pull down to refresh

1 sat \ 3 replies \ @brave 3 Sep \ parent \ on: OP_RETURN saga explained in 2 minutes (simply, non-technical) bitcoin
The idea of an “intentional attack” on Bitcoin by storing bad data is wild! Do you think someone could really pull that off to scare node runners away? I’m new to this, but it sounds like a big deal if it could hurt Bitcoin’s network.
write
preview
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @anon 3 Sep
Bitcoin was built as neutral money. Run a node, verify transactions, keep it decentralized. That’s the moat.
But buried in the code is OP_RETURN - an 80-byte field meant for metadata, barely a fingerprint. Now groups are abusing it, stuffing 100kb files - images, videos, junk.
That flips the script. Node operators aren’t just verifying money anymore. They’re forced file hosts, pushing random content across the network. The baggage isn’t trivial: legal risk, reputational hit, technical strain.
And if governments start seeing Bitcoin not as money but as a content network? The fight changes completely
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 3 Sep
Yes.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 3 Sep
It opens a way for the State to attack Bitcoin, by attacking the nodes. An agent of the state uploads CSAM in a transaction that is published on the blockchain.
-> now all node runners are liable for storing CSAM.
reply