You don't think it leads to problems?
"The person who shared child sexual abuse on BSV reportedly did so by uploading the image to their Money Button transaction, which was then added to the digital block of data on the immutable ledger. Money Button confirmed that this was the case in a blog post on Friday, stating that its service doesn’t have a way to “interpret or display” the content it processes, but BitcoinFiles.org does, and was notified by local authorities that there was illegal content on its site. Money Button wrote that “BitcoinFiles.org removed the content from their website and then contacted us suspecting that Money Button may have been the tool the criminals used to write this content to the blockchain”"
"The payment processor added that it updated its terms of service “to explicitly clarify that Money Button cannot be used to write illegal content to the blockchain, and users who attempt to do so will be banned and reported to the authorities.”"
https://gizmodo.com/someone-uploaded-child-pornography-to-a-blockchain-ledg-1832398480
It may lead to problems.
Just like it may lead (and could always have lead) to problems that you can embed this stuff in Inscriptions, >100kb OP_RETURNs, fake pubkeys, etc etc.
I do not think there is a moral or legal difference between these different methods. Do you?
Not it may.
It will. If you check the article you will see that authorities were involved.
There is a huge moral and legal issue. CSAM is just disgusting exploitation of children.
Do you think it makes a difference if these images are embedded in OP_RETURNS, Inscriptions, or fake pubkeys?
Nick Szabo already answered that.
Also the compromised Core devs did not fix inscriptions intentionally.
They are fixed in Bitcoin Knots though which I am running.
Szabo is wrong: If more data is included in the OP_RETURN “bucket”, it *does* in fact mean that less data can fit into the Inscriptions “bucket” since all of it still has to fit within the same block weight limit. (75% less even!)
But you’ve now resorted to outsourcing your thinking again instead of answering my question, so I’ll end the conversation here.
E = mc2, yes I have accepted Einsteins thinking. Great argument.
You or anyone saying that Nicck Szabo is wrong on this issue is dishonest and pathetic.
