Nostr Web Client

For everyone getting emotional about data carrier size limits in Core 30: calm down…your concerns aren’t helped by emotions and there is still a needed debate to be had over illegal number storage and whether or not changing default configuration option for carrier size is of any effect or not on the social/legal layer of bitcoin (technical side is well figured out and is much more straightforward).

IMHO, questions to be debated center around CSAM or other illegal numbers: is this fear porn fud or a genuine concern? Even if just fud, isn’t that enough to invite law enforcement to investigate/confiscate/arrest, etc?

Even if we all knew that in the end bitcoin hash chain extenders need to be getting all transactions via decentralized censorship resistant network and need to be economically incentivized by transaction fees and the value thereof, that doesn’t necessarily mean inviting more police scrutiny now by blowing open op return is a wise decision…just because something will someday be necessary is not a valid argument for why it must be done _right now_

What am I missing?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Mike 3mo ago

You’re missing that anyone can already put anything in an inscription.

Dr. Bitcoin, MD 3mo ago

I can see how this truth fits in to this debate in multiple ways:

1) CSAM is probably already in the chain using the inscriptions method

2) CSAM is in the chain from years past

3) op return limits aren’t meaningful limits for spammers because inscriptions method get then 4x more space at ¼ the cost for spam

4) inscription technique is a cost to use in and of itself: it requires more brain power of the spammer to use inscriptions to spam over op return

5) Code for returning CSAM from bitcoin block is longer when stored in inscription format as opposed to op return or older storage methods , but never the less any code for reconstructing CSAM from blockchain can be a one liner on the command line.

Mike 3mo ago

Right, but all the tools are already out there. I call bullshit on the people screaming OP_RETURN is worse because it’s contiguous. The data is there or it’s not.

Dr. Bitcoin, MD 3mo ago

Agreed.

Also, proving one’s hard drive contains CSAM is technically a little tricky. It’s not like your node and my node each have one big file called blockchain.db that hash to the same digest.

I was today years old when I learned there is an obfuscation key applied to the stored blockchain data on your node…I am assuming one can accomplish a cryptographic delete by deleting the obfuscation key…and anyone trying to prove your hard drive had CSAM on it would have to create it by using key and querying the database and crunching the numbers to make illegal numbers appear.

Ľḭṿḙśƫṟãɖãṁṹṧ💫#RunCoreV30 3mo ago

This isn’t new beef. It’s at least a decade+ old.

I think topic got hot because we’re going sideways and bored. It caught attention of new influencers and new bitcoiners. And it’s all being milked for clicks.

Dr. Bitcoin, MD 3mo ago

Agreed. But what is new is the wide use of an effective work around via inscriptions…this invalidates a lot of the rationale for a low op return data carrier size limit.

Ľḭṿḙśƫṟãɖãṁṹṧ💫#RunCoreV30 3mo ago

True. And imho

It all boils down to ossification debate. One side is convinced Bitcoin is perfect and we need only security upgrades. The other thinks we’re going to keep building and improving.

Dr. Bitcoin, MD 3mo ago

Ah, and this is just a microcosm of a bigger debate. I can see that now.

Mike 3mo ago

Yes, and certain monetary maximalist influencers have worked plebs into a frenzy with “THIS WILL KILL BITCOIN” insanity. Boy who cried wolf.

🍊💊⚡️🌽 3mo ago 💬 1

There is no urgency or emergency for this change Doctor at this stage of the game……….

Necessity is not present currently right now……….

Even my physician cannot justify a scan of my body without a justifying symptom or history……….

#Bitcoin, being in its nascency, should not be changed without a strong reason/rationale or impending functional degradation that is anticipated………..

I see none of that….

Dr. Bitcoin, MD 3mo ago

I agree. Even if everyone could see why this change is someday necessary, I still see reasons to oppose the change…

Another seemingly unrelated tidbit that I think is massively important to this debate: have you heard of the obfuscation key bitcoin uses for storing data in its blockchain? This has a subtle but very meaningful effect on prosecuting CSAM storage as a crime…

🍊💊⚡️🌽 3mo ago

I have never heard of it.

Dr. Bitcoin, MD 3mo ago

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/127927/where-does-bitcoin-core-keep-the-xor-obfuscation-keys-for-both-block-data-files

So the kiddy porn on your node is not saved in a readable format without the key. It would be bad if antivirus software insisted on deleting or cleaning a database file!

Bogi 3mo ago

I was wondering when someone would bring up the XOR’ing of the blocks but I that’s still just basic decoding… just like decoding a jpeg from Bitcoin blocks that aren’t XOR’ed. The xor key is hardcoded unless you specify your own in the conf file. So it’s not a secret.

Dr. Bitcoin, MD 3mo ago

I’m not saying kiddie porn isn’t available from the blockchain already. But I am saying it does take work to possess it

Resonance Cascade The II 3mo ago

That you Michael Saylor?

Resonance Cascade The II 3mo ago

I'm more concerned about it going down a Shitcoin path instead of simply value transfer (money).

Dr. Bitcoin, MD 3mo ago 💬 1

At the end of the day, shitcoins are either the best use of bitcoin block space per byte or they are not. This has nothing to do with the configuration settings…bitcoin survived a few hundred million dollar attack of inscriptions with only significant lasting damage being Utxo bloat.

Resonance Cascade The II 3mo ago

UTXO Bloat;

2032 chain size is 540TB

This is not a good outcome

Dr. Bitcoin, MD 3mo ago

Chain growth rate is capped.

Utxo set is ideally stored in ram but is unbounded.