pull down to refresh
255 sats \ 6 replies \ @Scoresby 8 Sep \ parent \ on: Murch and Chris have a conversation - What is Going on Here??? bitcoin
When did this become about CSAM? nobody was talking about this for the last year. It's all been utxo bloat and making it hard for node runners.
The CSAM stuff is a complete red herring.
Nodes only decide whether a block is valid or not. And they exert the force of their decision by saying, "I don't want those coins you are trying to give me." They can't do anything else to influence what ends up in blocks.
If you run a node that isn't connected to a wallet (that isn't validating coins you want to receive), the node is useless and does nothing other than keeping an updated copy of the chain.
I'd go even further to say that if the relay network is essential to Bitcoin functioning, we aren't censorship resistant anymore.
When did this become about CSAM? nobody was talking about this for the last year. It's all been utxo bloat and making it hard for node runners. The CSAM stuff is a complete red herring.
I don't believe it's a red herring at all. I've always been worried about the ability/ease of putting CSAM on the blockchain as an obvious government attack vector.
reply
Don't you think that a government could do it if they wanted to? If they are desirous of shutting down bitcoin in this manner, they don't have to increase the OP_RETURN size, they just have to get a miner to mine a transaction. Why would they go through all the trouble of subverting an entire open source project? Way more could go wrong.
reply
It seems to me a government could just upload a 'bad file' or bad image in an inscription...
Then blame Bitcoin for hosting 'bad files' or classified data or whatever.
Just like I articulated in this post #1211686
I find it very, very hard to believe the general public, courts, or jury would have any idea of the technical differences between op_return and Witness scripts...
To the general public they're all the same so this distinction that Knots advocates are making (in my humble opinion) just doesn't hold water.
reply
You're ignoring the fact that policy changes mean nodes relay it before it's confirmed, so they are directly implicated, as opposed to a bad actor engaging in graffiti with the complicity of a negligent and identifiable miner.
reply
That's not the way government will look at it.
Government will say "oh it's in the blocks" therefore "all nodes" (Listening nodes) are relaying this stuff.
Which they can't do because its illegal. It doesn't matter what relay policy says... if it gets in one block it's everywhere and if I were government that's the way I would attack it.
reply
So a mining pool would do this and destroy their reputation and devalue the network, why? It would have to be a lot of money or a lot of coercion, and the Bitcoin nodes would not be implicated because it would not have been relayed before it were confirmed.
reply