So what is the response to CSAM on the other side of things then?
Discussion
most likely there is already illegal data on the blockchain using several different methods. it would be naive to assume otherwise. if this bothers you, don't store a permissionless append-only database on your computer
“If the idea of csam on the blockchain bothers you dont participate in bitcoin”
Great argument
it's the correct answer. it's impossible for bitcoin to be what it is without supporting some degree of permissionless arbitrary data storage. the data will end up on your computer if you run a node. the placebo filters just delay the inevitable.
why don't you go create another payment network where every transaction needs to be signed by the vatican? you cannot have your cake and eat it too. you don't want bitcoin.
Okay yeah you are totally right. People who have an issue with CSAM should just avoid bitcoin.
That line of very narrow non-thinking is consistent with the goal of bitcoin and will make it much easier to convince others of its value.
I’m so glad there is no nuance to this at all and it’s all that straightforward! Phew!
You sir are a fuckcicle.
there is no room for nuance. it's black and white. you are grasping for a middle state where a perfectly valid transaction can be made to not enter the chain. this middle state does not really exist. you are extremely close to realizing that bitcoin doesn't satisfy your requirements. there is no blockchain that will make you happy.
I hope you don’t talk to people this way anywhere but on nostr. Seriously.
It’s a law enforcement issue that deals with the people producing consuming and uploading the content. It has nothing to do with anyone else. This is a fundamental right and one the cypherpunks of legend have already dealt with. Luke is a statist weirdo who had his brain broken when his poor security practices cost him a fortune.
I hear you but that sidesteps the reality of transmitting it. What is the real defense against this?
All you are doing is relaying encoded data. You aren’t the publisher or the creator of the data so off the top of my head section 230 protection exists.
Furthermore the network nodes are not able to remove specific content. So they lack the knowledge and ability to control elements of the system. This is also why apple isn’t responsible for encrypted material on iCloud. The cypherpunks have already laid this out which is why people like Luke should be shamed for this rhetoric.
Thanks that is a compelling explanation.
If I am understanding correctly - we can’t stop it, it likely already exists, and there is theoretically a legal precedent for defending against this as an attack vector.
Assuming I am following, here is my next logical question - if there is a viable means to filter out such content, are we not obliged to do so? This seems like a grey area and the essence of the moral debate. I agree with the ideals of decentralization.
I can see a future where this forces more kyc controls for all on and offramps - because if you can kyc, you can prosecute the bad actors.
I don’t think this is what we want either.
There is no viable means of filtering out content. As long as transactions are valid they will hit the network because the network is made in such a way to make it hard to censor valid transactions. If one wanted to one could spend the fees to load extremely large files in several pieces on chain. You would have to fork bitcoin and remove a lot of the things that make layer 2s function to stop the easiest pathways and even then spam could still make it on chain.
The leading proponent and coder of knots was one of the og chain spammers having used the block header space on a block his pool mined to insert a biblical verse. He did this without the consent of the miners whose work was responsible for winning the block. This behavior cannot be stopped and that space is 100 bytes.
Bitcoin is not Bitcoin with kyc or gate keepers. It is permission less for a reason.
Thank you - much to consider there. I cannot find any fault in what you shared so appreciate you taking the time to explain.