v30 recently reached #1 on knotsgoup.
My understanding is that there's already pointers to, and fragmemts of, illegal content in the database, but not actual contiguous "files." Also, v30 and its hard-coded 100KB OP_RETURN relay policy enables the propagation, mining, and storage of complete illegal files.
Am I understanding this correctly?
If yes, it appears that Bitcoin mining is headed into uncharted legal territory and currently "relying on the network’s design, immutability, and lack of centralized control to navigate potential risks."
With v30 now in the #1 spot, I'm assuming the Knots rebellion will only delay the inevitable vs. prevent it.
Does it ultimately come down to "deal with it" or a UASF?* What would a UASF look like in practice, and what are the risks? Would it be as simple as the major mining pools deciding to fork? Would that leave an orphan chain like BCH?
*I'm not advocating for either position (yet) and have no influence anyway.
I hope this doesn't come off as FUD, but if I'm understanding things correctly, this is a legitimate issue better addressed on a niche social platform vs. in more mainstream forums.
Obviously, I'm not saying anything new, but I've yet to see this issue addressed in a concrete way - mostly just nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpp4mhxue69uhkyunz9e5k7tcpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7l3vw43 nostr:nprofile1qqsve2jcud7fnjzmchn4gq52wx9agey9uhfukv69dy0v4wpuw4w53nqpzemhxue69uhkzarvv9ejumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqg4waehxw309ajkgetw9ehx7um5wghxcctwvscxst82 nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy08wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wshscy566r nostr:nprofile1qqsg9nvuv7ls3z66dj46nar2905t7c229p3qms2anykqg8pqkcq8x8qyr328d et al. (all of whom I respect) arguing online.
I think there's merit to both sides of the OP_RETURN debate and believe it's ultimately a subjective preference. I'm personally not in favor of spam (ordinals etc.) but I can understand the value of having better hooks for integration with other networks and systems.
I personally hope that a compromise solution that mitigates the legal risks is technically possible and can be implemented without too much disruption.
However, I'm not asking about that - that debate has been done to death, and I don't expect any meaningful consensus in social fourms. What I'm trying to determine is: What are the alternate timelines, how likely are they, how would they play out in practice, and how long will it take to reach a stable resolution?
My motivations are financial (risk assessment and speculation) and a desire to better understand the situation. I'm confident Bitcoin will weather any storm, but I don't know the weather forcast.
I'd genuinely appreciate some clarification and well-reasoned arguments from those who have a deep understanding of the technical and legal details (vs. rhetorical arguments, ad hominem, dogma etc.). In other words, a constructive discussion vs. a hell thread.
----- AI Generated Below -----
There is no clear, universally accepted legal precedent for the liability of blockchain node operators for illegal content stored on their nodes, and the legal landscape remains uncertain and jurisdiction-dependent.
The core issue stems from the immutable and distributed nature of blockchains, which makes it technically impossible to remove data once it is recorded, even if that data is illegal.
In common-law jurisdictions, the legal risk for node operators is considered to be around 50/50 due to a lack of established precedent.
Some legal analyses suggest that the principle of "possession" of illegal content could apply, meaning that simply hosting a copy of the blockchain, which contains illegal data, might constitute possession under the law, similar to holding a physical collection of illegal material.
However, this view is contested, and analogies are drawn to other technologies like the Tor network, where hosting a node is not illegal even if it carries illegal traffic, as long as the node operator is not the initiator of that traffic.
The prevailing legal argument, supported by analogies to internet service providers (ISPs) and content providers, is that node operators should not be held liable for illegal content they merely transmit or store, provided they are not the original source and do not actively participate in the illegal activity.
This is based on the idea that the technology itself is neutral and that liability should rest with the individual who intentionally uploads the illegal content.
This principle is similar to how courts have treated ISPs and other intermediaries, where liability is typically conditional on knowledge and the ability to act.
However, the situation is complicated by the fact that the cost of storing large amounts of data on blockchains like Ethereum is prohibitively high, which discourages the widespread use of the blockchain for storing large illegal files.
Instead, the common practice is to use the blockchain as a pointer or hash to external data repositories, which are more accessible to law enforcement for takedown actions.
This practice mitigates the direct legal risk to node operators, as the illegal content is not stored on the blockchain itself.
Some jurisdictions have taken a different approach. For example, China has demonstrated a willingness to enforce its own laws by taking action against miners and nodes processing blocks containing content deemed illegal by its government, such as Falun Gong texts, by blacklisting their IP addresses and causing a hard fork of the blockchain.
This shows that national governments can, in theory, use their regulatory power to enforce content laws on blockchain networks, potentially leading to the creation of multiple, nationally regulated forks of a blockchain.
In summary, while there is no definitive legal precedent, the current understanding leans towards the idea that node operators are not liable for illegal content they host, drawing parallels to the legal protections afforded to ISPs and other intermediaries. However, this protection is not absolute and could be challenged, especially if a jurisdiction chooses to enforce its laws strictly, as demonstrated by China's actions.
The ultimate legal outcome would depend heavily on the specific jurisdiction and the circumstances of the case.
-----
There is evidence of illegal content stored on the Bitcoin blockchain, which is replicated across all full nodes. This includes links to child abuse material, with research from RWTH Aachen University in 2018 identifying 1,600 files stored in the blockchain, including at least eight instances of sexual content and 274 links to child abuse websites.
While the content itself is not stored directly as images or videos, it is encoded in transaction data using mechanisms like the OP_Return opcode, which allows arbitrary data to be embedded in Bitcoin transactions.
The immutability of the blockchain means that once such data is included, it cannot be removed without a hard fork, which would require consensus and could undermine the network’s integrity.
Although the data is technically accessible, experts note that extracting and viewing it requires specialized tools and is not trivial for the average user.
Furthermore, the content is often dead or inaccessible, as many of the linked websites have been taken down.
Despite the presence of such data, no country has banned Bitcoin based on this issue, and legal experts argue that users running full nodes are not necessarily liable for prosecution if they did not knowingly access or distribute the content, as the blockchain was not designed for data storage.
However, the legal status remains complex, with concerns that node operators could be considered possessors of illegal material under certain jurisdictions, particularly if they knowingly interact with the data.
In recent years, the rise of the Ordinals protocol has enabled the inscription of larger files, including images and videos, directly onto individual satoshis, raising new concerns about the potential for illicit content to be permanently stored on the blockchain.
While some platforms have taken steps to hide such content, the data remains accessible through the blockchain’s distributed nature.
-----
Major Bitcoin miners have not publicly disclosed specific legal preparations for handling potential illegal content in 100KB OP_RETURN outputs, but the broader network’s response centers on policy and technical choices rather than direct legal compliance strategies.
Bitcoin Core v30’s removal of the 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN data has raised concerns about legal liability, especially if illegal content like child sexual abuse material (CSAM) is embedded and distributed across nodes. However, miners themselves are not typically seen as primary legal targets, as they act as transaction validators rather than intentional hosts of data. The legal risk is more commonly associated with full node operators who store and relay the blockchain data.
Some experts argue that node operators using restrictive configurations—like Knots Bitcoin Node with limited OP_RETURN relay—can claim a legal defense by demonstrating intent to avoid non-monetary data. In contrast, running default Bitcoin Core software that relays large OP_RETURN data could weaken such a defense.
While miners profit from including data-rich transactions (e.g., Ordinals, Runes), there is no evidence of formal legal frameworks or industry-wide policies adopted by major mining pools to mitigate risks from illegal content. Instead, the community relies on:
Market incentives (fees regulating data use),
Prunability of OP_RETURN data (reducing storage and exposure),
Decentralized responsibility, making enforcement legally complex.
Legal precedent, such as a case cited by attorney Joe Carlasare, suggests node operators may not be liable without knowledge or control over illicit content. However, this remains an "open legal issue almost everywhere," as noted by Nick Szabo.
In summary, major miners have not announced specific legal safeguards, relying instead on the network’s design, immutability, and lack of centralized control to navigate potential risks.
-----
https://knotsgoup.vercel.app/
