Practical threat, but a threat none the less
I asked 7 lawyers for their thoughts on Knots/Ocean's claims regarding Bitcoin Core v30 creating potential legal issues for node operators.
6 out of 7 don't see it as a practical threat.
See the full article and all of the comments from Bitcoin lawyers at Protos: https://protos.com/exclusive-lawyers-call-bitcoin-core-v30-csam-concerns-overblown/
Discussion
The child pornography thing is such a lame argument
So is "knots is going to hard fork."
Let's set that aside.
What is your reply to this one:
If this tweet's message is correct, why are the changes being implemented now?
What are you asking? Maybe I'm being thick
Iβm asking you to consider the massive change in attitude from Ava Chowβs tweet in 2023 and today.
According to the tweet, this current datacarrier change is too controversial and should NOT be implemented.
As far as I can tell the core devs and The knots crew have a clash of egos. I think it is obvious that I am definitely not in the knots camp but I do think that Core is rushing into things. The op return has been changed many time, up down and up again. The block chain didn't break. Yes we had high fees for a bit. The beauty of the system blew them away and normality returned. The op return is useful.
To answer your question above. Knots are using emotive language. Core are responding with a fuck you attitude. I don't like either but it is true that knots is doomed unless they get miners on board. They won't get enough because miners are not a charity.
Ossification isn't an option, long term. So we need to adapt. Things could have been handled better but humans will be humans. The small signal sent by knots is nowhere near large enough to stop corr. Flip that around and the vast majority are. Consensus? We will find out soon enough. My hope is this is settled quickly and without shedding blood.
The CHANGE proposed in Core v30, is controversial, thus- following Core Devs argument displayed here in this tweet- the CHANGE should not move forward.
All current/old versions of Bitcoin-core βagreeβ with knots and use filters by default. That is the status-quo.
Running the Knots client is a way to call out and protest the Core v30 change.
The argument isnβt about Knots, or βegoβ. Itβs about Core and how they should reverse this decision to proceed with this controversial and potentially dangerous change.
Miners donβt have to βget on boardβ with knots. Itβs a node client. Not a hard fork bro
Well if they don't then the miners will just do it and that's that, so they do have to
If miners or a single team of devs can control Bitcoin then itβs a failed project
That isn't what's happening. My point is if miners ignore the filters and knots nodes are as low in numbers as they are, then they achieve nothing. So the miners will have to agree with knots ideals but they won't as they want to earn. Ocean is the only pool (I'm aware of) that is aligned. How many blocks have they mined compared to the rest?
Miners need the nodes to validate the block. At the moment there is a consensus for Core.
Excuse me sir but your concept of the βeffectiveness of filtersβ doesnβt matter. π
All mainline nodes currently default filter. π
Changing the default means making a change. π§
When lots of people are arguing and 20% of the network is now running an alternative client (first time in Bitcoin history btw) π₯³
Bitcoin core GitHub reputation and public perception is arguably the most negative it has ever been in bitcoinβs history... π₯²
That means the change is βcontroversialβ to say the least. π¬
And what do we do when something is too controversial? ποΈποΈ
How many run both node types? I know of several people that do
Right now all current nodes filter by default.
Since you support v30, have you personally changed your -datacarriersize option ?
You can increase it to 100k today, why are you waiting for the update?
I never said I supported 30. I haven't upgraded to it, yet. I definitely do not support knots. The moronic arguing is fruitless. Run what you want, I really don't care but Knots will filter itself into uselessness. Both sides need their heads banging together for acting like children
Core have stepped way out of line. They started all this with the lies and sneakiness.
Knots is just the Status Quo.
So is your perception of this issue more based on people saying you should βswitch to knotsβ or do you see people like me disagreeing with Coreβs proposed change, and using knots as a vehicle to make themselves heard?
I think itβs an interesting historical event and I appreciate your conversation. π€
I think it is your choice. I don't agree with it but who am I to say. This initial thread was started by me saying that the CSAM argument is dumb. Which it is. I also said that the Knots argument of bitcoin should just be money is far stronger.
I believe that the two groups are actually very like minded but the egos people have aligned themselves with are adamant and, if I may say, childish. Some of the comments I've received are laughable. People seem to have forgotten how to think critically.
I try to be open minded about everything. If I am uneducated about a subject I wish to participate in, I try to learn objectively. I am not always right. On this subject, with consensus the job of nodes, it is plain that at this time, knots doesn't have consensus to stop miners bypassing their filters. It is unlikely they will ever have it and more likely that they will fork. In my opinion.
Itβs not about bypassing or the effectiveness of filters, itβs about core trying to seize governance over Bitcoin
Be careful who you put your TRUST in
You need to read more
Oh I'm sorry, you are quite correct. I'm just an idiot. How can I not agree with you. Thank you for insulting me
I need to read more too, sorry
So the point is I think I posted earlier:
It seems something is seriously wrong with Bitcoin core. This tweet is a core dev in 2023.
Relaying plain text csam to other nodes is a concern for me personally, so Iβm running knots to avoid that- and also demonstrate my disagreement with core and hopefully get them to reverse the change. Which is what they should do if this tweet correctly describes the development process.
I do disagree because itβs not fruitless, core has already changed the proposal twice. So we would like them to reverse it completely.
They keep acting like knots is the one making changes. Wtf..
In what way?
CP is undoubtedly already on the block chain. Unfortunately CP is everywhere. To argue it is a desperate need not to transmit it, although emotive and most would agree, holds as much water as the argument that bitcoin is a den of drug lords and black marketeers. The dollar system is far, far worse. CP will, in this timeline, always be a thing. Sad. To use it as an argument to filter transactions is eroneous
I dont agree with you, this is the false equivilance fallacy. Even Satoshi says having large unfiltered data is not a good idea. As Nick Salbo has already stated, Core could have proposed a solution where NodeRunners could prune this not needed data first. But hey, we can just run another instance of Bitcoin node software as they told us, so it doesnt matter.
You are allowed to disagree but you haven't explained to me why your argument of CP is valid. You have a far stronger argument in bitcoin is money. I haven't heard a thing that convinces me Knots is not a Psyop.
I did, you used a logical fallacy. Therefore you need to check your line of reasoning! LOL.
Of course It makes sense to filter >80 byte data as Bitcoin is money and not data storage!? Its in the name.
Allowing 100kb of uncensored data onchain allows complete files of CP. Why wouldnt you filter it? Even if it was just a cat jpeg, why wouldnt you filter it?
why has Cores position on spam and data storage changed?
There is no need to mid curve this 
You didn't but that's OK. This is a mountain out of a mole hill situation. It is a cock fight between hurt egos. I'm amazed there are people falling for it. Unfortunately unless the bitcoin keys loser gets a hell of a lot of minors to back him, its going nowhere.
Technically it might not be a huge change, but it has been a needed discussion as it will move Bitcoin toward the next soft fork to remove spam and future attack vectors.
Clearly the current Core "maintainers" need to leave the project or it will be replaced by others who dont view CP as a valid transaction. The huge move to Knots validates that.
Huge? It isn't huge. That said, time will tell
The signal was huge and the behaviour of Core is out of this world. Im running knots, core is dead to me. The issue is resolved.
So not huge. How many of this not huge signal run both node types? I know several people that do. I'm glad you are self assured. I hope this storm in a tea cup is resolved amicably and with no one getting rekt. Good luck mate