pull down to refresh

Is uploading illegal content on bitcoin a concern with larger OP_RETURN filtersyoutu.be/dMvpRVHr8Lc?si=Q_VuCUQKTkmrGtT2
18 sats \ 2 comments \ @StanKozlovski 1 Sep 2025 bitcoin

I watched this video which claims that opening the op return filters may be a state level attack on bitcoin as it opens up the floodgates to upload illegal content on the chain that every node would be forced to download

Is this a new concern that’s enabled in a specific way with the potentially larger OP_RETURN filter, or is it not different to uploading it today in a single block via multiple transactions in 100kb segwit witness fields?

write
preview
related posts
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @standardcrypto 2 Sep 2025

the alternative is to bloat the utxo set to the point that running a node becomes expensive and bitcoin becomes centralized and easy to shut down.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2955614286

"The primary motivation for this PR is to correct a mismatch between the harmfulness and standardness of data storage techniques. It makes the (prunable) OP_RETURN option available so that data is not stuffed into unprunable outputs."

I used to like Matthew Kratter, but I think he's going down the wrong path lately.

reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @clr 2 Sep 2025
Old methods of storing evil stuff required obfuscation: they would need to break it up into multiple chunks and reassembly would require specific software and knowledge of what the data is and how to reconstruct and interpret it exactly.

The old formats looked like this:

"Hi, I'm a Bitcoin transaction, here's my first output of 45 outputs - <filepart1>, here's my second output <filepart2>, here's my third output<filepart3>" along with a tonne of other stuff that has to get parsed out when processing the highly obfuscated material. This is thankfully also true of inscriptions.

OP_RETURN however is just a dump for raw, serialized data. It's not the same.

It says the equivalent of "Hi I'm a Bitcoin transaction, here's an unspendable output: <file> end".

This wasn't a problem for tiny OP_RETURNs i.e their current limit of 80 bytes.

If they're permitted to be 100kb, that's where the abuse begins.

And that's the end of plausible deniability.

When the stuff gets processed - which it has to be for your node to verify that they are valid transactions - then you just have a raw, unadulterated file that will trigger primitive antivirus/forensics software to alert the user: "Hi, you have CP on your computer."

You now need a licence to run a Bitcoin node, everyone thinks you're disgusting if you do, and they're not even wrong.

https://youtu.be/JLtmSzeLXOU

nevent1qqs9mnye99pkh22xl8cqrzyyfmlpmvkwel3ua68a96ea9mqdlrqlq2qpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7q3qwnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqxpqqqqqqzy4g9z7

reply