Rectify inflammatory language in FAQ

docs/faq/index.md

@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ Political concerns:
 
 * Namecoin's `.bit` TLD isn't part of the DNS; asking public DNS infrastructure to mirror Namecoin would probably be seen as hostile by IETF and ICANN.
 * Namecoin is seeking to be added to IETF's special-use names registry; the precedent set by `.onion`'s inclusion is that public DNS infrastructure should always return `NXDOMAIN` for special-use names.
-* While getting Namecoin bundled with a major browser or OS certainly is a major undertaking, it's not at all clear that getting Namecoin resolution included by a major ISP or public DNS resolver would be easier.  Statistically (though exceptions certainly exist), software vendors tend to be more interested in innovating via software, security, and cryptography, whereas ISP's tend to be more interested in "innovating" via antitrust violations and net neutrality violations.  We believe that software vendors are therefore more likely to be interested in Namecoin (though we don't claim that no ISP's exist who might be persuadable).
+* While getting Namecoin bundled with a major browser or OS certainly is a major undertaking, it's not at all clear that getting Namecoin resolution included by a major ISP or public DNS resolver would be easier.  Generally speaking, software companies tend to be more interested in trying out new features, whereas ISPs tend to be more cautious.
 
 In addition, it's not clear that there would even be any significant benefit to counterbalance these concerns.  Namecoin intentionally makes different tradeoffs from the DNS.  For example, the DNS is much more scalable than Namecoin, can protect name owners from trivial deanonymization much better than Namecoin can, and doesn't rely on comparatively weak game-theoretic security properties as Namecoin does.  Namecoin has some benefits that counterbalance these weaknesses (e.g. the non-reliance on trusted third parties), but serving Namecoin data from public DNS infrastructure would provide the **union** of Namecoin's and the DNS's weaknesses, while providing the **intersection** of Namecoin's and the DNS's strengths.  Users who require a DNS-like naming system that works without any software installation are likely to be better off simply using the DNS.
 
@@ -184,11 +184,11 @@ The Tor Project's Onion Services (which have a `.onion` top-level domain) use do
 
 Let's Encrypt constitutes a trusted 3rd party, i.e. the Let's Encrypt certificate authority can issue fraudulent certificates to 3rd parties for your domain without your consent.  In contrast, using TLS with Namecoin (assuming that negative certificate overrides are supported by your TLS client) does not involve a trusted 3rd party; only certificates that chain to a `TLSA` record in your name's value will be accepted.
 
-Let's Encrypt also has the ability to censor your ability to receive TLS certificates.  Let's Encrypt routinely uses this capacity to engage in geopolitical censorship.  For example, in response to a [support request pertaining to an error "Policy forbids issuing for name"](https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/error-policy-forbids-issuing-for-name/52233/3), Josh Aas (Executive Director of ISRG, the corporation that operates Let's Encrypt) stated on February 6, 2018:
+Let's Encrypt also has the ability to censor your ability to receive TLS certificates.  Let's Encrypt is routinely allegedly forced to use this capacity to engage in censorship on political grounds.  For example, in response to a [support request pertaining to an error "Policy forbids issuing for name"](https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/error-policy-forbids-issuing-for-name/52233/3), Josh Aas (Executive Director of ISRG, the corporation that operates Let's Encrypt) made the following statement on February 6, 2018:
 
 > The People’s Republic of Donetsk is on the U.S. Treasury Department Specially Designated Nationals list. The website you are inquiring about appears to be a part of, or a state enterprise of, the People’s Republic of Donetsk, thus we cannot provide service according to U.S. law.
 
-Let's Encrypt also routinely censors journalism websites for political purposes.  For example, on January 2, 2019, Let's Encrypt [revoked the TLS certificate for an allegedly-Russian-funded journalism website](https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/policy/technology/cyber-security/article223832790.html) aimed at American audiences, [on the grounds](https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm577) that the website allegedly "engaged in efforts to post content focused on divisive political issues" and "attempted to hold a political rally in the United States".
+Let's Encrypt is also routinely allegedly compelled to censor news websites.  For example, on January 2, 2019, Let's Encrypt [revoked the TLS certificate for such a website that was funded by Russian entities](https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/policy/technology/cyber-security/article223832790.html), owing to the U.S. Department of the Treasury [alleging it](https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm577) to have "engaged in efforts to post content focused on divisive political issues" and "attempted to hold a political rally in the United States".
 
 [ISRG executive director Josh Aas stated](https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/according-to-mcclatchydc-com-lets-encrypt-revoqued-and-banned-usareally-com/81517/10) on January 4, 2019, that "This happens to maybe one domain per month".
 
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ Below is a comparison table of Namecoin and Blockstack (with Bitcoin added for r
 | **Name pricing and exchange rates** | Price optimality is dependent on NMC/fiat exchange rates. | Price optimality is dependent on BTC/fiat exchange rates. | N/A. | 
 | **Names premined?** | Not premined. | Premined. | N/A. | 
 | **Coins premined?** | Not premined. | Premined via ICO ([source](https://web.archive.org/web/20171119180710/https://www.coindesk.com/a-more-equitable-ico-why-blockstack-said-no-to-a-token-pre-sale/)).  [Falsely claimed](https://web.archive.org/web/20171120230840/https:/twitter.com/muneeb/status/867839002778492928) that there would not be an ICO. | Not premined. | 
-| **Funding sources and ethics** | Crowdfunding, donations, consulting/contracting (e.g. for F2Pool and an employee of Kraken).  Has refused funding opportunities that were perceived to create conflicts of interest regarding user freedom, privacy, and security.  Frequently references WikiLeaks and Ed Snowden in specification examples and other development discussion. | Business model is not publicly disclosed.  [Seed round led](https://web.archive.org/web/20161210022027/http://venturebeat.com/2014/11/14/y-combinator-backed-onename-raises-1-5m-open-sources-its-bitcoin-identity-directory/) by an investor who has [endorsed cryptographic backdoors](https://web.archive.org/web/20160319061046/http://avc.com/2016/03/privacy-absolutism/) and who considers [ROT13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROT13) to be a ["serious" and "intriguing" security mechanism](https://web.archive.org/web/20170831210355/https:/twitter.com/csoghoian/status/709908777038954496), and another investor who has also [endorsed cryptographic backdoors](https://web.archive.org/web/20160318165939/http://continuations.com:80/post/139510663785/key-based-device-unlocking-questionidea-re-apple). | (N/A) | 
+| **Funding sources and ethics** | Crowdfunding, donations, consulting/contracting (e.g. for F2Pool and an employee of Kraken).  Has refused funding opportunities that were perceived to create conflicts of interest regarding user freedom, privacy, and security.  Frequently references WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden in specification examples and other development discussion. | Business model is not publicly disclosed.  [Seed round led](https://web.archive.org/web/20161210022027/http://venturebeat.com/2014/11/14/y-combinator-backed-onename-raises-1-5m-open-sources-its-bitcoin-identity-directory/) by an investor who has [endorsed cryptographic backdoors](https://web.archive.org/web/20160319061046/http://avc.com/2016/03/privacy-absolutism/) and who considers [ROT13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROT13) to be a ["serious" and "intriguing" security mechanism](https://web.archive.org/web/20170831210355/https:/twitter.com/csoghoian/status/709908777038954496), and another investor who has also [endorsed cryptographic backdoors](https://web.archive.org/web/20160318165939/http://continuations.com:80/post/139510663785/key-based-device-unlocking-questionidea-re-apple). | (N/A) | 
 | **Do the developers run services that hold users' private keys?** | No.  Many years ago, a former Namecoin developer did run such a service.  It has been discontinued, as the current Namecoin developer team considers such services to be harmful and a liability. | Yes, [Onename](https://onename.com/) holds users' private keys. | Not as far as we know. | 
 | **Patented by developers?** | Not patented by developers. | [Patented by developers.](https://www.google.com/patents/US20170236123?dq=%22Blockstack%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7jYbH583XAhXLTSYKHc3OBI4Q6AEILjAB).  Developers did not disclose the patent to their users.  As of 2017 Nov 20, Startpage for "patent", "patented", or Blockstack's patent number shows zero hits on blockstack.org, nor does searching the Blockstack forum for those terms yield any hits. | Not patented by developers. | 
 
@@ -327,11 +327,11 @@ Both of these attacks are detectable.  In the case of reversing transactions, th
 
 It is noteworthy that a 51% attacker cannot sell a name to a user and then steal back the name.  Nor can a 51% attacker buy a name from a seller and then steal back the money.  This is because Namecoin supports *atomic* name trades: reversing the purchase payment also reverses the name transfer, and vice versa.  Double-spending of `name_update` transactions also isn't beneficial to an attacker, because `name_update` transactions typically are sent by a user to themself, meaning that the attacker could only scam themself.
 
-In both Bitcoin and Namecoin, the Chinese government has jurisdiction over a majority of hashpower.  This is problematic for both Bitcoin and Namecoin, and should be fixed in both.  Because not all Bitcoin miners also mine Namecoin, F2Pool previously had a majority of Namecoin hashpower (they no longer do).  This was also problematic when it was the case.  However, in practice, the Chinese government has considerably more motivation to perform a 51% attack than F2Pool does.  (The Chinese government has a [history of messing with Internet traffic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China).  F2Pool has supported Namecoin development both financially and logistically, which makes it unlikely that they would want to attack it.)
+In both Bitcoin and Namecoin, the People's Republic of China has jurisdiction over a majority of hashpower.  This is concerning for both Bitcoin and Namecoin, and should be fixed in both.  Because not all Bitcoin miners also mine Namecoin, F2Pool previously had a majority of Namecoin hashpower (they no longer do).  This was also problematic when it was the case.  However, in practice, China has considerably more motivation to perform a 51% attack than F2Pool does.  (She has a history of [Internet censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China).  F2Pool has supported Namecoin development both financially and logistically, which makes it unlikely that they would want to attack it.)
 
 A majority of Bitcoin's hashpower is routed via the Bitcoin Relay Network, which has the ability to censor Bitcoin blocks that pass through it.  This produces incentives for Bitcoin miners to self-censor any blocks that might violate any policy introduced in the future by Bitcoin Relay Network, because routing blocks through Bitcoin Relay Network reduces orphan rates for miners.  Namecoin's blocks are much smaller than Bitcoin's, and therefore Namecoin does not have similar incentives for centralized block relay infrastructure.  While it is possible for Bitcoin Relay Network to attack Namecoin by censoring Bitcoin blocks that commit to merge-mined Namecoin blocks, it is not feasible for Bitcoin Relay Network to look inside the Namecoin blocks that are committed to, which means that Bitcoin Relay Network cannot censor Namecoin blocks by content as they can with Bitcoin blocks.  Bitcoin Relay Network is operated by Bitcoin Core developer Matt Corallo, who is unlikely to want to attack Bitcoin (just as F2Pool is unlikely to want to attack Namecoin).
 
-The takeaway here is that while F2Pool theoretically used to be capable of attacking Namecoin (but not Bitcoin), and Bitcoin Relay Network is theoretically capable of attacking Bitcoin (but not Namecoin), *in practice* the party with the most motivation to attack either chain (the Chinese government) has jurisdiction over a hashrate majority of both Bitcoin and Namecoin.  Mining decentralization is an active research area, and we hope that significant improvements in this area are made, as they would improve the security of both Bitcoin and Namecoin.
+The takeaway here is that while F2Pool theoretically used to be capable of attacking Namecoin (but not Bitcoin), and Bitcoin Relay Network is theoretically capable of attacking Bitcoin (but not Namecoin), *in practice* the party with the most motivation to attack either chain has jurisdiction over a hashrate majority in both Bitcoin and Namecoin.  Mining decentralization is an active research area, and we hope that significant improvements in this area are made, as they would improve the security of both Bitcoin and Namecoin.
 
 ### Is squatting a problem?  What can be done about it?