pull down to refresh

Are we not done with this crap debate about "core vs knots" ? Is a waste of time.
84 sats \ 9 replies \ @1984 4 Sep
@DarthCoin i've seen you comment this multiple times before "Are we not done with this crap debate" and I fully agree. however, never saw you comment about this thesis, just curious:
  • increasing datacarrieresize comes with the downside that higher image quality of child pornography can be put onchain, without having to use inscriptions
  • node runners would effectively be hosting this kind of stuff forever
reply
103 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 4 Sep
if you are worried about porn, don't use internet. Is full of it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @1984 4 Sep
ty - zap - that's what i needed a blunt argument by darth
reply
It's insane that people are taking this argument seriously. It has always been possible to put objectionable material on chain. It's cheaper with inscriptions than with OP_RETURN. Although I expect Knots zealots to do it with OP_RETURN in an attempt to discredit Core. One of the tradeoffs of a censorship-resistant network.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @1984 4 Sep
if I am not mistaken the argument goes like this:
  • with inscriptions the "objectionable data" is spread out in multiple utxos
  • so one could say that this is a plausible deniability when it comes to child pornography, since no-one can point to a specific utxo and say that noderunners are hosting "objectionable data" unless they use software to see the inscription lol
however, with OP_RETURN, the "objectionable data" can be put into a single utxo - so one can point to it and say that noderunners are hosting it
reply
If that's the only argument, it's more nonsensical than I thought. You need software to decode an OP_RETURN and you need different software to decode an inscription. The distinction is completely inconsequential. At least, I don't see how an inscription offers any plausible deniability of anything. It's tied to an input instead of an output.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @1984 4 Sep
hmm I see your point, honestly can't remember the entire argument and also forgot which influencer said it, and don't wan to go back to find out
reply
I mean, even a jpeg needs to be decoded
Thus, the argument really rests on an understanding of the law, which I am not seeing any discussion of.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @nout 4 Sep
The law around this is even more stupid than you would expect and so the difference between inscriptions and op_return is inconsequential.
reply
I'll take your word for it. I'm too afraid to look it up. But it boggles my mind that people keep using this argument without first being clear on what the law even says
evidently, people have nothing better to do.
reply
I have lots of things I'd rather be doing. Core seems intent on disrupting my space.
reply
127 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 4 Sep
start using your brain
reply
My brain is working fine. Go back and read your own documents.
reply
Not sure. Has core decided to stop attacking Bitcoin's protocol?
reply
Do you really believe an inconsequential change to relay policy is an attack on Bitcoin's protocol, or are you parroting something you read?
reply
Because most nodes run with default settings, changing the default OP_RETURN policy materially alters network behavior. It isn’t a consensus change, but it operates as a de facto protocol change. A very poorly thought through one at that.
reply
Please correct me if I'm wrong... but your outlook seems to be among the minority of node-runners here at Stacker News. Including among some people who have been in Bitcoin a long, long time.
reply