“I’m already poisoned so I shouldn’t worry about the additional poison I’m ingesting.” Wut?

I’ve been aware of this for years. Weird it’s popping up again.

There’s some already there?

“But please, won’t somebody please think of the children!” If you drill down, any ledger can be co-opted to store arbitrary data. Should it be illegal?

I’m not sure that makes any sense but ok

I’m saying if you run a bitcoin node, what people are so worried about is already there.

Csam now. What's next? Can of worms. This whole debate is beyond ridiculous now IMO. I don't fuckin get how 'pro filter' team doesn't see this as a foot in the door of 'just one more data (we dont like) type to filter'.

I'm at the point where I'd love to see a new fork. Airdrop and huge shorting opportunity.

So your point is, “cp already exists so don’t try to prevent it.”?

In a sense, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m saying those “trying to prevent CP” don’t realize they’re asking for bitcoin to be declared illegal for the illegal content of their bitcoin nodes. I believe bitcoin existing is more important than any bad person storing bad data.

Let police do police work. Or heck, even write bitcoin node software to screen for CP and forward up addresses to police…maybe police should write said software! But to make bitcoin illegal because bad people use it for bad things is a non-starter in my book, no matter how hard they cry “won’t someone please think of the children!”

That doesn’t make a lick of sense.

HFSP

That response also doesn’t make a lick of sense.

ossification is a euphemism invented by shitcoiners dressed in bitcoin clothing. bitcoin is fine. you don't change something that works well.

it's a slur, i mean, not a euphemism (the opposite). it's supposed to imply that not wanting bitcoin to turn into ethereum means you are a dinosaur.

If you're going to make your argument, I wouldn't do it with conjecture-based ad hominum.

also, bitcoin core 30 is not "new features" it's *changed features*.

HFSP

This is a point that I think is very important to consider.

yeah, read up on the documentation and change logs before you move to another version

Of course there is. Bitcoin chain has been used for all sorts of stupid data for many years.

he means "block-only" mode but filtering the mempool has more effect

by that i mean, it helps propagate "good" transactions, which is better than not propagating any because of "bad" transactions. one of the philosophical bases of the coretards arguments is the "freedumb of speech" crap and the "aren't you man enough" mentality that we even see in nostr clients not fully hiding trolling replies. what the fuck guys? we have computers to do work for us. that can include discrimination. and yeah, *discrimination* is the prerogative and right of every human to decide what he wants to associate with. this is the quiet part of "freedom of association". freedom of association includes freedom of dissassociation. what kind of people don't want you to ignore them? attention whores. should we give heroin addicts free heroin because they associate with heroin? i don't fucking think so.

I’m not happy with Core removing a configuration option. I don’t see the advantage of removing configuration option over bumping the default to 160 bytes, for example. I think the CSAM is a nonsense argument, but slowly ramping up op return size in relay policy may be wise for technical reasons.

Have you seen it?

what are the technical reasons you are envisioning?

No, I never opened it, but I have seen people reference it with transaction id. I believe it exists, because there's nothing technically preventing it currently (the inscriptions embed any data into witness currently, which is extra stupid and it is encouraging more data since it's discounted in terms of fees)

I’m seriously asking, not trolling. This is one of my outstanding questions.

It’s probably safer to assume it’s there already

Where is the difference? In both cases you need software to read it, right? The knots argument is that bitcoin should be used for 'monetary use' only and not arbitrary data. But once you start a filter at the core it opens the gates for future political inspired plays and further tightening and restrictions or is this out of reality (social media age verification cough cough)

83 bytes was the standard since 2016 and nobody called it a filter or catastrophized over it.

Exactly. Making it 83 or 85 or 160 wouldn’t be an issue either way. Obliterating it might be unwise.

Raw form, like everything. But it’s in more than one transaction. Is that enough obfuscation? Would need a command like bitcoin-cli getblock 00000000000000ecbbff6bafb7efa2f7df05b227d5c73dca8f2635af32a2e949 0 | tail -c+92167 | for ((o=0;o<946;++o)) ; do read -rN420 x ; echo -n ${x::130}${x:132:130}${x:264:130} ; done | xxd -r -p | tail -c+9 | head -c184292 > bitcoin.pdf But anyone telling you how to do it will be documenting their crime for you. Opreturn changes won’t change the fact that a command would be needed to make people aware of the illegal numbers on their nodes. I’m totally in favor of knots existing and letting people set any relay policy they want…because sometimes choice matters in ways that are completely meaningless on a technical level… In some ways, by not slowly raising default settings, core is diversifying implementations and I’m happy about that. If anyone really cares about CP relay and the downsides of having such vastly disparate mempools, they could ref write the mempool to keep metadata about valid but spammy transactions each node decided to drop…this way people still can calculate fees properly without participating in spam / CP relay / download until it’s in a block.

Yup. And people use inscriptions because opreturn wouldn’t relay. And inscriptions bloat the Utxo set, unlike opreturn spam which can be discarded.

That's right. But there are folks claiming to be able to differentiate between 'pure montary' use and other. Using the blockchain to store pictures or other stuff is, IMO retarded - BUT - stifling this going into the future is not clever either.

Agreed. I don’t believe bitcoin should be used for spam. And I don’t think ripping the bandaid off opreturn is wiser than a stepwise increase of defaults, but the whole CP/CSAM argument is moot.

100% :blobyes_sm: