pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @1984 4 Sep \ parent \ on: Core & Knots aren't the only choices bitcoin

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

write
preview
42 sats \ 4 replies \ @mtk4000 4 Sep

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
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4 Sep

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
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4 Sep

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

reply