In the realm of cryptocurrencies, particularly Ethereum, censorship resistance is a cornerstone value. The ability to transact on-chain should be universally accessible, with the chain’s rules applying equally to all users and transactions. However, the concept of censorship goes beyond the mere exclusion of transactions; it encompasses a broader spectrum of limitations imposed on users’ goals and aspirations.
Defining Censorship
Censorship is often modeled as the intentional prevention of transactions from appearing in the canonical order, known as transaction exclusion. Orders are deemed fair or neutral when their arrangement is purely based on economic outcomes for the ordering system, and unfair or censored when influenced by non-economic factors. For instance, rejecting a transaction because it was initiated by a specific individual is considered censorship, whereas declining a low-fee transaction is not.
Forced Inclusion Mechanisms
To combat censorship, forced inclusion mechanisms have been developed. These mechanisms, championed by modern rollups such as Optimism and Arbitrum, enable users to ensure their transactions are executed after a certain time delay, irrespective of the sequencer’s actions. Forced inclusion is achieved through contracts deployed on the base layer (L1), theoretically providing the same level of censorship resistance as other Ethereum transactions.
Additionally, an inclusion mechanism for Ethereum has been proposed via EIP-7547. This mechanism would allow block proposals to partially specify the contents of the next block, creating an effective countermeasure to censorship under the assumption that block proposers have less incentive to censor than block builders.
Expanding the Model of Censorship
However, transaction confirmation is merely a means to an end, not the end itself. The current model of censorship is incomplete. Censorship must be redefined in terms of user goals. Users aim to send tokens, purchase NFTs, borrow funds, and more. The ultimate goal is not merely the inclusion of a transaction but the successful achievement of these objectives.
Forced inclusion mechanisms, while effective in ensuring transaction inclusion, do not guarantee the achievement of user goals. They create new constraints on valid orderings, invalidating broad classes of orderings according to protocol rules. This limitation highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach to censorship resistance, one that considers the broader implications of censorship on user objectives and the overall ecosystem.
Conclusion
The hand-off problem presents a critical challenge in the quest for censorship resistance. While forced inclusion mechanisms offer a partial solution, they fall short in addressing the full spectrum of censorship. The focus must shift from mere transaction inclusion to ensuring the fulfillment of user goals. This requires a deeper understanding of the ecosystem, its participants, and the interplay between economic incentives and user objectives. Only by addressing these underlying issues can cryptocurrencies truly achieve their vision of a censorship-resistant, equitable, and universally accessible financial system.
Views: 0