You are literally doing that with your node. That is what you control.
This argument applies to many other illegal or illicit things as well BTW. Money laundering, terrorist financing, OFAC lists, child trafficking, etc etc.
But again, none of that matters bc you can control what you run on your machine. You don’t have to ask for permission.
I’m not pruning my node. What’s on the chain is what I have on my node.
It doesn’t tho. Miners using OFAC’s list is not at all the same as hosting CSAM on a node.
You can’t control what ends up on the chain in any practical or real way. I’m trying not to be a dick, but I really don’t think you understand what is going on.
Happy to continue the dialogue if you address why we should make a change that would allow CSAM to be added on the chain in a manner that likely removes one’s ability to claim plausible deniability, otherwise, this is fruitless.
side note here, but what do you think Strategy, Metaplanet, SmarterWebCo do in the event of a hard fork?
i have no idea what the lightning wallets even do. does a hard fork just break a lot of apps like CashApp, Blink, Aqua, etc. i'm just thinking out loud and coming up with some questions for AI.
They will side with whichever chain is accepted by regulators and governments of course. They don’t want to go to jail.
Unless Governments only make it legal for only corporations to run nodes, or they make them or their custodians connect to the government node.
Isn’t it great??
yeah, they would have to accept whichever was approved. sell the opposite one. that would cause a massive sell off in whichever chain Strategy dumps :-D . I think it was Jamie Dimon who said "of course you can make more than 21 million bitcoin" and he's right!
or maybe they could spin off the company with the other chain. like Strategy El Salvador with noderunner edition wherever it was legal.
to me it's clear it's an ultimate way to capture bitcoin between banks and nations. if node runners can't pay compliance and legal departments , they will have to turn off. it centralizes the control of the network into the hands of a few mining companies and banks.
in that world, bitcoin would remain a fair ledger between countries but within the country, it will be available only to the wealthy who can afford special custody loopholes, etc. the rest of us will be stuck with inflating CBDCs.
unless there's a whole raft of bitcoiners who just sell the spammy one and keep the one that can be ethically/legally decentralized.
in that case, it would really punish the parties trying to centralize. A self-rugpull.
> that removes one’s ability to claim plausible deniability
This is doing a lot of work here
But we obviously have a very different sense of the risks to bitcoin in this instance. Luckily, you can set your own non-consensus rules and not worry about what anyone else is doing.
It’s not, that is the risk. I never said it would for sure happen or that it would happen right away. But anyone being honest with themselves can see how hosting child abuse material on their home server in a way that is easily viewable is probably not a risk worth taking. And for what? You haven’t addressed the great and necessary benefit we are getting for taking this very real risk which has already taken place on other chains when they expanded to 100kb……
Yes, that much is clear.
You don’t seem to understand that once the nasty content is on the blockchain you can’t just remove it from your node. It’s baked in the cake.
