> is censorship resistance through genuine self-custody.

https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/04/05/debunking-bu...

> Ordinary person: “Your weird Internet money sucks to use. It’s slow and expensive. I lost my coins by mistake and it can’t be fixed. If I get hacked it can’t be fixed either.”

> Bitcoin advocate: “But everyone wants [list of ideological aims held only by weird people]! Everyone I know, anyway.”

But in specifics, censorship resistance? I just read that in an article.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sex-workers-crypto-failing-t...

> “You get on an exchange for as long as you can, until they shut your ass down,” says Knox. “You quickly [run out of exchanges], so you sit on a lot of useless money. The whole ‘crypto is permissionless and censorship-resistant’ thing is a bunch of bullshit.”

To be frank, only an extreme minority cares about censorship resistance, especially when it comes in a form of inconvenience. In the last 10 years, we’ve seen again and again even within cryptoheads, the choice of storing their money in a centralized place (Binance, Coinbase, FTX) rather than self-custody.

It’s just people have limited amount of time in a day, and caring that government X can trace their transaction is waste of time. Also, in the last 3 years of lawsuits, we’ve kind of seen how crypto payments are traceable as well if someone really wants to find the source.

Most of what you wrote presumes anonymity.

In long lived immutable digital systems, guess what, that doesn't exist.

Talk to your actual scientist cousins, crypto-graphers.

If we're at the "totalitarian government" stage, "easily readable immutable data source" is EXACTLY what they'd dream of.