Of course the weapon of a mod is censorship. Today was the day that the mods at /r/bitcoin threw their weapons.
Moderation is not censorship. Can't you win the argument based on facts and logic, without resorting to cheap self-pitying melodrama?
Reddit and bitcointalk are not public places where free speech applies.
I'd love to send you delicate snowflakes to
a place with real censorship and watch you beg to be allowed to return to theymos' "epitome of authoritarianism."
You have a point somewhat but it is also fair to say that harping on the admittedly imprecise use of the word censorship isn't the point. When people make the censorship objection, you can reasonably interpret their concern as being over the subreddit
banning or even
over-aggressively moderating the topic. Either way the substance is the same.
Anyway, I noticed something interesting today. If you read the white paper.
1. There is nothing about block size. According to the white paper, any block (with no reference to size) is valid if the contained transactions are valid.
2.
The determination of validity is made by miners, expressed by mining on top of it.
As a corollary of #2, users who see a longest chain they believe to be invalid should simply be fixing/upgrading their software, not claiming that miners are misbehaving.
While perhaps a "good idea", the concept of a
longest valid chain as distinct from the
longest chain is not part of the design.
Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely, but it seems to me the small block side has skipped a step in their argument.