[randaouser]

1) OFAC can say what they want, no one is technically barred from sending funds to that account (albeit it may not be in the best interest of the party)

2) Just as a logical proposition is written in law and exploited by persons (Check how often tax laws are updated), unaudited smart contracts will pose a risk. The state of auditing is improving daily

3) This is a disingenuous comparison; in 2018 One ASIC has a mining power of approximately 12 tera-hashes per second. For comparison, in 2013, the total hash rate of the Bitcoin network on April 29, 2013, was 79.02 Th/s.

[hudon]

> OFAC can say what they want, no one is technically barred from sending funds to that account

Are you saying there is a difference between "censorship" and "technical censorship"? You are demonstrating the obfuscation I called out in my post. Suppressing content is suppressing content. If you believe that Bitcoin will allow you to freely send money to OFAC-sanctioned addresses, please prove it by sending a transaction there and providing us with a verified signature. Until then, my point stands.

[berberous]

There are big differences: how easy is it to censor a transaction, who can censor the transaction, on what basis, how far does the censor's power go, etc.

If you rely on VISA/Mastercard, you could be "censored" for any number of arbitrary reasons -- go google the number of legitimate businesses that have had issues using those platforms.

With Bitcoin, sure, a government can use its criminal laws to ban certain transactions, but keep in mind that: (1) they need to use valid legal process, (2) the reach of their laws only go so far, etc.

Also, the OFAC banned addresses were easily tracked since they re-used addresses. Today, best practices dictate a new address for each transaction. You also have Monero, Zcash and others working on further privacy enhancements, as well as wallets like Wasabi that mix Bitcoin transactions.