pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby 8 Sep \ parent \ on: Murch and Chris have a conversation - What is Going on Here??? bitcoin
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.
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