Quote from: monsterer on January 21, 2016, 08:26:13 AM

However, I see a problem: why can't the majority PoW simply create a majority of providers as well, and therefore gain a greater than 50% chance that users will miss information about censorship?

I would need to explain the last remaining secret about my design in order for the following to make complete sense, which then I might as well just quit implementing it because I would potentially lose the lead on being first to implement it.

I attempted to explain in my prior post on this topic in reply to enet, that users can't be objective about censorship of other user's transactions (per the discussion you and I had upthread), but each user (payer) can be objective about the provider which is censoring their own transaction. And since they all move away from that provider to avoid the censorship, then it has the net effect of taking PoW hashrate away from that provider. Sounds almost like a pool but as I said there are some important differences which I will hold secret for the time being. Also if that provider is refusing to interopt with other providers, this can be objectively observe and users might en mass move away from that provider based on a community alert (e.g. in a forum).

You are correct that the users with their PoW elect the providers, which in that respect is similar to a pool. But there are very significant differences and one of which is that users aren't being paid for their PoW shares and the providers aren't being paid by the PoW. That statement doesn't reveal the other secrets.