I think the knots people have been whipped up into a moral panic about CSAM on the chain, and there is enough topical overlap here for it to spiral into a towering Jesus frenzy crusade that all of Core is compromised.

So, the CSAM is not possible. Yes or no? Currently. Without BIP 110?

They are going to get miles and miles out of this at the social layer, but in the end, it all comes down to what software the economic nodes run. The most I think they are going to accomplish is being a non-insignificant psychogical drain and time suck on the core devs.

I must admit. I'm WAY out of my depth here. I don't code, I have a very basic, rudimentary understanding of what's going on. I'm #TeamKnots.

Peter Todd already proved you can get around the filters, at least the last time I checked in. There will always be circumvention methods. If you want a guarantee that CSAM will never be on a chain, then you will have an unprecedented, centralized governance structure retroactively acting as a node morality police.

CSAM is possible, but it will be once BIP110 lifts after a year and nobody made any progress, because these retards have escalated their rhetoric and vitriol.

Peter Todd is a CIA agent. Satoshi fucked off as soon as Gavin did his presentation to Langley; fuck off🤷🏻‍♂️.

I can't really stop his proof from being true, regardless of who he works for.

yeah... this is kinda "red meat for the base", as they say

The concerns are valid enough, though the legal angle is an odd one for Bitcoiners, even if the ethics isn't. The issue is that their proposed solution in BIP-110 fails to solve the issue but does create more problems. You can still create problematic spam, including of abusive content, with BIP-110. It just also bloats the UTXO set. That it's non-contiguous data doesn't change the ethics of it being accessible to those looking for it. It's unlikely that it changes the legal situation either, but again, since when was bitcoin about following the laws of civil authorities anyway? I run knots, but do distance myself from where BIP-110 and the rhetoric is going. And honestly have considered running knots with a larger datacarriersize due to the harm reduction arguments some have made for it. I'd rather Citrea and their ilk not exist but if they're going to I'd rather them not also unduly hamper Bitcoin in the pricess. And if they're willing to pay more to use op_return rather than bloating the UTXO set I don't see much reason not to let them.

It's possible. With or without 110. The only thing 110 does is make it non-contiguous, while ensuring it also has to bloat the UTXO set. But it's still accessible to those who know to look for it.

Bitcoin Optech

Bitcoin Optech Newsletter #379

This week’s newsletter shares an analysis comparing the historical performance of the OpenSSL and libsecp256k1 libraries. Also included are our r...

Still looking for the txid but this has been widely reported.

Did find this though while looking. May make for some amusement in the brief window after the chainsplit before the first 51% attack. Asssuming such a window actually exists.

GitHub

GitHub - djkazic/bpub: encoding data on bitcoin using valid compressed pubkeys

encoding data on bitcoin using valid compressed pubkeys - djkazic/bpub

The Mempool Open Source Project®

Explore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with The Mempool Open Source Project®. See the real-time status of your transactions, get network info, and more.

Found it.