I’ve heard you say before there can be no CSAM in Inscriptions because CSAM in Inscriptions can only be “misinterpreted” as CSAM. I doubt many people would agree with this… but let’s park that. How is 101kb of CSAM in OP_RETURN not CSAM??

Who is jailed? - devs? all devs or just 1-2? - node running who forwarded Tx data as ones and zeros, without "looking at it" -miner who archived Tx to the time-chain? How about the human creator of the CSAM in meat-space, the person who made the image/video, then paid to get it mined? Lets just send all of those people to the wood-chipper. IMHO intent is everything in these very theoretical scenarios

Yeah, there's no way the government will misinterpret laws to jail whomever they want. The point is not avoiding illegal things because the government is such a good arbiter. The point is to avoid the government as long as possible because they will use any justification possible. Either way this debate is stale and gay. Everyone is talking past each other to score Got em points. Either talk about how the taproot incriptions bug was declared a feature and since then the community of bitcoin has been fractured or gtfo. CORE: Don't like it, run your own node. KNOTS: Okay CORE: Not like that, plus if you REALLY want to change spam, you need to reject blocks at the consensus level. KNOTS: Okay, we'll fork. CORE: No! Not like that! Same shit over and over.

Question from someone who's not up to speed on all of the technical details and arguments, but believes that enabling 100kb OP_RETURN is begging for legal problems: Is it technically possible to develop a compromise solution that gives the "shitcoiners" (projects that want better hooks for integration and new capabilities) what they want without providing an ideal storage space for illegal files? IMO, inscriptions etc. are nonsense and should be eliminated, if possible, but I can see the utility in improving trustless integration with ancillary systems. The middle path > ideological purity (IMO)