Yes, I expect major pools to drift toward OFAC/blacklist templates (or "risk-graded" inclusion policies) unless the miner–pool protocol surface changes (Stratum V2 with job negotiation/Ocean's DATUM + non-custodial pooling) and enough hashrate actually uses it. Security against reorgs/51% still scales with hashrate. So hashrate increases are not completely irrelevant. But censorship-resistance does not scale with hashrate if template control remains centralized. So marginal hashrate under the same pool topology is mostly irrelevant for freedom. Marginal hashrate under miner-templating topology is highly relevant. What I expect (base case path) - Soft censorship becomes normal: not outright bans, but risk-weighted delays and fee penalties. - Pools posture "we follow law", insurers and utilities quietly codify it; most retail never notices — TXs just "feel slower unless you KYC". - Effective Free Hashrate (EFH) stagnates unless miner-templating spreads; raw hashrate hits ATHs; headlines say "record security", while settlement becomes more steerable. - Result: BTC functions as supervised SoV with compliant MoE corridors; non-compliant MoE becomes niche/expensive. So the real metric you care about is Effective Free Hashrate (EFH). EFH ≈ total hashrate × share using miner-controlled template selection (Stratum V2 job negotiation ON/Ocean's DATUM, or non-custodial pools) × (1 − censorship correlation across pools). If Effective Free Hashrate (EFH) isn't rising, censorship cost isn't rising, no matter what the difficulty says. TL;DR With today's pool topology and perimeter levers, large pools are likely to adopt OFAC/blacklist-style templates (explicitly or implicitly). Without miner-level template control becoming mainstream, more hashrate mostly strengthens the appearance of security, not the censorship-resistance Bitcoiners actually care about. View quoted note →