I hear you but that sidesteps the reality of transmitting it. What is the real defense against this?
All you are doing is relaying encoded data. You aren’t the publisher or the creator of the data so off the top of my head section 230 protection exists.
Furthermore the network nodes are not able to remove specific content. So they lack the knowledge and ability to control elements of the system. This is also why apple isn’t responsible for encrypted material on iCloud. The cypherpunks have already laid this out which is why people like Luke should be shamed for this rhetoric.
Thanks that is a compelling explanation.
If I am understanding correctly - we can’t stop it, it likely already exists, and there is theoretically a legal precedent for defending against this as an attack vector.
Assuming I am following, here is my next logical question - if there is a viable means to filter out such content, are we not obliged to do so? This seems like a grey area and the essence of the moral debate. I agree with the ideals of decentralization.
I can see a future where this forces more kyc controls for all on and offramps - because if you can kyc, you can prosecute the bad actors.
I don’t think this is what we want either.
There is no viable means of filtering out content. As long as transactions are valid they will hit the network because the network is made in such a way to make it hard to censor valid transactions. If one wanted to one could spend the fees to load extremely large files in several pieces on chain. You would have to fork bitcoin and remove a lot of the things that make layer 2s function to stop the easiest pathways and even then spam could still make it on chain.
The leading proponent and coder of knots was one of the og chain spammers having used the block header space on a block his pool mined to insert a biblical verse. He did this without the consent of the miners whose work was responsible for winning the block. This behavior cannot be stopped and that space is 100 bytes.
Bitcoin is not Bitcoin with kyc or gate keepers. It is permission less for a reason.
Thank you - much to consider there. I cannot find any fault in what you shared so appreciate you taking the time to explain.
