Appreciate your argument, and that you actually seem to somewhat understand what’s going on here.
I agree, intent matters. That’s why courts and regulators have never held infrastructure providers liable for the bits they transmit. Nor should they ever.
Nodes do not have image assemblers built in, just like AT&T doesn’t have movie players built into their switches.
Regardless of how “accessible” the bits are, infrastructure providers cannot be held liable for transmitting bits they have no visibility into. Just like paper mills aren’t liable for what people write on them.
Do you also think we should criminalize ethernet cables?
Replies (3)
> That’s why courts and regulators have never held infrastructure providers liable for the bits they transmit
Tell that to the TornadoCash/SamouraiWallet guys.
An ISP is protected under common carrier laws. To assume a Bitcoin node is somehow going to get the same treatment is overplaying your hand. Especially when there is currently another version of the software that gives a best effort to avoid spreading it, where as the other implementation invites it in. And the most damaging risk isn’t courts, it’s a reporter with no tools saying “look csam on Bitcoin”. Expending OP_Return makes csam easily visable to anyone with an explorer and not buried in witness gibberish. Being techically sound isn't everything and there is a serious human element missing here. I think the core side is really missing that.
tell this to samurai devs
