You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Yes, and I think the Ethereum DAO hardfork (ETH censoring the DAO hacker, ETC choosing not to) highlights that censorship is at its core a concern resolved by ideology & coordination and not technology.
Strong censorship resistance requires both: a strong ideology and a protocol that makes it as hard as possible violate that ideology in particular cases where minds may be changed, like Ulysses tying himself to the mast.
![Giacomo Zucco [I identify as a -e^iπ vampire]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1172971162919415813/Pn8O2gkx_normal.jpg)
I certainly agree that if the coordination problem appears when you *want* to censor (as in ETH's case) and not when you want to avoid it is hugely beneficial. I think Vitalik's writeup about designing coordination problems to act in your favor was good. https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/05/08/coordination_problems.html …
The main contention here (if I'm to speak for XRP) is that it isn't clear which technology is better for that. XRP fans (or atleast @JoelKatz) seems to believe that XRP is less inclined to censorship since it's detectable (you can pinpoint who's doing it).https://gigabitether.net/2018/06/19/censorship-and-censorship-resistance/ …
I'd argue that this is a poor argument for XRP where validators are tied to real world entities, because it is a double-edged sword. If you can pinpoint who is censoring something, you can also pinpoint who isn't censoring something, and coerce them.
Also, detecting censorship isn't unique to XRP, @VitalikButerin did another good piece on how any system with n participating consensus nodes can do it. In my mind the ideal protocol for this is PoS where you have well-defined but pseudonymous validators. https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/08/07/99_fault_tolerant.html …
Last thing I'd add on this topic is optional fees; bribing block producers to include a transaction is essential to censorship resistance, but I haven't been able to find any support for that for XRP transactions (ping @HammerToe @xrpTrump).
And, even if there was such an option, it still wouldn't be nearly as persuasive as in PoW systems, where miners have ongoing costs and survive on the marginal revenue. It will always be free to censor on XRP, while censorship can lead to literal financial ruin in bitcoin.
You mean ‘it will always be free to censor if you can convince 80% of the network to collude with you to censor’. An unlikely event. More unlikely than with PoW.
The collective cost (in time, money, co-ordination & risk) to censor the whole network is prohibitive compared to the ease with which honest validators can stop trusting the censorious ones. You can't censor without the majority wanting censorship. But then its not censorship.
'Ideological' is a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence - that is, social effectivity, the very reproduction of which implies that the individuals 'do not know what they are doing.' Slavov Zizekpic.twitter.com/YO6tvadF9s
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
