2026-01-08 23:23:52

Many people treat Web3's "censorship resistance" as a shield, but I have to be honest—there's a lot of complexity here.

Walrus, although it achieves data immutability at the protocol level, sounds very robust, the problem is: the servers running these storage nodes are in the real world. This means they are subject to local laws, and node operators are real individuals who need to be responsible for their actions.

Looking at it from another perspective, if the content I upload involves serious contraband, the node operators can, to protect themselves, block specific data slices at the local layer. In this way, although your data is theoretically "still on the chain," it is practically inaccessible and unrecoverable. In simple terms, the data is softly frozen.

Therefore, I never consider Walrus to be a lawless zone. Its censorship resistance is more about countering centralized censorship on internet platforms (like arbitrary content removal), but it definitely does not justify defying legal boundaries.

Understanding this physical boundary is essential to truly grasp where the limits of Web3's capabilities lie, and to avoid pitfalls caused by misunderstandings.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ser_ngmi

· 01-11 22:34

Haha, finally someone said it. These "anti-censorship" influencers really need to settle down. It's basically the contradiction between physical reality and on-chain ideals—nothing mysterious about it. Nodes must obey the law in the real world, and once the soft freeze trick is used, it's all over. The promised land outside the law still ends up with everyone kneeling.

View OriginalReply0

MaticHoleFiller

· 01-11 21:26

Haha, finally someone dares to break through this barrier. I've been wanting to say this for a long time. Nodes in the real world are doomed to fall under the law's reach. Any talk of anti-censorship is just empty words. The term "soft freeze" is brilliant; it sounds fancy, but in reality, it's just another way of being controlled.

View OriginalReply0

MetaEggplant

· 01-11 15:11

Haha, there's nothing wrong with that. I was really fooled by those slogans of "complete decentralization" before. Nodes operating in the real world have to follow rules; no one can escape that. Web3 is indeed impressive, but don't treat it like a magic wand. True censorship resistance is about dealing with platform content removal, not allowing you to do illegal activities casually. The shackles of the physical world are still there; no matter how much you run on the chain, you can't jump out of them.

View OriginalReply0

BottomMisser

· 01-09 07:59

The term "soft freeze" is brilliant, perfectly illustrating how those who fantasize about a land outside the law deceive themselves.

View OriginalReply0

0xSherlock

· 01-08 23:52

Wow, finally someone dares to tell the truth. Those who boast about being "invincible against censorship" should really read this article. Data is still on the chain but nodes are frozen? That's indeed a soft kill; I hadn't thought it through before. There is no exemption at the protocol layer in front of the law; this phrase must be engraved in your mind.

View OriginalReply0

CountdownToBroke

· 01-08 23:50

Being thorough, I just dislike those who hype Web3 as all-powerful.

View OriginalReply0

ser_we_are_early

· 01-08 23:45

Ha, finally someone dares to say this. Too many people are bragging about being invincible against censorship, but in fact, they are just fooling themselves. I find the term "soft freeze" very poignant. The data on the chain theoretically always exists, but as soon as node operators turn around, they block you, and there's nothing you can do about it. To put it plainly, the physical world still wins. Honestly, this is the awkward part of Web3: wanting freedom but unable to escape the grasp of the law. Recognizing this actually makes us cherish what we can truly do even more.

View OriginalReply0

SatsStacking

· 01-08 23:45

Ha, honestly, that's why I never believe in "on-chain freedom." Looking at it this way, Walrus isn't that magical after all; in the end, it still depends on whether the node operators dare to take the risk. Wait, so what exactly makes decentralized storage better than traditional cloud storage? "Protocol layer cannot delete" ≠ "Cannot block in reality." I need to ponder this logic. Soft freezing—amazing. The term is brilliantly used. Ultimately, you can't escape the laws of the physical world; disillusionment is inevitable. Wow, so the real use of anti-censorship is to deal with platform content removal, not some universal key.

View OriginalReply0

QuietlyStaking

· 01-08 23:33

Hmm... That makes sense. Those who hype Web3 as invincible haven't really thought it through. Node operators also need to make a living and can be afraid of trouble. Ultimately, they still have to bow to reality. Data on the chain ≠ data truly being secure. The logic here is way off. It's somewhat effective against violent content removal by centralized platforms, but don't think of using it for anything beyond legal boundaries. The most realistic physical constraints are always there; you can't hide from them.

View OriginalReply0