Of course it’s an issue, but it’s not as big of a problem because non standard transactions don’t propagate as well so you would have to collude with a miner to include such data on the chain.

What we can do is NOT change standardness rules so it’s harder not easier to put this content on the chain.

Your argument is to not only get rid of locks and fences because they don’t work 100% of the time, but to make it easier for future robbers to break into people’s homes.

And you’re yet to articulate why anyone should support this change. It’s quite telling you’re so determined to defend this contentious change without explaining why it’s a net positive.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Your argument rests on it being a legal liability to have CP on your node. Are you saying that SOME cp is OK and defensible but a lot of it is not Ok and indefensible?

Seems to me that it’s black or white. Either you have it on your node or not. And if that’s the case, then bitcoin is vulnerable to just a single instance.

No, I never said that some CSAM is ok, I’m mot sure how anyone could have surmised that from my comments.

Legally speaking it can very much be black and white, which is I and many others are against making it easier for 100kb blobs of CSAM to end up on the chain.

How are you so cavalier about this risk? It’s kind of suspicious tbh. It’s not like you’re making a case for it, you are just against people pointing out how this change can have serious unintended consequences

hey look - i found a picture of you performing the timeless skills logged on your impressive resume:

🖕

https://video.nostr.build/090e22a4d28f27a9bc0eba5526d608ff8bdede234cc82faead214fa757dc1777.mp4