Good point - blockchain also prevents transaction censorship (your proposal prevents double spend but allows the central authority to block transactions)
Central authorities might do wild stuff like block Folks They Don’t Like (certain truck drivers, etc). Some people think that’s really good, others feel the opposite
well... sort of. Naturally, government can regulate and censor the on- and off-ramps [0], exchanges can censor [1a - Coinbase blocking Russian addresses][1b - Coinbase blocking scammer addresses], and developers or "the community", ie other unelected players, can decree a software change if something happens on chain that they don't like [2a - The DAO/ETH/ETC][2b - BTC 0.7/0.8 accidental fork].
If the miners don’t like you what stops them from not including your transactions in the chain?
It is my understanding that if a large enough pool of miners decides they don’t like you (>50%) they can completely prevent your ability to spend money.
> what stops them from not including your transactions in the chain
The only thing that could stop them is being unable to identify what outputs belong to you. Which generally requires a more privacy focussed design than what Bitcoin offers.
Can you expand on this a bit? Which element regarding censorship does Blockchain help prevent?
I ask earnestly as it feels like a forgone conclusion but depending on what you refer to I'm not sure it is.
My initial thought is about freedom of spending and transactions as a concept of the chain but I guess it's not exactly censorship in the most common sense.
In this case, censorship as in blocking/refusing transactions.
Any miner can decide that they won't include your transaction in a block, but as long as any one miner that occasionally mines a block is willing to include your transaction, your transaction will eventually make it onto the blockchain.
A majority of miners (by hashpower) could still decide to censor (orphan) the entire block, but unless a majority of the hashpower is willing to do that, your transaction will stay there.
In practice, I'm not sure this is entirely true. Banks largely don't care who they're dealing with and are glad to sponsor transactions among terrorists and Nazis and what not, just like a blockchain. Governments lean on them by spot checking records and punishing when they can identify transgressions of law. Even with a blockchain, the same governments can tell anyone within the reach of its gun or goons that it is going to punish you if you transact with some forbidden party. Not having a single narrow waist at which they can stop it doesn't mean they can't stop it, just that it got harder. Further, the transaction that is censorship resistant, not censorship proof, is the public mapping of wallet id to coin id. Usually, supplier and purchaser are really interested in the movement of physical goods at some point, not just the transfer of digital coin. Whether that be drugs, slaves, or just food, governments can still find ways to stop delivery of those goods even if an immutable ledger somewhere says the party that currently possesses them is supposed to give them to you.
Central authorities might do wild stuff like block Folks They Don’t Like (certain truck drivers, etc). Some people think that’s really good, others feel the opposite
(edited for clarity)