Using the UK playbook on censorship is so desperate and revealing
Bitcoin Core 30 Is A CSAM Relay Service
https://blossom.primal.net/4d130072580b254f069a7db38631a2952ea1d310059dbe3a095efd765650be91.mp4
Discussion
Bitcoin Freedom Monetary network, not cp and spam cesspool.
Cope harder.
You’re right, watch the UK playbook pan out when the governments come for your nodes.
Hey Neal,
Knots nodes will still store anything consensus valid. You cannot change this without a hard fork. They also need to see/download something to filter it.
Please ensure you understand the difference between consensus rules and local tx relaying policy.
Also maybe think about the fact that Knots has a 400kb witness data limit which could also be used for CSAM.
Wish you the best and thanks for engaging with me.
Witness data is binary signature blobs. Its expensive to abuse, hard to parse, and ignored by most tools. OP_Return is explicitly indexed and human-readable with basic tools. This makes it a low-cost storage layer for junk or worse and can seriously damage bitcoins reputation. I think there is also a serious distinction between a node that decides to propogate this garbage, and a node that is forced to store it while giving a best effort not too. Intent matters
Appreciate your argument, and that you actually seem to somewhat understand what’s going on here.
I agree, intent matters. That’s why courts and regulators have never held infrastructure providers liable for the bits they transmit. Nor should they ever.
Nodes do not have image assemblers built in, just like AT&T doesn’t have movie players built into their switches.
Regardless of how “accessible” the bits are, infrastructure providers cannot be held liable for transmitting bits they have no visibility into. Just like paper mills aren’t liable for what people write on them.
Do you also think we should criminalize ethernet cables?
> That’s why courts and regulators have never held infrastructure providers liable for the bits they transmit
Tell that to the TornadoCash/SamouraiWallet guys.
Exactly. Its an assumption that a Bitcoin node is somehow going to get that protection. Atleast for now, no.
You think Blackrock runs a Knots node?
If anything, I think Blackrock might have vested interests in a chain that has the history and reputation of Bitcoin, and database capabilities similar to Ethereum. Do I think they run a node? Hell no, and why do they need to? They are commissioners and rent seekers. If Bitcoin fails to make them money, they’ll simply jump onto the next thing. They use Coinbase for custody of billions for crying out loud.
Blackrock runs their own node for verification:
https://blog.quicknode.com/ibit-blackrock-bitcoin-etf-guide-2025/
But yeah, they probably delegate broadcasting tx to Coinbase Prime
So the question is then: do you think Coinbase will run Knots?
They use third-party service for this as well. But to answer your question, if we’re to believe this, they probably should. And they could easily be running both Core and Knots to cross reference data.
The question is about User choice. You stand on the side of less User choice.
I agree with the contention about user choice if in fact they remove the option to change settings by the time the update comes out
It is specified as “deprecated”
The intention is clear and Users have flagged a response on the scale of the UASF.
Stop redefining terms and accept reality.
An ISP is protected under common carrier laws. To assume a Bitcoin node is somehow going to get the same treatment is overplaying your hand. Especially when there is currently another version of the software that gives a best effort to avoid spreading it, where as the other implementation invites it in. And the most damaging risk isn’t courts, it’s a reporter with no tools saying “look csam on Bitcoin”. Expending OP_Return makes csam easily visable to anyone with an explorer and not buried in witness gibberish. Being techically sound isn't everything and there is a serious human element missing here. I think the core side is really missing that.
Better to fight the battle in court than to volunteer infrastructure censorship. You think they’ll stop at OP_RETURN? Talk about overplaying a hand. Careful who you get in bed with.
That doesn’t even make sense. You assume they won’t stop at op return and then say I’m overplaying my hand? I don’t ‘get in bed’ with people, I make decisions based on ideas, not personalities. I want Bitcoin to be money, not a csam spam dump you call freedom. And if you’re so against filtering, better stop filtering your email too, that’s censorship, right?
I want bitcoin to be money too so I’m building a company that actually gets people to use it as such rather than virtue signaling a node policy that 1) doesn’t do shit to help bitcoin be used as money, and 2) incentivizes out of band transactions that hurt decentralization
What's the company so that others know you and your team support Core?
We support all consensus valid relayers including both Knots and Core over at nostr:nprofile1qqsfmys8030rttmk77cumprnsqqt0whmg0fqkz3xcx8798ag8rf8z3spzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgqgjwaehxw309ac82unsd3jhqct89ejhxxcct27 !
Thanks for the attention, we intend to increase Bitcoin’s usage as money through good UX that’s completely free from virtue signaling 💜
Btw regarding your email position: SMTP relayers like Postfix/Sendmail don’t filter content. Filtering is an application-layer choice, not part of the protocol.
Hypothetically, wouldnt it really suck if bots spammed you all day on nostr with junk so you could almost never see anything legitimate on your feed? Maybe you could try to block them? But nostr is a protocol right? You wouldn't do that for censorship reasons
There’s an interesting piece of this debate that hasn’t really been addressed. Bitcoin Core/Knots are simultaneously clients and protocol relayers. At the protocol level there should be no filtering IMO, client level different story but that should be up to each individual. More implementations the better, I don’t think the Knots one is productive… but like run whatever you want man.
tell this to samurai devs
Eric,
Yes, I understand that. Which is why this has become such a contentious issue. If in some universe it came down to requiring a hard fork I’d have faith in knots on principle.
I’ll vote with my nodes, I don’t have to be held to core’s requirements to push that data into the tip with my nodes and data.
I don’t understand why a select few wish to push these changes other than to monetize spam. It seems rather antithetical to the ‘bitcoin ethos’ on a number of principles.
Totally run what you want. I support that.
It’s not a select few though. The majority of tx relayers aren’t bothering with this “debate” and support Core. They’re not speaking publicly… doesn’t benefit them to feed themselves to a mob.
Well, if it happens and does destroy Bitcoin, there is always Bitcoin SV… ha
How is Conduit shaping up?
Haha… good man. We’re currently raising and expanding team at the same time. MVP / Alpha to be launched soon. Couple snags but nothing we can’t overcome. Lots of work most evenings and weekends to get it off the ground while I fund it with my fiat hustles. Thx for asking
