You can’t do anything after it’s added on the chain
Is your takeaway really “people are free to run a node and host child porn in a more easily viewable format if they want”
What is shameful is the gaslighting about what will inevitably happen.
Get real about the risks, man.
> You can’t do anything after it’s added to the chain
Yeah, no shit. So are you planning to host it in blocks on your node?
Or are you going to advocate for a fork? Otherwise this is purely performative.
Well the way you talk about “you can do anything you want with your node” made it seem like you didn’t understand what is going on.
The plan is not to host CSAM in a manner that removes my ability to claim plausible deniability. How? By lobbying CORE not to implement the changes that would enable it.
A fork is not needed as evidence by the fact it can’t be done right now. It’s “performative” if you don’t understand the actual arguments.
If Core releases v30 and 5-10% of nodes upgrade and CSAM starting getting in chain.
How does that not morally corrupt all individuals running any other bitcoin node implementation?
I personally would unplug my node and Im guessing many others would as well. Less people would be willing to spin up nodes and over time bitcoin might not be so decentralized.
Rather than unplug my node in the future I'd rather just advocate for a hard fork now.
Exactly
A fork is not necessary if that change is not put into effect. But if it is then a fork may be in the picture. Hard to predict the future. This change makes no sense when viewed from an adversarial pov
Just prune your nodes and turn off relay.
By your logic, it only takes 1. So unless you can get a soft fork that eliminates it at consensus, then this “threat” will always be there.
Pruning defeats the purpose of running a full node. That’s not a solution that makes the network stronger.
“Your arm hurts? Just cut it off”
That threat is not there right now. There is already CSAM on the chain BUT because of how it is stored WE can credibly claim plausible deniability. If and when v30 comes out that will change.
Yes, all it takes is one image or video stored in such a way that plausible deniability cannot be claimed to spoil the apple. Do you get now why the loud voices on X?
> The purpose of running a full node
… is to verify independently the BTC that you receive.
You don’t need the chain stored to do that. If you want to “solve the problem”, you need to find a way to prevent it from getting onto your node, which can only happen at the consensus level, if at all.
How does this not boil down to: allowing unnecessary shitcoiner bullshit on bitcoin while potentially sacrificing the long term decentralized nature of this protocol?
That’s not the only purpose, but even if we go with that rudimentary understanding, it still makes no sense to constantly prune your node every time illegal content makes it on the chain. Is this really good for the network? What are we even doing at that point.
Or, hear me out… we just don’t make the change that makes this risk possible.
Crazy, I know
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.
