Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

I think it’s disingenuous to say that this will allow smut in the blockchain when 1) it’s already there and 2) currently possible to put more in there.

If op return had a consensus limit, I might be opposed to the idea of increasing it. But it doesn’t have a consensus limit (other than the block size). Node software just has policies about what size of an op return to relay. And any node software or fork can choose that limit. Once any miner puts it in a block, all nodes have it.

So no, I’m not worried about what was always possible and happening anyway. That is one of the downsides of it being an open, permissionless, decentralized ledger.
cd
WaffleWater 6mo ago 💬 1

But its not already in there. To argue some steganography akin method of getting jpegs into the blockchain means we should just open the flood gates and make it easy for everyone to upload porn and worse makes myself and others wonder if there's not something else going on with peoples motives.

Consensus rules allow for dust transactions, no ones is talking about removing those filters.

The fact that your not worried about bitcoin becoming a cache of smut on my computer as well as the computers of everyone else, when there's every reason to believe there will be no mechanism to stop exactly that says nothing about the health of bitcoin and everything about your respect for our computers.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
michael 6mo ago 💬 1

man. imagine if people spent 1/10 the energy respecting each other as this guy does on the state of his computer 🕊️🕊️

cd
WaffleWater 6mo ago

Why would I respect someone who wants to make me choose betweent storing child porn on my computer or shutting down my bitcoin node?