GM. CSAM is the absolute pinnacle for politically motivated change. This reminds me of how The Online Saftey Act 2023 got through.
It's blatant collectivism.
Just because one person is a nonce (pedo - in North England tongue), the politically motivated uses it as an argument for "everybody is a nonce, so we must control them all."
And it's simply not true.
This doesn't look like uncensorable money to me. And not everybody is a nonce.
I don't see how politics can stay out of it when it comes to consensus rules: Bitcoin is only trustless and decentralized when consensus is reached, and it seems to me we're currently in the midst of a consensus-finding process.
That being said, is BIP-444 going to limit in any way anyone's ability to spend, receive, and hold sats? You've highlighted all the restricting sounding words, yet they do not seem to invalidate Bitcoin's use cases to me.
Well, it weaponises CSAM. If its put on chain, it could initiate a re-org. During a re-org there's opportunity for a double spend attack.
Valid concern, but it seems related to the activation strategy (reactive path instead of a simply proactive one) more than to the data carrier limitations proposed by the BIP.
I personally feel that a good way of thinking about these limitations is: if these had been in place since the very first time Satoshi released Bitcoin, would Bitcoin had been unnecessarily limited and would it have failed? (the answer can also be yes)
Uncensorable money or uncensorable data storage ?
Theft of garden gnomes is just a political excuse to keep strange people out of your lawn and limit free circulation of individuals, and is currently being used by dangerous nazis as a pathetic excuse to propose many other liberticide rules:
- DISABLE ingress of strange people in your garden through a fence
- LIMIT offensive capability of thieves by keeping guns on the premises
- REJECT taxation by removing arbitrary central authorities that always screw things up
- INVALIDATE any claim to "inclusiveness" by defending the sovereignty of people to decide who can enter their territory
- DISABLE state ability to spy on people by introducing privacy enhancing technologies
I don't think this metaphor is useful. Metaphors at useful until we forget that they have limits.
