And how is this not a tradeoff between censorship resistance and decentralization?
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 nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk.
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
Discussion
Censorship resistance?
This is a financial network, how the fuck is not allowing childporn censorship?
Bitcoin was never meant to host childporn or spam it's money.
Put that garbage on a different blockchain
Bitcoin censors double spends, and all sorts of garbage which includes spam, jpegs, invalid transactions, etc. And yes that includes CSAM. If it didn't (which it should), it would be a bug.
The dial (of censorship) allows for inscriptions, 80+ bytes of op_return, etc. It we dial the filters all the way up to the point to of, let's say, how ad blockers work (centralized), that would removed decentralization. If we turn it the other way (allow op_return data), and never update filters, we loose the ability to censor, and the network gains decentralization (as it requires less updates to keep it working). For example, depending checkpointing would be an analog of loosing decentralization because it implies that it must me updated to keep bitcoin running (the checkpoint).
What is wrong with my thinking?