Avatar
JustBalances 4mo ago

The OP_RETURN war is heating up

Seems to me that this could culminate in a fork which nobody wants

Lukas - duczko on X wrote:

My current understanding of the Core/Knots debate below 👇 Let me know what you think.

CURRENT STATE

1. All nodes are blocking the data so <100kb images can’t get stuffed into the chain in easy readable form.

2. Slipstream and MARA wont accept to put illicit images on-chain via their backdoors because it’s a massive business risk for them (and the team would have moral objections too).

3. People that want to put illicit images >80 bytes on-chain are left with the only option to chop up the data in hard to read form. Thereby giving the noderunner plausible deniability and relative safety from government crackdown.

4. As a result the chain is mostly clean from easy readable large 100kb-ish images with illicit content. Yes, there is nasty stuff hidden in convoluted forms, but you have to have special software and know where it is to find it. Thereby, hosting the blockchain is not tied with legal risk.

NO FILTER STATE

1. Anyone can put large illicit images >80 bytes into your node. Because you are downloading and decrypting the data in easy readable form by the node software you don’t have plausible deniability and you are exposed to significant personal legal risk.

2. Also, the chain will start getting stuffed with illicit images that everyone will have to store. Which may also become a big problem for node runners down the road, making hosting Bitcoin blockckain into a toxic waste storage operation that many noderunners may opt out of.

SUMMARY

Core is playing with fire. Changing from current state into a filterless state is not a trivial change as many claim but is connected with significant risk to destroy incentives for noderunners to run nodes. Risking significant decrease in people wanting to run nodes and thereby decreasing Bitcoin decentralization.

NOTE

An argument I often hear is “only economic node matter”. I’m not sure I agree, but let’s assume it’s true. Then it’s still true that the people running economic nodes have personal risk and if it’s a business then it’s also a team and a business risk that many economic noderunners may not be eager to take.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Tauri 4mo ago

Mostly agree, except for the part of a possible fork. Nothing so far points to that. The most likely outcomes are two imo:

1) Clear division of client implementations where either Core or Knots keeps the upper hand by a marginal difference. In this case we retain all the current problems but end up with significant protocol ossification;

2) Knots becomes the default implementation and Core gets pushed to the sidelines, therefore having only a tiny footprint on the network. Possibly solving most of current problems, maybe creating some newer ones, but no definitive ossification.

Avatar
JustBalances 4mo ago

No you are completely missing the point here

Mining CP/CSAM as Matthew Kratter calls it onto the blockchain creates a wonderful attack vector on bitcoin node operators. Their nodes will be propagating illegal material to their fellow node operators. If there is a FORK which prevents this I for one will seriously consider moving to it. What core is doing with v30 is an ABUSE of BITCOIN - an attack simmilar in nature to the block size wars. We do not need/want this. Core is not listening...

Avatar
𝕞𝕪𝕡𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕥𝕠𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕖 4mo ago

20% of the community have left Core yet they continue their current course. They must be well paid to attack Bitcoin.

Avatar
forwardsteps 🪢 4mo ago

Do any of them have families, children, grandchildren? Do they honestly want the Fed and Central banks to run CBDCs into every town and control all our futures? Are they completely insane? You’re right, it must be an awfully high payment (or evil blackmail threat).