Ways To Say “Censorship Resistant”

Inspired by https://twitter.com/DataFinnovation/status/1490315605618335744

This is an attempt to partially formalise that discussion a bit.

Say we have a public blockchain with n nodes where each node’s power is p_i and sum p_i = 1.0. We also assume the blockchain is designed such that outgoing transfers require the owner’s private key and that public key encryption works (i.e. the system reliably implements private ownership).

The power of a given set of nodes P(S) = P(S_0) + P(S_1) + … We just add up the power of every node in the set.

We call the consensus threshold for a given blockchain t. For Bitcoin, and many other chains, this is 50%. We can measure the decentralisation of a network by finding the size of the smallest set S such that P(S) > T. Call the size of the smallest such set |S|= K. This is closely related to the Nakamoto Coefficient.

A network is “censorship resistant” if K >> 1.

Now what does “autonomous ownership” mean? We assert it means a system exhibits two properties. First, consent is required for all outgoing transfers (ownership). And second that parties cannot stop other parties consensual outgoing transfers (autonomy).

This is equivalent to a system a) conveying robust ownership rights and b) not allowing any party (or small group of parties) to block transfers.

We can also consider a system which expresses “self-sovereignty” or similar. What does that mean? It means a) nobody can take you property away and b) you can transfer your property wherever you want.

Each definition is purposefully written with slightly different words. It is immediately apparent we can simply require a) ownership as above and b) K>>1 for all of them.

These three terms mean the same thing so long as we are operating in a public, decentralised, permissionless system with a robust ownership structure. It is equally clear we cannot have sensible definitions for these terms absent a publicly-visible system with a) no central authority b) no permissions and c) something like public-key cryptography securing ownership. For example: it makes no sense to talk about “autonomous ownership” on a permissioned or centralised system or one which does not even secure your own property.

There are probably more terms which also mean the same thing. Real formalisation of this framework is forthcoming (or at least not published yet).