Come on, I read the original bitcoin paper upon its release xD I shortened my original post, but had explained that in the UK the Land-registry has started using a blockchain for record keeping. It worked well and is a good solution, but only whilst they stay as the sole writer. A distributed registry of home-ownership would have many risks, the largest being a sybil attack. Which Bitcoin is also liable to, where your coins are essentially protected in the trust of strangers all acting in their own interest. I can't really respect "trustless" given its an oxymoron really meaning "trust a mass of unknown people to act in their own interest".
Putting that aside, let's deal with the original quoted issue. I am privileged enough to be in a place where I trust my government, and by extension agree with their rules. The "trustless" setup of Bitcoin has meant that CP can be hosted comfortably within it (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47130268). A system with a liable entity would be able to solve this, Bitcoin cannot. I don't feel ignorant to think this is an issue?
You can have plenty of knowledge about Bitcoin, but your original comment about 'trust' reflects none of it. As you know, you don't 'trust' the group of strangers who run Bitcoin software to ensure the security of the protocol - that is in fact that opposite of the intention and for the most part the result. So yes, you failed to demonstrate any knowledge of how blockchains work and now you are introducing a red herring to the original argument.
By the way, Bitcoin does not have that problem because the story you linked is about a wild fork of Bitcoin which is unsustainable anyways - not even counting the fact that BSV is not intended as a file hosting service. Perhaps see what IPFS or other file hosting coins and protocols do to stop that problem. And as hard as it is to swallow, there are plenty of other ways to obscure the uploading of illegal data across all sorts of centralized services - but we don't just get rid of the internet.
So far you've just said I'm wrong. Let me try clarify. The value of your coins relies supposedly on your ability to exchange them, which in turn relies on the miners following the protocol in self-interest which happens to line up with your interest. That sounds like you're trusting the miners to continue mining the fork you prefer?
Putting that aside, let's deal with the original quoted issue. I am privileged enough to be in a place where I trust my government, and by extension agree with their rules. The "trustless" setup of Bitcoin has meant that CP can be hosted comfortably within it (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47130268). A system with a liable entity would be able to solve this, Bitcoin cannot. I don't feel ignorant to think this is an issue?