►
From YouTube: Status Principles Seminar #03 Censorship Resistance
Description
In the third chapter of this 12 part series, join status' core contributors as they discuss and debate to which degree they uphold the project's principles enumerated here: https://our.status.im/our-principles/
B
C
Great,
so
you
share
my
screen.
Welcome
everyone
to
the
third
session
of
our
principal
Turner.
This
one
is
on
censored
resistance,
I
thought
we'd,
do
things
slightly
differently
here
in
order
to
make
sure
we
get
as
broad
active
participation
as
possible.
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
want
out
of
these
sessions
is
job,
have
an
updated
wall
of
shame
and
thinks
waste
we're
falling
sort
of
censored
resistance,
so
I
thought
I
shared
a
link
to
a
hack
MMD
file
in
in
the
chat
and
I
thought.
C
So
in
terms
of
sort
of
some
tricks
for
how
to
come
up
with
this
one
way,
it'll
think
about
how
sense
of
resistance
interact
with
other
principles
that
we
have
and
also
like
sort
of,
maybe
thinking
more
as
sort
of
an
enemy,
an
adversary.
How
cells
can
be
censored,
see
I
jump
into
the
document
and,
let's
just
stood
up
for
a
few
minutes
and
then
I'll
go
through
the
presentation.
C
C
B
C
It
just
if
it's
not
useful
use
it
good
ideas
that
you
think
of
sense
of
resistance
and
maybe
openness
and
that
maybe
there's
some
interaction
between
them.
That
makes
it
so
that
sensitive
resistance
is
harder
or
easier
or
they're,
so
subtle
in
some
way,
or
maybe
there's
some
impact
on
security
or
privacy
and
these
types
of
things.
So
what.
C
I
just
mean
a
sort
of
way
of
thinking
about
it.
So
so,
if
you
look
at
two
principles
together
like
maybe
they
sort
of
point
to
the
same
types
of
problems
or
solutions,
or
maybe
they
are
in
conflict
with
each
other,
for
example,
or
maybe
yeah
with
sonship
and
liberty,
maybe
that
sort
of
a
connection
that
you
can
make
that's
positive
and
so
on.
But
if
it's
not
how
you
think,
naturally
you
don't
have
to
use
it.
It
was.
D
C
All
right
cool,
so
maybe
I'll,
get
started
with
with
this
talk,
but
I
encourage
everyone
so
because
there's
more
people
we
have
individual
think
about
this
is
a
high
quality
discussion
we
can
have
and
we
can
see
it's
a
common
points
and
so
on.
So,
if
you
think
of
something
what
I'm
talking
or
doing
discussion,
please
fill
in
straight
away
and
that
I
can
be
alright.
C
C
C
So
maybe
it's
nothing
possible
to
censor
someone,
but
it
should
be
kind
of
costly
to
do
so
and
there's
some
examples
of
sort
of
traditional
sonship
that
we've
seen
recently
so
one
is
my
colleagues
had
sort
of
financial
blockade
from
most
sort
of
payment
providers
and
so
on
and
that
forced
them
to
adapt.
Bitcoin
all
them
other
people
are
the
non-for-profits.
C
This
all
sort
of
internet
outages
during
protests
that
Danai
that
sort
of
makes
it
so
people
can't
coordinate
in
a
truck
espera
giveaway
and
then
this
complex
example
from
WeChat
and
Facebook
and
YouTube
and
subreddits
and
yeah.
If
you,
if
you
look,
there's
plenty
of
examples
of
this
going
on
so
the
center's
web,
like
largely
like
this
type
of
sensor,
persistence
is
largely
so
what
web
free
enables-
and
this
is
really
a
huge
competitive
advantage
and
something
that's
unique
about
what
we
work
on
as
on.
C
C
Some
of
you
might
have
been
confused
about
crypt
economic
design
and
that
stayed
in
a
principle
and
what
it
means
is
essentially
that
you
use
cryptography
and
economic
incentives
to
raise
the
cost
of
citizenship.
And
this
mostly
applies
when
it
comes
to
things
like
transactions
in
a
forum.
And
this
is
sort
of
a
big
debate
or
big
question
in
terms
of
how
to
design
it
from
2.0.
C
C
Thinking
a
bit
more
butter
of
decentralisation
in
these
things,
one
one
one
aspect
is
this
idea
of
single
points
of
failure,
and
the
way
single
points
of
failure
is
work.
Is
that
it's
sort
of
a
pressure
point
right?
It's
like
you
just
need
to
poke
a
little
bit,
and
then
everything
falls
from
there,
and
this
is
also
related
to
personal
resistance,
which
is
slightly
different.
Well,
but
Kherson
resistance
is
more
about
poking
at
one
individual
that
has
a
lot
of
power
or
say,
or
so,
and
that
sort
of
disproportionately
influences
what
people
do.
C
C
We
don't
want
to
know
what
what
goes
on
everywhere
instead
of
inside
of
status
miserly
and
it's
not
our
role
to
decide.
This
is
a
battle
of
ideas
and
abiding
by
this
quote.
I
showed
earlier,
and
just
some
support
here
like
in
the
war
between
true
and
false,
like
the
force
loops,
are
being
false
and
not
being
censored
and
there's
also,
this
sort
of
thing
called
as
Streisand
effect,
which
is,
if
you
try
to
suppress
information
and
actually
grows,
and
just
something
that
I
think
be
useful
to
keep
in
mind
and
yeah.
C
B
Think
that
operational
systems
like
Android
iOS
Debian,
may
make
OS
windows.
They
also
pose
a
type
of
single
point
of
failure
and
also
not
a
really
important
that
is
I.
Think
even
more
than
these
operational
systems
are
the
internet
service
providers
that
are
a
great
way
to
to
censorship,
a
whole
network.
So
if
you
try
to
use
state
using
North,
Korea
I'm,
not
sure
if
it
will
actually
work
but
because
I
don't
know
what
how
are
the
role
rules
there
and
how
are
their
firewall
set
up
so
maybe
to
connect
any
IP.
B
D
D
B
That's
the
what's
what
we
are
solving
and
it's
the
first
first
level,
but
we
have
all
these
other
levels
that
are
also
point
of
failure.
So
yeah
we
have
some
solutions
for
that
that
we
will
be
actually
something
like
a
mesh
network
that
computers
directly
connect
by
themselves
instead
of
using
as
a
central
institution
that
is
the
the
central
computer
that
Center
router.
So
you
don't
have
that
anymore.
You
can,
especially
when
you
look
at
big
cities.
You
see
a
lot
of
Wi-Fi
routers,
their
Wi-Fi
signals.
B
Imagine
out
all
those
Wi-Fi
signals
could,
instead
of
being
insulated
being
together,
communicating
themselves
so
I'll
pray
today,
HD
this
router
firmware
could
make
possible
enable
a
mesh
network
with
current
hardware,
depending
on
the
situations,
maybe
some
more
far
away
from
the
city.
You
will
need
like
a
point
in
antenna
to
some
wire,
so
actually
the
problem
from
these
mesh
networks
I
think
it's
not
really
fast.
D
A
I
guess,
like
I,
can
add
on
to
what
me
and
Ned
talked
about
Ned
created
a
discussed
post
about
some
mesh
networking
stuff
and
the
possibility
of
being
able
to
like
on-ramp
people
directly
from
your
phone,
and
then
I
commented
on
that
and
B
and
wanted
to
discuss
threads
and
I.
Think
that's
a
really
cool
potential
thing
to
then
implement,
but
it
has
to
be
done.
A
It
seems,
though,
as
though
at
the
peerconnection
level
I
don't
know
if
Adams
here
or
someone
else
and
the
p2p
team,
but
I
think
that's
where
it
has
to
be
like.
It
also
points
to
something
we
came
up
with
yesterday.
It
was
like
the
status
protocol
versus
status
implementation
and
how
things
are
sex,
segregated
or
segmented.
D
D
A
Now,
in
that
case,
not
being
too
technical,
we
rely
too
much
on
our
own
and
a
lot
of
different
ways
with
that
being,
like
are
the
cluster
that
we
that
we
rerun
relying
on
in
Fuhrer
and
so
like
the
way
we
use
the
internet
and
different
servers
that
that
pass.
The
messages
between
users
is
to
centralize,
which,
when
you
have
something,
that's
too
centralized
like
that.
It's
it's
rot,
first,
insertion
because
that
could
be
stopped
and
that's
either
like.
F
You
have
the
option
to
use
a
different
one,
it's
that
option
and
that
possibility
that
we
need
to
focus
on
building
like
mesh
networks
and
such
are
cool,
but
but
but
even
in
North,
Korea
you're
not
going
to
get
to
mesh
hardware
in
there
or
you
can
penalize
the
people
for
running
them
or
whatever
right,
but
to
the
extent
that
it
is
possible.
Nice
thing
about
these
system
is
that
you
keep
failures.
Local,
instead
of
the
assistant
going
down
completely.
You
still
have
some
sort
of
working
parts.
F
A
B
B
So
we
could
actually
try
to
develop
some
some
way
that
people
could
use
status
to
buy
information
from
like
you
need
an
either
ultralight
client,
as
is
being
taught
I,
think
we
have
a
swarm
for
that,
and
that
would
be
an
option.
So
if
you
have
the
sutra
like
clients,
paying
and
Boop's
for
simply
having
synced
information
in
in
sending
them,
then
it's
it's
a
incentivization
for
running
the
foo
note.
B
D
F
The
other
thing
is
that
you
have
people
that
run
it
for
an
pure
economic
interest
in
like
that,
basically
means
that
we
pay
them
to
distribute
the
application
or
we
pay
them
to
send
messages
or
or
we
pay
them
to
process
our
transactions
right
and
historically,
the
the
enthusiasts
option
has
always
been
there
in
communities.
You
always
have
people
that
help
others
a
little
bit,
but
then
to
get
that
extra
punch
and
that
extra
spread
and
then
that
extra
also
resilience
in
a
certain
way.
F
You
set
up
specialized
nodes
to
do
these
things,
and
in
the
case
of
the
theorem,
you
have
the
miners
that
are
appearing
self-interest
and
we're
in
economic
incentive.
On
top.
In
the
case
of
message
passing,
we
will
incentivize
people
to
run
these
services,
as
Ricardo
saying
and
in
the
case
of
distribution.
I.
Imagine
that
that
that
we
could
distribute
it
through
something
like
swarm.
For
example,
where
people
put
up
their
storage
for
a
profit,
they
don't
really
care
what's
being
distributed,
and
users
get
access
to
it.
D
D
How
are
we
considering
approaching
delivering
features
that
don't
want
that?
The
app
stores
don't
want
to
see?
There's
been
discussion
about
depth
and
an
extension
and
whatever
to
what
degree
can
we
potentially
rely
on?
You
know,
delivering
services
in
that
manner
inside
the
framework
of
our
application.
B
D
B
We
have
a
option
to
use
another
company.
Another
Android,
for
example,
allows
it
and,
as
was
just
said,
we
can
develop
sweet
user
skin,
give
the
new
versions
to
another
users.
I,
don't
know.
If
you
know
there
is
some
really
old
games
that
are
online,
that
the
server
wouldn't
be
able
to
handle
they
applaud
to
where
all
the
users.
So
what
I
did
was
that
it'd
be
a.
G
G
There
was
this
emulator
16
beats
game
consoles
for
iris
and
this
was
disapproved
by
Apple,
but
it
was
distributed
just
why
I
did
have
as
a
side
loading
which
was
I
mean,
of
course.
Here
you
need
to
have
some
either
a
technical
friend
or
like
yourself
to
have
like
a
development
environment.
But
since
right
now,
Apple
doesn't
require
you
to
pay
anything
to
run
something
on
your
own
phone.
Then
it
might
work
like
that.
It's
not
the
best
solution,
but
it's
an
option
right.
It's
I.
F
Thought
but
the
future
is
bright,
I
mean
right
now
what's
happening
in
the
world,
is
it
webassembly,
really
popular
yeah,
what's
happening
in
etherium?
Is
that
let
p2p
starting
to
me
as
an
idea
together?
Those
things
means
that
from
the
weather
you,
whoever
suddenly
after
you,
can
basically
access
the
wide
area,
area,
networks
and
one
of
those
networks.
F
G
G
A
This,
though,
and
I
feel
like
like
as
long
as
I
started,
writing
all
of
the
possible
ways
of
getting
our
app
on
all
the
possible
platform
basis,
we're
doing
it
because
the
people
who
need
it
will
find
a
way
to
get
it.
If
we
have
enough
options
for
them
to
get
it
like.
If
they
could
say
it's
a
brew
since
they
can't
get
on
Apple,
they
want
use
apples.
We
just
make
sure
that
we
can
provide
it
to
Apple
in
the
ways
that
they
allow.
It.
C
C
A
G
G
C
I
guess
more
social
aspects
in
terms
of
moderation,
because
it's
definitely
a
concern,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
do
it
any
kind
of
central
way
that
then
for
this
century,
but
we
still
need
some
kind
of
tools.
How
do
we
balance
that?
And
how
do
we
provide
so
this
of
building
blocks
where
people
in
creating
communities
with
without
having
censorship.
H
C
So
as
if
there's
specific
example
like
like,
we
have
a
Chinese
community
and
they
used
to
be
active
on
WeChat
and
recently
they
moved
upstairs,
which
is
amazing
but
I'm,
not
I.
Don't
fully
understand
context,
but
I
think
some
context
was
that
there
was
a
lot
of
traded
talk
and
so
on,
and
that's
maybe
not
something
you
want
one
sort
of
in
the
default
channel.
By
the
same
time.
That's
definitely
something
we
want
people.
People
should
be
able
to
freely
speak
about
these
things.
C
So
what
does
that
mean
in
terms
of
how
we
showcase
these
channels?
And
these
sets
of
things?
And
if
you
want
to
have
a
moderator
like
how?
How
do
you
make
sure
it's
not
at
one
time
trust
addition,
while
still
having
civil
discourse
and
like
how
do
you
deal
with
that?
I
think
that's
an
interesting
problem
that
we
haven't,
there's
some
some
sort
of
ideas
and
so
on.
But
it's
not
something.
We
talk
a
lot
about,
so
we
talked
a
lot
about
so
far.
I
Earlier
conversations
I
remember
that
some
some
developers
switched
from
looking
at
status
to
develop
something
for
to
using
I,
don't
understand
the
full
context,
but
using
truffle,
because
at
the
time
there
was
more
documentation
for
that.
So
it
could
also
be
that
we
need
to
basically
push
that
a
studio
forward,
a
lot
faster
because
they
I
mean
in
a
lot
of
areas.
It
starts
starts
from
the
developing
side
and
we
may
have
lost
some
developers
on
the
way
just
just
because
of
the
lack
of
documentation
in
the
beginning.
B
G
I
J
Yeah
I
think
the
way
released
censorship
resistance
is,
if
you
think,
about
one
of
within
status
itself.
One
of
the
largest
censorship
vectors
is
in
the
client
side
right.
If
we
only
have
one
implementation
of
a
client
and-
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
you
know
it's
really
sort
of
like
a
unique
thing
that
requires
specialized
knowledge
to
work
on
and
it's
hard
for,
maybe
someone
say
just
fork
and
go
their
own
version
of
it.
J
It
it.
It
creates
possible
censorship,
vectors
on
the
client
side,
even
if,
what's
at
the
protocol
lever
layer,
the
date
is
there,
but
the
client
could
still
censor
it
and
actually
I
don't
know
if
this
is
on
our
Wall
of
shame.
But
this
is
an
example
of
something
that
happened.
It
wasn't
malicious.
It
was
with
good
intentions,
but
what
I
caught
the
first
version
of
the
voting
gap?
J
We
accidentally
created
like
the
same
poll
twice,
so
it
just
looked
bad
in
the
user
interface,
but
we
decided
on
the
client
side
to
basically
just
filter
out
the
first
one
which,
when
you
think
about
it,
is
censorship.
I
mean
it
wasn't
malicious.
It
was
like
it
was
really
just
a
duplicated
entry,
but
you
know
I,
guess
that
that's
an
example
of
something
that
could
potentially
be
done
in
a
malicious
way
going
forward.
J
So
there's
there's
polls
in
like
voting.
We
just
filtered
out
one
poll
that
was
a
duplicate
of
another
poll
like
anyone
can
create
a
poll
and
you
create
them
in
the
smart
contract
and
one
of
the
polls
was
basically
I,
guess
created
twice,
and
so
it
looked.
The
two
polls
description
was
nearly
identical
and
so
every
poll
and
when
you
create
a
new
poll,
it's
just
sequential
there
are
a
unique
IDs.
You
know
1
2,
3,
etc.
J
J
J
A
I'm
just
I'm
just
curious
cuz
like
I.
The
whole
idea
in
my
in
my
opinion
for
censorship
is
I.
Google
had
the
whole
motto
when
they
started
was,
you
know,
don't
be
evil,
but
that
means
that
they
have
the
power
to
be
evil
and
it's
more.
In
order
to
like
keep
ourselves
from
being
able
to
be
censored,
then
you
want
to
move
towards
the
motto
of
kiff
can't
be
evil,
and
so,
like
you
can't
be
censored,
there's
someone
can't
tell
you
to
do
something.
A
If
you
don't
have
the
power
to
do
it
like,
we
can't
give
up
user
data
or
censor
various
users
if
we
don't
hold
their
data.
This
is
the
same
situations
like
that
where,
if
we're,
if
there
is
a
concentration
of
power,
then
that
can
be
manipulated
to
do
some
type
of
censorship.
So
if
we
always
try
and
work
to
not
have
any
power
whatsoever.
A
C
D
D
We
get
to
the
idea
about
actually
our
legal
entity
providing
an
attack
vector
I'm
curious,
how
each
of
you
react
if
all
the
sudden,
the
our
legal
entity
got
shut
down
and
the
ability
to
get
paid
and
fee
up
I've
shut
down.
How
many
people
here
would
be
willing
to
take
their
their
salaries
and
their
payments
and
crypto
and
and.
E
A
I'm
I'm
of
the
opposite
opinion
I,
think
that
I
mean
I
rely
on
that
legal
company
to
pay
myself
in
the
United
States,
because
it
makes
things
a
lot
easier
for
me
to
not
get
audited
by
the
IRS
for
unknown
stupid
reasons.
But
if
it
were
to
shut
down
I'm
I'm
I
I
believe
that
I'm,
a
strong
enough,
an
opinion
to
just
get
paid
in
crypto
I'll
do
what
it
takes
to
keep
working
on
this
but
I'd.
A
E
F
Well,
basically,
what
you
do
is
that
you,
you
compromising
the
interest
of
efficiency
right
as
long
as
it's
fine
is
fine
and
then
what
you
can
do
is
put
in
place.
Structures
that
allow
you
to
keep
operating,
perhaps
less
efficiently,
when,
when
the
hits
the
fan,
and
then
that
would
be
the
general
of
entrance
and
that's
it
like.
D
A
H
D
D
B
Think
that,
maybe
is
they
just
should
start
thinking
about
opening
lots
of
of
these
legal
companies
like
stages
from
their
status
from
years.
Just
for
this,
what
just
solving
this
problem
of
payments
and
stuff
did
just
to
actually
do
the
right
thing,
because
right
now
we
this
entity
legal
entity.
So
if
this
one
is
shut
down,
then
I'll
everyone
will
be
like
have
problems.
B
B
J
Yeah,
that
makes
sense.
We
should
probably
table
that
question
for,
for
that
talk,
but
in
terms
of
being
censorship,
resistant
in
terms
of
disbursement
of
payments
and
just
operations,
I
think
if
you
look
at
the
experiment,
we're
running
now
with
it.
Well,
it's
not
even
so
much
an
experiment
anymore.
It
we
have
a
main
that
version
of
our
multi-sig
wallet
right.
There
are
seven
key
holders.
J
Every
single
person
is
a
citizen
of
a
different
country,
distributed
I
think
were
distributed
among
like
four
continents,
so
I
think
I
think
that's
pretty,
and
it
requires
multiple
signatures
to
execute
a
transaction.
So
even
if
I
mean
it
would
really
take
I
I.
Think
coordination
between
multiple
states
simultaneously
to
to
you
know
do
some
kind,
take
some
kind
of
attack
or
some
kind
of
coordinated
effort
between
multiple
parties
across
multiple
countries
to
to
have
some
kind,
of
course,
of
attack
on
that
multi-sig
wallet.
C
It
would
be
extremely
hockey,
but
but
one
idea
set
if
this
would
happen,
that
force
us
to
to
do
it,
but
put
in
terms
of
doing
it
would
high
availability
and
so
on.
That
would
be
more
challenging.
Absolutely
that's
also
what
Adam
and
some
people
are
working
on
and
we
have
it
in
structure
forest
and
getting
that
node
up
soon
and
then
also
desktop
so
I
think
we're
fairly
close
to
at
least
having
an
emergency
plan,
even
if
it's
not
as
amazing
as
this
right
yeah.
D
G
A
Okay,
I
would
say
that
like
since
then
I
know
that
we're
working
on
it
and
I
am
through
working
on
it,
hard
but
spirit.
Sorry,
dogs,
in
the
same
spirit
that
we
left
slack
and
we're
leaving
slack.
We
should
we
should
probably
once
we
have
the
option
and
I
in
a
clear
guide
to
run
mail
servers
on
our
own.
We
should
kill
the
cluster
as
fast
as
possible,
and
so
that
way
we
even
if
the
experience
may
be
a
bit
lacking
it
will
force
us
to
make
it
better
as
fast
as
possible.
A
In
the
same
way,
desktop
is
getting
better
and
better
and
better
very
quickly.
If,
once
we
have
a
good
route
of
getting
like,
you
know,
MVP
out
and
allow
people
to
run
these
things,
we
should
make
sure
we
get
rid
of
that.
That's
such
a
point
of
failure,
because
I
think
that's
the
most
glaringly
obvious
one.
B
A
D
C
Guys
I
think,
let's
take
a
break
ten
minute
break
or
so,
and
then
we
can
move
on
with
this
security
one.
We
can
definitely
keep
this
conversation
going
and
it
comfo
cannot
objections.
We
still
have
the
hacking
D,
we
can
add
stuff
and
I
guess
if
you
guys
want.
If
people
want
to
start
on
this
with
security,
you
well
shame.
We
can
do
that
as
well
as
a
kind
of
inbox.
Otherwise,
let's
start
again
in
12
minutes,
they
sound
good,
quick,
tuba.