pull down to refresh
56 sats \ 5 replies \ @Oxy 3 Sep
This post really highlights the human element of Bitcoin development. It's not just code; it's a community with internal politics, different philosophies, and plenty of drama. Seeing the name calling on X and the growth of Bitcoin Knots, it feels like we're watching a real-time fork in the community, not just the code.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 4 Sep
Its not just X, its Y. OK GPT
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Oxy 4 Sep
If you think so
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @SatosphereJunction 3 Sep
I agree. This is a fundamental difference in worldview. At the current trajectory, a hard fork seems likely. If miners recognize they’re validating CSAM embedded in the chain, they’ll have to take it seriously and align with the Knots approach. I can’t imagine a miner willingly including a block that contains CSAM. That would be an extremely bad look.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @dgdhr335 3 Sep
Gonna be a real shame when all the core devs and their fans on twitter get exposed. Hopefully some of them wake up before they go over the edge.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 3 Sep
Indeed. See #849906 and #875560
reply
127 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 3 Sep
We're going to have a hard fork in the chain.
Apparently Core will be the 'sexual abuse' chain (bitcoin as it stands now).
And knots, or some version of it, will have different consensus rules and essentially be a hard fork/purified version designed for 'monetary transactions' only.
Maybe even have a chain roll-back of knots who knows.
If you don't believe me... you aren't paying attention. I'd say the odds are pretty good in the next year we'll have a knots/core hard fork. Here we go!
reply
1204 sats \ 6 replies \ @brave 3 Sep
I didn’t realize node runners could be at risk with this OP_RETURN change. The idea that bigger data fields could make nodes store sketchy stuff is worrying
reply
202 sats \ 5 replies \ @2minutebitcoin OP 3 Sep
Yes - that scare is why it's such a big deal right now. It's a theoretical risk and people have varying opinions on it.
- Some people believe it could be an intentional attack on Bitcoin (creating this attack vector)
- Some think that you can't get in legal trouble just because the data is stored in a more obvious manner
The way this is handled is the concerning bit. Discussions aren't being too productive. The pro OP_RETURN change side in particular seems to be resorting to mockery, name-calling and straw-manning. We really need to have a proper debate within the space and at a minimum hold off on this change.
The community literally gains nothing from rushing in controversial changes to the protocol. It only damages it. Even if one side believes the controversy is unfounded and dumb, they would be smart to pause, take time and unite/align the community.
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatosphereJunction 3 Sep
Some sick fuck is going to spam tons of CSAM into the chain. There are plenty of people hostile to Bitcoin who will do it just for kicks. This change is going to force a hard fork.
reply
1 sat \ 3 replies \ @brave 3 Sep
The idea of an “intentional attack” on Bitcoin by storing bad data is wild! Do you think someone could really pull that off to scare node runners away? I’m new to this, but it sounds like a big deal if it could hurt Bitcoin’s network.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @anon 3 Sep
Bitcoin was built as neutral money. Run a node, verify transactions, keep it decentralized. That’s the moat.
But buried in the code is OP_RETURN - an 80-byte field meant for metadata, barely a fingerprint. Now groups are abusing it, stuffing 100kb files - images, videos, junk.
That flips the script. Node operators aren’t just verifying money anymore. They’re forced file hosts, pushing random content across the network. The baggage isn’t trivial: legal risk, reputational hit, technical strain.
And if governments start seeing Bitcoin not as money but as a content network? The fight changes completely
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 3 Sep
Yes.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 3 Sep
It opens a way for the State to attack Bitcoin, by attacking the nodes. An agent of the state uploads CSAM in a transaction that is published on the blockchain.
-> now all node runners are liable for storing CSAM.
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @88b0c423eb 3 Sep
decreasing the block size from 1mb to 10kb world be great.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @SatosphereJunction 3 Sep
The miner who validates a block with CSAM in it will be held liable for distribution.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Catcher 3 Sep
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 3 Sep
Do you think Bitcoin op_return is useful for Digital ID's like what Spaces Protocol is doing? They are emphasizing minimal on chain footprint.
https://spacesprotocol.org/
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatosphereJunction 3 Sep
deleted by author