Re-reading the Whitepaper I see the following which might be an answer to this post and even my comment:
This process (OP: consensus) is designed to provide the best reliability while ensuring that everyone has the potential to participate in block production regardless of whether they are popular enough to get voted to the top. People have three options to overcome censorship by the top 19 elected witnesses: patiently wait in line with everyone else not in the top 19, purchase enough computational power to solve a proof of work faster than others, or purchase more SP to improve voting power. Generally speaking, applying censorship is a good way for elected witnesses to lose their job and therefore, it is unlikely to be a real problem on the Steem network.
The only issue I see with the logic above is that the ones owning enough computational power have earned it way easier than anyone can earn it now.
That whole passage frankly makes little sense to me, but it dosn't refer to distribution, decentralization or power-balance issues, but to getting a transaction (for example a post) into a block at all, if the top 19 don't want to include it
I hope that since I took the passage out of the context, it didn't change its message. It's from the WhitePaper, page 22, 4th paragraph. Chapter is entitled Consensus in Steemit.
It's true that the chapter talks about how the blockchain is mined (blocks are produced) but it touches the top 19 witness part and how to become part of the top team and break their censorship.
What I'm saying is that atm, if I want to have the same voting weight like you for example I'd need 1 million bucks, which I doubt it's what you put in when you initially invested. I'm not blaming you because of that. I congratulate you for steeming before me etc. and you've earned your wallet fair and square, but the difference is simply too big between you and me and I think and until that gap closes (in at least 1 year), I know it's much to ask, but can you all whales stop voting for witnesses? Because when you do that, in a way, you're blinding 99% of the community.
That was kind of my statement...let's have the blockchain only allow witness voting from the lower 80% of the vest holders for the top 20 witnesses (I adapted the sentence to sound more metaphoric).
Again, by censorship what is meant is refusing to include a transaction in a block.
Ok, nuance understanding but that doesn't change the statement that right now, 99% of the community doesn't get to decide who can refuse a transaction.