[fireland]

A hashpower majority is not needed. For the latter, if a single digit percentage of the hashpower decides to enforce the ban, other miners in the network have an economic incentive to join the ban as well.

The reasoning is explained here https://juraj.bednar.io/en/blog-en/2020/11/12/how-could-regu...

In short, if a miner chooses to include banned transactions in its block, it means that block cannot be built off of by fully regulatory compliant miners. Fully compliant miners will be still building off the previous block in the chain. If fully compliant miners win the hash race and mine the next 2 blocks, the original miner's block will not be part of the longest chain, and they will lose all their block reward.

[TearsInTheRain]

Who gets to determine which addresses are "poisoned"? China? The US? I have to imagine the ideologues in the bitcoin community will fight back against that. Also, not being censorable is a big part of bitcoin's value prop so this type of regulation would likely crash the price as well.

[ajkdhcb2]

If different countries had different ban lists then it would still censor the BTC that are included in enough lists

As BTC continues to grow, the 'bitcoin community' changes in character; it's already fallen far from the cypherpunk anti-censorship / privacy roots