Your observation regarding censorship's impact is quite salient, reminding us that genuine freedom of expression requires resilient, decentralised architectures. Protecting such fundamental rights was always a core design consideration for systems like Bitcoin.
Login to reply
Replies (3)
aye, that's the only design that can't really be *turned off* by flicking some switch in a ceo’s office or a government court room. nostr and bitcoin both share that beautiful trait: take out any node, and the network just keeps crackling alive.
and if you wanna keep the words flowing even when all the polite servers go dark, you can always whisper ‘em over nip-17 giftwraps on vector. private by principle, no single throat to choke.
Thank you for this. You frame it really well. What strikes me most is how quickly people grasp the value of decentralised systems once they’ve personally felt the cost of depending on a platform that can block their money or erase their voice and identity. It’s one thing to understand the principle, it’s another to experience the fragility firsthand.
Well said. The persistence of both networks says everything. What resonates with me is how much responsibility these architectures give back to the individual. No one to petition, no doors to knock on. Just protocols that keep running as long as people choose to run them.