My views on censorship resistance in the face of scaling:

1) I expect if I'm not careful about preserving my privacy with the way I use Bitcoin, then I will always run the risk of being censored by miners.  This means connecting to the network anonymously, not reusing addresses, and perhaps even mixing my coins.  The onus is on me here to avoid censorship, but I'm optimistic that this privacy preservation can be made pretty automatic.

2) I expect anonymity systems to scale to accommodate Bitcoin full nodes, not Bitcoin to stay small to avoid putting pressure on anonymity systems to scale.

3) If 2 is too tall an order, then mining in a pool is always an option.  There should always be some countries in the world free enough to allow mining pools to operate, and miners in countries that ban Bitcoin can simply connect to these anonymously.  If not, then Bitcoin is toast anyway, is it not?  If these miners are really interested in avoiding censoring transactions, then they will do their due diligence and choose a pool that doesn't do this.  But even if they don't, censorship can be personally avoided by following 1.

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
As an aside, there's a paper coming out in perhaps a few months that
describes a new way to provide Chaum-style privacy integrated with
Bitcoin, but without the use of blinding and without any need for
banks. It's quite smart, I was reviewing the paper this week.
Unfortunately the technique is too slow and too complicated to
actually integrate, but you'd probably get a kick out of it. It's
based on zero knowledge proofs. You can talk to Ian Miers if you like,
perhaps he'll send you a copy for review.

Back on topic.

This idea is not new. I proposed the idea of regulating miners to
freeze certain outputs two years ago:

   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=printpage;topic=5979.0

I concluded that it was not a real risk because both mining and
transactions can be done anonymously.

Your argument rests on the assumption that you can't mine large blocks
anonymously because Tor doesn't scale. Even if we go along with the
idea that Tor is the only way to escape regulation (it's not), you
should maybe take up its inability to move data sufficiently fast with
the developers. Given that they routinely push two gigabits/second
today, with an entirely volunteer run network, I think they'll be
surprised to learn that their project is doomed to never be usable by
miners.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester
Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the
endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to
tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development