One irony of @Luke Dashjr's CASF (CSAM activated soft fork) is that users would have to go and see that there's ndeed CSAM in an OP_RETURN, which AFAIK would actually be illegal. (I know I certainly won't do it.)

If a fork does happen, coins can be split by including >83byte OP_RETURNs in transactions. Which would in turn create fee pressure and thus incentive for miners to mine the non-UASF chain. View quoted note →

So yeah every discussion I’ve had with Knots proponents ultimately leads to one of two conclusions where we just have to agree to disagree. 1. If we’re mean to spammers they will go away. 2.:

To be clear… Assuming Bitcoin Knots indeed adopts this BIP444 soft fork, there will be a chain split (airdrop coins) if: - The Knots UASF attracts a minority of the hash rate (but enough to mine at least some blocks) and/or - There is a URSF (user rejected soft fork) to counter it

Ok so apparently rolling back the chain in case of a CSAM OP_RETURN is also proposed as an activation mechanism for this “anti-spam” soft fork drafted by @Luke Dashjr @Luke Dashjr. Also, even if no such OP_RETURN is mined, they want to activate this as a UASF within ~three(!) months. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2017/commits/3c718237072c107ced8c3531a487354fbdae55df

So if CSAM ends up in an OP_RETURN (of any size) that gets mined into a block, @Luke Dashjr @Luke Dashjr will reject that block and encourage others to do so as well; basically a UASF, even when that would effectively mean rolling back the chain. (Screenshots from the Bitcoin Knots Telegram channel, shared with permission.)

Does anyone know the answer? (Has @Luke Dashjr @Luke Dashjr addressed this question elsewhere?..) View quoted note →