Witness data is binary signature blobs. Its expensive to abuse, hard to parse, and ignored by most tools. OP_Return is explicitly indexed and human-readable with basic tools. This makes it a low-cost storage layer for junk or worse and can seriously damage bitcoins reputation. I think there is also a serious distinction between a node that decides to propogate this garbage, and a node that is forced to store it while giving a best effort not too. Intent matters
Discussion
Appreciate your argument, and that you actually seem to somewhat understand whatās going on here.
I agree, intent matters. Thatās why courts and regulators have never held infrastructure providers liable for the bits they transmit. Nor should they ever.
Nodes do not have image assemblers built in, just like AT&T doesnāt have movie players built into their switches.
Regardless of how āaccessibleā the bits are, infrastructure providers cannot be held liable for transmitting bits they have no visibility into. Just like paper mills arenāt liable for what people write on them.
Do you also think we should criminalize ethernet cables?
> Thatās why courts and regulators have never held infrastructure providers liable for the bits they transmit
Tell that to the TornadoCash/SamouraiWallet guys.
Exactly. Its an assumption that a Bitcoin node is somehow going to get that protection. Atleast for now, no.
You think Blackrock runs a Knots node?
If anything, I think Blackrock might have vested interests in a chain that has the history and reputation of Bitcoin, and database capabilities similar to Ethereum. Do I think they run a node? Hell no, and why do they need to? They are commissioners and rent seekers. If Bitcoin fails to make them money, theyāll simply jump onto the next thing. They use Coinbase for custody of billions for crying out loud.
Blackrock runs their own node for verification:
https://blog.quicknode.com/ibit-blackrock-bitcoin-etf-guide-2025/
But yeah, they probably delegate broadcasting tx to Coinbase Prime
So the question is then: do you think Coinbase will run Knots?
They use third-party service for this as well. But to answer your question, if weāre to believe this, they probably should. And they could easily be running both Core and Knots to cross reference data.
But on the second thought, I wouldnāt hold my breath for it.
Haha oh shitā¦ of course!
The question is about User choice. You stand on the side of less User choice.
I agree with the contention about user choice if in fact they remove the option to change settings by the time the update comes out
It is specified as ādeprecatedā
The intention is clear and Users have flagged a response on the scale of the UASF.
Stop redefining terms and accept reality.
Oh relax Nic, people can have complex opinions and your ārealityā is not a given.
An ISP is protected under common carrier laws. To assume a Bitcoin node is somehow going to get the same treatment is overplaying your hand. Especially when there is currently another version of the software that gives a best effort to avoid spreading it, where as the other implementation invites it in. And the most damaging risk isnāt courts, itās a reporter with no tools saying ālook csam on Bitcoinā. Expending OP_Return makes csam easily visable to anyone with an explorer and not buried in witness gibberish. Being techically sound isn't everything and there is a serious human element missing here. I think the core side is really missing that.
Better to fight the battle in court than to volunteer infrastructure censorship. You think theyāll stop at OP_RETURN? Talk about overplaying a hand. Careful who you get in bed with.
That doesnāt even make sense. You assume they wonāt stop at op return and then say Iām overplaying my hand? I donāt āget in bedā with people, I make decisions based on ideas, not personalities. I want Bitcoin to be money, not a csam spam dump you call freedom. And if youāre so against filtering, better stop filtering your email too, thatās censorship, right?
I want bitcoin to be money too so Iām building a company that actually gets people to use it as such rather than virtue signaling a node policy that 1) doesnāt do shit to help bitcoin be used as money, and 2) incentivizes out of band transactions that hurt decentralization
What's the company so that others know you and your team support Core?
We support all consensus valid relayers including both Knots and Core over at nostr:nprofile1qqsfmys8030rttmk77cumprnsqqt0whmg0fqkz3xcx8798ag8rf8z3spzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgqgjwaehxw309ac82unsd3jhqct89ejhxxcct27 !
Thanks for the attention, we intend to increase Bitcoinās usage as money through good UX thatās completely free from virtue signaling š
Btw regarding your email position: SMTP relayers like Postfix/Sendmail donāt filter content. Filtering is an application-layer choice, not part of the protocol.
Hypothetically, wouldnt it really suck if bots spammed you all day on nostr with junk so you could almost never see anything legitimate on your feed? Maybe you could try to block them? But nostr is a protocol right? You wouldn't do that for censorship reasons
Thereās an interesting piece of this debate that hasnāt really been addressed. Bitcoin Core/Knots are simultaneously clients and protocol relayers. At the protocol level there should be no filtering IMO, client level different story but that should be up to each individual. More implementations the better, I donāt think the Knots one is productiveā¦ but like run whatever you want man.
tell this to samurai devs