pull down to refresh

Is it theocratic sex prohibition to be against sex with a 4 year old? Discuss...
0 sats \ 33 comments \ @fourrules 25 Sep bitcoin
Apparently running filters puts you on a slippery slope towards theocratic sex prohibition, according to Greg Maxwell.
What if you want to inhibit the prevalence of sex between adults and children, or content depicting it? What part of my social contract with this censorship resistant monetary network makes stipulated that if I want to run a node with a very low OP_RETURN limit to inhibit complete (not fragments) content of any sort of media format from getting mined then I am to be classified as a theocratic authoritarian?
If this is true then why isn't Iran's revolutionary guard - who actively mines bitcoin using state resources - running millions of relaying nodes today to overwhelm the network and censor bitcoin? This crude sybil attack is not as difficult as a 51% attack, and far more sustainable. Why has nobody told me before that bitcoin censorship resistance is vulnerable to theocratic prohibition of MONETARY TRANSACTIONS. That's a big thing to keep in your break pocket.
Or maybe you don't have a problem with the propagation of spam (let's call it that for now) on the Blockchain?
Maybe you should fork off with your pedo coin and leave us with our theocratic authoritarian coin?
Hyperbole swing both ways.
write
preview
related posts
200 sats \ 26 replies \ @kruw 25 Sep
What if you want to inhibit ... content ...?
If you want to inhibit content, you have to fork the blockchain.
What part of my social contract with this censorship resistant monetary network makes stipulated that if I want to run a node with a very low OP_RETURN limit to inhibit complete (not fragments) content of any sort of media format from getting mined then I am to be classified as a theocratic authoritarian?
That part is called "the consensus rules"
If this is true then why isn't Iran's revolutionary guard - who actively mines bitcoin using state resources - running millions of relaying nodes today to overwhelm the network and censor bitcoin? This crude sybil attack is not as difficult as a 51% attack, and far more sustainable.
Bitcoin Core maps providers to make sure your node has a diverse set of peers in order to prevent this sort of attack.
Maybe you should fork off with your pedo coin and leave us with our theocratic authoritarian coin?
I agree, here's the software you need to run for your fork: https://github.com/rot13maxi/bitcoin-purifier
reply
31 sats \ 1 reply \ @supratic 25 Sep
here's the software you need to fork: https://github.com/rot13maxi/bitcoin-purifier
Interesting, does this clean data from blocks that are already validated too?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 25 Sep
It rejects these blocks
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules OP 25 Sep
Bitcoin Core maps providers to make sure your node has a diverse set of peers in order to prevent this sort of attack.
Then why not make it optional, why risk negative unforeseen consequences with a radical change to a default that has been in place and supporting bitcoin's dominance as a monetary network for 15 years.
reply
0 sats \ 21 replies \ @fourrules OP 25 Sep
That part is called "the consensus rules"
Those relate to bitcoin as a monetary network, not a distributed database of spam and CSAM.
reply
0 sats \ 20 replies \ @kruw 25 Sep
So you're going to change the consensus rules and fork off then, right?
reply
0 sats \ 19 replies \ @fourrules OP 25 Sep
Nobody is arguing about consensus rules
reply
100 sats \ 18 replies \ @kruw 25 Sep
Yes you are, here's the conclusion of your original post:
Maybe you should fork off with your pedo coin and leave us with our theocratic authoritarian coin?
So if you aren't running the pure version of Bitcoin right now, then you are GUILTY!
reply
0 sats \ 17 replies \ @fourrules OP 25 Sep
That was a rhetorical response to the ridiculousness of suggesting that running filters leads to theocratic authoritarianism.
How about this, if you run Core v30 you are a pedophile propagating CSAM. Doesn't that sound stupid? Even so, it is more literally true than the slippery slope of theocratic authoritarianism.
reply
100 sats \ 16 replies \ @kruw 25 Sep
That was a rhetorical response
It's not rhetorical at all. Forking is the exact solution to the problem you are whining about.
reply
0 sats \ 15 replies \ @fourrules OP 25 Sep
The exact solution is promoting knots and helping people to understand the nuances of deterministic and probabilistic (pragmatic) solutions that you seem incapable of or unwilling to grasp.
(My money is on unwilling)
view all 15 replies
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules OP 25 Sep
If you want to inhibit content, you have to fork the blockchain.
Then why increase the OP_RETURN limit of it doesn't inhibit content?
You can't distinguish between deterministic and probabilistic.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 25 Sep
By not propagating a block with spam as fast as possible, you are giving miners that mine blocks with spam better chances to mine the next block with spam.
By not relaying spam tx, you are also giving miners that mine spam more revenue because they can charge higher fees for out-of-band relay.
Also, you are relaying spam to new nodes if it ends up in a block.
If you want to make it more expensive to spam, then use the chain more and outbid it.
Everything else is virtue signaling at best; undermining bitcoin’s censorship resistance at worst.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 25 Sep
Also, you are relaying spam to new nodes if it ends up in a block.
*if you accept inbound connections
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @fourrules OP 25 Sep
You've made these arguments many times and they are not convincing.
They are unsupported assertions not recognised by equally competent people.
If people have to pay higher fees (as your argument goes) then why would they choose bitcoin over another Blockchain or file sharing system?
Your argument suggests that their choice is between propagating the content or not, and that higher fees are a burden they are willing to bare to get the content on the bitcoin blockchain.
But that's not true, content that is too expensive (because they have to go out of hand) to propagate on bitcoin will go to a shitcoin or Google drive where it belongs.
I am not obliged to use the chain to secure the chain, that's ridiculous. Point at any historically authoritative source from Satoshi or anyone else that suggests that filling up blocks with fee baring transactions is part of the security mechanism.
The fact is that you are building your arguments on false premises, the idea that bitcoin will die if fees to miners are not high enough. Mining difficulty adjusts, and right now we are in a period where incumbents are preventing bitcoin from being used as a medium of exchange, but that dam will break and it won't be a problem eventually. Even if the hash rate goes into recession the hardware exists to support the network through difficulty adjustments for long enough to outlive the incumbent defenses.
The market for a distributed database is far smaller than that of a monetary network, but if you make bitcoin into a distributed database it won't be an effective neutral monetary network for everyone. You'll destroy by trying to save it.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 25 Sep
right now we are in a period where incumbents are preventing bitcoin from being used as a medium of exchange
Having to pay 3 sat/vB is preventing you from using bitcoin as a medium of exchange? You also just paid for that comment of yours via the lightning network with no problems I assume?
Seems like your arguments are based on false premises.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @fourrules OP 25 Sep
No, taxes and the fear that merchants have for the tax and regulatory regime, the propaganda campaign.
This was a really stupid comment from you, you know full well what I meant.
I use Bitcoin more than most, but I'm fully happy to wait for incumbent systems that put a social and economic cost on normie adoption to exhaust itself.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 25 Sep
you know full well what I meant.
No I did not, I still don't and I also don't know why you bring up taxes now.
So I conclude that we're talking past each other; also because most of what you said I said isn't what I said, but I don't care enough about what you think to waste my time correcting you, so I should not have replied to your post at all.
Have a nice day!
reply