I have already stated upthread that my hope would be to only engage you on a decentralized forum wherein I could "edit your posts" for brevity and "delete" your insolent posts when they are accusing me of being deluded
Visibly your "insolence meter" is asymmetrically calibrated. This is probably one of the reasons why you end up banned from online social interaction here, which, from an intellectual point of view, can be regrettable, but which, on the side of politeness, is understandable.
As I explained, these moderation actions would only appear for those who had chosen to have their forum client software follow me as a moderator. All your posts would remain fully intact on the blockchain, and any reader could view them if they want to. So in no way would I propose a system wherein I could censor you, yet if I am a popular moderator, I can influence you to structure your discussion to be more concise and to avoid adversarial ad hominem allegations that can't be falsified.
Such a rudimentary system existed in the 1990-ies as I said before: it was called usenet, and had a simple, decentralized protocol: NNTP. Nobody ever bothered writing a filter script on top of it, but that is something that could be done with not too much hassle. usenet died because it crumbled under gigabytes of daily spam ; but what is spam for one, is interesting for another one. I used to hang around in the sci.physics section, where every lunatic was exposing his rants about his theories of the universe, making normal talk about normal physics essentially impossible. That's how sci.physics.research was born, with moderation. Now, of course, to most of us, those lunatic "original thinkers" were spammers writing every thread full of bullshit, but for a limited audience, they were of course visionaries that exposed the conspiracy and idiocy of academia. So who's to decide ? Of course you could add blacklists. Yes, you could even distribute black lists. But it was a pain.
On the other hand, if you want to vent your own opinions, the internet allows you to have your personal blog where you are master. Nobody stops you from citing other blogs, picking out what you like, and comment it. If you are a popular blogger, people will read your stuff.
However, attracting attention to your blog is much more work that profiting from the attraction of an existing centralized forum. I guess that's why you are here - that's why I am here: both of us want the easiness of picking in on the existing success and social gathering of this forum, instead of going through the difficulty of trying to build such a community from scratch, with all chances of it failing. I want to have people answering my stuff, so that I can learn from it, and I have my own method of provoking answers, which is not necessarily adversarial to the system I'm (ab)using.
The price to pay to profit from some other entities' popularity, is to accept their power and rules. BTW, this is why many decentralized systems are doomed: people, in general, are willing to pay a price of power, to get easiness back from it. Usenet was a precursor of decentralized discussion. People prefer, by large, centralized versions of it. If you want to have decentralized discussion, restart usenet, and add a "Joe's moderation preferences" script to it, with a moderated group mod.prefs.joe, which contains the encodings of his daily moderation preferences ; or Joe can also put his moderation preferences on his web site. Nothing difficult. Nobody will use it. Hell, there were moderated groups on usenet too, the only ones that were actually usable. Everybody could start his own moderated group. Most people didn't.
I've been moderating scientific discussions for a long time, until I really got enough of it. I respect the moderators on a big forum like this: it is an ungrateful job, and it is difficult to keep one's cool sometimes. Of course, sometimes, when things don't happen the way you think is fair, a suspicion of conspiracy against your ideas is easy, because the power structure is opaque. As I've seen the other side for years, and if you see the free investment by people, you know that this is most likely not the case.
This is, BTW, something that crypto is entirely killing: free engagement. Everything that was freely given away, is now subject to accountancy. Your idle computing time that could be used for voluntary projects, is taken away because you can use it to mine some coins ; discussing on a blog becomes an act to be paid for in coins ; when free generosity becomes a matter of accountancy, there's no fun to be had any more. Crypto is killing the last bit of freedom by trying to make everything to be paid for.
You are popular. You can have a popular blog. You can of course copy whatever you want from this forum to comment on your blog. That's exactly what you are proposing. What's the problem ?