The proposal seems to be:
* If a transaction contains illegal content, rather than relaying the transaction content, relay a ZKP which proves the transaction was valid without revealing the content of the transaction.
* This is TECHNICALLY a hard fork, because without the actual content of the transaction, the block shouldn't be considered valid. The definition of valid is expanded to include transactions for which a ZKP is provided.
* This doesn't necesarrily cause a split in the network. Nodes using the ZKP would see blocks from nodes NOT using the ZKP as valid. But nodes NOT using the ZKP might consider blocks not containing the original transaction. But presumably they could get the original transaction from another node.
* There is a censorship risk, since the ZKP only proves the transaction was valid, not that it actually contained illegal content. So if nodes running NOTS recieved a directive to replace a particular transaction with a ZKP, they would stop relaying it.
* Presumably it would only apply to OP_RETURN transactions.
nostr:nevent1qqstguh9pk9kvvucdh4wuvchflgwlqjkhsq6a6afp0r59urehqmjpksprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumr0wpczuum0vd5kzmp0qgs9wsu887m90qrxeug5p2wnrcmglddtsjlc4dys0uh62rgw442u0sqrqsqqqqqp36ny9h
rfkill
npub1c5nn...0cv9
bitcoiner, privacy enthusiast, nix user.
Not setting zaps until there is non-DNS based way to do it.
Notes (4)
Sup dawg? I heard you like parititions so i put a btrfs subvolume in a btrfs volume in a logical volume in a volume group in a physical volume in a luks partition in an mbr partition on a hard drive so you can split while you split while you split while you split while you split while you split.
How the fuck do we keep falling for this? 