Censorship of transactions in the Bitcoin network leads to a long-term decrease in profitability, making the network vulnerable to competition. The argument is based on the following considerations:

1. Economic Incentive and Profitability:
   - Miners are financially motivated to include transactions with the highest fees in their blocks.
   - By censoring certain transactions (e.g., images or data classified as spam), miners forgo potential profit by not including the highest-paying transactions.
   - In the long run, this practice reduces miners' revenue, and consequently, the funds available for investment in hardware and network security.

2. Competition and Network Effect:
   - An alternative network that does not engage in censorship and accepts all transactions could fill this gap, thereby generating more transaction fees.
   - This network could grow faster due to being more profitable and having more resources for development and infrastructure.
   - Even if, initially, the majority of users (e.g., 90%) support the censoring network, the uncensored network could gain significance over time as it becomes more economically attractive.

3. Long-term Consequences:
   - If the uncensored network gains enough market share, it could eventually overtake the original Bitcoin network.
   - To maintain its dominance, the Bitcoin network must remain the most efficient and economically attractive network. This means maximizing the incentive for miners by not censoring transactions, thus ensuring the highest economic benefit.

In summary, censorship not only contradicts the principles of Bitcoin but could also weaken the network in the long run by making it less profitable and more susceptible to competition. Censorship resistance is therefore a crucial feature that contributes to the long-term stability and dominance of the Bitcoin network.

#bitcoin #fees #centralizing