released and censorship resistant feels more relevant when we discuss information's durability.
In the context of bitcoin, there isn't much difference. Censorship and the opportunity to deny permission happen at the same time. In other systems, like nostr, it's permissionless to make a note and permission minimal in aggregate to request a note be stored on many relays, but their censorship resistance likely degrades some with time.
Here's an example: if I want to spend some coins that have been through a mixer and the state of mining is such that I have a hard time getting my transaction mined, would that mean Bitcoin has become permissioned or censored?
(Censorship resistant is a horribly clunky term for which I'd love to have an alternative, but permission minimized might be even worse...no matter how accurate it is.)
reply
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 7 Sep
For bitcoin, I think they're synonymous. So perhaps use permission(ed|less) with regard to bitcoin.
reply
Both terms are also connected in my mind to peer-to-peer but in the sense of a network where there are only peers.
What I want out of any of these terms is the ability to describe this wonderful thing that is the exchange of value directly between two entities, where all participants are on an equal footing and there is no authority who is in charge.
So permissionless is good because it implies no one can stop you from becoming one of these sovereign peers.
Censorship resistant is good because it implies no other peer can stop you from following the protocol.
P2P is nice because it implies there is no hierarchy.
It really is like we dont have an adequate word for this quality.
reply