Nostr Web Client

The risk you allude to always existed (and probably will always exist) because 1) it was always possible to mine a block with illegal content in an OP_RETURN, and 2) illegal content can always be embedded in the blockchain using various other methods (even if your BIP is adopted).

Fortunately, there appears to be pretty broad consensus among experts in law that this is not a real risk, anyways: https://protos.com/exclusive-lawyers-call-bitcoin-core-v30-csam-concerns-overblown/

Dathon Ohm 2mo ago 💬 1

The difference is that pre-Core-30, Bitcoin did not officially support large file storage. So node operators had much less culpability.

As for the "lawyer consensus" in that article you linked, you must not have read it if your conclusion is that "this is not a real risk". Almost all of the lawyers in the article said it's a risk.

The question is whether Core 30 meaningfully increases the risk. I think it's obvious that it does, as I said above. Data spam is a slippery slope. We have to draw the line somewhere, and this may be our last chance to draw the line. BIP-444 is the line.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago 💬 1

There is nothing “official” in Bitcoin.

I think it’s obvious that Core 30 does not meaningfully increase the risk, because as pointed out these same risks already existed.

If node operators are nevertheless concerned about legal risks if they run Core 30, they can just run a different node implementation, whether that’s an older version of Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Knots, or whatever.

Dathon Ohm 2mo ago 💬 1

Bitcoin Core was, until recently, the closest thing we had to something "official", because until recently, Core tried to represent a supermajority of its users.

I don't agree at all that "it's obvious" that Core 30 doesn't meaningfully increase risk. "These same risks", namely Core 30 officially sanctioning large file data storage on the blockchain, have certainly never existed before.

Running a different client does not change anything if the de facto standsard on the network is that data storage is an official use case. But forking will change things, because it reverses the official sanctioning into an official rejection of the data use case.

Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago 💬 1

>Bitcoin Core was, until recently, the closest thing we had to something “official”

Until recently, so not anymore? That should also satisfy your concerns, then.

Dathon Ohm 2mo ago 💬 1

This fork will, among other things, decisively determine whether Core 30 is an authority. I think a large majority agrees that it is not.

Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago 💬 1

You’re contradicting yourself.

Dathon Ohm 2mo ago 💬 1

How?

Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago

I think anyone but the most gullible can by now see your overt dishonesty and broken logic.

Had you at least staked your own name and reputation on this proposal I'd maybe consider spelling it out to you one more time-- but alas.