Mike on Nostr: Correct, it is not censorable because the transactions are encrypted and therefore ...
Correct, it is not censorable because the transactions are encrypted and therefore obfuscated.
If they were not encrypted Tether Inc would be able to identify which wallet addresses contained their coins and may then be able to lock those wallets.
Censorable is too generic a word, we need to define the meaning.
By lock we mean that the funds are no longer movable.
In the case of ERC20 tokens this could mean burning the token or simply putting a script (contract) on top of the ledger entry that makes it null and void (like a master key).
For the new Bitcoin Tether tokens, these mechanisms may or may not be available. I suspect Tether would not give up the ability to censor (lock or burn) their own coins.
But as we know Bitcoin UTXOs are uncensorable, so I would guess that the ordinal would still be able to be spent, but that perhaps the USDT would no longer be inscribed on it, or that the USDT token would not move to the new key.
These are my early guesses, but they are all speculations I would prefer not to make.
Instead, I would prefer to accept that at this stage we do not know.
Knowing that we do not know means that we don't have to make assumptions and that we can research and find out.
This, for me at least, is a better method of understanding.
If they were not encrypted Tether Inc would be able to identify which wallet addresses contained their coins and may then be able to lock those wallets.
Censorable is too generic a word, we need to define the meaning.
By lock we mean that the funds are no longer movable.
In the case of ERC20 tokens this could mean burning the token or simply putting a script (contract) on top of the ledger entry that makes it null and void (like a master key).
For the new Bitcoin Tether tokens, these mechanisms may or may not be available. I suspect Tether would not give up the ability to censor (lock or burn) their own coins.
But as we know Bitcoin UTXOs are uncensorable, so I would guess that the ordinal would still be able to be spent, but that perhaps the USDT would no longer be inscribed on it, or that the USDT token would not move to the new key.
These are my early guesses, but they are all speculations I would prefer not to make.
Instead, I would prefer to accept that at this stage we do not know.
Knowing that we do not know means that we don't have to make assumptions and that we can research and find out.
This, for me at least, is a better method of understanding.