But you discount "the movement" as being all stupid followers of its leader. We very recently observed the shift to this "sanctioned data" stance and you had commented on a stream where Mechanic learned about that but I think it's not mere semantics. A legal attack on Bitcoin could argue on this distinction when determining if a benign protocol is being abused or complicit in the spread of "illegal data". In a world where judges cared only about what is right, we wouldn't have to worry but Bitcoin is under attack in 200 jurisdictions and if this provides half an argument for some of those to put users closer to jail, it would be bad or at least way worse for bitcoin than having to keep maintaining 20 lines of code and a 160B default datacarriersize.

Replies (4)

Right, so then the argument is that a judge would say: - CSAM in Inscription: no jail - CSAM in 101kb OP_RETURN: no jail - CSAM in 100kb OP_RETURN prior to September 2025: no jail - CSAM in 100kb OP_RETURN post September 2025: jail! Correct?
Did cypherpunks care about the legal system? Bitcoin is already illegal in many of these 200 jurisdictions...