Is there a legal risk to node runners who relay ofac sanctioned addresses? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Is there a legal risk to node runners who relay ofac sanctioned addresses?

571 sats \ 26 comments \ @Scoresby 5h bitcoin

The slippery slope of filters & legal concerns:

1/ By increasing the size of OP_RETURN, we enable criminals to insert illegal data. User nodes become illegal in some jurisdictions!

2/ By routing all transactions, we enable criminals to send money. Apply this blacklist from OFAC or else your node is an illegal money transmitter.

3/ By adding this upgrade to Bitcoin, you enable criminals to have more economic freedom. Anyone running the activation client is a criminal.

4/ Register your node, we need to know your full name and address to be able to enforce existing laws and regulations. If you use Tor or a VPN, we will ask for logs from your ISP and the compliant VPN companies.

5/ Why are you even running a node? It’s redundant, there are too many copies of the blockchain already. There’s this cool SPV feature in the whitepaper that Mike Hearn built. Here, use our wallet instead. Why do you need a node, got something to hide?

For the people worried about the legal implications of relaying illegal images embedded in transactions, are you also worried about relaying transactions from US government sanctioned addresses?

Yes15.8%

No84.2%

19 votes \ 19h left

view all related items

252 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin 2h

By increasing the size of OP_RETURN, we enable criminals to insert illegal data

The premise of that line of thinking in Vlad's thread is false from the start. Changing the default policy in Bitcoin Core isn't "enabling" any new behavior, it simply makes the existing behavior (via modified -datacarrier settings or custom clients like Libre Relay) standard so that users of larger OP_RETURNs can expect timely confirmations, which are required by some L2 designs.

For the people worried about the legal implications of relaying illegal images embedded in transactions, are you also worried about relaying transactions from US government sanctioned addresses?

No, but if this does become a legal issue, then it has broader implications than just bitcoin. Everyone running a box on the internet that other people's bitcoin data packets flow through could be implicated. INAL but this is probably already protected under the law somehow, since people have been using the internet to do crime since forever.

263 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 2h

I have retained the legal services of one Mr. Darth Coin. His advice to me was to "fuck the govs."

36 sats \ 0 replies \ @nichro 54m

the-force-is-strong-with-this-one.gif

185 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 5h

A court case highlighted by attorney Joe Carlasare ruled that node operators are not liable if they don’t have knowledge or control of the data. Szabo noted that one argument in favor of Core is that data can be hidden in other ways, but OP_RETURN data is prunable. “This suggests that allowing more data on OP_RETURN conceivably may reduce legal risks,” Szabo said.

https://atlas21.com/bitcoin-core-v30-incoming-nick-szabo-breaks-silence-after-five-years/

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 2h

Just a little caveat, and no, I don't really give a shit about any of this despite my law license. That case cited by Carlasare isn't really strong precedent. It only barred the government from using that evidence to enhance a sentence. You can't really draw a broad legal conclusion from that.

36 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 2h

Damn

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 5h

Finally, some actual legal information about this debate which has been theoretical the whole time.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 3h

same logic apply for all data over internet. Will that make the ISP "legally" culpable? This whole debate is total bullshit.

102 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 5h

Just to play devil's advocate, it's possible that the CSAM concern is as much due to moral concerns / feelings of repugnance, than a strict legal concern.

80 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 5h

Very possible, but I'd counter with the statement: moral reasons aren't a stable basis on which to build bitcoin (they are too subjective).

152 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 5h

Agreed, and that's why I don't think the legal argument for filters is an authentic argument. Gov't can already make bitcoin illegal whenever it wants... illegal pics or not.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 3h

https://i.postimg.cc/k4SKgdmf/illegal.jpg

173 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 5h

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby OP 5h

This is the optimal response.

102 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 4h

who owns the blockchain?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby OP 1h

I do.

At least, I own the copy of it that is on my laptop here.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 1h

that is like saying I own a copy of an mp3 downloaded from internet... through a torrent

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 1h

Exactly. The beauty of Bitcoin is that we all own our own copies of it and yet are able to stay in consensus about how to update them.

Maybe the question is who owns the consensus?

102 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 4h

It doesn't matter. If you're worried, then don't relay. It's only a slippery slope if you get to decide what I do. (or vice versa)

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 4h

If you're worried, then don't relay

Sound advice.

102 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 3h

I mean it has to come from the people. If many people wanna censor then there be censor. But I don't think I will be compelled to do it by anyone. I see one more in this thread that won't. Oh and sipa said he likes that it's not censored, so that's 3. We already have 3 whole nodes that won't censor. There will probably be some more. If then within a small subset of non-censored Bitcoin we have to acquire a bunch of ASICs, we shall.

The only issue will be if we get forked off. Then we call everyone that forked us off shitcoiners from there on, and may need to do something about PoW. And then we're good.

I think though, that there will be a significant group that will realize that the non-censored coin will be better than the one with some centralized authority. Only time can tell. We'll see.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 1h

Yes, i think i saw that you posted the Risk Sharing Principle a little while back. It's a funny thing that the voluntary nature of bitcoin us so much of its strength.

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 4m

Yes. I like how Eric approaches Bitcoin so I quote his work from time to time, when it is called for to make a point (I hope.)

The permissiveness is both the strength and the weakness. There are moments where I am amazed that it hasn't collapsed, but those feelings are triggered more by the ETFs, the Tethers and the Saylors, than by any of the dev drama; it's much easier to deal with something where you're in control over everything minus consensus, than the things that are designed to take control away from you.

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 4h

It seems different because the transaction doesn’t occur when it enters or exits your node.

On the other hand, the illegal content is stored on your node and then sent to someone else.

I’m curious what the argument is that node runners aren’t storing and transmitting illegal content. I feel like that keeps getting dodged in the discussions I see.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fd055dcc2f 1h

some people are just eager to just through newly invented hoops

[when I say jump, you ask 'how high'] type

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @035736735e 4h outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.