pull down to refresh
84 sats \ 9 replies \ @1984 4 Sep \ parent \ on: Core & Knots aren't the only choices bitcoin
@DarthCoin i've seen you comment this multiple times before "Are we not done with this crap debate" and I fully agree. however, never saw you comment about this thesis, just curious:
- increasing datacarrieresize comes with the downside that higher image quality of child pornography can be put onchain, without having to use inscriptions
- node runners would effectively be hosting this kind of stuff forever
if you are worried about porn, don't use internet. Is full of it.
It's insane that people are taking this argument seriously. It has always been possible to put objectionable material on chain. It's cheaper with inscriptions than with OP_RETURN. Although I expect Knots zealots to do it with OP_RETURN in an attempt to discredit Core. One of the tradeoffs of a censorship-resistant network.
reply
if I am not mistaken the argument goes like this:
- with inscriptions the "objectionable data" is spread out in multiple utxos
- so one could say that this is a plausible deniability when it comes to child pornography, since no-one can point to a specific utxo and say that noderunners are hosting "objectionable data" unless they use software to see the inscription lol
however, with OP_RETURN, the "objectionable data" can be put into a single utxo - so one can point to it and say that noderunners are hosting it
reply
If that's the only argument, it's more nonsensical than I thought. You need software to decode an OP_RETURN and you need different software to decode an inscription. The distinction is completely inconsequential. At least, I don't see how an inscription offers any plausible deniability of anything. It's tied to an input instead of an output.
reply
reply
I mean, even a jpeg needs to be decoded
Thus, the argument really rests on an understanding of the law, which I am not seeing any discussion of.
reply
reply
I'll take your word for it. I'm too afraid to look it up. But it boggles my mind that people keep using this argument without first being clear on what the law even says
reply