Apple's App Store in China has removed Bitchat.
This news is not unexpected, but it's still worth discussing seriously.
What is Bitchat?
In simple terms: it is a decentralized communication application built on the $BTC Lightning Network and Nostr protocol.
No phone number is needed, no email is required, no personal identification is necessary; messages are relayed through Lightning Network nodes, theoretically, no single entity can censor or delete the content you send.
The starting point of this design is to combat censorship.
Then it was removed by Apple—in China.
The irony of this matter
Decentralized applications dying in centralized distribution channels.
This is not the first application that Bitchat has encountered this issue, nor will it be the last.
Apple has a long history of removing applications in China: VPNs, cryptocurrency exchanges, privacy tools... Each time the reason is "not compliant with local regulations." This time Bitchat is targeted, which is essentially a continuation of the same logic.
The Nostr protocol itself cannot be removed, the Lightning Network itself cannot be shut down, but if the only way the majority of ordinary users access applications is through the App Store, then this "last mile" in between is a fatal weakness.
What does this mean for the cryptocurrency industry?
I think this incident reveals a fundamental contradiction:
Web3 wants "permissionless access," but the entry layer of the operating systems we live in is still tightly controlled by Apple and Google.
As long as users still need to download software through the App Store, the idea of "uncensorable" only has half the meaning.
Android users can sideload APKs, which is a way out. But iOS users have almost zero choices unless they jailbreak— and jailbreaking means another kind of security risk.
My view:
The removal of Bitchat is, in the short term, a setback for an application, but in the long term, it serves as a reminder for the entire industry—
The endpoint of decentralization cannot just be at the protocol layer; it must extend to the distribution layer.
Otherwise, it will always be cut off at the last mile.
This is also why more and more people are discussing decentralized app stores, PWAs (Progressive Web Apps), and blockchain-based application distribution mechanisms. These directions are still in the early stages, but the direction is correct.
This news is not unexpected, but it's still worth discussing seriously.
What is Bitchat?
In simple terms: it is a decentralized communication application built on the $BTC Lightning Network and Nostr protocol.
No phone number is needed, no email is required, no personal identification is necessary; messages are relayed through Lightning Network nodes, theoretically, no single entity can censor or delete the content you send.
The starting point of this design is to combat censorship.
Then it was removed by Apple—in China.
The irony of this matter
Decentralized applications dying in centralized distribution channels.
This is not the first application that Bitchat has encountered this issue, nor will it be the last.
Apple has a long history of removing applications in China: VPNs, cryptocurrency exchanges, privacy tools... Each time the reason is "not compliant with local regulations." This time Bitchat is targeted, which is essentially a continuation of the same logic.
The Nostr protocol itself cannot be removed, the Lightning Network itself cannot be shut down, but if the only way the majority of ordinary users access applications is through the App Store, then this "last mile" in between is a fatal weakness.
What does this mean for the cryptocurrency industry?
I think this incident reveals a fundamental contradiction:
Web3 wants "permissionless access," but the entry layer of the operating systems we live in is still tightly controlled by Apple and Google.
As long as users still need to download software through the App Store, the idea of "uncensorable" only has half the meaning.
Android users can sideload APKs, which is a way out. But iOS users have almost zero choices unless they jailbreak— and jailbreaking means another kind of security risk.
My view:
The removal of Bitchat is, in the short term, a setback for an application, but in the long term, it serves as a reminder for the entire industry—
The endpoint of decentralization cannot just be at the protocol layer; it must extend to the distribution layer.
Otherwise, it will always be cut off at the last mile.
This is also why more and more people are discussing decentralized app stores, PWAs (Progressive Web Apps), and blockchain-based application distribution mechanisms. These directions are still in the early stages, but the direction is correct.