Replies (48)
“I’m already poisoned so I shouldn’t worry about the additional poison I’m ingesting.”
Wut?
I’ve been aware of this for years. Weird it’s popping up again.
There’s some already there?
“But please, won’t somebody please think of the children!”
If you drill down, any ledger can be co-opted to store arbitrary data. Should it be illegal?
The act of looking and finding would be a crime, because that requires you to rearrange the data in your node to reveal it, so nobody will confirm or deny its presence.
Here’s an example you can try to get the proof of concept, without breaking the law, if you run a bitcoin node:
bitcoin-cli getblock 00000000000000ecbbff6bafb7efa2f7df05b227d5c73dca8f2635af32a2e949 0 | tail -c+92167 | for ((o=0;o<946;++o)) ; do read -rN420 x ; echo -n ${x::130}${x:132:130}${x:264:130} ; done | xxd -r -p | tail -c+9 | head -c184292 > bitcoin.pdf
This extracts a PDF file with embedded images…it just so happens to be Satoshi’s whitepaper, but it didn’t have to be!
Exactly. Bitcoin must face this issue more directly with core going from opreturn of 80 bytes to 100,000 instead of 160 bytes, but big storage will be needed for quantum resistance or complex layer 2 zero knowledge proofs anyhow…but man are they ripping off the bandaid rather harshly.
I’m no supporter of illegal numbers like bit strings representing CSAM, but bitcoin can’t stop such evil in the world and the existence of bitcoin matters more than what bad people do with it.
Make no mistake: the fools who are just now thinking about this issue as if it’s something new are probably already guilty of the crime they want to see core node runners be convicted of.
Please please think of the children and run knots!
I’m not sure that makes any sense but ok
I’m saying if you run a bitcoin node, what people are so worried about is already there.
Csam now. What's next? Can of worms.
This whole debate is beyond ridiculous now IMO. I don't fuckin get how 'pro filter' team doesn't see this as a foot in the door of 'just one more data (we dont like) type to filter'.
Exactly. It’s a prelim to outlawing bitcoin in favor of xyz gov coin that “can’t” store csam. Morons.
I'm at the point where I'd love to see a new fork. Airdrop and huge shorting opportunity.
Isn’t it worse if it’s in a raw form in opreturn instead of this obfuscated form?
So your point is, “cp already exists so don’t try to prevent it.”?
In a sense, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m saying those “trying to prevent CP” don’t realize they’re asking for bitcoin to be declared illegal for the illegal content of their bitcoin nodes. I believe bitcoin existing is more important than any bad person storing bad data.
Let police do police work. Or heck, even write bitcoin node software to screen for CP and forward up addresses to police…maybe police should write said software! But to make bitcoin illegal because bad people use it for bad things is a non-starter in my book, no matter how hard they cry “won’t someone please think of the children!”
That doesn’t make a lick of sense.
HFSP
That response also doesn’t make a lick of sense.
ossification is a euphemism invented by shitcoiners dressed in bitcoin clothing.
bitcoin is fine. you don't change something that works well.
it's a slur, i mean, not a euphemism (the opposite). it's supposed to imply that not wanting bitcoin to turn into ethereum means you are a dinosaur.
If you're going to make your argument, I wouldn't do it with conjecture-based ad hominum.
also, bitcoin core 30 is not "new features" it's *changed features*.
HFSP
This is a point that I think is very important to consider.
yeah, read up on the documentation and change logs before you move to another version
Of course there is. Bitcoin chain has been used for all sorts of stupid data for many years.
he means "block-only" mode
but filtering the mempool has more effect
by that i mean, it helps propagate "good" transactions, which is better than not propagating any because of "bad" transactions.
one of the philosophical bases of the coretards arguments is the "freedumb of speech" crap and the "aren't you man enough" mentality that we even see in nostr clients not fully hiding trolling replies. what the fuck guys? we have computers to do work for us. that can include discrimination. and yeah, *discrimination* is the prerogative and right of every human to decide what he wants to associate with. this is the quiet part of "freedom of association". freedom of association includes freedom of dissassociation.
what kind of people don't want you to ignore them? attention whores. should we give heroin addicts free heroin because they associate with heroin? i don't fucking think so.
I’m not happy with Core removing a configuration option. I don’t see the advantage of removing configuration option over bumping the default to 160 bytes, for example. I think the CSAM is a nonsense argument, but slowly ramping up op return size in relay policy may be wise for technical reasons.
Have you seen it?
what are the technical reasons you are envisioning?
No, I never opened it, but I have seen people reference it with transaction id. I believe it exists, because there's nothing technically preventing it currently (the inscriptions embed any data into witness currently, which is extra stupid and it is encouraging more data since it's discounted in terms of fees)
I’m seriously asking, not trolling. This is one of my outstanding questions.
It’s probably safer to assume it’s there already
Where is the difference? In both cases you need software to read it, right?
The knots argument is that bitcoin should be used for 'monetary use' only and not arbitrary data.
But once you start a filter at the core it opens the gates for future political inspired plays and further tightening and restrictions or is this out of reality (social media age verification cough cough)
83 bytes was the standard since 2016 and nobody called it a filter or catastrophized over it.
Exactly. Making it 83 or 85 or 160 wouldn’t be an issue either way. Obliterating it might be unwise.
Raw form, like everything. But it’s in more than one transaction. Is that enough obfuscation? Would need a command like
bitcoin-cli getblock 00000000000000ecbbff6bafb7efa2f7df05b227d5c73dca8f2635af32a2e949 0 | tail -c+92167 | for ((o=0;o<946;++o)) ; do read -rN420 x ; echo -n ${x::130}${x:132:130}${x:264:130} ; done | xxd -r -p | tail -c+9 | head -c184292 > bitcoin.pdf
But anyone telling you how to do it will be documenting their crime for you.
Opreturn changes won’t change the fact that a command would be needed to make people aware of the illegal numbers on their nodes.
I’m totally in favor of knots existing and letting people set any relay policy they want…because sometimes choice matters in ways that are completely meaningless on a technical level…
In some ways, by not slowly raising default settings, core is diversifying implementations and I’m happy about that.
If anyone really cares about CP relay and the downsides of having such vastly disparate mempools, they could ref write the mempool to keep metadata about valid but spammy transactions each node decided to drop…this way people still can calculate fees properly without participating in spam / CP relay / download until it’s in a block.
Yup. And people use inscriptions because opreturn wouldn’t relay. And inscriptions bloat the Utxo set, unlike opreturn spam which can be discarded.
That's right. But there are folks claiming to be able to differentiate between 'pure montary' use and other.
Using the blockchain to store pictures or other stuff is, IMO retarded - BUT - stifling this going into the future is not clever either.
Agreed. I don’t believe bitcoin should be used for spam. And I don’t think ripping the bandaid off opreturn is wiser than a stepwise increase of defaults, but the whole CP/CSAM argument is moot.
100% :blobyes_sm:
Stifling it in the past was bad too or what?
Making data storage hard via op return relay limit made sense when there was no easy alternative to opreturn.
That said, I can find no reason why eliminating configuration option is preferable to changing default from 80 to 160 bytes. Not convinced 100,000 bytes will be used for financial transactions but 160 would for Citrea’s use case (to the extent I understand it).
