Censorship-resistance might allude to a specific property of a cryptocurrency network. This property suggests that any party wishing to execute on the network can do as such as long as they follow the rules of the network protocol.
It could likewise allude to the property of a network that keeps any party from changing transactions on it. At the point when a transaction is added to the blockchain, it's proliferated across large number of hubs and added to the distributed ledger. When the transaction has been added, it's essentially difficult to eliminate or modify it, making it (and the network) immutable.
Censorship-resistance is viewed as one of the principal value suggestions of Bitcoin. The thought is that no country state, corporation, or outsider has the power to control who can execute or store their wealth on the network. Censorship-resistance guarantees that the laws that oversee the network are set in advance and can't be retroactively altered to fit a specific plan.
While traditional financial institutions are in the hands of delegates, the Bitcoin network isn't owned by any single entity. In that capacity, it's essentially difficult to edit transactions on it - conversely, this isn't the case with regards to traditional finance. For instance, in the event that a person is considered a foe of a tyrant state, the ruling government could freeze their account and keep them from moving their funds. While Bitcoin is generally utilized as an instrument for speculation, this utilization case is likely the most fundamental motivation behind why it's a substantial innovation.
Worth noticing editing transactions on the Bitcoin network isn't totally unthinkable, but instead incredibly asset escalated. The security model of Bitcoin intensely depends on majority rule. This means that a single entity would be able, in theory, earn enough hash rate to gain control of the network in a scenario called a 51% attack. The possibilities of this incident are somewhat thin, yet all at once it's conceivable in any case.