Hi, thanks for the credits! I think there are some misconceptions with regard to Bitcoin's inner workings. Firstly, while the "government cannot regulate [..] what the actual nodes accept", a node can only accept what a miner suggests (by including it in a block). If all miners decide to ignore certain (blacklisted) transactions, or if the majority of miners decides to orphane blocks containing these transactions, then nodes are powerless. Secondly, it makes no sense for an individual node to "simply blacklist any block coming from a [certain] mining company" (as suggested by @aa), as long as there aren't other nodes who decide to blacklist the exact same blocks. The latter would be a UASF (which, as the name suggests, would be a soft fork, and not a hard fork as you wrote under point 4). Unfortunately, such a UASF is infeasible, since there is no obligation for a mining company to identify itself in its mined blocks, and, if there were, there would be no way to make sure that such self-identification is honest. It neither makes sense to "jointly refuse to accept blocks containing censored transactions", because if a block contains censored transactions then, by definition, the block's miner didn't censor them ;-) What you mean is refusing blocks that don't contain certain transactions because of censoring. Unfortunately, there is no way to reliably identify such blocks.